>>> Christley
      >>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
      >>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> 
      >>>
      >>> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
      >>>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
      >>>>
      >>>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
      >>>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
      >>>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
      >>>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
      >>>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
      >>>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
      >>>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
      >>>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
      >>>> passed as good.
      >>>>
      >>>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
      >>>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
      >>>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
      >>>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
      >>>>
      >>>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
      >>>> Many thanks
      >>>> Frank
      >>> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
      >>> first.  The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
      >>> audio.  Look for a short or a broken ground.  Beyond that, it would
      >>> seem
      >>> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
      >>> complicated.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: 
Emag Wiring
Date: 
Aug 15, 2007
      
      I now have around 140 hours total on 3 individual units. I bought the
      10th E-mag built as the "factory" (a large shed in Tom's backyard) was
      20 minutes from where I worked. I didn't have any issues with the 110
      series unit. About 16 months ago that unit was replaced foc with a 113
      series E-mag, at about the same time I bought a P-mag with the intention
      of replacing the other mag. The 113 series has always had an
      intermittent problem on start up where it doesn't always start up, ie is
      dead when mag checked and required the power to be cycled to bring it on
      line (this was before the current issues with powering down while the
      engine was turning). That was believed to be a firmware problem. When a
      firmware version update was available I swapped out the E-mag for the
      P-mag (which has not had any problems) and sent the E-mag back for
      updating. I have recently re-installed the E-mag (no real reason for the
      delay in re-installing, just never got around to it), with a similar,
      but slightly different problem, now evident. I now live a long way from
      the factory so we're trying to figure out how best to fix the problem,
      I'm flying again with the P-mag. Once again the P-mag is trouble free. 
      
      Support from the E-magair folks has been outstanding.
      
      Since fitting the E-mag I have gained about 40rpm static, starting is
      improved (very rarely more than 3 blades) and performance at altitude is
      definitely better as is the ability to lean more aggressively. I was
      well aware that I was fitting an experimental ignition system when I
      installed the first E-mag - that is why I retained one mag, but its
      never been an issue in flight. I now think the P-mag is an inherently
      better solution to the ignition problem and would recommend one (or two)
      to anyone. I'm aware that some others have experienced problems, but
      E-magair seem committed to fully supporting their products. I am a happy
      customer.
      
      Peter
      
      O-320 with fixed pitch prop on an RV-6A
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      Michael Ice
      Sent: 15 August 2007 20:35
      Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
      
      Peter,
      Thanks for the list. Clear as a bell now.
      I think I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal
      alternator every flight either.
      How many hours do you have on your P-mags? Any troubles?
      Mike
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> 
      Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:25 am 
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
      
      > Mike, 
      > 
      > I could probably have written a little more clearly. The object is to 
      > get one P-mag running on its internal generator (by removing busbar 
      > power), then cycle the other mag/P-mag to find out if the engine still
      
      > runs (I wrote it the other way around). If the engine runs, the 
      > generator is good, if it does not generator is bad. 
      > 
      > So, probably the best sequence is 
      > 
      > 1. Carry out normal mag drop check to deduce "normal" mag drop. 
      > Bear in mind there will always be an rpm drop when only a P/E-mag is 
      > running, but that drop won't be as large as when only a magneto is 
      > running. 
      > 2. Shut off busbar power to one P-mag 
      > 3. Switch off/ground other mag/P-mag (so it is not producing 
      > sparks) 
      > 4. Observe engine behaviour. Rpm drop as in 1 above = everything 
      > working fine, other results require investigation. 
      > 5. Restore switches to normal positions if generator is working 
      > fine 
      > 6. Repeat procedure from 2 above for other P-mag, if fitted. 
      > 
      > I don't check the P-mag generator every flight. 
      > 
      > Hope this is a little more clear. 
      > 
      > Peter 
      > 
      > -----Original Message----- 
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Michael T. Ice 
      > Sent: 15 August 2007 04:45 
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
      > 
      > Peter, 
      > 
      > Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for 
      > checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this 
      > straightat least to me. 
      > 
      > 1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag 
      > saysto use the P leads as kill switches) 
      > 
      > 2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground 
      > and no 
      > power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag is 
      > doing the duty of both, I suspect it could) 
      > 
      > Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the 
      > mag.They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully 
      > power down. 
      > 
      > Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some 
      > confusing(perhaps only to me) issues. 
      > 
      > Thanks for your help in this issue. 
      > 
      > Mike 
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: Peter Pengilly <mailto:peter(at)sportingaero.com>  
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM 
      > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
      > 
      > Stan, 
      > 
      > I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a 
      > P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to 
      > route the 
      > power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of 
      > connections.If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator 
      > is not working, 
      > then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you 
      > turn off 
      > the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no 
      > magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. 
      > Checkingboth generators is relatively easy, during the run up use 
      > the p-lead 
      > switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop 
      > (there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby 
      > shuttingoff ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to 
      > run at the 
      > same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly 
      > all is 
      > not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker 
      > back on 
      > and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the 
      > generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a 
      > P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big 
      > dealas the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's 
      > alternatorwere to fail. 
      > 
      > The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so 
      > E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set 
      > level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I 
      > don'tconsider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure 
      > will be 
      > worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information 
      > and it 
      > is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention. 
      > 
      > To answer your specific questions, 
      > 
      > I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any 
      > indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two 
      > Pmags on their internal alternators.  
      > 
      > No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't care)
      
      > the other is there. 
      > 
      > For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and 
      > both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the 
      > p-lead 
      > switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will 
      > there be 
      > an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working? 
      > 
      > Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off 
      > power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag 
      > internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine 
      > will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off. 
      > 
      > Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
      
      > if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know 
      > may be 
      > to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued 
      > operation on 
      > one internal alternator. 
      > 
      > There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn. 
      > 
      > I hope this helps, regards, Peter 
      > 
      > -----Original Message----- 
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Speedy11(at)aol.com 
      > Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05 
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
      > 
      > Mike, 
      > Since you invited comment, I will. 
      > 
      > I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the 
      > variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress.  
      > Theyare working out the bugs in their new system and adding other 
      > wiringmethods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems.  If I 
      > were in 
      > their position, I would recommend builders use only the company 
      > recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that 
      > recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to 
      > resolve problems.  I believe that would not be unreasonable.  I 
      > believethat would be true of any company selling a product - if 
      > the buyer 
      > deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot 
      > assist. 
      > I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them 
      > withtwo hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from 
      > the bus 
      > and two panel-mounted p-lead switches.  I wired it this way 
      > because the 
      > Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator 
      > operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to 
      > the P 
      > model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) 
      > at the 
      > breaker." 
      > 
      > I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring 
      > procedure - 
      > despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique.  Even Bob 
      > often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations. 
      > 
      > I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any 
      > indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two 
      > Pmags on their internal alternators.  For example, when I'm doing the 
      > mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on 
      > internalalternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag 
      > (that Pmag is 
      > now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other 
      > indicationthat the chosen Pmag is not working? 
      > Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
      
      > if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know 
      > may be 
      > to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued 
      > operation on 
      > one internal alternator. 
      > 
      > Experimental aviation is challenging.  Fortunately, the original OBAM 
      > builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.  
      > Surely we 
      > can, too. 
      > 
      > Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in 
      > Alaska.  My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the 
      > F-22 
      > and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats.  Any leads? 
      > 
      > Stan Sutterfield 
      > www.rv-8a.net 
      > 
      > Erich, 
      > 
      > I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend 
      > and I 
      > asked him 
      > about this very same issue. 
      > 
      > First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole
      
      > lot about 
      > electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do 
      > have an 
      > E and 
      > a P/mag. 
      > 
      > After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z 
      > figures Z-13 
      > and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle
      
      > differences. 
      > 
      > Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn 
      > on the 
      > master 
      > there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the 
      > emags are 
      > for P-lead 
      > kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is 
      > turn on 
      > the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator
      
      > part of 
      > the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power 
      > supply to 
      > the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and 
      > if all 
      > is well 
      > the motor keeps on humming. 
      > 
      > Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the 
      > switch are 
      > down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. 
      > In the 
      > Z-33 
      > schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be 
      > able to 
      > cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the 
      > internalalternator 
      > check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle 
      > position and 
      > if all is well you can't tell the difference. 
      > 
      > So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both 
      > systemsdo the 
      > same thing just in slightly different ways. 
      > 
      > Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each 
      > mag has 
      > it's own 
      > P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy. 
      > Master on, 
      > both switches in the up position, mash the start button. 
      > 
      > But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he 
      > has to 
      > say about 
      > this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the 
      > sights.He 
      > has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and  
      > providehelp. 
      > 
      > I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog
      
      > on this 
      > question can only help us and Emagair greatly. 
      > 
      > I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read 
      > anything directly 
      > from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind. 
      > 
      > 
      > Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem 
      > from us 
      > folks in 
      > the field still trying to make these new  mags act like the old style.
      
      > For instance 
      > how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the 
      > answer 
      > is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns 
      > out. 
      > 
      > Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated. 
      > 
      > Mike Ice 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      >  _____  
      > 
      >
      <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> 
      > . 
      > 
      > 
      > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric- 
      > List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 
      > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric- 
      > List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 
      > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 
      > 
      > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 15, 2007
From: 
"Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: 
Re: Emag Wiring
      
      Peter,
      
      Many thanks for your write up on the e/p mags. I have bought one of each 
      and will begin wiring them very soon. 
      
      Mike
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Peter Pengilly 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:27 PM
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
      
      
        I now have around 140 hours total on 3 individual units. I bought the 
      10th E-mag built as the "factory" (a large shed in Tom's backyard) was 
      20 minutes from where I worked. I didn't have any issues with the 110 
      series unit. About 16 months ago that unit was replaced foc with a 113 
      series E-mag, at about the same time I bought a P-mag with the intention 
      of replacing the other mag. The 113 series has always had an 
      intermittent problem on start up where it doesn't always start up, ie is 
      dead when mag checked and required the power to be cycled to bring it on 
      line (this was before the current issues with powering down while the 
      engine was turning). That was believed to be a firmware problem. When a 
      firmware version update was available I swapped out the E-mag for the 
      P-mag (which has not had any problems) and sent the E-mag back for 
      updating. I have recently re-installed the E-mag (no real reason for the 
      delay in re-installing, just never got around to it), with a similar, 
      but slightly different problem, now evident. I now live a long way from 
      the factory so we're trying to figure out how best to fix the problem, 
      I'm flying again with the P-mag. Once again the P-mag is trouble free. 
      
         
      
        Support from the E-magair folks has been outstanding.
      
         
      
        Since fitting the E-mag I have gained about 40rpm static, starting is 
      improved (very rarely more than 3 blades) and performance at altitude is 
      definitely better as is the ability to lean more aggressively. I was 
      well aware that I was fitting an experimental ignition system when I 
      installed the first E-mag - that is why I retained one mag, but its 
      never been an issue in flight. I now think the P-mag is an inherently 
      better solution to the ignition problem and would recommend one (or two) 
      to anyone. I'm aware that some others have experienced problems, but 
      E-magair seem committed to fully supporting their products. I am a happy 
      customer.
      
         
      
        Peter
      
         
      
        O-320 with fixed pitch prop on an RV-6A
      
         
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      Michael Ice
        Sent: 15 August 2007 20:35
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
        Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
      
         
      
        Peter,
      
        Thanks for the list. Clear as a bell now.
      
        I think I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal 
      alternator every flight either.
      
        How many hours do you have on your P-mags? Any troubles?
      
        Mike
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> 
        Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:25 am 
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
      
        > Mike, 
        > 
        > I could probably have written a little more clearly. The object is 
      to 
        > get one P-mag running on its internal generator (by removing busbar 
        > power), then cycle the other mag/P-mag to find out if the engine 
      still 
        > runs (I wrote it the other way around). If the engine runs, the 
        > generator is good, if it does not generator is bad. 
        > 
        > So, probably the best sequence is 
        > 
        > 1. Carry out normal mag drop check to deduce "normal" mag drop. 
        > Bear in mind there will always be an rpm drop when only a P/E-mag is 
      
        > running, but that drop won't be as large as when only a magneto is 
        > running. 
        > 2. Shut off busbar power to one P-mag 
        > 3. Switch off/ground other mag/P-mag (so it is not producing 
        > sparks) 
        > 4. Observe engine behaviour. Rpm drop as in 1 above = everything 
        > working fine, other results require investigation. 
        > 5. Restore switches to normal positions if generator is working 
        > fine 
        > 6. Repeat procedure from 2 above for other P-mag, if fitted. 
        > 
        > I don't check the P-mag generator every flight. 
        > 
        > Hope this is a little more clear. 
        > 
        > Peter 
        > 
        > -----Original Message----- 
        > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
        > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
        > Michael T. Ice 
        > Sent: 15 August 2007 04:45 
        > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
        > 
        > Peter, 
        > 
        > Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for 
      
        > checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this 
        > straightat least to me. 
        > 
        > 1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag 
        > saysto use the P leads as kill switches) 
        > 
        > 2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground 
        > and no 
        > power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag 
      is 
        > doing the duty of both, I suspect it could) 
        > 
        > Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the 
        > mag.They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully 
        > power down. 
        > 
        > Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some 
        > confusing(perhaps only to me) issues. 
        > 
        > Thanks for your help in this issue. 
        > 
        > Mike 
        > ----- Original Message ----- 
        > From: Peter Pengilly <mailto:peter(at)sportingaero.com>  
        > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM 
        > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
        > 
        > Stan, 
        > 
        > I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a 
        > P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to 
        > route the 
        > power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of 
        > connections.If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator 
        > is not working, 
        > then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you 
        > turn off 
        > the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is 
      no 
        > magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. 
        > Checkingboth generators is relatively easy, during the run up use 
        > the p-lead 
        > switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop 
        > (there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby 
        > shuttingoff ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to 
        > run at the 
        > same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly 
        > all is 
        > not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker 
        > back on 
        > and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the 
        > generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a 
      
        > P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big 
        > dealas the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's 
        > alternatorwere to fail. 
        > 
        > The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so 
        > E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set 
        > level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I 
        > don'tconsider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure 
        > will be 
        > worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information 
        > and it 
        > is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention. 
        > 
        > To answer your specific questions, 
        > 
        > I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any 
        > indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two 
        > Pmags on their internal alternators.  
        > 
        > No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't 
      care) 
        > the other is there. 
        > 
        > For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and 
      
        > both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the 
        > p-lead 
        > switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will 
        > there be 
        > an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working? 
      
        > 
        > Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off 
      
        > power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag 
        > internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine 
      
        > will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off. 
        > 
        > Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check 
      because 
        > if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know 
        > may be 
        > to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued 
        > operation on 
        > one internal alternator. 
        > 
        > There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn. 
      
        > 
        > I hope this helps, regards, Peter 
        > 
        > -----Original Message----- 
        > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
        > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
        > Speedy11(at)aol.com 
        > Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05 
        > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring 
        > 
        > Mike, 
        > Since you invited comment, I will. 
        > 
        > I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the 
        > variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress.  
        > Theyare working out the bugs in their new system and adding other 
        > wiringmethods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems.  If I 
        > were in 
        > their position, I would recommend builders use only the company 
        > recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that 
        > recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to 
      
        > resolve problems.  I believe that would not be unreasonable.  I 
        > believethat would be true of any company selling a product - if 
        > the buyer 
        > deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot 
        > assist. 
        > I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them 
        > withtwo hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from 
        > the bus 
        > and two panel-mounted p-lead switches.  I wired it this way 
        > because the 
        > Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator 
      
        > operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to 
        > the P 
        > model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) 
        > at the 
        > breaker." 
        > 
        > I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring 
        > procedure - 
        > despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique.  Even 
      Bob 
        > often says contact the manufacturer and follow their 
      recommendations. 
        > 
        > I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any 
        > indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two 
        > Pmags on their internal alternators.  For example, when I'm doing 
      the 
        > mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on 
        > internalalternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag 
        > (that Pmag is 
        > now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other 
        > indicationthat the chosen Pmag is not working? 
        > Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check 
      because 
        > if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know 
        > may be 
        > to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued 
        > operation on 
        > one internal alternator. 
        > 
        > Experimental aviation is challenging.  Fortunately, the original 
      OBAM 
        > builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.  
        > Surely we 
        > can, too. 
        > 
        > Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in 
      
        > Alaska.  My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the 
        > F-22 
        > and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats.  Any leads? 
        > 
        > Stan Sutterfield 
        > www.rv-8a.net 
        > 
        > Erich, 
        > 
        > I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend 
        > and I 
        > asked him 
        > about this very same issue. 
        > 
        > First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a 
      whole 
        > lot about 
        > electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do 
        > have an 
        > E and 
        > a P/mag. 
        > 
        > After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z 
        > figures Z-13 
        > and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only 
      subtle 
        > differences. 
        > 
        > Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn 
        > on the 
        > master 
        > there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the 
        > emags are 
        > for P-lead 
        > kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is 
        > turn on 
        > the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the 
      alternator 
        > part of 
        > the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power 
        > supply to 
        > the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and 
        > if all 
        > is well 
        > the motor keeps on humming. 
        > 
        > Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on 
      the 
        > switch are 
        > down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. 
        > In the 
        > Z-33 
        > schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be 
      
        > able to 
        > cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the 
        > internalalternator 
        > check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle 
        > position and 
        > if all is well you can't tell the difference. 
        > 
        > So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both 
        > systemsdo the 
        > same thing just in slightly different ways. 
        > 
        > Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each 
        > mag has 
        > it's own 
        > P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy. 
        > Master on, 
        > both switches in the up position, mash the start button. 
        > 
        > But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he 
        > has to 
        > say about 
        > this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the 
        > sights.He 
        > has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and  
        > providehelp. 
        > 
        > I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open 
      dialog 
        > on this 
        > question can only help us and Emagair greatly. 
        > 
        > I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read 
      
        > anything directly 
        > from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open 
      mind. 
        > 
        > 
        > Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem 
        > from us 
        > folks in 
        > the field still trying to make these new  mags act like the old 
      style. 
        > For instance 
        > how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the 
      
        > answer 
        > is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this 
      turns 
        > out. 
        > 
        > Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated. 
        > 
        > Mike Ice 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        >  _____  
        > 
        > 
      <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
      
        > . 
        > 
        > 
        > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric- 
        > List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 
        > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric- 
        > List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 
        > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 
        > 
        > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: 
B&C SD 8 Alternator
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      
      Harley, et al,
      
      I have a friend with a Pitts who has a SD 8 as his only power source  
      other than the battery. He has no electronics other than a radio and  
      the starter. His SD 8 is more than adequate to run the radio with  
      enough current left over to charge the battery.
      
      The only concern I would have with the SD 8 or the SD 20 as a sole  
      power source is that both require fairly high RPM to produce adequate  
      current for much of anything. Our usual high amp alternators produce  
      enough juice at idle to charge the battery.
      
      Charlie Brame
      RV-6A N11CB
      San Antonio
      
      --------------------------------------------------
      
      
      > From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: B&C SD 8 Alternator
      >
      >
      > Morning, Everyone...
      >
      > Now that I'm dumping all my remaining vacuum instruments (the one I  
      > have
      > left!) and the associated pump and gauge, and settling for an all
      > electric panel (except for the static gauges), I am starting to  
      > look at
      > alternator options.
      >
      > I've kept up on the past discussions here, and Bob's Connection info,
      > and have a pretty good
      > idea of what's involved.
      >
      > But, I just noticed the B&C model SD-8 alternator that fits on the
      > vacuum pump pad!  What a great replacement for a gasket and a cover!
      >
      > I also see that Bob does mention it's use in one of his articles,  
      > but as
      > a backup alternator.
      >
      > Seeing that the original Long Ez plans call out an alternator only  
      > as an
      > option if you plan on IFR or night flying, or if you use a starter,  
      > and
      > strongly recommend just the VariEZE solar panel to keep the battery
      > charged, has anyone here installed the SD-8 and used it as the main
      > unit.  It only has a maximum 10 amp output, and a nominal 8 amp, but I
      > would think that would be enough to keep the battery charged and  
      > operate
      > the newer low current instruments quite well.
      >
      > I have yet to calculate my panel's consumption (don't  have all the
      > instruments yet), let alone the plane's, so it's still in the planning
      > stage.  Open to all suggestions.  Redundancy is always best, but if  
      > one
      > can save some weight and still do the job (I also have two P-mags with
      > their own generators so the engine should keep running on the  
      > electronic
      > ignition even if the battery and alternator go down) then I'm all  
      > for it.
      >
      > Harley Dixon
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
From: 
"Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
      
      Thanks Matt
      Answers (in italics) to your questions below 
       - Frank
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt 
      Prather
      Sent: Wed 15/08/2007 23:27
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
      
      
      
      
      I'm still not sure whether it's electrical noise or acoustic noise - 
      since
      covering the mic has some effect on the behavior.  If it were just
      acoustic, covering the mic should stop the noise.  More questions:
      I suspect its not acoustic as it doesn't affect my handheld ICOM and the 
      a/c is not that noisy
       - Is the acoustic squelch on the intercom adjustable?  Can you set the
      threshold higher?  Maybe pulling out the volume knob and turning it
      adjusts that?  Or is it dynamic/smart adjusting?
      I don't know how to adjust the intercom volume. I presume it is 
      adjustible. Pulling out the volume knob takes off the automatic squelch. 
      There is no obvious knob to adjust the intercom vol.
       - What kind of engine is it? Its a Lycoming 0-320 with 150hp
      
       - Does it have separate ignition systems?  Can you turn one off at a 
      time
      (to help isolate electrical noise)? It has 2 mags and i've tried both 
      separately - no effect
      
      
       - Can you turn the alternator off with the engine running? Turning off 
      alternator - no effect
      
       - You probably answered this before, but with the engine off, does the
      intercom appear to work properly?  Speaking in the mic on one headset
      yields sound coming from the other headset - using the radio sidetone?
      
      With the engine off the radio is perfect. No intercom problems. Perfect 
      reception and transmit
      
       - Are you able to transmit/receiver properly when the engine is off?
      
       - Are the mic leads made with shielded wire? Mic leads are not 
      shielded. They are 2 twisted wires
      
       - Do other aspects of the electrical system all appear to function
      normally - bus voltage, nav signals, etc? All other parts of electrics 
      are fine
      
      Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern 
      batteries
      could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If that
      has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted 
      to
      the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - no 
      effect
      
      What would be slick for this kind of online debug process would be to 
      have
      an online spreadsheet or form which could be used to document the 
      problem,
      behaviors, and the things that have been tried in order to fix it..  
      Have
      to ponder that a bit.
      I've changed the antenna, power supply, headsets, earthed everything 
      possible and checked all the earths. The problem of feedback only occurs 
      when i plug in the mic jack when the engine is running. I have a 
      handheld ICOM which uses the same power supply and aerial yet it works 
      perfectly. It has no intercom.
      
      I plan to disconnect the intercom this weekend to see whether the 
      problem disappears.
      
      Regards,
      
      Matt-
      
      > 1. The radio is a Bendix/King KX155
      > 2. It is approximately 1 year old. Don't know the model # but could 
      find
      > out
      > 3. It definately has an internal intercom but i've no links to 
      describe it
      > 4. I didn't check whether the sound varied depending on where your
      > head/headset is sitting, or by
      > bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack but 
      it
      > occurred with 3 separate headsets and on both pilot and co-pilot 
      outputs.
      > Pretty sure its not a headset problem as same headsets work fine in 
      other
      > planes
      > 5. The noise gets worse with higher engine RPM but is very obvious 
      even at
      > 1000 RPM. The character doesn't change - just its loudness
      > Many thanks
      > Frank
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
      > Prather
      > Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 22:29
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
      >
      >
      > 
      >
      > Interesting..  I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom.  Okay.  I 
      see
      > the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference 
      to
      > intercom.  We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right?  Do you 
      have a
      > link to a file which describes the feature?
      >
      > Does the sound vary depending on where your head/headset is sitting, 
      or by
      > bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack?
      >
      > Is the frequency of the whine/feedback dependent on the engine RPM?  
      Or is
      > it just a steady tone?
      >
      > I agree with item 3 (assuming an intercom).
      >
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Matt-
      >
      >
      >> Matt
      >> 1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
      >> feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move 
      the
      >> boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
      >> feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer
      >> the
      >> boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
      >> headsets
      >> 2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect 
      it.
      >> 3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the
      >> transmit
      >> on the radio (when PTT pressed)
      >> 4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
      >> 5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume 
      control)
      >> on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
      >> Kind regards
      >> Frank
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ________________________________
      >>
      >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
      >> Prather
      >> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 20:12
      >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> 
      >>
      >> Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull 
      the
      >> muff off)?
      >>
      >> I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven 
      by
      >> the
      >> acoustic noise of the engine.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Regards,
      >>
      >> Matt-
      >>
      >>> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
      >>> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the 
      whole
      >>> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing 
      found.
      >>> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same 
      problem
      >>> when the engine is off?
      >>>  It only causes the problem when the engine is running
      >>> Kind regards
      >>> Frank
      >>>
      >>> ________________________________
      >>>
      >>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of 
      Ernest
      >>> Christley
      >>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
      >>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> 
      >>>
      >>> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
      >>>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be 
      related.
      >>>>
      >>>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
      >>>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
      >>>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my 
      mouth
      >>>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
      >>>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
      >>>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It 
      occurs
      >>>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
      >>>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested 
      and
      >>>> passed as good.
      >>>>
      >>>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
      >>>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor 
      or
      >>>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
      >>>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
      >>>>
      >>>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
      >>>> Many thanks
      >>>> Frank
      >>> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the 
      jack
      >>> first.  The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
      >>> audio.  Look for a short or a broken ground.  Beyond that, it would
      >>> seem
      >>> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
      >>> complicated.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      
      
      <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
      
      
      FWIW powering my strobes from separate batteries made no difference to 
      the audio whine that I was hearing from them.  Adding some homemade 
      filter devices likewise had no effect so I guess I did not hit on the 
      best component values. I never did find a ground issue that I could 
      blame the problem on. And yet when I finally obtained and tried a cheap 
      automotive filter on the 12 volt feed to the strobes, the situation 
      improved markedly and I can no longer hear the strobes in flight.  The 
      directions said to try reversing the filter leads for best effect. Sure 
      enough the filter only worked well in one direction. Grounding the 
      ground connection to the filter also had no effect.
      Ken
      
      >snip
      >Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      >equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern batteries
      >could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If that
      >has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted to
      >the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - no effect
      >  
      >
      snip
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
From: 
"Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
      
      Hi Ken
      
      How and where did you insert the filter into the 12V feed to the 
      strobes? Sounds like you inserted it 'in line' to the strobes.
      
      Its interesting you inserted the filter before the strobes and yet it 
      reduced the interference in your radio. How do you explain that?
      
       - Frank
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ken
      Sent: Thu 16/08/2007 14:45
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      
      
      FWIW powering my strobes from separate batteries made no difference to
      the audio whine that I was hearing from them.  Adding some homemade
      filter devices likewise had no effect so I guess I did not hit on the
      best component values. I never did find a ground issue that I could
      blame the problem on. And yet when I finally obtained and tried a cheap
      automotive filter on the 12 volt feed to the strobes, the situation
      improved markedly and I can no longer hear the strobes in flight.  The
      directions said to try reversing the filter leads for best effect. Sure
      enough the filter only worked well in one direction. Grounding the
      ground connection to the filter also had no effect.
      Ken
      
      >snip
      >Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      >equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern 
      batteries
      >could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If that
      >has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted 
      to
      >the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - 
      no effect
      > 
      >
      snip
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
From: 
"Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
      
      
      When tackling a noise problem, it sometimes makes sense to clean up the
      victim, but sometimes it also works to clean up the noise source.  In this
      case, it sounds like the transient current load presented by the strobes
      was causing noise to be added to the audio signal of the comm system
      (ground/supply noise).  Adding a filter to the strobe circuit likely
      reduced the transient load on the bus, decreasing the noise signal seen by
      the audio system.
      
      Wiring a power supply filter depends on the components in the filter.  If
      it is just a choke (coil - inductance), in-line works.  If it's a 2nd (or
      higher) order filter - has a cap, the filter will need to be both inline
      and have a connection to ground.
      
      
      Regards,
      
      Matt-
      
      > Hi Ken
      >
      > How and where did you insert the filter into the 12V feed to the strobes?
      > Sounds like you inserted it 'in line' to the strobes.
      >
      > Its interesting you inserted the filter before the strobes and yet it
      > reduced the interference in your radio. How do you explain that?
      >
      >  - Frank
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ken
      > Sent: Thu 16/08/2007 14:45
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      >
      >
      > FWIW powering my strobes from separate batteries made no difference to
      > the audio whine that I was hearing from them.  Adding some homemade
      > filter devices likewise had no effect so I guess I did not hit on the
      > best component values. I never did find a ground issue that I could
      > blame the problem on. And yet when I finally obtained and tried a cheap
      > automotive filter on the 12 volt feed to the strobes, the situation
      > improved markedly and I can no longer hear the strobes in flight.  The
      > directions said to try reversing the filter leads for best effect. Sure
      > enough the filter only worked well in one direction. Grounding the
      > ground connection to the filter also had no effect.
      > Ken
      >
      >>snip
      >>Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      >>equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern
      >> batteries
      >>could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If that
      >>has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted
      >> to
      >>the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - no
      >> effect
      >>
      >>
      > snip
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Off Subject Question
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      Sorry about the diversion, but I am certain some of you can solve my
      problem.
      
      
      I have Direct TV and one of my sets uses a UHF remote control.  The remote
      is used about 
      
      30 feet and through 2 block walls from the receiver.  It barely works and is
      very frustrating.
      
      What can I do to improve the reception of this remote?  Is there some
      homemade way to increase
      
      The antenna gain?
      
      
      Thanks for your help!
      
      
      Bill B
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Ron  Schreck" <ronschreck(at)windstream.net>
Subject: 
Loss of essential bus
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      I have an intermittent loss of the essential bus in my RV-8.  I have 
      wired it similar to Bob's Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System 
      except that I have added an aux battery as depicted in his Z-30  
      diagram, as I have dual electronic ignition.  I suspect that the problem 
      is in the diode that prevents reverse current when the essential bus 
      alternate feed switch is turned on.  My question: Is it possible that 
      this diode is defective and could cause intermittent loss of the 
      essential bus?  When it occurs, the current is almost immediately 
      restored without any action on my part, but it does cause all the 
      avionics to reboot.  It occurs without warning and I cannot trust it in 
      IFR conditions.  Any suggestions?  Thanks.
      
      Ron Schreck
      RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
      Gold Hill Airpark, NC
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: 
P-Lead Routing
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      Is it an acceptable practice to route P-Leads trough the firewall alongside
      other power supply cables?  I read somewhere (Tony Bingelis Books, I think)
      that shielded cables should not run alongside other cables.
      
      
      Thanks,
      
      Mike Creek 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroelectric Connection Book
      
      
      
      >
      >Hi all
      >
      >Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
      >ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
      >in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
      
        Sorry for the delay. We were preoccupied with shepherding my
        father through his last days and had a long trip to do the
        Alaska seminar right on the heals of Dad's funeral. I promise
        to chain my self to the order 'puter tomorrow and get 100%
        caught up.
      
        Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroelectric Connection Book
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      
      I think I can speak for most all others when I say:
      
      Thanks Bob, now stop and take deeeep breath. We all want what we want and 
      most often we want it right now!
      Rest easy fella . What we want from you can wait a day or maybe even 
      two.....but don't push it eh g-)
      
      Jim in Kelowna
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
      Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:55 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Connection Book
      
      
      > 
      >
      >
      >>
      >>Hi all
      >>
      >>Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
      >>ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
      >>in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
      >
      >  Sorry for the delay. We were preoccupied with shepherding my
      >  father through his last days and had a long trip to do the
      >  Alaska seminar right on the heals of Dad's funeral. I promise
      >  to chain my self to the order 'puter tomorrow and get 100%
      >  caught up.
      >
      >  Bob . . .
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
Date: 
Aug 17, 2007
From: 
"Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
      
      Many thanks for the explanation Matt
        - Frank
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt 
      Prather
      Sent: Thu 16/08/2007 17:23
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      
      
      
      
      When tackling a noise problem, it sometimes makes sense to clean up the
      victim, but sometimes it also works to clean up the noise source.  In 
      this
      case, it sounds like the transient current load presented by the strobes
      was causing noise to be added to the audio signal of the comm system
      (ground/supply noise).  Adding a filter to the strobe circuit likely
      reduced the transient load on the bus, decreasing the noise signal seen 
      by
      the audio system.
      
      Wiring a power supply filter depends on the components in the filter.  
      If
      it is just a choke (coil - inductance), in-line works.  If it's a 2nd 
      (or
      higher) order filter - has a cap, the filter will need to be both inline
      and have a connection to ground.
      
      
      Regards,
      
      Matt-
      
      > Hi Ken
      >
      > How and where did you insert the filter into the 12V feed to the 
      strobes?
      > Sounds like you inserted it 'in line' to the strobes.
      >
      > Its interesting you inserted the filter before the strobes and yet it
      > reduced the interference in your radio. How do you explain that?
      >
      >  - Frank
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ken
      > Sent: Thu 16/08/2007 14:45
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      >
      >
      > FWIW powering my strobes from separate batteries made no difference to
      > the audio whine that I was hearing from them.  Adding some homemade
      > filter devices likewise had no effect so I guess I did not hit on the
      > best component values. I never did find a ground issue that I could
      > blame the problem on. And yet when I finally obtained and tried a 
      cheap
      > automotive filter on the 12 volt feed to the strobes, the situation
      > improved markedly and I can no longer hear the strobes in flight.  The
      > directions said to try reversing the filter leads for best effect. 
      Sure
      > enough the filter only worked well in one direction. Grounding the
      > ground connection to the filter also had no effect.
      > Ken
      >
      >>snip
      >>Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      >>equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern
      >> batteries
      >>could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If 
      that
      >>has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is 
      conducted
      >> to
      >>the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - 
      no
      >> effect
      >>
      >>
      > snip
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 17, 2007
From: 
Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
      
      
      Bill Bradburry wrote:
      > 
      > I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet.  Can
      > someone help me here?
      > 
      > What should be the polarity of the sleeve, ring, and tip on a stereo plug?
      > Which, ring or tip, is probably right and which is probably left on the
      > stereo plug?
      > 
      > Also what should be the polarity of the sleeve and tip on the mono plug.
      > 
      > How should I wire a stereo receptacle so that it could be used for both
      > stereo or mono?  
      > 
      > Thanks,
      > Bill B
      Hi Bill,
      
      I think that my email messages have been wandering around in Ted 
      Stevens' "pipes" for days before being delivered to me.
      
      There's a simple way to check right/left wiring in a connector. Grab a 1 
      1/2V battery, a couple of clip leads & your stereo headset. Put the 
      headset on your head, but offset the earcups so they aren't over your 
      ears. Connect one terminal from the battery to the sleeve (closest to 
      the insulated end & wire). Touch the other terminal of the battery to 
      the tip of the connector. The side that clicks as you make & break the 
      connection is wired to the tip. Assuming that you are wearing the 
      headset correctly, you now know how the connector should be wired. To 
      get the right terminal on the jack, just remember that the tip is 
      farthest from the nut and follow the metal to the solder tab. Same 
      principle for ring & sleeve in the jack.
      
      There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo connector for both 
      stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're 
      dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
      
      Charlie
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: strobe whine noise
      
      
      Hi Frank
      
      Yes the filter is in line with the strobe power after the power switch.
      
      My best theory is similar to Matt's and that the noise is coming in via 
      the common grounds.  It is a metal airframe and the strobe power 
      supplies are internally  grounded to their metal cases, same as the 
      radio and the intercom. The headphone jacks are isolated from ground. 
      Everything except the strobes has a ground wire to the forrest of tabs 
      on the firewall. Since the ground connection on the filter has no 
      effect, it seems to me that it can't be a capacitor in the filter that 
      is helping. And yet reversing the filter leads does make a difference 
      which seems an unlikely result to me.  I don't think there can be 
      anything else other than a choke (inductor) in the filter??
      
      If I was still building I think I would try electrically insulating the 
      strobe power supplies from the airframe with plastic washers and bolts. 
      I seem to recall opening the aeroflash units when I installed them but I 
      must have decided that their grounds could not be easilly separated from 
      the case, or it did not seem worth the effort at the time. The strobe 
      heads are mounted in fibreglass wingtips so they should already be 
      isolated from the airframe.
      
      Ken
      
      Matt Prather wrote:
      
      >
      >When tackling a noise problem, it sometimes makes sense to clean up the
      >victim, but sometimes it also works to clean up the noise source.  In this
      >case, it sounds like the transient current load presented by the strobes
      >was causing noise to be added to the audio signal of the comm system
      >(ground/supply noise).  Adding a filter to the strobe circuit likely
      >reduced the transient load on the bus, decreasing the noise signal seen by
      >the audio system.
      >
      >Wiring a power supply filter depends on the components in the filter.  If
      >it is just a choke (coil - inductance), in-line works.  If it's a 2nd (or
      >higher) order filter - has a cap, the filter will need to be both inline
      >and have a connection to ground.
      >
      >
      >Regards,
      >
      >Matt-
      >
      >  
      >
      >>Hi Ken
      >>
      >>How and where did you insert the filter into the 12V feed to the strobes?
      >>Sounds like you inserted it 'in line' to the strobes.
      >>
      >>Its interesting you inserted the filter before the strobes and yet it
      >>reduced the interference in your radio. How do you explain that?
      >>
      >> - Frank
      >>
      >>________________________________
      >>
      >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ken
      >>Sent: Thu 16/08/2007 14:45
      >>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >>Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>FWIW powering my strobes from separate batteries made no difference to
      >>the audio whine that I was hearing from them.  Adding some homemade
      >>filter devices likewise had no effect so I guess I did not hit on the
      >>best component values. I never did find a ground issue that I could
      >>blame the problem on. And yet when I finally obtained and tried a cheap
      >>automotive filter on the 12 volt feed to the strobes, the situation
      >>improved markedly and I can no longer hear the strobes in flight.  The
      >>directions said to try reversing the filter leads for best effect. Sure
      >>enough the filter only worked well in one direction. Grounding the
      >>ground connection to the filter also had no effect.
      >>Ken
      >>
      >>    
      >>
      >>>snip
      >>>Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
      >>>equipment that are involved in the problem.  A couple of lantern
      >>>batteries
      >>>could be used to power the radio while the engine is running..  If that
      >>>has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted
      >>>to
      >>>the radio via the power bus. Tried that from a separate 12V battery - no
      >>>effect
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>      
      >>>
      >>snip
      >>    
      >>
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: P-Lead Routing
      
      
      
      >Is it an acceptable practice to route P-Leads trough the firewall 
      >alongside other power supply cables?  I read somewhere (Tony Bingelis 
      >Books, I think) that shielded cables should not run alongside other cables.
      >
      >
      
         The reason they are shielded is so that you CAN route
         them with other cables. However, be sure to ground shield
         at one end only (engine end) and use the shieled to PROVIDE
         GROUND at the switch end as illustrated in numerous z-figures.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Loss of essential bus
      
      
      
      >I have an intermittent loss of the essential bus in my RV-8.  I have wired 
      >it similar to Bob's Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System except 
      >that I have added an aux battery as depicted in his Z-30  diagram, as I 
      >have dual electronic ignition.  I suspect that the problem is in the diode 
      >that prevents reverse current when the essential bus alternate feed switch 
      >is turned on.  My question: Is it possible that this diode is defective 
      >and could cause intermittent loss of the essential bus?
      
         I've never seen a diode go intermittently open . . .
         but that doesn't mean it absolutely cannot happen
         however it's hard to imagine how.
      
      >   When it occurs, the current is almost immediately restored without any 
      > action on my part, but it does cause all the avionics to reboot.  It 
      > occurs without warning and I cannot trust it in IFR conditions.  Any 
      > suggestions?  Thanks.
      
         I'd suspect a loose connection first. There's not
         many. Check them all. As long as your crawling around
         under there . . . you could consider replacing both
         wires (fresh crimps) and a new diode. In any case,
         the problem cannot be terribly difficult, it doesn't
         involved much hardware.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: 
Rotax Voltage Regulator
      
      
      All,
               It looks like my Rotax 582 three phase voltage regulator's 
      dying. (It will occasionally go over voltage. I can re-set it and get 
      it to work, but it's happening more often now.)
               Does anyone have a recommended replacement? I've mounted it 
      in the engine compartment to minimize electrical noise in the cockpit 
      and I suspect things are a little hot for the stock Rotax unit. Has 
      anyone tried any of the Harley replacements? Any after-market units? 
      Or should I just increase the cooling to the Rotax unit?
      
      Thanks,
      
      
      Guy Buchanan
      San Diego, CA
      K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Coax Diameter
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
      
      
      Can someone advise me what is the diameter of RG400 and RG58 Coax?  I'm
      planning antenna runs for my RV6A and looking to see how big my wire bundle
      may be getting.  Thanks.
      
      
      Marty in Brentwood TN
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Rotax Voltage Regulator
From: 
"jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
      
      
      Guy,
      Are you sure its not the battery geeting aged. regulators dont usually deteriorate
      in the way you describe, but a poor internal resistance battery may bring
      on the symptom.
      
      Ralph
      
      --------
      Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129762#129762
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: Coax Diameter
      
      
      My RG-400 measures 0.195" diameter.
      
      Emrath wrote:
      
      >
      >Can someone advise me what is the diameter of RG400 and RG58 Coax?  I'm
      >planning antenna runs for my RV6A and looking to see how big my wire bundle
      >may be getting.  Thanks.
      >
      >
      >Marty in Brentwood TN
      >  
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
From: 
Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: 
Re: Rotax Voltage Regulator
      
      
      At 04:53 PM 8/18/2007, you wrote:
      >Are you sure its not the battery geeting aged. regulators dont 
      >usually deteriorate in the way you describe, but a poor internal 
      >resistance battery may bring on the symptom.
      
      I'm intrigued, since this battery has been nearly dead twice and 
      resurrected with a BatteryMinder. I read Bob's section on regulator 
      failures and it seems like the over-voltage condition should be 
      permanent, and not intermittent. (It seems like it doesn't work when 
      cold, then with my switching it in and out it finally starts to 
      regulate the voltage. Once it's working it never quits. And if I 
      re-start it seems to work fine.) I'll dig into Bob's book to try to 
      find an easy way to check internal resistance.
      
      Thanks,
      
      
      Guy Buchanan
      San Diego, CA
      K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
Aug 18, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
      
      
      In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
      
      There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo connector for both 
      stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're 
      dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
      
      >>>
      My understanding as well.  I installed mono & stereo jacks on my plane using 
      a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together when the plug is 
      inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the stereo jack with a lable stating
      
      "Stereo Only" on it.  One way to git a kitty rug!
      
      Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
      
      >From The PossumWorks in TN
      Mark Phillips 
      
      
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Rotax Voltage Regulator
      
      
      
      >
      >At 04:53 PM 8/18/2007, you wrote:
      >>Are you sure its not the battery geeting aged. regulators dont usually 
      >>deteriorate in the way you describe, but a poor internal resistance 
      >>battery may bring on the symptom.
      >
      >I'm intrigued, since this battery has been nearly dead twice and 
      >resurrected with a BatteryMinder. I read Bob's section on regulator 
      >failures and it seems like the over-voltage condition should be permanent, 
      >and not intermittent. (It seems like it doesn't work when cold, then with 
      >my switching it in and out it finally starts to regulate the voltage. Once 
      >it's working it never quits. And if I re-start it seems to work fine.) 
      >I'll dig into Bob's book to try to find an easy way to check internal 
      >resistance.
      >
      >Thanks,
      >
      >
      >Guy Buchanan
      
         Intermittent voltage excursions both upward and downward
         are manifestations of ageing components and/or internal
         connections that have become less than the best we know
         how to do.
      
         I believe John Deere (and others) offer a 3-phase
         rectifier/regulator for their 25-40 amp PM alternators.
         I searched the web hoping to find some maintenance
         data or at least some part numbers. No joy.
         Anyone out there have some experience with the larger
         3-phase PM alternator products.
      
         I've got to visit a customer Monday on the west side
         of town near a John Deere dealership. I'll see if there's
         a helpful individual there who can give me more data
         on the larger PM alternator systems.
      
         Now, this is an excellent DIY project. We've explored
         the inner workings of the various PM alternator rectifier/
         regulators. I've taken an exemplar single phase R/R
         schematic and added the SCR and diode to accommodate
         a 3 phase alternator. It's posted at:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/3-Phase_PM_Rectifier_Regulator.gif
      
         This is a case where the electronics are pretty
         much a no-brainer but the task to be mounted and
         solved is getting the heat out. Average voltage drop
         in one of these regulators is 2.2 volts. So if you're
         dragging 30A from a really husky alternator, the
         R/R needs to get rid of 66W of heat.
      
         This is where attention is paid to the diodes and
         SCRs to use beefy devices with low thermal resistances
         and then mount them in an enclosure suited for conducting
         that much heat out of the box.  Problems with longevity
         of the PM R/R have roots more in cooling than in the
         absolute ratings of the components.
      
         For this design, I might even consider putting the
         hot parts on a finned heat sink and blowing air through
         the assembly. There's a wealth of 12V DC brushless
         fans out there to consider. I think I'd also add
         some form of temperature sensing to at least light
         a warning light and allow the pilot to consider a
         temporary load reduction.
      
         Just some food for thought. As soon as the support
         tools and materials for our hardwood floor project
         are out of the garage, I'll get started on the alternator
         drive stand . . . should be able to run some experimental
         regulator/alternator combinations on the bench this fall.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: strobe whine noise
      
      
      
      >
      >Hi Frank
      >
      >Yes the filter is in line with the strobe power after the power switch.
      >
      >My best theory is similar to Matt's and that the noise is coming in via 
      >the common grounds.  It is a metal airframe and the strobe power supplies 
      >are internally  grounded to their metal cases, same as the radio and the 
      >intercom. The headphone jacks are isolated from ground. Everything except 
      >the strobes has a ground wire to the forrest of tabs on the firewall. 
      >Since the ground connection on the filter has no effect, it seems to me 
      >that it can't be a capacitor in the filter that is helping. And yet 
      >reversing the filter leads does make a difference which seems an unlikely 
      >result to me.  I don't think there can be anything else other than a choke 
      >(inductor) in the filter??
      >
      >If I was still building I think I would try electrically insulating the 
      >strobe power supplies from the airframe with plastic washers and bolts. I 
      >seem to recall opening the aeroflash units when I installed them but I 
      >must have decided that their grounds could not be easilly separated from 
      >the case, or it did not seem worth the effort at the time. The strobe 
      >heads are mounted in fibreglass wingtips so they should already be 
      >isolated from the airframe.
      
         Hmmmm . . . grounds contribute to noise issues ONLY when
         sensitive potential victims share TWO or more ground
         paths. If you have immediate access to the power supplies,
         try the dry-battery experiment again with the battery located
         right at the power supply and grounded locally to the power
         supply.
      
         There's something we're not seeing here. I presume that your
         power supply does ground locally and doesn't have a second wire
         running all the way to the firewall ground bus????
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator
      
      
      
      >
      >Harley, et al,
      >
      >I have a friend with a Pitts who has a SD 8 as his only power source
      >other than the battery. He has no electronics other than a radio and
      >the starter. His SD 8 is more than adequate to run the radio with
      >enough current left over to charge the battery.
      >
      >The only concern I would have with the SD 8 or the SD 20 as a sole
      >power source is that both require fairly high RPM to produce adequate
      >current for much of anything. Our usual high amp alternators produce
      >enough juice at idle to charge the battery.
      
          Which is no worse than generators used to offer. There
          are hundreds of OBAM light aircraft flying with vacuum
          pump driven alternator products from B&C as their sole
          source of engine driven power. These are, of course,
          mostly day VFR aircraft. A few night VFR too . . . but
          if one had LED based position and strobes, then perhaps
          night VFR on 8A would be quite comfortably managed.
      
          It can be done now and is going to get easier in the
          near future.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: 
My vacuum instruments for sale on eBay
      
      
      Good Morning...
      
      After the successful ending of my iPaq/Anywhere Map listing on eBay, and 
      the decision to finally join the high technology age and have an all 
      electric panel, I am now offering the entire vacuum system that I no 
      longer need on eBay starting today. After these end in 10 days, this 
      should be the end of my Long EZ related eBay listings for some time!  I 
      hope! 
      
      I've already replaced the directional gyro with an electric one, and 
      only have the artificial horizon left to replace, but I am working on 
      that. So, anything that has to do with the vacuum system is going, 
      including the AH.
      
      Here are direct links to the eBay pages where I am offering them...note 
      that there is no reserve, and I am starting them all ridiculously low, 
      so they WILL sell, and someone will get real bargains.
      All the details about each one and their conditions and photos are in 
      their respective eBay listings. You can also link to each item at the 
      bottom of each listing.
      
      Artificial Horizon
      http://tinyurl.com/2d269m
      
      Directional gyro
      http://tinyurl.com/yq5mgg
      
      Vacuum Pump
      http://tinyurl.com/yp9gkf
      (The description includes a link to a great tutorial on vacuum pumps)
      
      Vacuum Gage
      http://tinyurl.com/22tl5r
      
      
      Harley Dixon
      Long EZ N28EZ
      Airport, Hangar 29
      Canandaigua, NY
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Coax Diameter
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
      
      
      Thanks Ken
      Marty
      
      From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Coax Diameter
      
      
      My RG-400 measures 0.195" diameter.
      
      Emrath wrote:
      
      >
      >Can someone advise me what is the diameter of RG400 and RG58 Coax?  I'm 
      >planning antenna runs for my RV6A and looking to see how big my wire 
      >bundle may be getting.  Thanks.
      >
      >
      >Marty in Brentwood TN
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com>
Subject: 
Re: Coax Diameter
      
      
      They are essentially the same. For sure interchangeable.
      Paul
      =========
      At 04:29 PM 8/18/2007, you wrote:
      >
      >Can someone advise me what is the diameter of RG400 and RG58 Coax?  I'm
      >planning antenna runs for my RV6A and looking to see how big my wire bundle
      >may be getting.  Thanks.
      >
      >
      >Marty in Brentwood TN
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Brooke Wolf" <bwolf1(at)tds.net>
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
      
      Hi Mark
      
      I am totally deaf in one ear and always have trouble with stereo 
      headsets.  I feel like I am only hearing half the world!  Do you know of 
      a commercially available adapter that would ALWAYS combine the signals 
      on a standard aviation headset?  While we are on the subject.....it is 
      even a bigger problem with my MP3 player.  It has a little 1/8 (?) inch 
      stereo jack.  Do you know of any full time, stereo to mono,  adaptors 
      for that?
      
      Thanks
      
      Brooke
      
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:41 PM
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
      
      
        In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
          There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo connector for 
      both 
          stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're 
          dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
        >>>
        My understanding as well.  I installed mono & stereo jacks on my plane 
      using a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together when the 
      plug is inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the stereo jack with 
      a lable stating "Stereo Only" on it.  One way to git a kitty rug!
      
        Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
      
        From The PossumWorks in TN
        Mark Phillips 
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
From: 
Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
      
      
      At 08:47 8/19/2007, you wrote:
      >I am totally deaf in one ear and always have trouble with stereo 
      >headsets.  I feel like I am only hearing half the world!  Do you 
      >know of a commercially available adapter that would ALWAYS combine 
      >the signals on a standard aviation headset?  While we are on the 
      >subject.....it is even a bigger problem with my MP3 player.  It has 
      >a little 1/8 (?) inch stereo jack.  Do you know of any full time, 
      >stereo to mono,  adaptors for that?
      >
      >Thanks
      >
      >Brooke
      
      One "always works" solution I've seen on at least one commercial 
      headset was the inclusion of a switch somewhere on/in the headphone 
      or cable that took the wire normally connected to the ring of the 
      connector and electrically moved it to parallel the wire connected to 
      the tip.  Both earphone transducers were then parallel on the tip, 
      with the common return on the sleeve.  Downside; the impedance seen 
      by the intercom/radio driving the headphones in now only half what it 
      was and this may be a problem, but generally far less than shorting 
      out the left and right outputs of some amplifier to one another.
      
      A SPDT (3-terminal) switch mounted in an ear cup could easily suffice.
      
      Ron Q.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Gaylen Lerohl" <lerohl(at)gctel.net>
Subject: 
Re: Coax Diameter
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
      
      
      The Mil Spec RG-58 and RG-400 we sell is about .195" or just a bit over 
      3/16".  http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Coaxial%20Cable.html
      
      Regards,
      Gaylen
      Terminaltown.com
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
      Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:29 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coax Diameter
      
      
      >
      > Can someone advise me what is the diameter of RG400 and RG58 Coax?  I'm
      > planning antenna runs for my RV6A and looking to see how big my wire 
      > bundle
      > may be getting.  Thanks.
      >
      >
      > Marty in Brentwood TN
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
      
      
      Brooke Wolf wrote:
      > Hi Mark
      >  
      > I am totally deaf in one ear and always have trouble with stereo 
      > headsets.  I feel like I am only hearing half the world!  Do you know of 
      > a commercially available adapter that would ALWAYS combine the signals 
      > on a standard aviation headset?  While we are on the subject.....it is 
      > even a bigger problem with my MP3 player.  It has a little 1/8 (?) inch 
      > stereo jack.  Do you know of any full time, stereo to mono,  adaptors 
      > for that?
      >  
      > Thanks
      >  
      > Brooke
      >  
      Google is your friend.
      
      http://www.google.com/search?num &hl=en&q=mono+to+stereo+headphone+adaptor&btnG=Search
      
      
      Charlie
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
      
      Thanks Ken and Bob. I'll try Bob's suggestion of connecting both +ve and 
      -ve of the battery to the radio later this week
      Bob - my radio has a +ve from the power bus and a -ve which grounds at 
      the firewall ground bus. I suspect it also grounds locally
        - Frank
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert 
      L. Nuckolls, III
      Sent: Sun 19/08/2007 07:33
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe whine noise
      
      
      
      
      
      >
      >Hi Frank
      >
      >Yes the filter is in line with the strobe power after the power switch.
      >
      >My best theory is similar to Matt's and that the noise is coming in via
      >the common grounds.  It is a metal airframe and the strobe power 
      supplies
      >are internally  grounded to their metal cases, same as the radio and 
      the
      >intercom. The headphone jacks are isolated from ground. Everything 
      except
      >the strobes has a ground wire to the forrest of tabs on the firewall.
      >Since the ground connection on the filter has no effect, it seems to me
      >that it can't be a capacitor in the filter that is helping. And yet
      >reversing the filter leads does make a difference which seems an 
      unlikely
      >result to me.  I don't think there can be anything else other than a 
      choke
      >(inductor) in the filter??
      >
      >If I was still building I think I would try electrically insulating the
      >strobe power supplies from the airframe with plastic washers and bolts. 
      I
      >seem to recall opening the aeroflash units when I installed them but I
      >must have decided that their grounds could not be easilly separated 
      from
      >the case, or it did not seem worth the effort at the time. The strobe
      >heads are mounted in fibreglass wingtips so they should already be
      >isolated from the airframe.
      
         Hmmmm . . . grounds contribute to noise issues ONLY when
         sensitive potential victims share TWO or more ground
         paths. If you have immediate access to the power supplies,
         try the dry-battery experiment again with the battery located
         right at the power supply and grounded locally to the power
         supply.
      
         There's something we're not seeing here. I presume that your
         power supply does ground locally and doesn't have a second wire
         running all the way to the firewall ground bus????
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Hoffmann D- Remscheid" <Hoffmann.RS@T-Online.de>
Subject: 
Re: Rotax Voltage Regulator
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
      
      Rotax rectifier / regulators (and the other motorcycle types too) are 
      not unproblematic. As Gilles found out by direct experiment at nominal 
      power the maximum temperature for the 912 / 914 series R/R is minus 
      59=B0 Celsius:
      
      http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati.php 
      
      This is somewhere in the vicinity of the liquid CO2, please forgive me 
      that I cannot transfer it to Fahrenheit units by heart (;-). 
      
      I used a standard 3" vent from a computer power unit mounted upon the 
      cooling fins to make the system reliable, as Bob mentioned too. 
      Nevertheless the power output of the 2 phase Rotax alternator is 
      marginal. 
      
      A friend experienced a trip of the main circuit breaker when operating 
      the flaps at idle. Imagine what would have happened with an electrical 
      dependent 914 engine. His Dynon and his GPS went black too (which is not 
      an issue at the home airport). I am aware that he might beef up his 7Ah 
      battery a little bit, too (;-) 
      
      Increased use of glass panel instruments with reasonable brightness, 
      strobes etc. would ask for a state-of-the-art generator system for the 
      future. It is not very elegant to use a reduction gear and then mount a 
      generator driven by a belt from the prop axis to increase rpms again. It 
      is more elegant to mount a second generator the crankshaft itself 
      rotating at some 5000rpm at the back of the 912/914, which has been 
      done: 
      
      http://contrails.free.fr/elec_second_alternateur.php
      
      If You can live with one sole generator providing sufficient power, the 
      standard Rotax system should be modified. 
      
      With the existing standard 2phase coil system I can imagine that a more 
      modern regulator could work not at the frequency determined by engine 
      rotation, but at a higher frequency as a real switching regulator with a 
      corresponding higher efficiency; maybe some inductivity would have to be 
      added.
      
      I would however prefer another way of solving the problem. As the rpm is 
      high enough, why not integrate a common 3phase generator into the 
      original site of the Rotax coils? One wound have to redesign the 
      (presumably 9) stator coils for the given dimensions and add a rotor 
      with coil. Add a standard regulator and You are done: greater power 
      mainly because of better efficiency, no high frequency switching 
      problems, standard technology and reliability, no belt to break, no hump 
      in streamlined cowlings. Would be just a standard generator put into the 
      Rotax.
      
      By the way: You could even get rid of any sliprings without any electric 
      change at all. Honda has done that on their CB500f motorcycles even some 
      years ago:
      
      http://www.autoschrauber.de/content/000058/image/limakomplett.jpg
      
      The only disadvantage is the introduction of an air gap. When 
      reliability is an issue, that could be a good trade-off for aircraft use 
      anyway: almost no moving parts J.
      
      As Bob already stated, it would be an excellent DIY - project - not 
      without future potential.
      
      
      Richard
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Switch ratings
      
      
      Comments/Questions: Bob,
      I bought a bunch of rocker switches from Aircraft Spruce (P/N 14-100) for 
      use in my RV-6A. The switches have a 120VAC rating of 20 Amps. AC43-13 says 
      that AC ratings are different from DC ratings, so I am concerned as to 
      whether these switches will be adequate for my uses. The highest current 
      devices I am switching are the nav lights at 7.5 Amps.
      
      
         See:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
      
        and page 2 of
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Eaton/toggle.pdf
      
        and page 2 of
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/tl_series.pdf
      
         Virtually ALL switches have SOME rating at ANY voltage whether
         AC or DC. The fact that any given switch is marked on the side
         with 125VAC ratings is a testament to the fact that MORE switches
         are SOLD into the 125VAC domestic power market than for any
         other application. There's not enough room on the side of a
         switch to print ALL of it's capabilities so the fall-back position
         is to accommodate the greatest number of purchasers.
      
         Further, to exceed the published ratings by as much as 50%
         has little significance to us as OBAM aviation users where
         the average switch sees perhaps 100 operating cycles per year.
         The published ratings are for tens of thousands of cycles
         total. Most switches in personally owned, light aircraft die
         of effects having more to do with environment and chronological
         age than from operating stresses.
      
         The short answer is, "don't loose any sleep over switch
         ratings."
      
      
              Bob . . .
      
              ----------------------------------------
              ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may   )
              ( give some practical results, but     )
              ( that's not why we do it."            )
              (                                      )
              (                 Richard P. Feynman   )
              ----------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
strobe whine noise
      
      
      
      >Thanks Ken and Bob. I'll try Bob's suggestion of connecting both +ve and 
      >-ve of the battery to the radio later this week
      >Bob - my radio has a +ve from the power bus and a -ve which grounds at the 
      >firewall ground bus. I suspect it also grounds locally
      
         my suggested experiment was to power the strobe locally and
         leave it grounded . . . but your assertion raises another
         possibility. If the radio has an internal ground to chassis,
         then try simply removing the 'extra' ground to the firewall.
         You may be experiencing a rare but real situation that was
         addressed with the last upgrade to Z-15 in particular where
         the idea of an avionics ground ON THE PANEL was suggested
         for gathering all grounds for panel mounted devices together
         at a single point before extending the ground to the firewall.
      
         In fact, in the all metal airplane, the panel ground could
         be tied to the panel as an airframe ground . . . the extra
         wires to the firewall would not be beneficial. However,
         Getting all the panel grounds tied together on or near where
         the radios bring their internal grounds is a good thing to
         consider. MOST of the time, it's not an issue . . . which goes
         for the vast majority of installations in light aircraft since
         day-one. From time to time, situations like yours do arise
         where the standard cures for filtering and shielding have
         no effect and sometimes make it worse.
      
         When you finally discover the root cause of your noise
         it will be stone simple and probably have nothing to do
         with shielding or filtering.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
      
      Bob wrote: "if one had LED based position and strobes, then perhaps
          night VFR on 8A would be quite comfortably managed."
      
      This is a good point, and opens up the topic of LED position lights.  I 
      have a Jabiru J400, and the alternator is good for 20 amps max, closer 
      to 15 amps continuous.  I had planned to put an SD20 alternator on the 
      crank splined shaft to get more total power, but the complication of two 
      alternators and two batteries seemed far too great for what will be 
      mainly a day and night VFR plane with pretensions.  
      
      The Whelan strobe and position light system has two lamps per wingtip 
      and the strobe supply.  Each lamp is two amps, and the strobe supply is 
      6 amps.  Yikes!  That is 14 amps for running lights.  The gold plated 
      pins that go into DB connectors and also the circular plastic locking 
      connectors are very easy to use, but should not be used for much over 4 
      amps.  I could parallel these critters, but that gets to be more work.  
      By going to the LED system from either Kunzleman or GS, the current draw 
      is  between 150 and 300 ma per wingtip.  The strobe systems run 2 to 4 
      amps.  
      
      Are these wingtip nav lights equivalent to the Whelan incandescent?  I 
      have bought both GS and Kunztleman systems for testing.  I just made a 
      simple turntable marked off in degrees to rotate the wingtip unit to 
      measure lux output vs. angle.  I'm using the nice primer on lighting 
      requirements that Eric Jones posted on his website, Perihelion Designs.  
      http://www.periheliondesign.com/
      
      To measure the light output, I got a lux meter, calibrated in lux.  
      Photographic light meters can be converted from exposure value to lux, 
      but these meters are intrinsically logarithmic in response, and I don't 
      trust it.
      
      The horizontal plane measurement will be relatively easy, but the 
      vertical plane may be harder.  Eric himself does not believe that 
      present commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do 
      not need to.  Of course, the low power strobes don't, but any strobe is 
      far better than none, and the logarithmic response of the eye comes to 
      our rescue here.
      
      James Foerster,  J400,  wiring.    
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Bright star on the horizon - OV protection and anytime
      control
      
      
      >Comments/Questions: Bob - What is the latest wisdom on the crowbar and b-lead
      >disconnect for the IR alternators?  I have read all the Matronics threads,
      >and it seems that you have withdrawn the Z-24 diagram.
      
      >BTW I am a PhD electrical engineer, and I have not seen anyone with the
      >clarity and good explanations and sheer common sense that you give.
      >Keep up the good work.
      
         Thank you sir for the kind words and validation of
         my efforts.
      
      
         Here's some background:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/DIY_Crowbar_OVP_F.pdf
      
         Here's the Z-24 replacement in the works . . .
      
      http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
      
         in the interim, Z-24 is entirely suited to the task as
         long as the pilot is aware that the alternator should not
         be turned off while under load except when it's mis-behaving
         or there is possibility of electrically generated smoke
         in the cockpit.
      
         When AEC9004 becomes available, it will drop neatly into
         the spot where the crowbar module is used and will allow
         any time, any conditions, damage free control of the
         stock, automotive IR alternator.
      
         Holler if I can help!
      
         Bob . . .
      
              ----------------------------------------
              ( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
              ( anything, what ever you do must be   )
              ( exercised EVERY day . . .            )
              (                  R. L. Nuckolls III  )
              ----------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu>
Subject: 
Re: Bright star on the horizon - OV protection  and
      anytime control
      
      
      Bob,
      
      Any ETA on availability of the AEC9004?
      
      Thanks,
      
      Tim Lewis
      
      -- 
      Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
      RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
      RV-10 #40059 under construction
      
      
      Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
      >
      >   When AEC9004 becomes available, it will drop neatly into
      >   the spot where the crowbar module is used and will allow
      >   any time, any conditions, damage free control of the
      >   stock, automotive IR alternator.
      >
      >   Holler if I can help!
      >
      >   Bob . . .
      >
      >        ----------------------------------------
      >        ( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
      >        ( anything, what ever you do must be   )
      >        ( exercised EVERY day . . .            )
      >        (                  R. L. Nuckolls III  )
      >        ----------------------------------------
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
Subject: 
PMag Preflight Check
      
      
      Peter and Mike,
      You both said you do not recommend checking the PMag internal alternator  
      before each flight.  Will you please expand on your reasoning?
      Thanks,
      Stan Sutterfield
      
      
      I think  I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal 
      alternator  every
      flight either.
      
      
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 19, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Bright star on the horizon - OV   protection  and
      anytime control
      
      
      
      >
      >Bob,
      >
      >Any ETA on availability of the AEC9004?
      >
      >Thanks,
      >
      >Tim Lewis
      
        Not definite - this spring's plans for getting the alternator
        drive stand were interrupted. It's too hot to work
        in the garage for about the next month. The circuit
        has been brass-boarded and the first-pass software
        tested. The BIG questions are to demonstrate an ability
        to seamlessly control the un-modified IR alternator when
        running at full load and 11,000 rpm. I'm 98% sure
        we've got the recipe for success but won't know until
        it's been run on real hardware. Certainly before the
        end of the year.
      
        Bob. . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
B&C SD 8 Alternator
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
      8/20/2007
      
      Hello James, You wrote: "Eric himself does not believe that present 
      commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do not need to."
      
      I am questioning your statement that stobe and position lights installed on 
      amateur built experimental aircraft do not need to meet FAR requirements. 
      What is your basis for that statement?
      
      A) Each amateur built experimental aircraft will have a set of Operating 
      Limitations that are part of that aircraft's special airworthiness 
      certificate. The Operating Limitations will include the words:
       "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped 
      for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft 
      is to be operated under VFR, day only."
      
      B) FAR Sec. 91.205 paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) read:
      
      "(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following 
      instruments and equipment are required:
      
      (2) Approved position lights.
      
      (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on 
      all U.S.-registered civil aircraft......skip....."
      
      C) Here is a quote from the introduction to my table on the subject of 
      amateur built aircraft equipment requirements:
      
       "The builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are 
      described in the FAR's as needing to be approved, but since there are no 
      certification standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft, 
      no formal individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical 
      Standard Order) or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must 
      interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other 
      entities external to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, 
      exterior lighting and ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of 
      such equipment. Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial 
      airworthiness inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this 
      type of equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA."
      
      D) It would appear that the inspector performing the original airworthiness 
      inspection of an amateur built experimental aircraft would have the 
      prerogative of insisting that the strobe and position lights of that 
      aircraft (if installed) meet the requirements of FAR Part 23 regarding 
      strobe and position light performance. The presumption being made that the 
      installation of such lights indicates an intention to fly at night on some 
      occasions.
      
      Your comments?
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      ---------------------------------   -----------------------------
      
      From: "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net>
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B&C SD 8 Alternator
      
      Bob wrote: "if one had LED based position and strobes, then perhaps
          night VFR on 8A would be quite comfortably managed."
      
      This is a good point, and opens up the topic of LED position lights.  I
      have a Jabiru J400, and the alternator is good for 20 amps max, closer
      to 15 amps continuous.  I had planned to put an SD20 alternator on the
      crank splined shaft to get more total power, but the complication of two
      alternators and two batteries seemed far too great for what will be
      mainly a day and night VFR plane with pretensions.
      
      The Whelan strobe and position light system has two lamps per wingtip
      and the strobe supply.  Each lamp is two amps, and the strobe supply is
      6 amps.  Yikes!  That is 14 amps for running lights.  The gold plated
      pins that go into DB connectors and also the circular plastic locking
      connectors are very easy to use, but should not be used for much over 4
      amps.  I could parallel these critters, but that gets to be more work.
      By going to the LED system from either Kunzleman or GS, the current draw
      is  between 150 and 300 ma per wingtip.  The strobe systems run 2 to 4
      amps.
      
      Are these wingtip nav lights equivalent to the Whelan incandescent?  I
      have bought both GS and Kunztleman systems for testing.  I just made a
      simple turntable marked off in degrees to rotate the wingtip unit to
      measure lux output vs. angle.  I'm using the nice primer on lighting
      requirements that Eric Jones posted on his website, Perihelion Designs.
      http://www.periheliondesign.com/
      
      To measure the light output, I got a lux meter, calibrated in lux.
      Photographic light meters can be converted from exposure value to lux,
      but these meters are intrinsically logarithmic in response, and I don't
      trust it.
      
      The horizontal plane measurement will be relatively easy, but the
      vertical plane may be harder.  Eric himself does not believe that
      present commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do
      not need to.  Of course, the low power strobes don't, but any strobe is
      far better than none, and the logarithmic response of the eye comes to
      our rescue here.
      
      James Foerster,  J400,  wiring. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
From: 
"Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: 
Re: PMag Preflight Check
      
      Stan,
      
      I looked back at what I wrote and I can't seem to find where I would recommend
      that anyone not check the onboard alternator function of the P-mag at the beginning
      of each and every flight. 
      
      But (I think I) would not do so as (I) gained confidence in those units. Just a
      personal thing Stan, I would likely still do the mag drop check, old habits die
      hard.
      
      Mike
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Speedy11(at)aol.com 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 5:35 PM
        Subject: AeroElectric-List: PMag Preflight Check
      
      
        Peter and Mike,
        You both said you do not recommend checking the PMag internal alternator before
      each flight.  Will you please expand on your reasoning?
        Thanks,
        Stan Sutterfield
      
          I think I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal alternator
      every
          flight either.
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: 
PMag Preflight Check
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      Hi Stan,
      
      I don't think I recommended not to check the internal generator, just
      that I don't do it. The generator is a back-up to a back-up, as the
      ignition typically uses power from the alternator, then it could use
      battery power, or it could use generator power, and the engine will
      continue to run on the magneto alone in a pinch. There is certainly
      nothing wrong with checking it every flight, I just don't do it. 
      
      My choice is not to do a complete run up check on (usually) other than
      the first flight of the day, I check for dead cut, check for normal
      temperatures & pressures, carry out the normal before take-off checks
      and go - probably my glider towing background showing through. I have
      nearly 300 hours on the aeroplane and am familiar with the normal feel
      and have seen/felt/heard several abnormal 'feels'. I don't get too
      bunched over systems check when the systems have show themselves to be
      reliable in my aeroplane, operated the way I operate it.
      
      Yours, Peter
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      Speedy11(at)aol.com
      Sent: 20 August 2007 02:35
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: PMag Preflight Check
      
      Peter and Mike,
      You both said you do not recommend checking the PMag internal alternator
      before each flight.  Will you please expand on your reasoning?
      Thanks,
      Stan Sutterfield
      
      I think I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal
      alternator every
      flight either.
      
      
        _____  
      
      <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
      .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
KX125 connector
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
      I would like to know what type of connector is used for a KX125 NAV/COM as I 
      would like to wire up a used (wires were just cut off) unit and will 
      probably need to get some pins at least (or is this a "replace the whole 
      unit" situation??  I found the .pdf listing at the reference materials at 
      Aeroelectric (thanks!), but not what kind of connector it was (or at least I 
      didn't see it).
      
      The RF connections look like they are soldered 90 deg,  I "think" I can undo 
      them and attach new cable... but then again, I haven't started working on 
      them yet..
      
      
      Thanks in advance,
      
      Dave 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: 
KX125 connector
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
      Ebay is a great source for these pins and connectors
      
      Peter
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      & Elaine Lamphere
      Sent: 20 August 2007 21:17
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      
      
      
      I would like to know what type of connector is used for a KX125 NAV/COM
      as I 
      would like to wire up a used (wires were just cut off) unit and will 
      probably need to get some pins at least (or is this a "replace the whole
      
      unit" situation??  I found the .pdf listing at the reference materials
      at 
      Aeroelectric (thanks!), but not what kind of connector it was (or at
      least I 
      didn't see it).
      
      The RF connections look like they are soldered 90 deg,  I "think" I can
      undo 
      them and attach new cable... but then again, I haven't started working
      on 
      them yet..
      
      
      Thanks in advance,
      
      Dave 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Asked
      Questions)
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
         Hi Matt I have tried a couple times to unsubcribe 
      (sales(at)6440autoparts.com) from the Aeroelectric list. I have gone though the 
      motions and all it says is "No changes were required to execute your 
      subscription/unsubscription request."  Either something is wrong or this is 
      just way too technical for me.
      
      Randy
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: 
Re: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Asked
      Questions)
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
           OOOPs sorry this was intended to go straight to Matt not this list 
      sorry
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 4:49 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently 
      Asked Questions)
      
      
      > 
      >
      >   Hi Matt I have tried a couple times to unsubcribe 
      > (sales(at)6440autoparts.com) from the Aeroelectric list. I have gone though 
      > the motions and all it says is "No changes were required to execute your 
      > subscription/unsubscription request."  Either something is wrong or this 
      > is just way too technical for me.
      >
      > Randy
      >
      >
      > -- 
      > 269.12.0/961 - Release Date: 8/19/2007 7:27 AM
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: PMag Preflight Check
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      I have two pmags, total time now 265 hours. This includes one 
      replacement and both sent in for updates during the annual. After each 
      reinstall I check to insure the mags were working at my idle setting. 
      Both were. 
      
      I didn't take the time to adjust the idle abnormally low to find the cut 
      off of each Pmag. (I did the first time) As long as they work at my idle 
      setting I was happy.
      
      I have my panel set up so everything to start works from Left to Right 
      and reverse for shut down.
      
      My process is as follows, Pmag switched breakers, ON, Master On, full 
      rich yada yada yada.
      
      On run up, RPM 1700, key switch on both. Check left, back to Both, Check 
      Right, back to Both. Done deal. If there is a problem you'll know there.
      
      Why do anything different?
      
      During the one failure I had in flight (an internal magnet failure of my 
      left Pmag) I switched to the Right mag and proceeded on safely. If you 
      have a sudden rise in temps, rough running, loss of power, switch mags 
      to isolate and find out if it is a mag issue. 
      
      I firmly believe people are getting them in the set up mode and messing 
      up the timing. Set them up and leave them alone!!!
      
      Darwin N. Barrie
      Chandler AZ
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 connector
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
      OK, but what do I look for?? I doubt they are listed as KX125 connectors.. 
      :-)
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 5:28 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Ebay is a great source for these pins and connectors
      >
      > Peter
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      > & Elaine Lamphere
      > Sent: 20 August 2007 21:17
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      >
      > 
      >
      > I would like to know what type of connector is used for a KX125 NAV/COM
      > as I
      > would like to wire up a used (wires were just cut off) unit and will
      > probably need to get some pins at least (or is this a "replace the whole
      >
      > unit" situation??  I found the .pdf listing at the reference materials
      > at
      > Aeroelectric (thanks!), but not what kind of connector it was (or at
      > least I
      > didn't see it).
      >
      > The RF connections look like they are soldered 90 deg,  I "think" I can
      > undo
      > them and attach new cable... but then again, I haven't started working
      > on
      > them yet..
      >
      >
      > Thanks in advance,
      >
      > Dave
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 connector
Date: 
Aug 20, 2007
      
      
      Here is some additional information.  I think the 125 uses the same 
      connectors as most of the King series radios.
      
      http://www.berkut13.com/extractor.htm
      
      
      James Redmon - Race 13
      Berkut #013  N97TX
      http://www.berkut13.com
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:33 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      
      
      > 
      >
      > OK, but what do I look for?? I doubt they are listed as KX125 connectors.. 
      > :-)
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 5:28 PM
      > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      >
      >
      >> 
      >>
      >> Ebay is a great source for these pins and connectors
      >>
      >> Peter
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 connector
Date: 
Aug 21, 2007
      
      
      Ah yes! That's what I was looking for.  Thank you!
      
      David Lamphere
      Wittman W10 Tailwind N828DL
      (under construction)
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:28 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      
      
      >
      >
      > Here is some additional information.  I think the 125 uses the same 
      > connectors as most of the King series radios.
      >
      > http://www.berkut13.com/extractor.htm
      >
      >
      > James Redmon - Race 13
      > Berkut #013  N97TX
      > http://www.berkut13.com
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:33 PM
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      >
      >
      >> 
      >>
      >> OK, but what do I look for?? I doubt they are listed as KX125 
      >> connectors.. :-)
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message ----- 
      >> From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
      >> To: 
      >> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 5:28 PM
      >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: KX125 connector
      >>
      >>
      >>> 
      >>>
      >>> Ebay is a great source for these pins and connectors
      >>>
      >>> Peter
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
B and C SD8 Alternator
Date: 
Aug 21, 2007
      
      
      Having read the discussion this topic regarding Running Lights (Nav Lts?)
      and the pro-/anti-Whelen sides, it occurred to me that perhaps another tack
      be taken.
      	The coloured lights are there so that (like ships) an early estimate
      of direction of travel be made in order to plan evasive manoeuvres if
      needed.
      	In that case, the lights are not just for our protection but for the
      Others out there. That's what I think the U.S. regs require - service to
      other flyers. If they don't satisfy the particular standards drawn up, they
      don't protect other aircraft - and that could be 300 people.....
      	That's why I've chosen an approved source for lights.
      Ferg
      Europa 914 mono
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
RE: AeroElectric-Z13/8 ????
Date: 
Aug 21, 2007
      
      
      I am wiring my RV7A using Z 13/8 as my basic scheme. I did change the scheme 
      to use Z-25 as the SD-8 Aux Alternator controller and the B&C LR-3 as the 
      controller of the main alternator (as shown on Z-12). I also have the Dynon 
      EMS-120 which has an ammeter shunt to monitor electrical flow in one of 
      three locations. I have choosen to place the shunt in the A position to 
      monitor current flow into or out of the battery. Now the ???????
      
      1. With all this said I would like to eliminate the two shunts that monitor 
      the SD-8 and Main alternator in in their place use the inticator lights. 
      Does this make sense? My argument is I just want to know when the failure of 
      an alternator occures and then monitor battery current specifically.
      
      2. Does the indicator light attach to the S704-1 at the NC location 
      ......assuming that 1 above is ok to do.
      
      Thanks in Advance for your help.
      
      Frank @ SGU   RV7A   Wiring in progress
      
      _________________________________________________________________
      Messenger Caf  open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. 
      Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Z-19 Clarifications
From: 
"mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Aug 21, 2007
      
      
      Hi ,
      
      I am planning to install a Z-19 system and had a couple of clarifying questions.
      Feedback is very much appreciated.
      
      1. Do all of the contactors in the system have to be Amperage rated at or above
      the maximum output of the alternator? I guess this is not a z-19 specific question
      but I'm still unsure. 
      
      2. How does the E-bus alternate feed relay work, I am not sure of its intended
      purpose? I can see the E-bus is normally fed from the Main power bus through a
      diode but I'm not sure what function the relay provides. 
      Do you normally start with the E-bus relay switch OFF. Then if your alternator
      dies you manually switch the E-bus ON?
      
      My E-bus load comes up to 9.5 amps. Do I even need the relay?
      
      3. Should both batteries be connected to the same ground point on the airframe,
      rather than two separate locations?  In  my case it means running about 5' of
      wire to that designed ground stud. 
      
      4. Parts - Diodes for the ECU and Fuel pumps - is the B&C Essential Bus Diode and
      the Perihelion Power-Deuce-Schottky Auto-Power Selector Diode Assembly essentially
      the same component.  In the Z-19 the it says 'Note 24', but I cannot find
      that in my Aeroelectric Connection manual or the website. 
      
      Thanks very much,
      
      Mike
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130200#130200
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
" Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      Mark,
      
      I would be interested in the cad file.
      
      BTW, just recently installed your static ports. My local RV buddies all 
      have static port envy.
      
      send it to : plaurence@the-beach.net
      
      
      Peter
      
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:41 PM
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
      
      
        In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
          There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo connector for 
      both 
          stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're 
          dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
        >>>
        My understanding as well.  I installed mono & stereo jacks on my plane 
      using a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together when the 
      plug is inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the stereo jack with 
      a lable stating "Stereo Only" on it.  One way to git a kitty rug!
      
        Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
      
        From The PossumWorks in TN
        Mark Phillips 
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Ron  Schreck" <ronschreck(at)windstream.net>
Subject: 
Essential buss failure
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob 
      suggested I check the connections and replace the diode.  I have a diode 
      on order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I 
      crimped them down a bit.  Well, the bus failed again this morning.  I 
      have found that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to 
      trigger the failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of 
      the switch after startup.  It trips off the essential buss power for a 
      fraction of a second, then everything returns to normal.  Any ideas?
      
      Ron Schreck
      RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
      Gold Hill Airpark, NC
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
LED Position and Anti-collision lighting.
From: 
"Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      Let's put this discussion where one can find it...
      
      > 
      >  Hello James, You wrote: "Eric himself does not believe that present 
      > commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do not need to." 
      > I am questioning your statement that stobe and position lights installed on 
      > amateur built experimental aircraft do not need to meet FAR requirements. What
      is your basis for that statement? 
      > A) Each amateur built experimental aircraft will have a set of Operating 
      > Limitations that are part of that aircraft's special airworthiness 
      > certificate. The Operating Limitations will include the words: 
      > "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped 
      > for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft 
      > is to be operated under VFR, day only." 
      > B) FAR Sec. 91.205 paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) read: 
      > "(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following 
      > instruments and equipment are required: 
      > (2) Approved position lights. 
      > (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on
      all U.S.-registered civil aircraft......skip....." 
      > C) Here is a quote from the introduction to my table on the subject of 
      > amateur built aircraft equipment requirements: 
      > "The builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are 
      > described in the FAR's as needing to be approved, but since there are no 
      > certification standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft,
      
      > no formal individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical 
      > Standard Order) or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must 
      > interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other 
      > entities external to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, 
      > exterior lighting and ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of
      such equipment. Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness
      inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this 
      > type of equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA." 
      > D) It would appear that the inspector performing the original airworthiness inspection
      of an amateur built experimental aircraft would have the prerogative
      of insisting that the strobe and position lights of that 
      > aircraft (if installed) meet the requirements of FAR Part 23 regarding 
      > strobe and position light performance. The presumption being made that the installation
      of such lights indicates an intention to fly at night on some 
      > occasions. 
      > 
      > Bob wrote: "if one had LED based position and strobes, then perhaps 
      > night VFR on 8A would be quite comfortably managed." 
      > 
      > This is a good point, and opens up the topic of LED position lights. I 
      > have a Jabiru J400, and the alternator is good for 20 amps max, closer 
      > to 15 amps continuous. I had planned to put an SD20 alternator on the 
      > crank splined shaft to get more total power, but the complication of two 
      > alternators and two batteries seemed far too great for what will be 
      > mainly a day and night VFR plane with pretensions. 
      > 
      > The Whelan strobe and position light system has two lamps per wingtip 
      > and the strobe supply. Each lamp is two amps, and the strobe supply is 
      > 6 amps. Yikes! That is 14 amps for running lights. The gold plated 
      > pins that go into DB connectors and also the circular plastic locking 
      > connectors are very easy to use, but should not be used for much over 4 
      > amps. I could parallel these critters, but that gets to be more work. 
      > By going to the LED system from either Kunzleman or GS, the current draw is between
      150 and 300 ma per wingtip. The strobe systems run 2 to 4 amps. 
      > 
      > Are these wingtip nav lights equivalent to the Whelan incandescent? I 
      > have bought both GS and Kunztleman systems for testing. I just made a 
      > simple turntable marked off in degrees to rotate the wingtip unit to 
      > measure lux output vs. angle. I'm using the nice primer on lighting 
      > requirements that Eric Jones posted on his website, Perihelion Designs. 
      > http://www.periheliondesign.com/ 
      > 
      > To measure the light output, I got a lux meter, calibrated in lux. 
      > Photographic light meters can be converted from exposure value to lux, 
      > but these meters are intrinsically logarithmic in response, and I don't 
      > trust it. 
      > 
      > The horizontal plane measurement will be relatively easy, but the 
      > vertical plane may be harder. Eric himself does not believe that 
      > present commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do 
      > not need to. Of course, the low power strobes don't, but any strobe is 
      > far better than none, and the logarithmic response of the eye comes to 
      > our rescue here. 
      > James Foerster, J400, wiring.
      
      
      > 
      > From: "Fergus Kyle" 
      > 
      > Having read the discussion this topic regarding Running Lights (Nav Lts?)
      > and the pro-/anti-Whelen sides, it occurred to me that perhaps another tack be
      taken.
      > The coloured lights are there so that (like ships) an early estimate
      > of direction of travel be made in order to plan evasive manoeuvres if
      > needed. In that case, the lights are not just for our protection but for the
      > Others out there. That's what I think the U.S. regs require - service to
      > other flyers. If they don't satisfy the particular standards drawn up, they
      > don't protect other aircraft - and that could be 300 people.....
      > That's why I've chosen an approved source for lights.
      > Ferg
      > Europa 914 mono
      
      
      I have some concern that the FAA will tighten up exterior lighting requirements,
      probably after some very public night accident, but for now you get your airplane
      signed off as VFR-day flightworthy and the rest seems up to your good judgement
      and the insurance company. 
      
      I agree with Ferg that the position and anticollision lights are for the protection
      of others, so we should insist that other builders design for safety all
      around. Don't be shy. Not just your own life is at risk. I have made offers to
      test LED position lights made by other but got no takers. 
      
      I state categorically that many LED lighting systems are not per the FAA specs.
      See my website for information.
      
      I have sold some position lights that ARE per the FAA specs. One of my customers
      landed using only the LED position lights to see the runway. An amazing accomplishment.
      But the LEDs were really really bright. 
      
      I am planning to reintroduce these later, but others will enter the field with
      good systems too. For now I am working on too many other things.
      
      Exceeding the FAA specs would be in the best interest of builders who may want
      LEDs but don't want to certificate them or buy certificated parts. It is also
      true that the differences in LEDs (soon 4-10X the luminous efficacy, essentially
      infinite lifetime, organic LED sheets, etc.) gives rise to vastly different
      schemes for placement and operation of exterior lighting.
      
      I am interested in making a flush beacon. Ideas appreciated.
      
      As for James Foerster's testing: It will be great to see your results. We anxiously
      await data.
      
      "THE VERY BIG STUPID" is a thing which breeds by eating
      The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a
      good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D
      Department.
         --Frank Zappa
      
      --------
      Eric M. Jones
      www.PerihelionDesign.com
      113 Brentwood Drive
      Southbridge, MA 01550
      (508) 764-2072
      emjones(at)charter.net
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130238#130238
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
B and C SD8 Alternator
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      8/22/2007
      
      Hello Fergus, Thanks for your input. You wrote: "In that case, the lights 
      are not just for our protection but for the Others out there. That's what I 
      think the U.S. regs require - service to other flyers."
      
      You are right on target. Whenever we fly we are sharing the airspace and, if 
      so equipped, the electromagnetic environment with other aircraft and the air 
      traffic control system. Our own amateur built experimental aircraft, to 
      varying degrees, must be compatible with the other entities to avoid 
      creating confusion or unsafe conditions.
      
      Here is an extract from the introduction to my table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND 
      EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
      
      "The builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are described 
      in the FAR's as needing to be approved, but since there are no certification 
      standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft no formal 
      individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard Order) 
      or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must interface properly 
      with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other entities external 
      to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting and 
      ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment. 
      Therefore, the builder could expect that the initial airworthiness inspector 
      of his aircraft may require evidence that this type of equipment in the 
      aircraft is acceptable to the FAA. But regardless of the actions of the 
      inspector, the burden for complying with the provisions of the aircraft's 
      special airworthiness certificate (which includes the Operating 
      Limitations), and the relevant FAR's, rests with the builder / pilot."
      
      A complete copy of this table can be obtained as an attachment to an email 
      by request direct to me.
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      ------------------ RESPONDING TO ------------------------------
      
      From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: B and C SD8 Alternator
      
      Having read the discussion this topic regarding Running Lights (Nav Lts?)
      and the pro-/anti-Whelen sides, it occurred to me that perhaps another tack
      be taken.
       The coloured lights are there so that (like ships) an early estimate
      of direction of travel be made in order to plan evasive manoeuvres if
      needed.
       In that case, the lights are not just for our protection but for the
      Others out there. That's what I think the U.S. regs require - service to
      other flyers. If they don't satisfy the particular standards drawn up, they
      don't protect other aircraft - and that could be 300 people.....
       That's why I've chosen an approved source for lights.
      
      Ferg      Europa 914 mono 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Z-19 Clarifications
      
      
      
      >
      >Hi ,
      >
      >I am planning to install a Z-19 system and had a couple of clarifying 
      >questions. Feedback is very much appreciated.
      >
      >1. Do all of the contactors in the system have to be Amperage rated at or 
      >above the maximum output of the alternator? I guess this is not a z-19 
      >specific question but I'm still unsure.
      
         Contactor "ratings" are much like switch ratings. Many
         times a device performs quite well even if it appears to
         be under-rated. For example, the S701-1 contactors offered
         by B&C as battery contactors are rated to switch 70A but will
         carry the starter current of several hundred amps when
         they're already closed and stable. Suggest you utilize
         the contactors recommended in the drawings and don't get
         wrapped around the axle on ratings.
      
      
      >2. How does the E-bus alternate feed relay work, I am not sure of its 
      >intended purpose? I can see the E-bus is normally fed from the Main power 
      >bus through a diode but I'm not sure what function the relay provides.
      
         Read chapter 17 in the book. A "lite" e-bus (7A or less) gets
         alternate power from the battery bus via direct wire and switch.
         Crash safety conventions dictate a "mini" battery contactor located
         at the battery bus for larger loads.
      
      >Do you normally start with the E-bus relay switch OFF. Then if your 
      >alternator dies you manually switch the E-bus ON?
      
         Yes and sorta yes. The main bus should also be shut down during
         alternator out operations to maximize endurance in the enroute
         phase of flight.
      
      >My E-bus load comes up to 9.5 amps. Do I even need the relay?
      
         See chapter 17.
      
      
      >3. Should both batteries be connected to the same ground point on the 
      >airframe, rather than two separate locations?  In  my case it means 
      >running about 5' of wire to that designed ground stud.
      
         What kind of airplane. See:
      
      http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html
      
      
      >4. Parts - Diodes for the ECU and Fuel pumps - is the B&C Essential Bus 
      >Diode and the Perihelion Power-Deuce-Schottky Auto-Power Selector Diode 
      >Assembly essentially the same component.
      
          There are virtually thousands of diodes that will function
          as needed in this circuit. The parts offered by B&C and
          Perihelion are but two such devices cited for your convenience.
      
      >   In the Z-19 the it says 'Note 24', but I cannot find that in my 
      > Aeroelectric Connection manual or the website.
      
         Note 24 is on page Z-11 of
      http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
      
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Essential buss failure
      
      
      
      >I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob 
      >suggested I check the connections and replace the diode.  I have a diode 
      >on order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I 
      >crimped them down a bit.  Well, the bus failed again this morning.  I have 
      >found that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to trigger 
      >the failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of the switch 
      >after startup.  It trips off the essential buss power for a fraction of a 
      >second, then everything returns to normal.  Any ideas?
      
         It's a simple circuit. One diode, a couple of hunks of wire, a
         few terminals. Something's loose.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
From: 
"Rhino" <bsimmons(at)rainbowdata.com>
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      bbradburry(at)bellsouth.n wrote:
      > I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet.  Can
      > someone help me here?
      Try this link:
      
      http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/support/APNOTE02.pdf
      
      This is a web page about using an aviation headset with a PC, but it has some pinout
      info that may help you:
      
      http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/howto/adapter.htm
      
      Another link that may help:
      
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorlack/43579792/in/set-800495/
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130249#130249
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: RE: AeroElectric-Z13/8 ????
      
      
      
      >
      >
      >I am wiring my RV7A using Z 13/8 as my basic scheme. I did change the 
      >scheme to use Z-25 as the SD-8 Aux Alternator controller and the B&C LR-3 
      >as the controller of the main alternator (as shown on Z-12). I also have 
      >the Dynon EMS-120 which has an ammeter shunt to monitor electrical flow in 
      >one of three locations. I have choosen to place the shunt in the A 
      >position to monitor current flow into or out of the battery. Now the ???????
      >
      >1. With all this said I would like to eliminate the two shunts that 
      >monitor the SD-8 and Main alternator in in their place use the inticator 
      >lights. Does this make sense? My argument is I just want to know when the 
      >failure of an alternator occures and then monitor battery current specifically.
      >
      >2. Does the indicator light attach to the S704-1 at the NC location 
      >......assuming that 1 above is ok to do.
      
          The diagrams are recommendations, not requirements.
          You can choose to install or any combination of
          monitoring and display tools for your electrical
          system.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator  
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      OC wrote
      
      8/20/2007
      >
      > Hello James, You wrote: "Eric himself does not believe that present
      > commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do not need 
      > to."
      >
      > I am questioning your statement that stobe and position lights installed 
      > on
      > amateur built experimental aircraft do not need to meet FAR requirements.
      > What is your basis for that statement?
      
      My basis was misremembering your original explaination-sorry.  Thanks for 
      setting the record straight once again.  That said, I am trying to measure 
      the available commercial units to see how close they come.
      
      Since that post, my sources tell me that the inspectors for exerimental and 
      amateur built aircraft are taking a closer, and more jaundiced, look at the 
      LED position lights.  I did see some units molded into the wing at the last 
      Oshkosh that clearly did not meet the field of view requirements, although 
      brightness is impossible to judge in the daylight.
      
      Jim
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Shower of Sparks
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
<tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero>
      
      Bob:
      
      
      In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
      Start.  On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
      only for use with  Slick magnetos, not Bendix units.  Do you think
      there's a technical reason, or that's just certification/lawyer talk?
      
      
      Thanks,
      
          
      
      
      Tim Dawson-Townsend
      
      tdt(at)aurora.aero 
      
      617-500-4812 (office)
      
      617-905-4800 (mobile)
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
Ess Bus or Engine Failure and proper electrical installation
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      I have done 100 + faston connectors in the last 45 days.  Blue ones, red
      ones, yellow ones.you name it.  One wire to three wires.you name it.  .and
      some bigger crimps using the B&C #10 to #2 wire masher that they have.  It
      works great and has been an enormous help.    
      
      
      I have learned, and I am passing it to you, that you do a grab and yank test
      on EACH wire in each joint.  If you grab all the wires it once, it only
      proves that one is in there for keeps.  Think about that.  Also I have
      learned that the blue fastons are a little more loose on the faston ground
      or fuse tabs than are the red ones.  Be careful if you make your own "forest
      of ground tabs" that the rows are not so close together or so out of the way
      that you can't see if each and every connector is fully seated.  
      
      
      In my humble opinion (IMHO) any faston going into an electronic ignition
      component, or any fuel pumps, be given the utmost of care and attention.
      Give equal attention to power, to ground, to any splices..every dam
      connector in the chain.  Equal attention to data transfer issues.like the
      map signal on your Elect Ign.  Treat it like torquing the nuts and bolts on
      your throttle cable, because it has the same affect.
      
      
      Terry
      
      Velocity XLRG-5
      
      Final wiring
      
      
        _____  
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
      Schreck
      Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:14 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Essential buss failure
      
      
      I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob
      suggested I check the connections and replace the diode.  I have a diode on
      order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I crimped
      them down a bit.  Well, the bus failed again this morning.  I have found
      that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to trigger the
      failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of the switch after
      startup.  It trips off the essential buss power for a fraction of a second,
      then everything returns to normal.  Any ideas?
      
      
      Ron Schreck
      
      RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
      
      Gold Hill Airpark, NC
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Headset plug polarity
      
      Says who?????
      
      
       Peter Laurence wrote:
      > Mark,
      >  
      > I would be interested in the cad file.
      >  
      > BTW, just recently installed your static ports. My local RV buddies 
      > all have static port envy.
      >  
      > send it to : plaurence@the-beach.net 
      >  
      >  
      > Peter
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >
      >     ----- Original Message -----
      >     *From:* Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
      >     *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >     
      >     *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:41 PM
      >     *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
      >
      >     In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
      >     ceengland(at)bellsouth.net  writes:
      >
      >         There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo
      >         connector for both
      >         stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're
      >         dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
      >
      >     >>>
      >     My understanding as well.  I installed mono & stereo jacks on my
      >     plane using a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together
      >     when the plug is inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the
      >     stereo jack with a lable stating "Stereo Only" on it.  One way to
      >     git a kitty rug!
      >      
      >     Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
      >      
      >     From The PossumWorks in TN
      >     Mark Phillips 
      >
      >
      >     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >     title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
      >     href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
      >     target=_blank>AOL.com.
      >
      >     *
      >
      >     href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
      >     href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      >
      >     *
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      > *
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >   
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Z-19 Clarifications
From: 
"mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      Bob,
      
      Thanks for your input. I found most of the answer per your referenced documents.
      
      >> Contactor "ratings" are much like switch ratings. Many
      times a device performs quite well even if it appears to
      be under-rated. For example, the S701-1 contactors offered
      by B&C as battery contactors are rated to switch 70A but will
      carry the starter current of several hundred amps when
      they're already closed and stable. Suggest you utilize
      the contactors recommended in the drawings and don't get
      wrapped around the axle on ratings. 
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130294#130294
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
RE: KX155 Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
"Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
      
      Discovered today the radio interference is coming from the intercom! I 
      disconnected the KX155 internal intercom and the problem disappeared! 
      The radio worked fine. My questions now are:
      1. Can anyone explain why the interference arises from the intercom? Is 
      the intercom esp prone to interference?
      2. I'm told the KX155 internal intercom is poor and people often have to 
      install an external intercom eg. SPA400. Is that correct? 
      3. If i install an external intercom will that solve the problem?
      4. To disconnect the intercom i removed the 'intercom mic' pin. From my 
      pin-out diagram of the KX155 the 'intercom mic' pin is #8. My radio is 
      wired with the 'intercom mic' into pin B (B for Bravo). Can someone 
      confirm the correct pin for the 'intercom mic'? Is it pin 8 or pin B?
      
      Many thanks
      Frank
      
      >The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
      
       >1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
       >However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
       >suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
       >reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
       >static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
       >changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
       >with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
       >happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
       >passed as good.
      
       >2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
       >However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
      >disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
       >the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Essential buss failure
      
      
      Ron,
          If you are having difficulty isolating the poor connection visually. 
      Measure the voltages at the source and any accessible points along the 
      way to the E-Buss. If you used the Bridge Rectifier with Fastons this 
      may be 4 points. Take these measurements while the buss is loaded (your 
      SL30 PTT experience suggests series resistance) you will see a drop of 
      about 1.2 volts (unless you used a Schottky diode* *then it will be 
      less)* *across the diode, more than that between any two points will 
      isolate the poor connection.
          You may also try pulling hard on each of the fastons. If you can 
      pull them off with moderate force they are not crimped properly.
      Diodes are typically not intermittent, they generally open or short and 
      usually only when abused (over temp or mechanical stress)
      Bad crimps are common, good crimp tools, properly sized (wire and 
      terminal) and high quality connectors (AMP PIDG or Molex Avikrimp) with  
      metal insulation support  sleeves and careful installation will resolve 
      this.
      Other things to look for are partially cut wires (rare if properly 
      installed), corrosion on terminals, fuse blocks, fuses. 
      
      It may be helpful to load the E-Buss with a high current device (landing 
      lights, pitot heat, both?) in my installation this only requires moving 
      a connection a few inches on a split fuse block. That will obviate the 
      need to key the transmitter to get the current up and thus the IR drop. 
      (The voltage drop is equal to the Current  I * R Resistance plus any 
      diode junction drops that are in series)
      Good luck.
      
      -- 
      Ralph C. Hoover
      RV7A 
      hooverra at verizon dot net
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com>
Subject: 
Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
      
      Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.  It
      may be of interest to
      EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
      ============================
      
      Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
      Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
      renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
      soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
      argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
      this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
      
      The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
      
      Now, I hate to see anyone lose their job, but here is how I understand
      the situation. The guy took a job editing what should be an intensely
      hardcore aviation publication, and he didn't have so much as a PP-SEL.
      It appears that he had no interest in flying airplanes, and even less in
      building one. He was in the wrong place. That's sad; both for him and
      the EAA membership. Over the past year, EAA membership dropped 20%.
      Sport Aviation content was cited most often as the reason. That is sad;
      both for him and the membership. He is being replaced. I wish him luck
      in finding a position better suited for him, but the bigger issue for
      EAA members (past and present) is why he was replaced.
      
      The board of directors saw the 20% drop in membership and started asking
      why. Have you seen the makeup of the board? Sport Aviation printed the
      nominees for the next year a couple months back. There weren't but a
      couple that had ever worked on an airplane, and I believe only one
      nominee that had ever built anything. The rest were bean counters and
      management types, with a couple academics thrown in. While bean
      counters and management types are both necessary and useful, I think it
      wouldn't be that hard to find a few that had built at least one airplane
      and would know what is wrong with the EAA's focus. Instead, they, being
      bean counters and management types, do what bean counters and management
      types do. They look at spreadsheets and charts and try to draw a
      picture of reality from the summarization. Spreadsheets and charts
      leave out a lot of data and twist reality all to easily. Until the
      membership started dropping, they assumed everything was hunky-dory, and
      all the talk about losing focus was just background noise. Now the
      moaning has risen to a roar. Members are leaving.
      
      So, we've punched them in the nose to get their attention. It is time
      for a come to Jesus meeting where we calmly and clearly explain what the
      problem is. If you've left the EAA without an explanation, please send
      a quick email to editorial(at)eaa.org and state why you left. Just a few
      polite lines so that they will know. If you're considering not renewing
      your membership, let them know that. If you've tried to make your voice
      heard before, but feel you were rebuked, please try again. I believe
      the microphone is turned your way now. If you know someone who is
      trying to fix the EAA from the inside, please mention their efforts so
      that the board will have insiders to turn to for advise.
      
      It's not often that an organization as large as the EAA will see one in
      five members drop out in a single year. This is an historic opportunity
      to set thing straight. The people in charge will be paying attention
      like never before. It may be that the editor will just be a scapegoat,
      and it will be back to business as usual in a few months. I think it
      more likely that the board is genuinely concerned, but they just don't
      understand. If we speak up and the situation is the former, then we can
      say, "We told you so" next year when the membership drops another 20%.
      If the situation is the latter then speaking up now will help draw back
      the 20% that left and insure that they stay.
      
      
      It is my opinion that the problem with the EAA is that the leadership
      has forgotten why we are building airplanes. It is NOT, by any means,
      simply to have an airplane. The analysis has been done all over the
      place, and everyone agrees it would be more economical and less labor
      intensive to get a second job, buy an airplane now, and be in the air
      immediately. *WE* as builders know that. We're not stupid...DANG-IT!
      The reason we build airplanes is....get this....PRIDE!
      
      Plane (har-har) and simple. We want to say, "I built that." We want to
      compare our workmanship to the guy on the next row, and marvel at the
      simplicity/uniqueness/complexity/workmanship of the guy on the next.
      The more bolt-on, manufactured goods are added, the less pride is
      involved. The more the leadership has forgotten that PRIDE is the
      driving force and been lured astray by advertising dollars from
      manufactured goods, the more they've eaten away at the heart of the
      organization. Now, I've got nothing against manufactured goods, or
      their advertising. There are some parts of my project that I just had
      no interest in making, wheel hubs, for example, so I chose to buy those
      off the shelf. The problem is that I often get the feeling from the EAA
      organization that my project is lessened by it not being a kit, or by me
      making my own strobes or marker lights. If I'm building out of pride,
      and you look down your nose at me for building...well, that's just a
      punch in the gut, and I don't really care to be around you. You can't
      go around punching your members and expect them to keep coming back.
      
      Ernest Christley
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      Keith Hallsten wrote:
      > This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
      >
      > Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.  It
      > may be of interest to
      > EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
      > ============================
      >   
      I open my big mouth to much.
      
      -- 
      "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in 
      a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 
      thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in 
      the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      --Unknown
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
      
      
      (sigh)
      
      As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied upon 
      for accurate dissemination of news.
      
      I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA.  It compares 
      the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007.  While the 
      report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from 
      membership dues (same rate for both years @ $40).  There was a $143,667 
      increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006.  Based on that, it seems membership 
      increased.  For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the 
      membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2 
      million.
      
      As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport 
      Aviation magazine in the August issue.  Even if he is leaving, there is no 
      way to know if he was fired.  I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA 
      database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.
      
      It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their own 
      ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that
      we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this 
      email for that matter.
      
      James Redmon
      Berkut #013  N97TX
      http://www.berkut13.com
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:52 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      > This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
      >
      > Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/. 
      > It
      > may be of interest to
      > EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
      > ============================
      >
      > Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
      > Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
      > renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
      > soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
      > argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
      > this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
      >
      > The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
      (snip)
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 22, 2007
From: 
"Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      Golly gosh, everything printed on the internet isn't always true? I'm
      shocked, truly shocked. Maybe Elvis really is dead.
      
      Rick
      
      On 8/22/07, berkut13(at)berkut13.com  wrote:
      >
      >
      > (sigh)
      >
      > As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied
      > upon
      > for accurate dissemination of news.
      >
      > I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA.  It
      > compares
      > the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007.  While
      > the
      > report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from
      > membership dues (same rate for both years @ $40).  There was a $143,667
      > increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006.  Based on that, it seems membership
      > increased.  For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the
      > membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2
      > million.
      >
      > As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport
      > Aviation magazine in the August issue.  Even if he is leaving, there is no
      > way to know if he was fired.  I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA
      > database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.
      >
      > It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their
      > own
      > ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that
      > we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this
      > email for that matter.
      >
      > James Redmon
      > Berkut #013  N97TX
      > http://www.berkut13.com
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:52 PM
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      >
      > > This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
      > >
      > > Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.
      > > It
      > > may be of interest to
      > > EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
      > > ============================
      > >
      > > Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
      > > Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
      > > renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
      > > soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
      > > argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
      > > this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
      > >
      > > The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
      > (snip)
      >
      >
      
      
      -- 
      Rick Girard
      "Ya'll drop on in"
      takes on a whole new meaning
      when you live at the airport.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Shower of Sparks
      
      
      
      >Bob:
      >
      >
      >In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick 
      >Start.  On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is 
      >only for use with  Slick magnetos, not Bendix units.  Do you think there s 
      >a technical reason, or that s just certification/lawyer talk?
      >
      >
      >Thanks,
      
         Shower of Sparks or "SOS" enhancement to magneto performance
         still stands out in my mind as one of those extra-ordinary
         examples of clever design from the CSP era (copper, steel
         phenolic). Contemporary designers can select from millions
         of commercial off the shelf parts and in particular, little
         chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
         "simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
         super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
      
         In the time when Shower of Sparks was crafted, the catalog
         of materials available to our creative ancestors was limited
         to a relatively few, rudimentary components. Yet, by understanding
         the simple-ideas for the materials at hand and the task to
         be accomplished, devices like . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/ALTREG2.jpg
      
         were produced with out-the-door performance on a par with
         the later . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
      
         or most modern incarnations like . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Alternator_Regulators.jpg
      
         Shower of sparks was conceived as a melding of magneto
         and Kettering ignition systems for battery enhancement
         of spark energy during low speed operations (cranking).
         The enhancement had two important features . . . a
         battery excited, electromechanical "buzzer" that would
         supply the magneto primary with a rapidly repeating
         pulse of energy from the battery and a second set of
         delayed-timing, cranking-points temporarily switched
         in parallel with the advanced-timing, running-points.
         See:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
      
         I've not been made privy to the simple-ideas that support
         functionality of the Slick Start. My present
         understanding of the product suggests that it does not
         require a second set of points. From this I infer
         the device is fitted with some intelligence that
         delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by some
         amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common
         to the earlier system.
      
         Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can
         deduce no reason why the product (or one exceedingly
         similar to it) wouldn't function with any brand
         of magneto. But without the support of the designers
         or a cognizant technician, we'll not have enough
         information to craft a definitive answer to your
         question. Perhaps someone on the List has a lead
         on the details of this systems design and operation.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Shower of Sparks
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
      
      
      8/23/2007
      
      Hello Tim, Will you permit a non Bob to answer?
      
      Unison originaly built the SlickSTART P/N SS1001 for only Slick magnetos. In 
      1998 they added SlickSTART P/N SS1002 for use with TCM/Bendix magnetos.
      
      So which version of the SlickSTART Magneto Start Booster (solid state 
      ignition starting vibrator) you use will depend upon which brand of magnetos 
      you use.
      
      The Unison Service Letter L-1492 (Revision D is current) contains a caution 
      that says using P/N SS1001 with Bendix/TCM magnetos may result in magneto 
      damage and engine stoppage.
      
      There are some fairly recent postings in the aeroelectric archives that may 
      be of value or interest to someone considering SlickSTART. I suggest that 
      you search for SoS Vibrator Recommendations, or Slick Start. You can also 
      pick out the pertinent items if you search for bakerocb.
      
      Please let me know if you have any further questions.
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      PS: It would be more precise if we used the generic term "starting vibrator" 
      when writing in general about this subject and reserve "Shower of Sparks" 
      for referring specifically to the TCM/Bendix mechanical vibrator and 
      "SlickSTART" for referring specifically to the Unison solid state starting 
      vibrator.
      
      ---------------- RESPONDING TO ----------------------------------------
      
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
      From: <tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero>
      
      Bob:
      
      In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
      Start.  On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
      only for use with  Slick magnetos, not Bendix units.  Do you think
      there's a technical reason, or that's just certification/lawyer talk?
      
      
      Thanks,
      
      
      Tim Dawson-Townsend
      
      tdt(at)aurora.aero
      
      617-500-4812 (office)
      
      617-905-4800 (mobile)
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
<gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a 
      few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I 
      thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this 
      year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P. 
      I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and 
      short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe 
      Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they 
      where too technical. They also asked me to write articles. 
      Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.
      
      They do need contributors, you and me, to write articles. To 
      be fair, putting out a magazine to a bunch of eccentric hard-
      core crazies like us, who actually build planes we fly, can't 
      satisfy everyone. (Note: this tongue in-cheek sarcasm.) 
      Seriously EAA has a lot of folks with wide interest. 
         
        The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if 
      that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary 
      guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article 
      every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The 
      wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA 
      should be more than just the magazine.
      
      
      As far as membership, the magazine is the main benefit 
      people see. I can see some dropping because they don't 
      read the magazine. However ALL print media is having 
      problems, INTERNET and FREE VAST CONTENT.
      
      -Internet has long out paced the detailed content of any 
      monthly general EAA magazine could ever hope to match by 
      a huge factor. 
      
      -Gas prices are high and people getting out flying
      
      
      The EAA does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on behalf of 
      the experimental aircraft community. You really don't think 
      AOPA will push for kit planes, when they lobby 
      and represent certified manufactures, corporate and non-
      scheduled commercial operators. Sure there's common 
      ground, but AOPA is not really orientated to our niche of GA. 
      EAA is all we have. They do a lot and they don't blow their 
      horn like AOPA. Not an AOPA put down, AOPA has its place 
      and we need more power on Capital hill for sure. Bad 
      magazine or not I'll stay a EAA member.
      
      I have 20 years of EAA articles ripped from issues over the 
      years, lots of good stuff. They should print monthly 
      electrical, structure and general build/maintenance articles, 
      not one or five every year, total. Again they need continent, but 
      the Tony B. days are long gone. I suspect they don't want to 
      pay for content. From their Tax return the Mag cost them a lot.
      
      As far as the editor firing, an expert pilot or plane builder 
      might know planes but not make a great editor either. Sure 
      the editor should have a clue. It's like many businesses 
      where a good technical guy gets promoted to 
      management, a line Captain becomes Chief 
      pilot, once competent technical guys, now are mediocre 
      managers and bureaucrats. Much a do about nothing.
         
        George RV-7
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
"Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: 
E-Mag P-Mag
      
      Hello Bob,
      
      I hope you enjoyed your trip to Alaska as much as we enjoyed having you here.
      
      Have you had any time to review the recent postings concerning the E-Mag P-Mag
      wiring issues?
      
      The folks at Emagair have indicated their willingness to talk with you. 
      
      Blue Skies,
      
      Mike Ice
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
      > The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
      > that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
      > guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
      > every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
      > wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
      > should be more than just the magazine.
      >
      I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up.  I did 
      claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up.  My 
      facts may be very much in error.  Time will tell.
      
      I am a rotary guy.  The one article they publish concerning alternative 
      engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and 
      broad-based silliness.  They search out one commercial entity that has 
      done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players 
      that may actually have a larger impact.  That's what makes that crowd 
      unhappy.  Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on 
      electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise 
      about having to get replacement components from the original batch used 
      to manufacture a device.  We are unhappy that the magazine that is 
      supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of nonsense.
      
      You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see."  Everyone I've 
      ever talked to agrees on this.  Wouldn't it follow that the directors of 
      the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit 
      was actually a benefit?  If they need articles, why do they not request 
      them, right there in the magazine?  How about a few lines of text to 
      refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to 
      submit an article?  If they're doing something behind the scenes, then 
      use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of 
      printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is 
      to big for any of the planes we're building.  (Do any of us really care 
      that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?)  I can't believe 
      the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves 
      me with only one explanation.   They don't care.  In the same way that 
      TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit 
      for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
      
      Well, that's fine.  They don't have to care about my sensibilities.  If 
      they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then 
      they need to tell me about it.  Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten 
      wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home.  The EAA is not a 
      monopoly and never will be "all we have".  It's just what we've settled for.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
"Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      Ernest, These things happen and I am sympathetic. I, too, have little use
      for "Martha Stewart Flying". I always complain each time I re-up that
      although the form as many reasons for "Why are you joining/renewing?", not
      one of them is "I am building an airplane".
      On the other hand, My EAA membership has paid for itself many times over
      whether I am renting a car from Hertz or the $1000 of discounts I've gotten
      from the various schools I've attended over the last year.
      Every once and a while, they do print an informative article. They are few
      and far between, but it does happen.
      As far as their coverage of alternative engines, I'll paraphrase William
      Randolph Hearst, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one" as
      "the accuracy of any article in any publication belongs to the man who wrote
      it."
      Write that article and I, for one, will be happy to read it.
      
      Rick
      
      On 8/23/07, Ernest Christley  wrote:
      >
      > echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
      >
      > gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
      > > The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
      > > that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
      > > guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
      > > every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
      > > wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
      > > should be more than just the magazine.
      > >
      > I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up.  I did
      > claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up.  My
      > facts may be very much in error.  Time will tell.
      >
      > I am a rotary guy.  The one article they publish concerning alternative
      > engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and
      > broad-based silliness.  They search out one commercial entity that has
      > done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players
      > that may actually have a larger impact.  That's what makes that crowd
      > unhappy.  Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on
      > electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise
      > about having to get replacement components from the original batch used
      > to manufacture a device.  We are unhappy that the magazine that is
      > supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of
      > nonsense.
      >
      > You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see."  Everyone I've
      > ever talked to agrees on this.  Wouldn't it follow that the directors of
      > the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit
      > was actually a benefit?  If they need articles, why do they not request
      > them, right there in the magazine?  How about a few lines of text to
      > refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to
      > submit an article?  If they're doing something behind the scenes, then
      > use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of
      > printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is
      > to big for any of the planes we're building.  (Do any of us really care
      > that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?)  I can't believe
      > the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves
      > me with only one explanation.   They don't care.  In the same way that
      > TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit
      > for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
      >
      > Well, that's fine.  They don't have to care about my sensibilities.  If
      > they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then
      > they need to tell me about it.  Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten
      > wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home.  The EAA is not a
      > monopoly and never will be "all we have".  It's just what we've settled
      > for.
      >
      >
      
      
      -- 
      Rick Girard
      "Ya'll drop on in"
      takes on a whole new meaning
      when you live at the airport.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 
Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
      
      Bob,
      
      
      In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a =BC wave Comm 
      antenna
      with 4-10 1=94 copper strips as the ground plane.  You also briefly 
      describe a
      center =93commoning disk=94.
      
      
      Question:
      
      How big can/should the center communing disk be?
      
      What happens if the center disk is ~11=94 radius (~1/2 the size of the
      strips)?
      
      Does this tend to mess-up the resonant length/properties of the strips?
      
      
      If said antenna is being placed on the belly of a composite aircraft 
      with
      various metal items in direct proximity overhead (flap motor, aux fuel 
      pump,
      flap mechanism, avionics bay, etc), is there anything that should be 
      done to
      help =93shield=94 the antenna (and/or ground plane strips) from the 
      effects of
      the metal items overhead?
      
      
      Rick
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas
      
      
      
      >Bob,
      >
      >
      >In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a  wave Comm antenna 
      >with 4-10 1 copper strips as the ground plane.  You also briefly describe 
      >a center commoning disk .
      >
      >
      >Question:
      >
      >How big can/should the center communing disk be?
      
         What ever is convenient. A commoning disk with a
         radius equal to height of antenna, then you have
         a contiguous, "ideal" ground plane. If you make
         it too small, it serves no purpose as a doubler.
         Someplace between ideal and too small, it provides
         a convenient point to tie off the radials -AND-
         possibly a reinforcing effect of skin around
         the antenna.
      
      
      >What happens if the center disk is ~11 radius (~1/2 the size of the strips)?
      
         No problem.
      
      >Does this tend to mess-up the resonant length/properties of the strips?
      
         The tips of ground plane radial strips are
         measured from base of antenna to tip of radial.
         The larger the commoning disk, the shorter
         the radial. Think of it as starting with an
         ideal disk and then cutting away as much
         material as practical to provide an effective
         ground plane, effective doubler and minimum
         weight.  Something on the order of 6" in diameter
         and 4-10 radials is a reasonable compromise.
      
      
      >If said antenna is being placed on the belly of a composite aircraft with 
      >various metal items in direct proximity overhead (flap motor, aux fuel 
      >pump, flap mechanism, avionics bay, etc), is there anything that should be 
      >done to help shield the antenna (and/or ground plane strips) from the 
      >effects of the metal items overhead?
      
          No. The proximate effect of a ground plane is
          to attenuate (shield) the antenna from conductor/
          noise effects on the opposite side.
      
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: 
Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
Date: 
Aug 23, 2007
      
      
      The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm curious
      as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      
      "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks or
      months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic capacitors
      used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a strobe that
      has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      failure"
      
      I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
      and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to "exercise"
      this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      
      Thanks,
      Mike Creek 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      In the radio tube era (when Lycoming engines were designed ;-) this was true
      for equipment that was shelved for many years, but with modern parts this is
      not true anymore. Elco's are indeed getting worse when left without power
      for extended periodes of time, but not in the 'weeks or months' timeframe.
      
      All electronic equipment has electrolytic capacitors in them, and if this
      was the general timespan for elco's then you'd also have to replace your ELT
      transmitter every so many weeks or months. They have elco's too, and I hope
      for your sake you do not have to run them every six months...
      
      I think the article has been inspired by an over-active marketing department
      who would like to see you replace perfectly good parts. Can you imagine
      their revenue increase if their 'rule' would be mandatory? Every owner who
      doesn't fly their plane for 6 months (winter or so) replacing all
      electronics with elco's in them? I'm gonna buy me some stock...
      
      Rob
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:52 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      
      
      > 
      >
      >
      > The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm curious
      > as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      >
      > "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks 
      > or
      > months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic 
      > capacitors
      > used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a strobe 
      > that
      > has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      > failure"
      >
      > I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
      > and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to 
      > "exercise"
      > this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Mike Creek
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      I doubt it.  The message is greatly exaggerated.  Electrolytic capacitors 
      will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a shelf for a long 
      time, but that is many years in my experience.  They rely upon being 
      connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an oxide layer can form 
      on the aluminium foil from which they are constructed. It provides the 
      necesary dielectric layer. However, a capacitor which has lost that layer 
      can be re-formed by connecting them up andprogressively increasing the 
      voltage to the rated working voltage.
      
      If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to carry an 
      "instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period between 
      manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
      
      Bill
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      
      
      > 
      >
      >
      > The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm curious
      > as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      >
      > "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks 
      > or
      > months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic 
      > capacitors
      > used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a strobe 
      > that
      > has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      > failure"
      >
      > I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
      > and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to 
      > "exercise"
      > this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Mike Creek
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Shower of Sparks
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      8/24/2007
      
      Hello Bob,
      
      1) You wrote: "Perhaps someone on the List has a lead on the details of this 
      systems design and operation."
      
      Looking at the patent for the Unison SlickSTART Magneto Start Booster may 
      provide some helpful information. See this link:
      
      http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5630384.PN.&OS=PN/5630384&RS=PN/5630384
      
      If that doesn't work just Google "US Patent 5630384" (thanks to Eric).
      
      2) You wrote: "My present understanding of the product suggests that it does 
      not require a second set of points. From this I infer the device is fitted 
      with some intelligence that delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by 
      some amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common to the earlier 
      system."
      
      You are correct that the solid state SlickSTART unit does not require a 
      second set of points, but it does not incorporate any internal delayed 
      timing.
      
      To explain: To take best advantage of the SlickSTART's longer duration and 
      higher peak voltage sparking over that provided by just an impulse coupled 
      magneto a magneto with a set of retard breaker points is required. However, 
      if the SlickSTART unit is used with an impulse coupled magneto with a single 
      set of points there will still be an increase in both peak output voltage 
      and sparks per sequence over that which would be provided by the impulse 
      coupling acting alone.
      
      A copy of Unison's SlickSTART brochure and its claims can be found at this 
      link:
      
      http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/Slickstartflyer_1493.pdf
      
      3) You wrote: "Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can deduce no 
      reason why the product (or one exceedingly similar to it) wouldn't function 
      with any brand of magneto."
      
      I can't offer any technical reason, but can only repeat what I posted 
      earlier on this specific point:
      
       "The Unison Service Letter L-1492 (Revision D is current) contains a 
      caution
      that says using P/N SS1001 with Bendix/TCM magnetos may result in magneto
      damage and engine stoppage."
      
      Unison does provide SlickSTART P/N SS1002 for use with the TCM/Bendix 
      magnetos.
      
      Some general comments:
      
      A) I have been operating my amateur built experimental aircraft equipped 
      with a TCM IO-240 B9B engine and a SlickSTART P/N SS1001 magneto start 
      booster for over 185 hours.
      
      B) The left magneto is a Slick P/N 4310 with a set of retard breaker points. 
      The SlickSTART booster is connected to this magneto. The right magneto is a 
      Slick P/N 4309 direct drive with no impulse coupling or retard breaker 
      points.
      
      C) The engine is cranked with the right magneto grounded out during 
      cranking.
      
      D) I had difficulty in obtaining enough information on the functioning of 
      the SlickSTART unit from Unison to make my initial wiring installation. This 
      was because all of their installation information was based on the 
      assumption that one was removing a TCM/Bendix "Shower of Sparks" unit and 
      replacing it with the SlickSTART unit. It was difficult to reverse engineer 
      their instructions into a "start from scratch" situation. After a false 
      start response from the Unison marketing department, and follow up detailed 
      correspondence with their tech support people, I was able to make the 
      installation.
      
      E) I am very satisfied with the performance of my SlickSTART unit and would 
      highly recommend it to anyone using conventional magnetos instead of 
      electronic ignition in their Lycoming or TCM engine.
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      ------------------  RESPONDING 
      TO ----------------------------------------------
      
      From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
      
      
      
      >Bob:
      >
      >
      >In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
      >Start.  On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
      >only for use with  Slick magnetos, not Bendix units.  Do you think there s
      >a technical reason, or that s just certification/lawyer talk?
      >
      >
      >Thanks,
      
         Shower of Sparks or "SOS" enhancement to magneto performance
         still stands out in my mind as one of those extra-ordinary
         examples of clever design from the CSP era (copper, steel
         phenolic). Contemporary designers can select from millions
         of commercial off the shelf parts and in particular, little
         chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
         "simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
         super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
      
         In the time when Shower of Sparks was crafted, the catalog
         of materials available to our creative ancestors was limited
         to a relatively few, rudimentary components. Yet, by understanding
         the simple-ideas for the materials at hand and the task to
         be accomplished, devices like . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/ALTREG2.jpg
      
         were produced with out-the-door performance on a par with
         the later . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
      
         or most modern incarnations like . . .
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Alternator_Regulators.jpg
      
         Shower of sparks was conceived as a melding of magneto
         and Kettering ignition systems for battery enhancement
         of spark energy during low speed operations (cranking).
         The enhancement had two important features . . . a
         battery excited, electromechanical "buzzer" that would
         supply the magneto primary with a rapidly repeating
         pulse of energy from the battery and a second set of
         delayed-timing, cranking-points temporarily switched
         in parallel with the advanced-timing, running-points.
         See:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
      
         I've not been made privy to the simple-ideas that support
         functionality of the Slick Start. My present
         understanding of the product suggests that it does not
         require a second set of points. From this I infer
         the device is fitted with some intelligence that
         delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by some
         amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common
         to the earlier system.
      
         Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can
         deduce no reason why the product (or one exceedingly
         similar to it) wouldn't function with any brand
         of magneto. But without the support of the designers
         or a cognizant technician, we'll not have enough
         information to craft a definitive answer to your
         question. Perhaps someone on the List has a lead
         on the details of this systems design and operation.
      
         Bob . . . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor
      life
      
      
      Yes absolutely but...
      Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I 
      personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC 
      aeroflash did recommend that.  However I'm sensitive to the issue 
      because I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in 
      as little as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used 
      photocopier. Previous to that was a DVD player.  One of my favorite  
      troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent 
      series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob 
      Parker for well under a $100.
      Ken
      
      Bill Maxwell wrote:
      
      > 
      >
      > I doubt it.  The message is greatly exaggerated.  Electrolytic 
      > capacitors will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a 
      > shelf for a long time, but that is many years in my experience.  They 
      > rely upon being connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an 
      > oxide layer can form on the aluminium foil from which they are 
      > constructed. It provides the necesary dielectric layer. However, a 
      > capacitor which has lost that layer can be re-formed by connecting 
      > them up andprogressively increasing the voltage to the rated working 
      > voltage.
      >
      > If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to 
      > carry an "instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period 
      > between manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
      >
      > Bill
      > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Creek" 
      > 
      > To: 
      > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      >
      >
      >> 
      >>
      >>
      >> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm 
      >> curious
      >> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      >>
      >> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - 
      >> weeks or
      >> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic 
      >> capacitors
      >> used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a 
      >> strobe that
      >> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      >> failure"
      >>
      >> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six 
      >> months ago
      >> and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to 
      >> "exercise"
      >> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      >>
      >> Thanks,
      >> Mike Creek
      >>
      >>
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance   Article
      
      
      
      >
      >
      >
      >The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm curious
      >as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      >
      >"A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks or
      >months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic capacitors
      >used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a strobe that
      >has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      >failure"
      >
      >I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
      >and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to "exercise"
      >this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      
         There have been some excellent responses to this
         so I'll offer only the following:
      
         Articles like this are a disservice to the community
         because they are non-quantified. I.e., no data followed
         with logical deductions which lead to repeatable experiments
         (recipes for success). This topic has been raised many
         times over the years on the various aviation forums. On
         one occasion in years past, I scrounged around in my
         junk box for a high voltage electrolytic capacitor that I
         KNEW had not been powered up for decades.
      
         I connected it to a supply equal to it's rated voltage
         (450 volts if I recall correctly). On initial power up,
         the capacitor did what every capacitor does . . . draw
         whatever current the source will deliver until equilibrium
         is achieved. After several seconds, the capacitor's
         "draw" was measured in a hand-full of milliamps and
         after a minute, charging was essentially complete
         and "leakage" was under 1 mA. After ten minutes,
         leakage dropped to about 100 microamps.
      
         I then did a measurement of apparent capacity. The
         device was within 10% of rated value. I left the
         capacitor connected to the power supply for several
         days and measured apparent capacity again. It's
         increase was so tiny as to make measurement
         problematic.
      
         Bottom line: In days of yore when capacitor
         technology and fabrication techniques were in a
         relative state of infancy, the devices were indeed
         subject to deleterious effects of long term,
         dormant storage.
      
         But "modern" capacitors (meaning those built in
         the last 20 or so years) have exhibited great strides
         in operating performance and service life. Here's
         an exemplar article on the topic:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Long_Term_Stability_Aluminum_Electrolytics.pdf
      
         This article addresses an expected elevation of
         leakage currents in the first few minutes of a long
         term storage but that, "no damage to the capacitor
         is to be expected".
      
         This article is consistent with my own experience
         and in particular, with an experiment conducted on
         the bench. If anyone has data from an experiment arguing
         with the foregoing deductions, it would be interesting
         and useful for us to examine it for new understanding.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor
      life
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      This could be a different issue altogether. A couple years ago an Asian 
      manufacturer was caught when they stole a new formula for elco's. They 
      happened to steal a flawed version, which caused millions of bad elco's to 
      be produced. They ended up in a lot of PC motherboards and other consumer 
      goods and they all failed after six months to a year or so . See: 
      http://www.geek.com/capacitor-failures-plague-motherboard-vendors/
      
      I thought by now those should have all been weeded out, apparently not. 
      These failures however are not the same as ageing failures.
      
      Rob
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 3:16 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance 
      Article-capacitor life
      
      
      >
      > Yes absolutely but...
      > Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I 
      > personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC 
      > aeroflash did recommend that.  However I'm sensitive to the issue because 
      > I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in as little 
      > as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used photocopier. 
      > Previous to that was a DVD player.  One of my favorite  troubleshooting 
      > tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent series resistance) 
      > tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob Parker for well under 
      > a $100.
      > Ken
      >
      > Bill Maxwell wrote:
      >
      >> 
      >>
      >> I doubt it.  The message is greatly exaggerated.  Electrolytic capacitors 
      >> will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a shelf for a 
      >> long time, but that is many years in my experience.  They rely upon being 
      >> connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an oxide layer can 
      >> form on the aluminium foil from which they are constructed. It provides 
      >> the necesary dielectric layer. However, a capacitor which has lost that 
      >> layer can be re-formed by connecting them up andprogressively increasing 
      >> the voltage to the rated working voltage.
      >>
      >> If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to carry 
      >> an "instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period between 
      >> manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
      >>
      >> Bill
      >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Creek" 
      >> 
      >> To: 
      >> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
      >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      >>
      >>
      >>> 
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights.  I'm 
      >>> curious
      >>> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
      >>>
      >>> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks 
      >>> or
      >>> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic 
      >>> capacitors
      >>> used in the device will loose polarity formation.  As a rule, a strobe 
      >>> that
      >>> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
      >>> failure"
      >>>
      >>> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months 
      >>> ago
      >>> and have since been waiting for final installation.  Do I need to 
      >>> "exercise"
      >>> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
      >>>
      >>> Thanks,
      >>> Mike Creek
      >>>
      >>>
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance   Article-capacitor
      life
      
      
      
      >
      >Yes absolutely but...
      >Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I 
      >personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC 
      >aeroflash did recommend that.  However I'm sensitive to the issue because 
      >I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in as little 
      >as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used photocopier. 
      >Previous to that was a DVD player.  One of my favorite
      >troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent 
      >series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob 
      >Parker for well under a $100.
      >Ken
      
         . . . but was dormant, long term storage the proximate cause
         of failure? I've replaced a ton of capacitors in my career
         but I can recall no situation where I might have attributed
         the part's demise to long term inactivity followed by an
         indiscriminate power up.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance   Article
      
      
      Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
      >
      >   This article is consistent with my own experience
      >   and in particular, with an experiment conducted on
      >   the bench. If anyone has data from an experiment arguing
      >   with the foregoing deductions, it would be interesting
      >   and useful for us to examine it for new understanding.
      >
      >  
      
      The electrolytics I have had to replace have been cheap ones in consumer 
      products that experience continuous elevated temperatures.  Computer 
      motherboards and stereo equipment stored in closed cabinets, for the 
      most part.  This is consistent with the article Bob presented.  Cheap 
      caps could be expected to possibly include more defect producing 
      contaminants, and the article makes note that high heat tends to be 
      detrimental.
      
      -A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control 
      temperature.  Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article 
      suggest for weeks now here in NC.  If it were buried in a wing stored in 
      the rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could 
      that be the nexus of the problem?
      
      -If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about that one.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Radio problem!
From: 
"Travis" <travishamblen(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      I have an XCom radio in my RV-7A and I am having some problems transmitting.  I
      seem to receive just fine.  When I push the PTT button on the pilot control stick
      I get a static in my headset.  If I push the PTT button on the passenger
      control stick I get the same static (in the pilot headset) with the same intensity.
      When I switch headsets to my backup headset I don't hear the static when
      I push the PTT.  HOWEVER, the problem is much worse in flight (possibly due
      to a louder environment); on the ground with the engine shut down the static is
      minimal.  I have not tried the backup headset in flight.  I will fly tonight
      with the other headset to see if this eliminates the problem, but I don't think
      it will.  Since it only happens when transmitting I am starting to think there
      is a problem with the PTT wiring??  Any ideas to start me out?  I will report
      back with the results of using a different headset.  Could this be a gain
      adjustment needed (I can adjust the gain)?
      
      Travis
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130771#130771
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation 
      
      If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,  
      which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to  fly
      
      IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at the  
      newstand. 
      
      Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",  
      lots of really good content, often from  names familiar to us, like  Stein.
      
      EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all  right on the cover..."The  Magazine of 
      Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience  than just a
      
      few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed  into.
      
      OK, got that off my shoulders...
      
      Jerry Cochran
      
      In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
      aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
      
      From:  <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at  EAA Sport Aviation
      
      I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation  magazine, a 
      few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year.  Actually I 
      thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this  
      year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P. 
      I was  upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and 
      short on facts;  I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe 
      Foundation Org group and their  articles. I was told they 
      where too technical. They also asked me to write  articles. 
      Clearly month to month they are desperate to get  content.
      
      
      
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Radio problem!
From: 
"Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
      
      
      If you speak into the mic while transmitting, do you hear your voice (from
      the sidetone) through the headphones?  Are other stations able to hear
      your transmission?  With good quality?  In addition to adjusting the gain,
      you might be able to adjust the sidetone volume if everything else appears
      to be working properly.
      
      
      Regards,
      
      Matt-
      
      > 
      >
      > I have an XCom radio in my RV-7A and I am having some problems
      > transmitting.  I seem to receive just fine.  When I push the PTT button on
      > the pilot control stick I get a static in my headset.  If I push the PTT
      > button on the passenger control stick I get the same static (in the pilot
      > headset) with the same intensity.  When I switch headsets to my backup
      > headset I don't hear the static when I push the PTT.  HOWEVER, the problem
      > is much worse in flight (possibly due to a louder environment); on the
      > ground with the engine shut down the static is minimal.  I have not tried
      > the backup headset in flight.  I will fly tonight with the other headset
      > to see if this eliminates the problem, but I don't think it will.  Since
      > it only happens when transmitting I am starting to think there is a
      > problem with the PTT wiring??  Any ideas to start me out?  I will report
      > back with the results of using a different headset.  Could this be a gain
      > adjustment needed (I can adjust the gain)?
      >
      > Travis
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130771#130771
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
"Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      Let's be fair now and not forget the great t-shirts and bomber jackets they
      sell for your ride in the B-17. And all of the US taxpayer supplied jet fuel
      for the endless F-15 flybys while we are trying to hear the forum speakers
      attending the forums at OSH. I heard a rumor the CEO has flies an EAA
      sponsored P-51 for promotion, I hope that is just a rumor (can anyone shed
      light on this?)
      
      On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the
      OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There seems
      to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies to
      severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still find
      the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on by
      really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue to
      support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate professional
      management thinking that has crept in there.
      
      
      On 8/24/07, Jerry2DT(at)aol.com  wrote:
      >
      >  If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,
      > which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to
      > fly IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at
      > the newstand.
      >
      > Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",
      > lots of really good content, often from  names familiar to us, like Stein.
      >
      > EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all  right on the cover..."The Magazine of
      > Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience than just
      > a few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed into.
      >
      > OK, got that off my shoulders...
      >
      > Jerry Cochran
      >
      > In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
      > aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
      >
      > From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      > I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a
      > few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I
      > thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this
      > year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P.
      > I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and
      > short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe
      > Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they
      > where too technical. They also asked me to write articles.
      > Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.
      >
      > 
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------
      > .
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      
      
      >On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the 
      >OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There 
      >seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies 
      >to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still 
      >find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on 
      >by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue 
      >to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate 
      >professional management thinking that has crept in there.
      
          Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no
          longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,
          in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace
          OSH?  I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA
          but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended
          many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction
          of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to
          a few days at OSH.
      
          EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of
          like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the organization
          has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest
          the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of those who
          make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance     Article
      
      
      
      >
      
         
      
      >-A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control 
      >temperature.  Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article suggest 
      >for weeks now here in NC.  If it were buried in a wing stored in the 
      >rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could that be 
      >the nexus of the problem?
      >
      >-If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about that one.
      
         Which speaks to the value of conducting tests per DO-160.
         One cannot attract many customers in the type certificated
         aircraft world without jumping these hoops. Further, given
         the exceedingly small fraction of the world represented by
         aviation circles, it's impossible to keep the astute mechanics
         from knowing about poorly crafted products or less than
         helpful customer support. Stack these notions with the
         idea that really good capacitors are not that much more
         expensive than mediocre devices. Given the blood, sweat and
         tears sacrificed to the altars of regulation, it's
         unlikely that a company like Grimes or Whelen is going
         to compound their grief-to-market by cutting corners in
         the selection of components.
      
         Bob . . . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      As to you Bob, astute observation as well!  If it wasn't for OSH I don't
      think I would be doing much with the EAA.  I will always support the EAA
      for their interests into homebuilt aviation but the future for us
      homebuilder's looks to be about Money.  I agree OSH is a great value for
      everyone in aviation.  It is a much better value then Sun & Fun for
      example.  I'm 44 and have 3 experimental airplanes (credit to the EAA of
      days gone bye).  But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA
      (with a lot of improvement needed).  The last big thing I can remember
      the EAA doing that was important to real EAAers was the auto fuel STC.  
      
      
      Mike
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      Robert L. Nuckolls, III
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:09 AM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      
      
      
      >On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing
      the 
      >OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There 
      >seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace
      companies 
      >to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I
      still 
      >find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put
      on 
      >by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we
      continue 
      >to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate 
      >professional management thinking that has crept in there.
      
          Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no
          longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,
          in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace
          OSH?  I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA
          but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended
          many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction
          of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to
          a few days at OSH.
      
          EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of
          like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the
      organization
          has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest
          the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of
      those who
          make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      I'm in the process of rewiring the connectors on a used King KX125 nav/com 
      and am puzzled by a couple of pins that were previously wired.
      
      Connector P501 pins H and J are labeled (according to pinout I got from the 
      aeroelectric website):
      
          (H) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE IN and (J) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE OUT
      
      These were previously jumpered together with a wire leading off from the 
      pair..
      
      Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what these pins 
      are used for and a guess as to where  they could have been connected to (in 
      it's previous life)??
      
      Thanks,
      
      Dave 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
From: 
Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance   Article-capacitor
       life
      
      
      Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
      > 
      > 
      > 
      >>
      >> Yes absolutely but...
      >> Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I 
      >> personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. 
      >> IIRC aeroflash did recommend that.  However I'm sensitive to the issue 
      >> because I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics 
      >> in as little as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little 
      >> used photocopier. Previous to that was a DVD player.  One of my favorite
      >> troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent 
      >> series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from 
      >> Bob Parker for well under a $100.
      >> Ken
      > 
      >   . . . but was dormant, long term storage the proximate cause
      >   of failure? I've replaced a ton of capacitors in my career
      >   but I can recall no situation where I might have attributed
      >   the part's demise to long term inactivity followed by an
      >   indiscriminate power up.
      > 
      >   Bob . . .
      I rather doubt that this is relevant with today's technology, but back 
      in the '70's the Crown DC-300 was a very popular pro-grade audio power 
      amplifier with very large (for the time) electrolytic capacitors used 
      for brute-force DC supply filtering. If an amp wasn't powered up for 
      many months (unfortunately, no specific  count), it was not unusual for 
      it to take out its protective fuses upon power-up. It would continue to 
      do so until the big filter caps were either replaced or 'conditioned' by 
      plugging the amp's power cord into a variac and bringing up the voltage 
      slowly over many hours. Supposedly, this had the effect of reforming the 
      capacitors so that the bridge rectifier was no longer looking at a dead 
      short.
      
      I might consider this an old hangar tale if I hadn't experienced it myself.
      
      Your tidbit of the day...
      
      Charlie
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
Subject: 
Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
From: 
Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
      
      
      At 14:54 8/24/2007, you wrote:
      >Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what 
      >these pins are used for and a guess as to where  they could have 
      >been connected to (in it's previous life)??
      
      External RMI perhaps?
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Kenneth Melvin" <Melvinke(at)coho.net>
Subject: 
KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      The wiring diagram for the KX125 shows these connections drive an external
      indicator such as KI208, KI209.
      Kenneth Melvin
      N669TJ
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 24, 2007
      
      
      Those pins are used to drive certin CDIs, RMIs or HSIs that accept a
      single composite line.  Older unites require the older style of direct
      analog signaling.  With the composite signal you can send the
      information over one wire instead of the 6-10 from the analog style.
      Both sides have to be able to interpret a composite signal.  Hope this
      helps!
      
      Mike
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      & Elaine Lamphere
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:55 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
      
      
      
      I'm in the process of rewiring the connectors on a used King KX125
      nav/com 
      and am puzzled by a couple of pins that were previously wired.
      
      Connector P501 pins H and J are labeled (according to pinout I got from
      the 
      aeroelectric website):
      
          (H) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE IN and (J) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE OUT
      
      These were previously jumpered together with a wire leading off from the
      
      pair..
      
      Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what these
      pins 
      are used for and a guess as to where  they could have been connected to
      (in 
      it's previous life)??
      
      Thanks,
      
      Dave 
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      
      Thanks to all that responded. Due to another persons kindness, I obtained an 
      installation manual for the KX125. You guys are correct in that the vor/loc 
      composite signal pins are used for driving an indicator. What isn't clear or 
      mentioned in the manual, is whether these two pins need to be jumpered (even 
      if you are not using an external indicator).. if there is an output AND 
      input involved, then does the unit need this jumper for it to function 
      properly?
      
      I would guess that it won't hurt to put this jumper in anyway.. :-)
      
      Dave
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:51 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
      
      
      >
      > Those pins are used to drive certin CDIs, RMIs or HSIs that accept a
      > single composite line.  Older unites require the older style of direct
      > analog signaling.  With the composite signal you can send the
      > information over one wire instead of the 6-10 from the analog style.
      > Both sides have to be able to interpret a composite signal.  Hope this
      > helps!
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      > & Elaine Lamphere
      > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:55 PM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
      >
      > 
      >
      > I'm in the process of rewiring the connectors on a used King KX125
      > nav/com
      > and am puzzled by a couple of pins that were previously wired.
      >
      > Connector P501 pins H and J are labeled (according to pinout I got from
      > the
      > aeroelectric website):
      >
      >    (H) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE IN and (J) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE OUT
      >
      > These were previously jumpered together with a wire leading off from the
      >
      > pair..
      >
      > Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what these
      > pins
      > are used for and a guess as to where  they could have been connected to
      > (in
      > it's previous life)??
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Dave
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
From: 
<gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      >From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> 
      >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation 
      >
      >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA. 
      >
      >Mike
      
      Not sure where you are going, but I did a 
      little study of AOPA and EAA and what they 
      actually do for experimental amateur built 
      and flown planes.
      
      Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and 
      represents manufactures and small non-
      scheduled commercial operators, as well as 
      individual private operators (allegedly). 
         
        EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby 
      but they do a lot of legal work clarifying 
      the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you 
      that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because 
      the engine is from a certified aircraft, you 
      will appreciate what they do.
         
        Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with 
      manufactures of certified aircraft and the 
      aviation business, the needs of experimental 
      aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA 
      is all we have and they are best suited to 
      protect our niche of the aviation world. 
      
      There are common goals and interest between 
      AOPA and EAA, who do work together some 
      times, but not always.
      
        In California, LA area an airport banned 
      experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las 
      Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's 
      from a huge block of air space. Behind the  
      scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the 
      AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn. 
      They like to take a quite approach and not 
      embarrass the FAA. They where successful 
      in both cases.
         
        EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic 
      went around the RV-list. The main complaint 
      I had in the past was the magazine was 
      dummied down and they dropped the Caf 
      Foundation org reports. I was told they 
      where too technical for most. They have done 
      better in the last year or so, but if you 
      want technical info, go to the internet, 
      which has replaced most topical print media. 
      "Contact" magazine is more technical for the 
      real experimenter and tinkerer.
         
        EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If 
      you have an idea for an article write it, they need 
      content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed 
      more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
         
      
      EAA does many things to protect experimental 
      plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting 
      made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and 
      FAA inspectors.
         
        If you have a question about AD compliance, 
      required equip or TSO'ed requirements for 
      experimental aircraft, they have brief on it 
      for members.
      
        The EAA tax records are public record. Not 
      surprising on about $30 mil revenue, 
      expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus 
      non-profit. Not a surprise.
         
        Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about 
      1/2  million in total compensation a year as 
      CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO 
      salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
         
        Airventure does bring in lots of money but 
      also cost a lot of money to put on. 
        The magazine is a huge expense on the budget. 
      I guess all the color pictures? 
        Dues are the big revenue stream.
      
        The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his 
      dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There 
      was some blow-up I recall about his P-51 
      time being paid for by the EAA. That was 
      resolved and I recall Paul retired soon 
      thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and 
      makes about $80k or $160k a year? 
         
        EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board 
      of directors are all volunteers. They spend a 
      lot on office space and professional services.
         
        My EAA membership is based on more than the 
      magazine and Airventure. They do have good 
      programs like young eagles, and the local 
      chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active 
      in building and flying experimental aircraft the 
      EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal 
      a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly 
      better than the FAA. There are some old bones 
      in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
         
      
      Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect 
      our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we 
      make with our own hands. Forces constantly are 
      trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA 
      is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
      
      
      To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on 
      capital hill that is representing our "special interest". 
      Of course we can always write our DC politicians 
      directly. May be we should start a quasi political 
      group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners. 
      That would be a good sized voter block. The 
      economy of the kit plane business and all the support 
      and part companies is substantial.
         
         
        Cheers George EAA member since 1985
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Deene Ogden " <deene(at)austin.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      The jumper is required (and I know as I just spend several weeks debugging a
      KX125 installation in which the internal VOR indicator would not work).  I
      had to talk to the factory tech guy to get this info as the installation
      schematic shows the jumper as part of a connection to an external indicator
      but DOES NOT have a note indicating that the jumper is required for the
      operation of the internal VOR indicator.
      
      
      Deene Ogden
      
      EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
From: 
"Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      Thanks very much for the clarification.
      
      On 8/25/07, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com  wrote:
      >
      > >From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      > >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      > >
      > >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
      > >
      > >Mike
      >
      > Not sure where you are going, but I did a
      > little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
      > actually do for experimental amateur built
      > and flown planes.
      >
      > Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
      > represents manufactures and small non-
      > scheduled commercial operators, as well as
      > individual private operators (allegedly).
      >
      > EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
      > but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
      > the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
      > that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
      > the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
      > will appreciate what they do.
      >
      > Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
      > manufactures of certified aircraft and the
      > aviation business, the needs of experimental
      > aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
      > is all we have and they are best suited to
      > protect our niche of the aviation world.
      >
      > There are common goals and interest between
      > AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
      > times, but not always.
      > In California, LA area an airport banned
      > experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
      > Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
      > from a huge block of air space. Behind the
      > scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
      > AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
      > They like to take a quite approach and not
      > embarrass the FAA. They where successful
      > in both cases.
      >
      > EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
      > went around the RV-list. The main complaint
      > I had in the past was the magazine was
      > dummied down and they dropped the Caf=E9
      > Foundation org reports. I was told they
      > where too technical for most. They have done
      > better in the last year or so, but if you
      > want technical info, go to the internet,
      > which has replaced most topical print media.
      > "Contact" magazine is more technical for the
      > real experimenter and tinkerer.
      >
      > EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
      > you have an idea for an article write it, they need
      > content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
      > more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
      >
      >
      > EAA does many things to protect experimental
      > plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting
      > made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
      > FAA inspectors.
      >
      > If you have a question about AD compliance,
      > required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
      > experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
      > for members.
      > The EAA tax records are public record. Not
      > surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
      > expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
      > non-profit. Not a surprise.
      >
      > Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
      > 1/2  million in total compensation a year as
      > CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
      > salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
      >
      > Airventure does bring in lots of money but
      > also cost a lot of money to put on.
      > The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
      > I guess all the color pictures?
      > Dues are the big revenue stream.
      > The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
      > dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
      > was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
      > time being paid for by the EAA. That was
      > resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
      > thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
      > makes about $80k or $160k a year?
      >
      > EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
      > of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
      > lot on office space and professional services.
      >
      > My EAA membership is based on more than the
      > magazine and Airventure. They do have good
      > programs like young eagles, and the local
      > chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
      > in building and flying experimental aircraft the
      > EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
      > a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
      > better than the FAA. There are some old bones
      > in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
      >
      >
      > Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
      > our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
      > make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
      > trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
      > is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
      >
      >
      > To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
      > capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
      > Of course we can always write our DC politicians
      > directly. May be we should start a quasi political
      > group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
      > That would be a good sized voter block. The
      > economy of the kit plane business and all the support
      > and part companies is substantial.
      >
      >
      > Cheers George EAA member since 1985
      >
      > *
      >
      ===========
      ===========
      ===========
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      Whoops!  Make that thank you Deene
      
      ... eyes must be going!
      
      Dave
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      AHAH!!!  Thanks Duane!
      
      without an external indicator, there aren't too many connections 
      required.
      
      Dave
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Deene Ogden 
        To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:07 AM
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
      
      
        The jumper is required (and I know as I just spend several weeks 
      debugging a KX125 installation in which the internal VOR indicator would 
      not work).  I had to talk to the factory tech guy to get this info as 
      the installation schematic shows the jumper as part of a connection to 
      an external indicator but DOES NOT have a note indicating that the 
      jumper is required for the operation of the internal VOR indicator.
      
         
      
        Deene Ogden
      
        EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
      
         
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Blind Encoder Power Connection to Garmin GTX-327 Transponder
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      
      Anyone have a blind altitude encoder (like an AK-350) that is getting it's 
      power from pin 14 (switched power output) on a Garmin GTX327 transponder?
      
      I notice that the schematic for the Garmin says that pin is good for 1.5A 
      max. The encoder document says it draws .60 amp for 1 min during warm-up.
      
      This seems to me to be OK, but what puzzles me is that the page in the 
      encoder that lists connections for the 320/327 has pin 15 (main power for 
      the 327) listed for power.
      
      What have you guys used for powering up the blind encoder??
      
      Thanks,
      
      Dave 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Blind Encoder Power Connection to Garmin GTX-327
      Transponder
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      
      Dave,
      
      You can do it either way!  Pin 14 is switched out limited to 1.5 amps
      which is well below the use of the encoder.  If you use an avionics
      master you can go to pin 15 which is power into the transponder or you
      could go directly to a circuit breaker.
      
      Mike
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      & Elaine Lamphere
      Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:12 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blind Encoder Power Connection to Garmin
      GTX-327 Transponder
      
      
      
      Anyone have a blind altitude encoder (like an AK-350) that is getting
      it's 
      power from pin 14 (switched power output) on a Garmin GTX327
      transponder?
      
      I notice that the schematic for the Garmin says that pin is good for
      1.5A 
      max. The encoder document says it draws .60 amp for 1 min during
      warm-up.
      
      This seems to me to be OK, but what puzzles me is that the page in the 
      encoder that lists connections for the 320/327 has pin 15 (main power
      for 
      the 327) listed for power.
      
      What have you guys used for powering up the blind encoder??
      
      Thanks,
      
      Dave 
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Radio problem!
From: 
"Travis" <travishamblen(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      
      PROBLEM SOLVED!!! The BNC connector at the antenna was gounding out.  I made a
      whole new cable for good measure, and all the problems are long gone!!!  Thanks
      for all the advice....
      
      Travis
      
      
      mprather(at)spro.net wrote:
      > If you speak into the mic while transmitting, do you hear your voice (from
      > the sidetone) through the headphones?  Are other stations able to hear
      > your transmission?  With good quality?  In addition to adjusting the gain,
      > you might be able to adjust the sidetone volume if everything else appears
      > to be working properly.
      > 
      > 
      > Regards,
      > 
      > Matt-
      > 
      > 
      > >  
      > >  
      > > 
      > >  I have an XCom radio in my RV-7A and I am having some problems
      > >  transmitting.  I seem to receive just fine.  When I push the PTT button on
      > >  the pilot control stick I get a static in my headset.  If I push the PTT
      > >  button on the passenger control stick I get the same static (in the pilot
      > >  headset) with the same intensity.  When I switch headsets to my backup
      > >  headset I don't hear the static when I push the PTT.  HOWEVER, the problem
      > >  is much worse in flight (possibly due to a louder environment); on the
      > >  ground with the engine shut down the static is minimal.  I have not tried
      > >  the backup headset in flight.  I will fly tonight with the other headset
      > >  to see if this eliminates the problem, but I don't think it will.  Since
      > >  it only happens when transmitting I am starting to think there is a
      > >  problem with the PTT wiring??  Any ideas to start me out?  I will report
      > >  back with the results of using a different headset.  Could this be a gain
      > >  adjustment needed (I can adjust the gain)?
      > > 
      > >  Travis
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > >  Read this topic online here:
      > > 
      > >  http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130771#130771
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > 
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131000#131000
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Subject: 
Re: Blind Encoder Power Connection
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
      
      
      Thanks Mike.
      
      I'll go with pin 14 as it will be easier just to put that wire (from 
      encoder-xpndr cable) on a pin and insert it into the transponder socket. 
      Otherwize, it would be harder to do (either putting more than one wire in a 
      transponder pin or running a wire back from the connector bundle).
      
      Just wanted to be sure I was interpreting the information correctly..
      
      Dave
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 4:41 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blind Encoder Power Connection to Garmin 
      GTX-327 Transponder
      
      
      >
      > Dave,
      >
      > You can do it either way!  Pin 14 is switched out limited to 1.5 amps
      > which is well below the use of the encoder.  If you use an avionics
      > master you can go to pin 15 which is power into the transponder or you
      > could go directly to a circuit breaker.
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
      > & Elaine Lamphere
      > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:12 PM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blind Encoder Power Connection to Garmin
      > GTX-327 Transponder
      >
      > 
      >
      > Anyone have a blind altitude encoder (like an AK-350) that is getting
      > it's
      > power from pin 14 (switched power output) on a Garmin GTX327
      > transponder?
      >
      > I notice that the schematic for the Garmin says that pin is good for
      > 1.5A
      > max. The encoder document says it draws .60 amp for 1 min during
      > warm-up.
      >
      > This seems to me to be OK, but what puzzles me is that the page in the
      > encoder that lists connections for the 320/327 has pin 15 (main power
      > for
      > the 327) listed for power.
      >
      > What have you guys used for powering up the blind encoder??
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Dave
      >
      >
      > 7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      >
      >
      > 7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 25, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Blind Encoder Power Connection to   Garmin GTX-327
      Transponder
From: 
Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
      
      
      At 13:12 8/25/2007, you wrote:
      >Anyone have a blind altitude encoder (like an AK-350) that is 
      >getting it's power from pin 14 (switched power output) on a Garmin 
      >GTX327 transponder?
      
      Yes
      
      >I notice that the schematic for the Garmin says that pin is good for 
      >1.5A max. The encoder document says it draws .60 amp for 1 min during warm-up.
      
      OK, no problem there.  0.6A is far less than 1.5A
      
      >This seems to me to be OK, but what puzzles me is that the page in 
      >the encoder that lists connections for the 320/327 has pin 15 (main 
      >power for the 327) listed for power.
      
      Yes, that is the supply to the 327, and anything else powered from 
      pin 14 as well.
      Your encoder document shows connections to/from the 327?
      Either pin could be used, but should you need/want encoder output 
      (perhaps for a GPS/LORAN) while the transponder was off, pin 14 would 
      not be a good choice for encoder power.
      
      >What have you guys used for powering up the blind encoder??
      >
      >Thanks,
      >
      >Dave
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Radio problem
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
      
      
      Travis,
      You said:
      "
      PROBLEM SOLVED!!! The BNC connector at the antenna was gounding out.  I made
      a whole new cable for good measure, and all the problems are long gone!!!
      Thanks
      for all the advice....   Travis"
      
      	After about 40 years on an Amateur Radio committee to solve
      transmission problems, I've concluded that about 90% of the faults lie
      inside the coaxial connector somewhere in the antenna system. They are the
      	The reason is - coax connector fitting is a science AND an art. Many
      folk think they have only to jamb things together and the electrons find the
      way. Not so.
      Cheers, Ferg
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
      
      
      8/26/2007
      
      Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't 
      lobby.....skip......"
      
      I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied 
      below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does not 
      prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with 
      such organizations -- I used to work for one.
      
      There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real lobbying". 
      Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned 
      cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      --------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
      
      From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      >From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
      >
      >Mike
      
      Not sure where you are going, but I did a
      little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
      actually do for experimental amateur built
      and flown planes.
      
      Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
      represents manufactures and small non-
      scheduled commercial operators, as well as
      individual private operators (allegedly).
      
        EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
      but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
      the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
      that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
      the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
      will appreciate what they do.
      
        Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
      manufactures of certified aircraft and the
      aviation business, the needs of experimental
      aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
      is all we have and they are best suited to
      protect our niche of the aviation world.
      
      There are common goals and interest between
      AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
      times, but not always.
      
        In California, LA area an airport banned
      experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
      Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
      from a huge block of air space. Behind the
      scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
      AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
      They like to take a quite approach and not
      embarrass the FAA. They where successful
      in both cases.
      
        EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
      went around the RV-list. The main complaint
      I had in the past was the magazine was
      dummied down and they dropped the Caf
      Foundation org reports. I was told they
      where too technical for most. They have done
      better in the last year or so, but if you
      want technical info, go to the internet,
      which has replaced most topical print media.
      "Contact" magazine is more technical for the
      real experimenter and tinkerer.
      
        EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
      you have an idea for an article write it, they need
      content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
      more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
      
      
      EAA does many things to protect experimental
      plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting
      made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
      FAA inspectors.
      
        If you have a question about AD compliance,
      required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
      experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
      for members.
      
        The EAA tax records are public record. Not
      surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
      expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
      non-profit. Not a surprise.
      
        Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
      1/2  million in total compensation a year as
      CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
      salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
      
        Airventure does bring in lots of money but
      also cost a lot of money to put on.
        The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
      I guess all the color pictures?
        Dues are the big revenue stream.
      
        The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
      dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
      was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
      time being paid for by the EAA. That was
      resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
      thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
      makes about $80k or $160k a year?
      
        EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
      of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
      lot on office space and professional services.
      
        My EAA membership is based on more than the
      magazine and Airventure. They do have good
      programs like young eagles, and the local
      chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
      in building and flying experimental aircraft the
      EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
      a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
      better than the FAA. There are some old bones
      in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
      
      
      Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
      our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
      make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
      trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
      is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
      
      
      To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
      capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
      Of course we can always write our DC politicians
      directly. May be we should start a quasi political
      group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
      That would be a good sized voter block. The
      economy of the kit plane business and all the support
      and part companies is substantial.
      
      
        Cheers George EAA member since 1985 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
      
      
      Yes, yes.  It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and
      educating the Legislator's about the issues.  Actually, it would be
      educating the Legislator's staff.  Congressmen don't know
      anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff.  The only
      other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to
      sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion.  Fortunately, they are always
      positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.
      
      Chuck Jensen
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      bakerocb(at)cox.net
      Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:49 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      
      8/26/2007
      
      Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't 
      lobby.....skip......"
      
      I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied 
      below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does
      not 
      prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with
      
      such organizations -- I used to work for one.
      
      There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real
      lobbying". 
      Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned
      
      cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
      
      'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 
      understand knowledge."
      
      --------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
      
      From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      >From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
      >
      >Mike
      
      Not sure where you are going, but I did a
      little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
      actually do for experimental amateur built
      and flown planes.
      
      Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
      represents manufactures and small non-
      scheduled commercial operators, as well as
      individual private operators (allegedly).
      
        EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
      but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
      the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
      that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
      the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
      will appreciate what they do.
      
        Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
      manufactures of certified aircraft and the
      aviation business, the needs of experimental
      aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
      is all we have and they are best suited to
      protect our niche of the aviation world.
      
      There are common goals and interest between
      AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
      times, but not always.
      
        In California, LA area an airport banned
      experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
      Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
      from a huge block of air space. Behind the
      scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
      AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
      They like to take a quite approach and not
      embarrass the FAA. They where successful
      in both cases.
      
        EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
      went around the RV-list. The main complaint
      I had in the past was the magazine was
      dummied down and they dropped the Caf
      Foundation org reports. I was told they
      where too technical for most. They have done
      better in the last year or so, but if you
      want technical info, go to the internet,
      which has replaced most topical print media.
      "Contact" magazine is more technical for the
      real experimenter and tinkerer.
      
        EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
      you have an idea for an article write it, they need
      content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
      more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
      
      
      EAA does many things to protect experimental
      plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting
      made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
      FAA inspectors.
      
        If you have a question about AD compliance,
      required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
      experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
      for members.
      
        The EAA tax records are public record. Not
      surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
      expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
      non-profit. Not a surprise.
      
        Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
      1/2  million in total compensation a year as
      CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
      salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
      
        Airventure does bring in lots of money but
      also cost a lot of money to put on.
        The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
      I guess all the color pictures?
        Dues are the big revenue stream.
      
        The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
      dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
      was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
      time being paid for by the EAA. That was
      resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
      thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
      makes about $80k or $160k a year?
      
        EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
      of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
      lot on office space and professional services.
      
        My EAA membership is based on more than the
      magazine and Airventure. They do have good
      programs like young eagles, and the local
      chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
      in building and flying experimental aircraft the
      EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
      a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
      better than the FAA. There are some old bones
      in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
      
      
      Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
      our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
      make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
      trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
      is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
      
      
      To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
      capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
      Of course we can always write our DC politicians
      directly. May be we should start a quasi political
      group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
      That would be a good sized voter block. The
      economy of the kit plane business and all the support
      and part companies is substantial.
      
      
        Cheers George EAA member since 1985 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      
      Chuck, You forget the politician's use of his/her nose to pack the rectal
      cavity of campaign contributors and lobbyists. :-)
      
      Rick
      
      On 8/26/07, Chuck Jensen  wrote:
      >
      > cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
      >
      > Yes, yes.  It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and
      > educating the Legislator's about the issues.  Actually, it would be
      > educating the Legislator's staff.  Congressmen don't know
      > anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff.  The only
      > other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to
      > sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion.  Fortunately, they are always
      > positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.
      >
      > Chuck Jensen
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      > bakerocb(at)cox.net
      > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:49 AM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      >
      > 8/26/2007
      >
      > Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't
      > lobby.....skip......"
      >
      > I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied
      > below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does
      > not
      > prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with
      >
      > such organizations -- I used to work for one.
      >
      > There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real
      > lobbying".
      > Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned
      >
      > cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
      >
      > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
      > understand knowledge."
      >
      > --------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
      >
      > From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      >
      > >From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
      > >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
      > >
      > >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
      > >
      > >Mike
      >
      > Not sure where you are going, but I did a
      > little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
      > actually do for experimental amateur built
      > and flown planes.
      >
      > Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
      > represents manufactures and small non-
      > scheduled commercial operators, as well as
      > individual private operators (allegedly).
      >
      >   EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
      > but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
      > the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
      > that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
      > the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
      > will appreciate what they do.
      >
      >   Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
      > manufactures of certified aircraft and the
      > aviation business, the needs of experimental
      > aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
      > is all we have and they are best suited to
      > protect our niche of the aviation world.
      >
      > There are common goals and interest between
      > AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
      > times, but not always.
      >
      >   In California, LA area an airport banned
      > experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
      > Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
      > from a huge block of air space. Behind the
      > scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
      > AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
      > They like to take a quite approach and not
      > embarrass the FAA. They where successful
      > in both cases.
      >
      >   EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
      > went around the RV-list. The main complaint
      > I had in the past was the magazine was
      > dummied down and they dropped the Caf
      > Foundation org reports. I was told they
      > where too technical for most. They have done
      > better in the last year or so, but if you
      > want technical info, go to the internet,
      > which has replaced most topical print media.
      > "Contact" magazine is more technical for the
      > real experimenter and tinkerer.
      >
      >   EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
      > you have an idea for an article write it, they need
      > content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
      > more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
      >
      >
      > EAA does many things to protect experimental
      > plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting
      > made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
      > FAA inspectors.
      >
      >   If you have a question about AD compliance,
      > required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
      > experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
      > for members.
      >
      >   The EAA tax records are public record. Not
      > surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
      > expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
      > non-profit. Not a surprise.
      >
      >   Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
      > 1/2  million in total compensation a year as
      > CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
      > salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
      >
      >   Airventure does bring in lots of money but
      > also cost a lot of money to put on.
      >   The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
      > I guess all the color pictures?
      >   Dues are the big revenue stream.
      >
      >   The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
      > dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
      > was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
      > time being paid for by the EAA. That was
      > resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
      > thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
      > makes about $80k or $160k a year?
      >
      >   EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
      > of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
      > lot on office space and professional services.
      >
      >   My EAA membership is based on more than the
      > magazine and Airventure. They do have good
      > programs like young eagles, and the local
      > chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
      > in building and flying experimental aircraft the
      > EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
      > a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
      > better than the FAA. There are some old bones
      > in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
      >
      >
      > Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
      > our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
      > make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
      > trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
      > is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
      >
      >
      > To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
      > capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
      > Of course we can always write our DC politicians
      > directly. May be we should start a quasi political
      > group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
      > That would be a good sized voter block. The
      > economy of the kit plane business and all the support
      > and part companies is substantial.
      >
      >
      >   Cheers George EAA member since 1985
      >
      >
      
      
      -- 
      Rick Girard
      "Ya'll drop on in"
      takes on a whole new meaning
      when you live at the airport.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
How to check and alternator??
      
      I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear Voltage
      Regulator.  Lycoming 160hp 
         
        I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine running.
         
        I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such as the
      nav lights or strobe lights.  Then it goes to the negative about 1/16 of an
      inch on a +40/-40 amp guage.  This remains the same even at high throttle settings.
       No change at low or high power settings.
         
        I have a shunt.  I checked all the wiring an it is correct from Bingelis' book
      so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
         
        What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane?  Can't really take
      it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts.  They might wonder what the big fan
      is for.
         
        Thanks!!
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs -   08/23/07
      
      
      
      >Hey, I can't find any info about shortening the leads on the EGT and CHT. 
      >Is it ok and do I have to keep them all the same length? Thanks in 
      >advance.  Jack
      
         Modern thermocouple measurement systems have high-impedance instrument
         inputs and are immune to variability in thermocouple length. The
         self powered instruments of WWII era used (1) either fixed length 
      thermocouples
         of a specific type of wire or included a compensating resistor in the system
         for calibrating an instrument to a thermocouple.
      
         You may adjust the length of the leads as you see fit as long as you
         observe the "splicing rules" outlined in
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
      
         When you "reply" to a digest posting it would be a good idea
         to cut away all the text that is not pertinent to your
         topic.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: How to check and alternator??
      
      
      
      >I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear 
      >Voltage Regulator.  Lycoming 160hp
      >
      >I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine running.
      >
      >I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such 
      >as the nav lights or strobe lights.  Then it goes to the negative about 
      >1/16 of an inch on a +40/-40 amp guage.  This remains the same even at 
      >high throttle settings.   No change at low or high power settings.
      >
      >I have a shunt.  I checked all the wiring an it is correct from Bingelis' 
      >book so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
      >
      >What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane?  Can't really 
      >take it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts.  They might wonder what the 
      >big fan is for.
      
         Sounds like your alterantor is working. You can't have a bus votlage
         greater than about 12.8 if the alternator is not picking up ship's loads.
         Where is your ammeter in the system? If you have a -0+ reading ammeter,
         then it suggests a battery ammeter which is almost useless as a 
      diagnostic tool.
      
         Suggest that you convert the ammeter to a +only alternator load
         meter. Then you'll see the alternator functioning as expected . . .
         picking up loads as they are added to the system.
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/25/07
      
      Why did you say that Oshkosh was a much better value than Sun n Fun?  Not
      argueing, just wondering...
      
      Lee...
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs -   08/25/07
      
      
      
      >Why did you say that Oshkosh was a much better value than Sun n Fun?  Not 
      >argueing, just wondering...
      >
      >Lee...
      
      
         I can drive to OSH in one day. I have principals who subsidize
         my attendance. The volume of networking contacts and depth of
         access to new technologies is better. I sell 30-40 books at OSH.
      
         It takes two days to drive to Florida for 1/10th the exposure and
         access. I think I sold 5 books the first and only time I was there.
         The return on investment for $time$ spent at OSH is, for me at least,
         the hands-down winner.
      
         Bob . . . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
"John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      
      Just an additional comment.. In the Whelan strobe installation manual it
      cautions you not to apply full voltage to a power supply that has not been
      charged for a long time,  such as on initial installation.   If I remember
      correctly it says to start by applying half power initially.  I am on the
      road so cannot look it up until the end of the month, maybe someone else can
      confirm my recollection.
      
      On 8/24/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III  wrote:
      >
      > nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >    
      >
      > >-A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control
      > >temperature.  Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article
      > suggest
      > >for weeks now here in NC.  If it were buried in a wing stored in the
      > >rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could that be
      > >the nexus of the problem?
      > >
      > >-If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about that
      > one.
      >
      >    Which speaks to the value of conducting tests per DO-160.
      >    One cannot attract many customers in the type certificated
      >    aircraft world without jumping these hoops. Further, given
      >    the exceedingly small fraction of the world represented by
      >    aviation circles, it's impossible to keep the astute mechanics
      >    from knowing about poorly crafted products or less than
      >    helpful customer support. Stack these notions with the
      >    idea that really good capacitors are not that much more
      >    expensive than mediocre devices. Given the blood, sweat and
      >    tears sacrificed to the altars of regulation, it's
      >    unlikely that a company like Grimes or Whelen is going
      >    to compound their grief-to-market by cutting corners in
      >    the selection of components.
      >
      >    Bob . . .
      >
      >
      
      
      -- 
      John McMahon
      Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
      
      
      Just looked at the manual, and it does indeed hold a warning for older units 
      only. Below is a quote from the manual.
      
      Rob
      ==
      WARNING: Strobe light power supplies are meant to be used, not to
      remain in an inactive state. Use them at all times, this will improve their
      proper functioning. Any strobe light power supply that has been out of
      service for a long period of time is subject to failure because the 
      electrolytic
      condenser loses the polarity formation. A strobe light power
      supply not having been used for one year or longer is vulnerable to
      failure, applies to 1993 & older units.
      
      If this is the case, it is recommended to start operating the system on
      a voltage that is reduced by 25 percent for 10 to 15 minutes before putting
      the power supply into normal service. This will prevent overheating
      of the condenser while they reform. If the power supply, after a long
      period of non use, is operated at full voltage immediately, there is an
      excellent possibility that the condenser will become overheated.
      ==
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: John McMahon
      Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:06 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
      
      
      Just an additional comment.. In the Whelan strobe installation manual it 
      cautions you not to apply full voltage to a power supply that has not been 
      charged for a long time,  such as on initial installation.   If I remember 
      correctly it says to start by applying half power initially.  I am on the 
      road so cannot look it up until the end of the month, maybe someone else can 
      confirm my recollection.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
      
      I called Wheelen when I had a "new in the box"  twenty year old power  
      supply.
      I was told three volts for an hour, then six, nine, twelve. Each for  
      one hour. That was three years ago, still works fine.
      Kevin Boddicker
      Tri Q 200 N7868B 63.5  hours
      Luana, IA.
      
      
      On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:06 AM, John McMahon wrote:
      
      > Just an additional comment.. In the Whelan strobe installation  
      > manual it cautions you not to apply full voltage to a power supply  
      > that has not been charged for a long time,  such as on initial  
      > installation.   If I remember correctly it says to start by  
      > applying half power initially.  I am on the road so cannot look it  
      > up until the end of the month, maybe someone else can confirm my  
      > recollection.
      >
      > On 8/24/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III  wrote:
      > 
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >    
      >
      > >-A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control
      > >temperature.  Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article  
      > suggest
      > >for weeks now here in NC.  If it were buried in a wing stored in the
      > >rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could  
      > that be
      > >the nexus of the problem?
      > >
      > >-If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about  
      > that one.
      >
      >    Which speaks to the value of conducting tests per DO-160.
      >    One cannot attract many customers in the type certificated
      >    aircraft world without jumping these hoops. Further, given
      >    the exceedingly small fraction of the world represented by
      >    aviation circles, it's impossible to keep the astute mechanics
      >    from knowing about poorly crafted products or less than
      >    helpful customer support. Stack these notions with the
      >    idea that really good capacitors are not that much more
      >    expensive than mediocre devices. Given the blood, sweat and
      >    tears sacrificed to the altars of regulation, it's
      >    unlikely that a company like Grimes or Whelen is going
      >    to compound their grief-to-market by cutting corners in
      > Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
How to check and alternator??
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      It depends on where your ammeter is connected as to what info it is
      giving you. The best way to know if your alternator is working
      adequately (i.e is making more current than is consumed by the
      electrical devices in your airplane) is to watch the voltmeter.
      
      I.e if you turn everything on and it maintains above say 13.5V it
      working just fine.
      
      If it drops below 12.5V then it is either malfunctioning or is
      undersized for the application.
      
      Sounds to me like your unit is working just fine.
      
      Frank
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
      Reeves
      Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:51 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to check and alternator??
      
      
      I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear
      Voltage Regulator.  Lycoming 160hp 
      
      I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine
      running.
      
      I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such
      as the nav lights or strobe lights.  Then it goes to the negative about
      1/16 of an inch on a +40/-40 amp guage.  This remains the same even at
      high throttle settings.   No change at low or high power settings.
      
      I have a shunt.  I checked all the wiring an it is correct from
      Bingelis' book so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
      
      What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane?  Can't
      really take it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts.  They might wonder
      what the big fan is for.
      
      Thanks!!
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
frequent flyer <jdhcv(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Sorry
      
      Bob et. all,
      
      I was looking through the digest from yesterday and wondered what idiot didn't
      delete the messages before posting. Almost missed the reply Bob gave to my message
      and then realized from Bob's remark that I was the idiot.
      
      Sorry, and thanks for the info Bob,
      
      Jack
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and
      lay it on us.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Mixing and matching strobe supplies and flash tube
      heads
      
      
      >
      >Comments/Questions: Bill Vondane of CreatiVair has a new low profile 
      >streamlined Strobe/LED position light, the answer to my prayers. Bill says 
      >my already installed Grimes Powerpack ex '79 Grumman Cougar is too 
      >powerful for his strobe tubes and he wants to sell me a police style 
      >powerpak as "a matched umit". Also he will not give warranty on his 
      >strobes if used with Grimes.
      >
      >Is he right, or just trying to sell me stuff I do not need?  Specs. of his 
      >powerpack ans strobe unit are on the Creativair Website.
      >
      >I have studied your book on the subject, but am still unsure.
      
         Flash tubes are rather inefficient and will get pretty hot
         when operated within ratings. It's entirely possible that
         one of super, eye-ball frying strobe systems would deliver too
         much energy per flash. Without doing bench testing or analyzing
         his choice of parts for flash-tubes, I'd be hard pressed to
         offer any better information.
      
              Bob . . .
      
              ----------------------------------------
              ( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
              ( anything, what ever you do must be   )
              ( exercised EVERY day . . .            )
              (                  R. L. Nuckolls III  )
              ----------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance   Article
      
      
      
      >I called Wheelen when I had a "new in the box"  twenty year old power supply.
      >I was told three volts for an hour, then six, nine, twelve. Each for one 
      >hour. That was three years ago, still works fine.
      >Kevin Boddicker
      >Tri Q 200 N7868B 63.5  hours
      >Luana, IA.
      >
      >
      >On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:06 AM, John McMahon wrote:
      >
      >>Just an additional comment.. In the Whelan strobe installation manual it 
      >>cautions you not to apply full voltage to a power supply that has not 
      >>been charged for a long time,  such as on initial installation.   If I 
      >>remember correctly it says to start by applying half power initially.  I 
      >>am on the road so cannot look it up until the end of the month, maybe 
      >>someone else can confirm my recollection.
      
           It never hurts to do a 'reforming' exercise on a strobe
           supply that has been in storage for a long period of time.
           What is not known . . . and will never be known without some
           judicious data gathering and analysis is whether or not
           the device really benefits from this exercise. It's doubtful
           that any of the big dogs in the strobe business will come
           forward with real data . . . it's pretty hard to find capacitors
           that have been in storage for 20+ years.
      
           The 'reforming' routine has been a standard fixture in
           the installation manuals for 40 years. Some folks still
           recommend avionics master switches for radios. But when asked
           to supports the validity of the exercise with simple-ideas
           and repeatable-experiments, the standard response is "that's
           the way we've always done it."
      
           If anyone is worried about it, by all means do the extended
           spool-up exercise.
      
           Bob . . .
      
              ----------------------------------------
              ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may   )
              ( give some practical results, but     )
              ( that's not why we do it."            )
              (                                      )
              (                 Richard P. Feynman   )
              ----------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 27, 2007
From: 
Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: How to check and alternator??
      
      Thanks for messages.  
         
        Here's the answer to your questions.
         
        I have a Chief Aircraft +/- 40 ammeter with a 40amp shunt.
         
        I think my alternator is 35 amps but can't remember - I'll have to look that
      up.  I am running Nav lights, strobe lights, wig wag lights, and a full Garmin
      stack so I'm thinking I may need to upgrade my alternator.  Will have to add
      that up before first flight to see the load.
         
        The ammeter has a positive and negative terminal on the back.  The positive is
      connected to to the small screw on the shunt which also has a large screw on
      the same side which is wired directly to the main power bus which also splits
      to a wire between the master and starter relay.    The negative side on the back
      of the ammeter is connected to the opposite small screw on the shunt which
      also has a large screw which is wired through a 60amp circuit breaker to the
      main power bus.
         
        Kinda hard to explain without a picture.   I followed the Bingeles book when
      I wired it up a few years back so maybe I messed something up.
         
        I do know that the volt meter reads barely under 14 volts with the engine running.
         
        Thanks for the help!!!!
         
        Matt
         
        P.S.  My brother Danny has an RV-7A completely built in the basement of his house
      in Harrisburg, PA.  His MIL lives in the garage.   We got an estimate of
      $7000 to have someone dig a hole, cut the blocks out and put it all back together.
      We are hoping for some suggestions as to how to get it out.  (The airplane
      - not the Mother-In-Law)
      
      "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"  wrote:
      
      
      >I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear 
      >Voltage Regulator. Lycoming 160hp
      >
      >I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine running.
      >
      >I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such 
      >as the nav lights or strobe lights. Then it goes to the negative about 
      >1/16 of an inch on a +40/-40 amp guage. This remains the same even at 
      >high throttle settings. No change at low or high power settings.
      >
      >I have a shunt. I checked all the wiring an it is correct from Bingelis' 
      >book so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
      >
      >What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane? Can't really 
      >take it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts. They might wonder what the 
      >big fan is for.
      
      Sounds like your alterantor is working. You can't have a bus votlage
      greater than about 12.8 if the alternator is not picking up ship's loads.
      Where is your ammeter in the system? If you have a -0+ reading ammeter,
      then it suggests a battery ammeter which is almost useless as a 
      diagnostic tool.
      
      Suggest that you convert the ammeter to a +only alternator load
      meter. Then you'll see the alternator functioning as expected . . .
      picking up loads as they are added to the system.
      
      Bob . . .
      
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
      tool.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
      
      
      I am in the process of installing a simple TBI system to the Jabiru 3300.
      Just two injectors in a spigot type throttle body which takes the place of
      the Bing, it works from a MAP sensor and air temp sensor, the ECU is
      triggered from the flywheel magnets. We are using a regular automotive ECU
      which is a giant overkill and very expensive.
      
      We can trim the mixture using a pot if required.
      
      My question is has anyone seen a simple programmable unit that could be
      programmed with a pot, a switch and a digital dial. The programming would be
      done by select injector time and enter as required. We would keep the manual
      over ride. 
      
      What would be the elements of such a simple ECU ?  Any idea where I could
      get some help would be appreciated.
      
      Thanks
      
      Peter H  
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
      
      
      Peter
      
      Google "megasquirt efi" for an under $200. system and lots of related info.
      Not recommended for aviation of course but I run one as a manually 
      selectable backup to my main subaru efi.
      I have mine configured with the inputs that you describe and it is fine 
      for my purposes. For everyday use it would benefit from connecting a TPS 
      (throttle position sensor) acceleration enrichment, or one could run the 
      code that enriches based on delta MAP.  A water temp (cylinder or oil 
      temp for you) sensor would also be handy for starting and warmup but I 
      don't use mine for startup. There are some schemes for doing this with 
      analog electronics but the megasquirt is definately the way to do it 
      nowadays and about as simple as I could find. I have a manual mixture 
      tweaking knob but it is not needed (especially if one has an engine emp 
      sensor) and if it isn't there - it can't fail.  I use an old 486 laptop 
      for programming.
      
      If you are only going to have a primary controller I'd suggest googling 
      SDS EFI. That would most likely require re-arranging your flywheel 
      pickups but it would have "established" reliability.  I think there are 
      thousands of megaquirt units in use but each is somewhat different and 
      subject to unique failures. Megasquirt has very little capability of 
      keeping the engine running after a sensor or wire failure compared to 
      oem or even the SDS system.
      
      Ken
      
      Peter Harris wrote:
      
      >  
      >
      > I am in the process of installing a simple TBI system to the Jabiru 
      > 3300. Just two injectors in a spigot type throttle body which takes 
      > the place of the Bing, it works from a MAP sensor and air temp sensor, 
      > the ECU is triggered from the flywheel magnets. We are using a regular 
      > automotive ECU which is a giant overkill and very expensive.
      >
      > We can trim the mixture using a pot if required.
      >
      > My question is has anyone seen a simple programmable unit that could 
      > be programmed with a pot, a switch and a digital dial. The programming 
      > would be done by select injector time and enter as required. We would 
      > keep the manual over ride.
      >
      > What would be the elements of such a simple ECU ?  Any idea where I 
      > could get some help would be appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Peter H  
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 
Homemade 1/4 wave TSPD antenna
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
      
      
      Bob,
      
      Thanks for the reply to my last msg (1/4 Wave Comm Ant).  A follow-up...
      
      I am contemplating putting a 1/4 wave TSPD antenna on the belly of a
      composite aircraft, directly under the pilot seat.  In chapter 13 of the
      Connection you talk about making the ground plane 5.5" dia to keep it
      resonant.
      
      >From a health standpoint, does 5.5" effectively shield the pilot (and
      co-pilot) - i.e. keep all the radiated energy below horizontal, or should I
      do something else.
      
      Options:
      a. Make the ground plane bigger (but I can only get to about 13" diameter).
      b. Make a second, larger shield slightly above the ground plane and not
      connected to it.
      
      Rick
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
From: 
"Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
      
      
      Check--http://industrial.rell.com/pdfs/IPG_AN_appguide.pdf
      
      Excerpt from above: 
      
      "Aluminum electrolytic capacitors stored for more than 5 to
      10 years may have increased levels of DC leakage current.
      Check if DCL meets application requirements before placing
      in service. Recondition high DCL units by applying
      rated voltage through 1,000 ohm resistor for 30 minutes.
      Shelf life is a measure of how the capacitors will withstand
      storage for long times especially at high temperature. To
      test shelf life place the capacitors in an oven set to the
      shelf-life test temperature 0 +3 C for the shelf-life test
      period. Upon completion of the test stabilize the capacitors
      at 25 C for 24 h or more. Apply the rated voltage for 30
      minutes, then verify the post test limits. Unless otherwise
      specified the capacitance, DCL and ESR will meet initial
      requirements."
      
      --------
      Eric M. Jones
      www.PerihelionDesign.com
      113 Brentwood Drive
      Southbridge, MA 01550
      (508) 764-2072
      emjones(at)charter.net
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131345#131345
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Subject: 
Rotax electrical switches
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
      
      I am building my Zenith 701/Rotax 912 electrical system following
      Aeroelectric's Z16 diagram because I trust that Bob Nuckolls knows a hell of
      a lot more about aircraft electrical systems than I do.  I don't even know
      enough to fully understand the use of the two switches in the diagram. I
      would appreciate if Bob or someone who understands this diagram can tell me
      how to use switch S1 (the double poll double throw switch) and the switch
      attached to the endurance buss. I also need to understand what type of
      switch this second one is. It looks like a single poll on-off type but I'm
      not certain because it has a "^" symbol in it.
      
      Thanks for the help,
      Les 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
From: 
Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: 
Re: Rotax electrical switches
      
      Les,
      If you don't have Bob's book buy it. If you do then read the chapter on switches
      about 5 times. That is the number I am up to and I think I am about to "get
      it".
      Good luck,
      Mike
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Les Goldner <lgold@quantum-associates.com> 
      Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:42 am 
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rotax electrical switches 
      
      > I am building my Zenith 701/Rotax 912 electrical system following 
      > Aeroelectric's Z16 diagram because I trust that Bob Nuckolls knows 
      > a hell of 
      > a lot more about aircraft electrical systems than I do.  I don't 
      > even know 
      > enough to fully understand the use of the two switches in the 
      > diagram. I 
      > would appreciate if Bob or someone who understands this diagram 
      > can tell me 
      > how to use switch S1 (the double poll double throw switch) and the 
      > switchattached to the endurance buss. I also need to understand 
      > what type of 
      > switch this second one is. It looks like a single poll on-off type 
      > but I'm 
      > not certain because it has a "^" symbol in it. 
      > 
      > Thanks for the help, 
      > Les 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
      
      
      Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      
      Peter 
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
      Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:35 PM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      Peter
      
      Google "megasquirt efi" for an under $200. system and lots of related info.
      Not recommended for aviation of course but I run one as a manually 
      selectable backup to my main subaru efi.
      I have mine configured with the inputs that you describe and it is fine 
      for my purposes. For everyday use it would benefit from connecting a TPS 
      (throttle position sensor) acceleration enrichment, or one could run the 
      code that enriches based on delta MAP.  A water temp (cylinder or oil 
      temp for you) sensor would also be handy for starting and warmup but I 
      don't use mine for startup. There are some schemes for doing this with 
      analog electronics but the megasquirt is definately the way to do it 
      nowadays and about as simple as I could find. I have a manual mixture 
      tweaking knob but it is not needed (especially if one has an engine emp 
      sensor) and if it isn't there - it can't fail.  I use an old 486 laptop 
      for programming.
      
      If you are only going to have a primary controller I'd suggest googling 
      SDS EFI. That would most likely require re-arranging your flywheel 
      pickups but it would have "established" reliability.  I think there are 
      thousands of megaquirt units in use but each is somewhat different and 
      subject to unique failures. Megasquirt has very little capability of 
      keeping the engine running after a sensor or wire failure compared to 
      oem or even the SDS system.
      
      Ken
      
      Peter Harris wrote:
      
      >  
      >
      > I am in the process of installing a simple TBI system to the Jabiru 
      > 3300. Just two injectors in a spigot type throttle body which takes 
      > the place of the Bing, it works from a MAP sensor and air temp sensor, 
      > the ECU is triggered from the flywheel magnets. We are using a regular 
      > automotive ECU which is a giant overkill and very expensive.
      >
      > We can trim the mixture using a pot if required.
      >
      > My question is has anyone seen a simple programmable unit that could 
      > be programmed with a pot, a switch and a digital dial. The programming 
      > would be done by select injector time and enter as required. We would 
      > keep the manual over ride.
      >
      > What would be the elements of such a simple ECU ?  Any idea where I 
      > could get some help would be appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Peter H  
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
From: 
"mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Aug 28, 2007
      
      
      Peter,
      
      >>I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt. 
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131469#131469
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
      
      
      Mike at this stage I am gathering information. There is a lot I like about
      the EC2 but I would like to do it myself and cheaper.
      Peter
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mikef
      Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2007 8:17 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: A simple ECU
      
      
      Peter,
      
      >>I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt. 
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131469#131469
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
      
      
      Peter Harris wrote:
      >
      > Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      > expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      > from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      >
      > Peter 
      >   
      
      Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem 
      to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is 
      excellent.
      
      The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules, 
      and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system 
      redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics 
      installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the 
      engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with you.
      
      -- 
      "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in 
      a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 
      thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in 
      the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      --Unknown
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
      
      
      B Tomm wrote:
      >
      > I've had cell trouble inside the top floor of an office building.  The
      > building's roof across the parking lot (about 400 feet away) had the cell
      > tower on it at the same height as where I was.  After some testing with the
      > techs at the cell company it was determined that the cell tower was
      > over-driving my cellular data communicator.  I had a friend build an
      > attenuator and installed it between the antenna and the cell pack and since
      > then all is well. Oddly enough, the way we discovered this was when I moved
      > the cell pack outside the building (to find better reception) it worked best
      > inside the elevator.  This was the first clue that the signal was too
      > strong.  I wonder about the health of those who work in that building
      > everyday.
      >   
      
      There's a fundamental lesson here that applies to all RF communication 
      devices.
      
      You have to design the reciever for a particular amount of power.  The 
      reciever works by sensing the RF energy as it goes up and down, and then 
      converting and amplifying the energy to give you a sound in a speaker.  
      All very complicated, but the gist is that the input signal has to be 
      moving up and down within a certain range.  Don't apply enough power, 
      and the reciever doesn't have enough amplification power to make the 
      voice heard (or the signal can just get sort of lost in the input 
      circuits through attenuation).  Apply to much power, and the reciever 
      is  driven to the high rail and stays there.  The reciever is basically 
      "always on". 
      
      When designing a cell tower, you want to reach people a mile away.  You 
      need to pour quite a lot of energy out of an antennae to cover an area 
      with a 1 mile radius (I don't know the actual coverage of a tower.  1 
      mile just sounds good).  So, you turn the power up so that recievers 1 
      mile away can get the signal up off the bottom rail, but that driver the 
      reciever that is only 10ft away to the top rail...and keeps it there.
      
      Same thing will happen in aircraft radios.  Put the transmitter to close 
      to the reciever, and you will overdrive it.  Sometimes, more is less.
      
      
      -- 
      "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in 
      a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 
      thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in 
      the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      --Unknown
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as well
      as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
      I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
      ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
      We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
      Peter
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
      Christley
      Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      
      Peter Harris wrote:
      
      >
      > Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      > expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      > from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      >
      > Peter 
      >   
      
      Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem 
      to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is 
      excellent.
      
      The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules, 
      and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system 
      redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics 
      installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the 
      engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with you.
      
      -- 
      "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
      
      a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 
      thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
      
      the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      --Unknown
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
      
      
      Hi Peter,
      
      For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the 
      90s.  The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had 
      to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a 
      sprightly RV aircraft.
      
       But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up) 
      causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of 
      gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was 
      happening and shut the unit off.
      
      I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap 
      top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the 
      EC2 had a  redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was 
      very reasonable.
      
      There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think 
      the EC2 wins the competition.
      
      
      Ed
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as 
      > well
      > as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
      > I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
      > ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
      > We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
      > Peter
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
      > Christley
      > Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >
      > 
      >
      > Peter Harris wrote:
      > 
      >>
      >> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      >> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      >> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      >>
      >> Peter
      >>
      >
      > Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem
      > to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
      > excellent.
      >
      > The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
      > and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
      > redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics
      > installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
      > engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with 
      > you.
      >
      > -- 
      > "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely 
      > in
      >
      > a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
      > thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine 
      > in
      >
      > the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      > --Unknown
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Thanks Ed it is shaping up that way.
      Peter
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
      Anderson
      Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:52 AM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      
      Hi Peter,
      
      For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the 
      90s.  The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had 
      to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a 
      sprightly RV aircraft.
      
       But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up) 
      causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of 
      gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was 
      happening and shut the unit off.
      
      I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap 
      top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the 
      EC2 had a  redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was 
      very reasonable.
      
      There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think
      
      the EC2 wins the competition.
      
      
      Ed
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as 
      > well
      > as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
      > I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
      > ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
      > We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
      > Peter
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
      > Christley
      > Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >
      > 
      >
      > Peter Harris wrote:
      > 
      >>
      >> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      >> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      >> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      >>
      >> Peter
      >>
      >
      > Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem
      > to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
      > excellent.
      >
      > The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
      > and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
      > redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics
      > installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
      > engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with 
      > you.
      >
      > -- 
      > "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely 
      > in
      >
      > a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
      > thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine 
      > in
      >
      > the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      > --Unknown
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Ed I had a similar experience whith the new F10ex Haltech when I first
      cranked the engine with the throttle body outboard. It kept on squirting
      after I stopped cranking until the fuel rail was empty.
      Must have got a bad trigger signal.
      Looks as if the EC2 is the way to go.
      Peter
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
      Anderson
      Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:52 AM
      Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      
      Hi Peter,
      
      For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the 
      90s.  The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had 
      to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a 
      sprightly RV aircraft.
      
       But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up) 
      causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of 
      gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was 
      happening and shut the unit off.
      
      I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap 
      top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the 
      EC2 had a  redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was 
      very reasonable.
      
      There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think
      
      the EC2 wins the competition.
      
      
      Ed
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as 
      > well
      > as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
      > I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
      > ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
      > We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
      > Peter
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
      > Christley
      > Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >
      > 
      >
      > Peter Harris wrote:
      > 
      >>
      >> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
      >> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
      >> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
      >>
      >> Peter
      >>
      >
      > Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem
      > to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
      > excellent.
      >
      > The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
      > and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
      > redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics
      > installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
      > engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with 
      > you.
      >
      > -- 
      > "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely 
      > in
      >
      > a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
      > thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine 
      > in
      >
      > the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      > --Unknown
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
NOT airplane related-digital phone     sevice
      
      
      
      >
      >I would add that the cable based phone service needs local AC power to work.
      >They usually use a UPS for standby power should the power go out. But this
      >standby time will be limited by the capacity and condition of the back up.
      >The old style phone service is not dependant on AC power at the premises.
      >
      >Bevan
      >RV7A
      >wiring
      
          I was curious about that and asked when they installed our
          system. For our provider at least, ALL power is provided by
          the system. If one puts a voltmeter on the center conductor
          of the coax coming into the back of the house, it has about 90
          volts DC on it. I was told that this power is provided NORMALLY
          by the electric power company . . . but here's the interesting
          part. All the little green 'dog-houses' around our neighborhood
          for the cable company also have gas lines going into them. Seems
          there is a small NG powered standby source. The dog-house at
          the corner of my housing development says it's made by Alpha
          and the model number is "CE-SC3".  The electric meter on one
          end shows a peak draw of 1.25 KVA.
      
          Before this box went in, if there was a sustained power
          outage in the neighborhood, the cable guy would show up
          and plug the box into a little portable Honda putt-putt.
          Now when theres a power outage, he's noticeably absent
          and the phones are still working . . . along with any other
          cable driven appliances that are powered independently
          of the ac mains.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: 
NOT airplane related-digital phone     sevice
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
      
      
      Yes, Thanks Bob.
      
      I forgot about that.  A friend of mine works for the cable phone company and
      had told me some time ago that it's common in larger centers (eastern I
      think) that the power comes "down the line" from the cable provider.  We
      don't have this technology in our area yet because of the current
      infrastructure has to be upgraded, so I think of cable phone as requiring
      local power as that's the standard here.  Nothing stays the same anymore?
      Did it ever?
      
      Bevan
      RV7A 
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
      Nuckolls, III
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:53 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
      
      --> 
      
      
      >--> 
      >
      >I would add that the cable based phone service needs local AC power to
      work.
      >They usually use a UPS for standby power should the power go out. But 
      >this standby time will be limited by the capacity and condition of the back
      up.
      >The old style phone service is not dependant on AC power at the premises.
      >
      >Bevan
      >RV7A
      >wiring
      
          I was curious about that and asked when they installed our
          system. For our provider at least, ALL power is provided by
          the system. If one puts a voltmeter on the center conductor
          of the coax coming into the back of the house, it has about 90
          volts DC on it. I was told that this power is provided NORMALLY
          by the electric power company . . . but here's the interesting
          part. All the little green 'dog-houses' around our neighborhood
          for the cable company also have gas lines going into them. Seems
          there is a small NG powered standby source. The dog-house at
          the corner of my housing development says it's made by Alpha
          and the model number is "CE-SC3".  The electric meter on one
          end shows a peak draw of 1.25 KVA.
      
          Before this box went in, if there was a sustained power
          outage in the neighborhood, the cable guy would show up
          and plug the box into a little portable Honda putt-putt.
          Now when theres a power outage, he's noticeably absent
          and the phones are still working . . . along with any other
          cable driven appliances that are powered independently
          of the ac mains.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
From: 
"jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: 
Aug 29, 2007
      
      
      Bob,
         would you mind finding a little more about those dog boxes, if they indeed have
      propane? gas power? Some remote telecommunication sites use such thermo electric
      generators and I've read that some thermocouples are available to generate
      from external exhaust heat of road trucks - you know where this is leading
      - I wouldnt mind attaching one to my aircraft as a backup power source.
      
      Its a little frustrating here in New Zealand there is a manufacturer of stirling
      engine power generators for boats and homes - called "whispergen" - however
      they ony seem to supply to certain markets and that doesnt include locally.
      
      
      Regards, Ralph
      
      --------
      Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131740#131740
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net>
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Ralph,
      
      Sending this off list as it is waaaay off topic. But here's another Kiwi's
      answer to standby power for important things. Check this out---->
      
      http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/
      
      Tony
      www.alejandra.net/velocity
      62% done, 78% to go.
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jetboy
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:56 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
      
      
      Bob,
         would you mind finding a little more about those dog boxes, if they
      indeed have propane? gas power? Some remote telecommunication sites use such
      thermo electric generators and I've read that some thermocouples are
      available to generate from external exhaust heat of road trucks - you know
      where this is leading - I wouldnt mind attaching one to my aircraft as a
      backup power source.
      
      Its a little frustrating here in New Zealand there is a manufacturer of
      stirling engine power generators for boats and homes - called "whispergen" -
      however they ony seem to supply to certain markets and that doesnt include
      locally.
      
      
      Regards, Ralph
      
      --------
      Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131740#131740
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net>
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Oops, sorry. I meant to send this off list.
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Tony Babb [mailto:tonybabb(at)alejandra.net] 
      > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:21 AM
      > To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'
      > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: NOT airplane 
      > related-digital phone sevice
      > 
      > 
      > Ralph,
      > 
      > Sending this off list as it is waaaay off topic. But here's 
      > another Kiwi's answer to standby power for important things. 
      > Check this out---->
      > 
      > http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/
      > 
      > Tony
      > www.alejandra.net/velocity
      > 62% done, 78% to go.
      > 
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On 
      > Behalf Of jetboy
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:56 PM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: NOT airplane related-digital 
      > phone sevice
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Bob,
      >    would you mind finding a little more about those dog 
      > boxes, if they indeed have propane? gas power? Some remote 
      > telecommunication sites use such thermo electric generators 
      > and I've read that some thermocouples are available to 
      > generate from external exhaust heat of road trucks - you know 
      > where this is leading - I wouldnt mind attaching one to my 
      > aircraft as a backup power source.
      > 
      > Its a little frustrating here in New Zealand there is a 
      > manufacturer of stirling engine power generators for boats 
      > and homes - called "whispergen" - however they ony seem to 
      > supply to certain markets and that doesnt include locally.
      > 
      > 
      > Regards, Ralph
      > 
      > --------
      > Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Read this topic online here:
      > 
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131740#131740
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: A simple ECU
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Yes, Peter, I never attempted a diagnoses of the F3 HALTECH unit, but 
      certainly glad I was on the ground when it decided to malfunction.  My units 
      problem was more than a stray signal as it never recovered.
      
      Ed
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:37 PM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Ed I had a similar experience whith the new F10ex Haltech when I first
      > cranked the engine with the throttle body outboard. It kept on squirting
      > after I stopped cranking until the fuel rail was empty.
      > Must have got a bad trigger signal.
      > Looks as if the EC2 is the way to go.
      > Peter
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
      > Anderson
      > Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:52 AM
      > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >
      > 
      >
      > Hi Peter,
      >
      > For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in 
      > the
      > 90s.  The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had
      > to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a
      > sprightly RV aircraft.
      >
      > But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up)
      > causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of
      > gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was
      > happening and shut the unit off.
      >
      > I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no 
      > lap
      > top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the
      > EC2 had a  redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was
      > very reasonable.
      >
      > There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I 
      > think
      >
      > the EC2 wins the competition.
      >
      >
      > Ed
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
      > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >
      >
      >> 
      >>
      >> Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as
      >> well
      >> as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
      >> I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
      >> ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
      >> We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
      >> Peter
      >>
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
      >> Christley
      >> Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
      >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
      >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
      >>
      >> 
      >>
      >> Peter Harris wrote:
      >> 
      >>>
      >>> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than 
      >>> I
      >>> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 
      >>> series
      >>> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the 
      >>> Megasquirt.
      >>>
      >>> Peter
      >>>
      >>
      >> Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system.  The kits while cheap, seem
      >> to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
      >> excellent.
      >>
      >> The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
      >> and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
      >> redundancy.  I've got a little more airframe and electronics
      >> installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
      >> engine installation.  I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with
      >> you.
      >>
      >> -- 
      >> "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely
      >> in
      >>
      >> a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
      >> thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine
      >> in
      >>
      >> the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      >> --Unknown
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Bob's Audio mixer board.
From: 
"Doug Gray" <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Bob K,
      
      I recall you had an Audio mixer board at one time and I would like to somehow get
      hold of one.
      
      IIRC it was attached to a 25Pin PCB mount D-Sub connector, with 3-4 inputs and
      a single output.
      
      This would be perfect for me since I plan to mix together the audio from an alternate
      radio plus the audio from an anunciating EFIS system and feed these to
      my intercom.
      
      For PTT and MIC I plan to fit a 2 pole 2 position switch to select between Radio1
      and Radio2.
      
      Even if I could acquire the CCT and bare PCB that would be a great help.
      
      Thanks,
      Doug
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131790#131790
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone   sevice
      
      
      
      >
      >Bob,
      >    would you mind finding a little more about those dog boxes, if they 
      > indeed have propane? gas power? Some remote telecommunication sites use 
      > such thermo electric generators and I've read that some thermocouples are 
      > available to generate from external exhaust heat of road trucks - you 
      > know where this is leading - I wouldnt mind attaching one to my aircraft 
      > as a backup power source.
      
         I'm not aware of any thermoelectric products that go beyond
         a hand-full of watts capability. That technology goes back a
         very long way. Here's a small step back in time to when thermoelectric
         power generation became commercially practical technology:
      
      http://tinyurl.com/2gshpm
      
         and a modern incarnation:
      
      http://tinyurl.com/ytv3th
      
      
      >Its a little frustrating here in New Zealand there is a manufacturer of 
      >stirling engine power generators for boats and homes - called "whispergen" 
      >- however they ony seem to supply to certain markets and that doesnt 
      >include locally.
      
         If your interested in the Stirling engine development
         programs, suggest you visit
      
      http://www.stirlingengine.com/
      
         That company started here in Wichita by a good
         friend of mine. I have a couple of the earliest
         "Coffee Cup Engines". In particular, check
         out Brent's book offerings at:
      
      http://www.stirlingengine.com/ecommerce/category-browse.tcl?category_id=2
      
         and the links cited at:
      
      http://www.stirlingengine.com/general-links/
      
         The cable system dog-house is branded "Alpha" which
         suggests it's the product of The Alpha Group. I
         wasn't able to find the model of device sitting
         on my street but here's on example of many
         products described on their website
      
      http://www.alpha.com/us/default.aspx?id=catalog&catId=/477/3482/3357/
      
          The next time our cable guy is in the neighborhood,
          I'll ask him what he knows about our particular
          version.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
From: 
Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: 
Icom A-200 dimming
      
      
      I've read through the archives, but can't find a "Yes/No" answer to this 
      question, though I think I've come close.
      
      I'm choosing to light my panel and cabin with LEDs that all pass through 
      a pulse-width modulator for dimming.  I'd like to hook the Icom's 
      display into the same circuit, but a posting to this list on 2/13/06 
      indicates that only the positive side of the lighting circuit is exposed 
      to through the connector.
      
      My first question is, "Is this correct? There's no easy access to the 
      lighting circuit's ground lead?"
      (I could put the PWM at the head end of the circuit, but I have some 
      lighted switches that aren't amenable to this.)
      
      The second question, "Is a dimmer necessary?"  My Icom will be situated 
      on a side panel, situated about 75 degrees from front-center (a delta 
      configuration has it's benefits).  Is the light level low enough to not 
      be a bother?
      
      
      -- 
      "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in 
      a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 
      thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in 
      the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
      --Unknown
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: Icom A-200 dimming
      
      
      My A-200 has incandescent bulbs with no easy access to the ground as I 
      recall. Think the draw was on order of 60 or 90 ma. I have a two 
      position switch to dim them through a resistor but suspect a dimmer is 
      not really required.
      Ken
      
      Ernest Christley wrote:
      
      > 
      >
      > I've read through the archives, but can't find a "Yes/No" answer to 
      > this question, though I think I've come close.
      >
      > I'm choosing to light my panel and cabin with LEDs that all pass 
      > through a pulse-width modulator for dimming.  I'd like to hook the 
      > Icom's display into the same circuit, but a posting to this list on 
      > 2/13/06 indicates that only the positive side of the lighting circuit 
      > is exposed to through the connector.
      >
      > My first question is, "Is this correct? There's no easy access to the 
      > lighting circuit's ground lead?"
      > (I could put the PWM at the head end of the circuit, but I have some 
      > lighted switches that aren't amenable to this.)
      >
      > The second question, "Is a dimmer necessary?"  My Icom will be 
      > situated on a side panel, situated about 75 degrees from front-center 
      > (a delta configuration has it's benefits).  Is the light level low 
      > enough to not be a bother?
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Bob's Audio mixer board.
      
      
      
      >
      >Bob K,
      >
      >I recall you had an Audio mixer board at one time and I would like to 
      >somehow get hold of one.
      >
      >IIRC it was attached to a 25Pin PCB mount D-Sub connector, with 3-4 inputs 
      >and a single output.
      >
      >This would be perfect for me since I plan to mix together the audio from 
      >an alternate radio plus the audio from an anunciating EFIS system and feed 
      >these to my intercom.
      >
      >For PTT and MIC I plan to fit a 2 pole 2 position switch to select between 
      >Radio1 and Radio2.
      >
      >Even if I could acquire the CCT and bare PCB that would be a great help.
      
         The board is still available at:
      
      https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
      
      The assembly manual and BOM is at:
      
      http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700J.pdf
      
      I'm told that a number of the parts cited from the Digikey
      catalog have been replaced . . . you'll have to do a bit
      of substituting. I have a list of the changes somewhere, I'll
      try to find it an publish it on the List. I don't know when
      I'll get to updating the BOM . . .
      
         Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
From: 
"jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: 
Aug 30, 2007
      
      
      Toni,
      
      Thanks for sharing the link, must confess I already had seen that one and do similar
      things with turbines in my spare time...
      
      
      http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/turbinenuts.shtml
      
      
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=7bfHozA4kpM
      
      
      Ralph
      
      --------
      Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131969#131969
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
<gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: Icom A-200 dimming
      
      Ernest from the installation manual:
      
      Pin "B" is +14v for light
      Pin "1" is GROUND for pin "B"
         
        This may what you want. Do some bench test. 
      It sounds like a discrete ground for the light!
      
      Dimming is nice but you don't know until you 
      fly at night with it. I fly a bubble canopy (RV) and it 
      can reflect light. Sounds like you PWM will work 
      off the ligt ground on  PIN 1.
      
        Good Luck George
         
        >From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
      >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom A-200 dimming
      >
      >posting to this list on 2/13/06 indicates that only the positive 
      >side of the lighting circuit is exposed to through the connector.
      >
      >My first question is, "Is this correct? 
      >
      >There's no easy access to the lighting circuit's ground lead?"
      >
      >The second question, "Is a dimmer necessary?"
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
      photos & more. 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: How to check and alternator??
      
      
      
      >Thanks for messages.
      >
      >Here's the answer to your questions.
      >
      >I have a Chief Aircraft +/- 40 ammeter with a 40amp shunt.
      >
      >I think my alternator is 35 amps but can't remember - I'll have to look 
      >that up.  I am running Nav lights, strobe lights, wig wag lights, and a 
      >full Garmin stack so I'm thinking I may need to upgrade my 
      >alternator.  Will have to add that up before first flight to see the load.
      >
      >The ammeter has a positive and negative terminal on the back.  The 
      >positive is connected to to the small screw on the shunt which also has a 
      >large screw on the same side which is wired directly to the main power bus 
      >which also splits to a wire between the master and starter relay.    The 
      >negative side on the back of the ammeter is connected to the opposite 
      >small screw on the shunt which also has a large screw which is wired 
      >through a 60amp circuit breaker to the main power bus.
      >
      >Kinda hard to explain without a picture.   I followed the Bingeles book 
      >when I wired it up a few years back so maybe I messed something up.
      >
      >I do know that the volt meter reads barely under 14 volts with the engine 
      >running.
      >
      >Thanks for the help!!!!
      
          The -zero+ reading ammeter is a BATTERY ammeter. When things
          are running normally (alternator carrying ship's loads and
          battery fully charged) then it SHOULD read at or near zero.
          Turn some things on with the engine not running. Let them run
          of the battery for 10 minutes or so. The ammeter should be
          showing a (-) value - energy is coming out of the battery.
          Take a voltmeter reading.
      
          Now, start the engine and turn the alternator on. Note the bus
          voltage. We would LIKE to see 14.2 to 14.6 volts but 13.8 or 13.9
          would still charge the battery.
      
          After the alternator comes on, if you see a rise in bus voltage,
          then the alternator IS working to some degree. Its set point may
          be too low . . . but it is working. Now the ammeter should show
          a decided (+) reading - energy is being stuffed back into the
          battery. Turn all the accessories off and observe the ammeter
          which should begin to move back toward zero indicating that the
          battery is topped off.
      
          For the moment, nothing you've written suggests that the system
          is seriously malfunctioning. It may need adjustment of voltage.
      
          Bob . . .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
<frank.phyllis(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 
No charge
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
      
      
      I'm having charging problems again.
      Using the Z16 diagram with Rotax 912 ULS.
      I had a charging problem before and found my "C" wire connector from the
      Voltage Regulator was not properly seated.  When I made good connection
      I got a charge.
      Today there's no charge again, according to the Dynon & GRT voltmeters.
      I believe I have a good connection to the regulator but not sure how to
      test.
      Suggestions? Other possible problems to consider?
      Thanks
      Frank McDonald
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: 
Re: No charge
      
      
      frank.phyllis(at)mindspring.com a crit :
      > Using the Z16 diagram with Rotax 912 ULS.
      > I had a charging problem before and found my "C" wire connector from the
      > Voltage Regulator was not properly seated.  When I made good connection
      > I got a charge.
      > Today there's no charge again, according to the Dynon & GRT voltmeters.
      > I believe I have a good connection to the regulator but not sure how to
      > test.
      >   
      
      Franck,
      
      Have you checked the regulator ground wire ? It should be the same size 
      as the positive wire, since it will carry the 18-20 A current.
      
      Best regards,
      -- 
      Gilles, Z16 with dual battery
      http://contrails.free.fr
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: 
Thermoelectric Generators
      
      
      I don't know how many your "hand-full of watts" are but here is a source 
      of thermoelectric generators in the 2.5 to 19 watt range.  Certainly 
      wouldn't run an all electric airplane, but might keep your radios 
      running.  They also offer a DC-DC converter to provide a regulated 12V 
      output.
      
      Dick Tasker
      
      Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
      
      > 
      >
      >   I'm not aware of any thermoelectric products that go beyond
      >   a hand-full of watts capability. That technology goes back a
      >   very long way. Here's a small step back in time to when thermoelectric
      >   power generation became commercially practical technology:
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
spade lug failure.
      
      
      I have been wiring my plane using some high quality (well, at least 
      they're expensive - $0.65 each) T&B insulated fast-on type connectors 
      and an Ideal crimping tool (not expensive as crimpers go - about $50).  
      A couple days ago I found a #22 ground wire that simply didn't conduct.  
      I removed it from the plane and sliced away insulation near each end to 
      expose the wire just before the connectors  and determined which one 
      wasn't conducting.  It looked fine.  The wires were just visible 
      sticking out of the spade lug end and I could touch them directly with 
      my continuity tester, but they weren't connected to the rest of the wire. 
      
      Using a dremel tool, I removed the plastic covering and part of the 
      crimp.  A little bit of the insulation extended into the part of the 
      barrel that crimps the copper wire.  Apparently what happened was that 
      the act of crimping it cut thru the wire, but NOT thru the insulation.  
      The connector was held on by the insulation. That tefzel is pretty tough 
      stuff.
      
      I made a new wire and got things working, but I have to wonder if more 
      of my wires aren't in the same or nearly the same condition.  Am I doing 
      something wrong here or was this probably just a  1 in a 1000 fluke?  Do 
      I need to check the connections that seem to be working?  If so, how?
      --
      Tom Sargent, RV-6A
      Electrical system
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 31, 2007
From: 
sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Lightspeed spark plug wires
      
      
      I am not mounting my ignition coils on top of my engine, so the spark 
      plug wires I got with the Lightspeed unit aren't the right lengths.  Are 
      these ordinary automotive sparkplug wires or something special?  How 
      does one get wires of non-standard lengths?  I emailed Klaus but have 
      not received an answer.
      
      Thanks,
      ----
      Tom Sargent, RV-6A
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
mkejrj(at)comcast.net
Subject: 
Re: Lightspeed spark plug wires
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
      
      Tom,
      
         I had an identical situation. I returned the supplied wires along with my specs
      for the replacements. Klaus fabricated the new wires at no charge.
      
      Dick Jordan
      RV 8A
      N888BZ
      
      -------------- Original message -------------- 
      From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> 
      
      > 
      > I am not mounting my ignition coils on top of my engine, so the spark 
      > plug wires I got with the Lightspeed unit aren't the right lengths. Are 
      > these ordinary automotive sparkplug wires or something special? How 
      > does one get wires of non-standard lengths? I emailed Klaus but have 
      > not received an answer. 
      > 
      > Thanks, 
      > ---- 
      > Tom Sargent, RV-6A 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
Tom,
      
 
      
   I had an identical situation. I returned the supplied wires along
      with my specs for the replacements. Klaus fabricated the new wires at no
      charge.
      
 
      
Dick Jordan
      
RV 8A
      
N888BZ
      
 
       arch &
      
      

      
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
From: 
<psiegel(at)fuse.net>
Subject: 
Lead-free soldering?
      
      
      Since going green is all the rage these days, what is the latest on going lead-free
      when soldering aircraft wiring?
      
      Any actual data on advantages/disadvantages of going to Sn97 Ag2.5 Cu.5 solder
      instead of our traditional Pb63 Sn37 solder?
      
      What's the bottom line?
      
      Paul Siegel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Lead-free soldering?
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
From: 
"Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
      
      
      The bottom line is you'll do more for the enviroment by not driving down
      to radioshack in your SUV to pick up the silver solder then switching to
      leadless solder (particularly so if you through the spool of lead solder
      in the garbage.  However, if it makes you feel good, and others confirm
      that its technically equivalent, then by all means.  :-)
      
      Chuck
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      psiegel(at)fuse.net
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:21 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead-free soldering?
      
      
      Since going green is all the rage these days, what is the latest on
      going lead-free when soldering aircraft wiring?
      
      Any actual data on advantages/disadvantages of going to Sn97 Ag2.5 Cu.5
      solder instead of our traditional Pb63 Sn37 solder?
      
      What's the bottom line?
      
      Paul Siegel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
From: 
"Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: 
Re: Lead-free soldering?
      
      Hams have used solder for years. The only disease that spikes some in hams
      is lymphoma; but is that from the lead? or the resin? or the RF we sit in in
      our radio shacks? Who knows. I wouldn't chew on a piece of solder as you are
      working for sure. Probably not a good idea to enjoy inhaling the smell of
      solder, but there are probably a bigger dose of carcinogens in the "new car
      smell" you get in your new car as plastics off gas formaldehyde and all
      sorts of other nasty aldehydes and orgai=nic materials. Every time I fly my
      Glastar I smell the plastic smell a lot sitting in the fiberglass fuselage.
      I still fly! and don't worry about it.
      
      I wouldn't let your grandbabies play with the solder, but we buy toys made
      in China all the time! painted with lead we are finding out.
      
      bobf
      W5RF
      
      On 9/1/07, psiegel(at)fuse.net  wrote:
      >
      >
      > Since going green is all the rage these days, what is the latest on going
      > lead-free when soldering aircraft wiring?
      >
      > Any actual data on advantages/disadvantages of going to Sn97 Ag2.5 Cu.5solder
      instead of our traditional Pb63 Sn37 solder?
      >
      > What's the bottom line?
      >
      > Paul Siegel
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com>
Subject: 
Lead-free soldering?
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
      
      
      Paul,
      
      The rage to use less lead came from the European Union in a directive called
      "the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical
      and electronic equipment, commonly called RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous
      Substances).  Article 4 Prevention, Paragraph 1 says "...new electrical and
      electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury,
      cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or
      polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)."
      
      Since the European Union is a large market and also has many electrical and
      electronic vendors, RoHS affects the USA and other countries.  RoHS has
      caused a lot of problems here, mostly because they do not mix well with
      leaded parts on electronic circuit boards.  The temperatures and oven
      profiles to make populated boards are different, and mixing of the two types
      of components causes some solder joints to be deficient and out of spec,
      thus decreasing reliability and causing anomalies that require further
      troubleshooting and possible redesign.  The end result of all this is to go
      either all leaded parts or all RoHS parts on boards, which was hard to do
      earlier but getting easier.  Manufacturers in the USA and other non-European
      countries have been forced to adopt the RoHS directive even when they're
      manufacturing and selling only in the USA, because non-RoHS parts are
      getting harder to come by.  There are exceptions to RoHS, like military
      equipment, but even the military is hard-pressed to go with leaded parts.
      Many simply don't exist anymore.
      
      As such, defense contractors have qualified lead-free finishes and soldering
      and are making military equipment with no lead.  There has been a learning
      curve, and even when everyone thinks they have everything under control,
      something always comes back to bite them.  Nonetheless, defense contractors
      make equipment with lead free components and solder, and there is no reason
      to suspect that lead-free solder is unreliable or less reliable if the
      operation is done properly.  There are many resources that can be found on
      the internet to help you do this.  One that comes to mind is by Dynamix
      Technology at the following link:
      
           http://www.dynamixtechnology.com/pbwillis.htm
      
      There you can find their offering of an interactive CD-ROM about Soldertec
      hand soldering and de-soldering lead-free.  If anyone needs the actual EU
      Directive on RoHS, I will be more than glad to send them a PDF.
      
      Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
      LEZ N-44LZ
      Oviedo, FL  32765  USA
      
      Copyright C 2007
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      psiegel(at)fuse.net
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:21 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead-free soldering?
      
      
      Since going green is all the rage these days, what is the latest on going
      lead-free when soldering aircraft wiring?
      
      Any actual data on advantages/disadvantages of going to Sn97 Ag2.5 Cu.5
      solder instead of our traditional Pb63 Sn37 solder?
      
      What's the bottom line?
      
      Paul Siegel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Lead-free soldering?
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
From: 
"John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
      
      
      Simon - thanks for the great post.
      
      John Cox
      RV-10 builder
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of S.
      Ramirez
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 7:59 AM
      Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lead-free soldering?
      
      
      
      Paul,
      
      The rage to use less lead came from the European Union in a directive
      called
      "the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
      electrical
      and electronic equipment, commonly called RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous
      Substances).  Article 4 Prevention, Paragraph 1 says "...new electrical
      and
      electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury,
      cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or
      polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)."
      
      Since the European Union is a large market and also has many electrical
      and
      electronic vendors, RoHS affects the USA and other countries.  RoHS has
      caused a lot of problems here, mostly because they do not mix well with
      leaded parts on electronic circuit boards.  The temperatures and oven
      profiles to make populated boards are different, and mixing of the two
      types
      of components causes some solder joints to be deficient and out of spec,
      thus decreasing reliability and causing anomalies that require further
      troubleshooting and possible redesign.  The end result of all this is to
      go
      either all leaded parts or all RoHS parts on boards, which was hard to
      do
      earlier but getting easier.  Manufacturers in the USA and other
      non-European
      countries have been forced to adopt the RoHS directive even when they're
      manufacturing and selling only in the USA, because non-RoHS parts are
      getting harder to come by.  There are exceptions to RoHS, like military
      equipment, but even the military is hard-pressed to go with leaded
      parts.
      Many simply don't exist anymore.
      
      As such, defense contractors have qualified lead-free finishes and
      soldering
      and are making military equipment with no lead.  There has been a
      learning
      curve, and even when everyone thinks they have everything under control,
      something always comes back to bite them.  Nonetheless, defense
      contractors
      make equipment with lead free components and solder, and there is no
      reason
      to suspect that lead-free solder is unreliable or less reliable if the
      operation is done properly.  There are many resources that can be found
      on
      the internet to help you do this.  One that comes to mind is by Dynamix
      Technology at the following link:
      
           http://www.dynamixtechnology.com/pbwillis.htm
      
      There you can find their offering of an interactive CD-ROM about
      Soldertec
      hand soldering and de-soldering lead-free.  If anyone needs the actual
      EU
      Directive on RoHS, I will be more than glad to send them a PDF.
      
      Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
      LEZ N-44LZ
      Oviedo, FL  32765  USA
      
      Copyright C 2007
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      psiegel(at)fuse.net
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:21 AM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead-free soldering?
      
      
      Since going green is all the rage these days, what is the latest on
      going
      lead-free when soldering aircraft wiring?
      
      Any actual data on advantages/disadvantages of going to Sn97 Ag2.5 Cu.5
      solder instead of our traditional Pb63 Sn37 solder?
      
      What's the bottom line?
      
      Paul Siegel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Lightspeed spark plug wires
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
      
      
      Tom,
      
      Call Klaus directly, he has always been happy to answer questions for me
      directly.  I think they are high end auto wires, but ask Klaus.
      
      Mike
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      sarg314
      Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 6:02 PM
      Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed spark plug wires
      
      
      I am not mounting my ignition coils on top of my engine, so the spark 
      plug wires I got with the Lightspeed unit aren't the right lengths.  Are
      
      these ordinary automotive sparkplug wires or something special?  How 
      does one get wires of non-standard lengths?  I emailed Klaus but have 
      not received an answer.
      
      Thanks,
      ----
      Tom Sargent, RV-6A
      
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      7/29/2007 11:14 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
From: 
rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: 
OT - KN-75 remote GS receiver
      
      
      After a panel upgrade, I have available 
      
      a King KN-75 Glideslope Receiver (used to drive a KI-209 VOR/LOC/Glideslope
      Indicator via King KX-170B NAV/COMM).
      
      If anyone is interested, please contact me directly
      
      Rumen
      rd2(at)evenlink.com
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"John D. Heath" <altoq(at)cebridge.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lightspeed spark plug wires
Date: 
Sep 01, 2007
      
      
      Go here  http://www.magnecor.com/ , for the best ignition wires that can be 
      had .
      
      John D. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Thermoelectric Generators
From: 
"jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: 
Sep 02, 2007
      
      
      Dick,,   i dont see the link?
      
      --------
      Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132318#132318
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: GNS430W Installation Manual Rev status?
Date: 
Sep 02, 2007
      
      Revision B is the latest I have.  
      
      Steve Glasgow-Cappy
      N123SG  RV-8
      Cappy's Toy
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 02, 2007
From: 
Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: How to check and alternator??
      
      Hi Bob !!   
         
         
        Thanks for the help and suggestions !!  I really appreciate you and all I learn
      from you.
         
        So, I did exactly as you said, and you are 100% correct.   I left on a bunch
      of stuff for about 10 minutes, then started the plane and immediately noticed
      the ammeter was slightly on the negative side, maybe reading about 4 negative
      amps.   The voltage read just under 15 volts - say 14.7 the whole time and stays
      there but within about 3 minutes, the ammeter came back up to zero and stayed
      there.
         
        I wired the ammeter and external shunt as per Van's Aircraft instructions and
      my brother Danny (which you've all heard from many times) says there are 2 other
      ways (according to Dynon) to wire the ammeter which I might do.   
         
        I'm not sure of the best or correct way to wire the ammeter but at least now
      I know my alternator is working perfectly and THAT makes me happy.
         
        Maybe I should leave it alone since I now know exactly what it's reading.
         
        Thanks for your input and suggestions.
         
        Matt
         
      
      
      "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"  wrote:
      
      
      >Thanks for messages.
      >
      >Here's the answer to your questions.
      >
      >I have a Chief Aircraft +/- 40 ammeter with a 40amp shunt.
      >
      >I think my alternator is 35 amps but can't remember - I'll have to look 
      >that up. I am running Nav lights, strobe lights, wig wag lights, and a 
      >full Garmin stack so I'm thinking I may need to upgrade my 
      >alternator. Will have to add that up before first flight to see the load.
      >
      >The ammeter has a positive and negative terminal on the back. The 
      >positive is connected to to the small screw on the shunt which also has a 
      >large screw on the same side which is wired directly to the main power bus 
      >which also splits to a wire between the master and starter relay. The 
      >negative side on the back of the ammeter is connected to the opposite 
      >small screw on the shunt which also has a large screw which is wired 
      >through a 60amp circuit breaker to the main power bus.
      >
      >Kinda hard to explain without a picture. I followed the Bingeles book 
      >when I wired it up a few years back so maybe I messed something up.
      >
      >I do know that the volt meter reads barely under 14 volts with the engine 
      >running.
      >
      >Thanks for the help!!!!
      
      The -zero+ reading ammeter is a BATTERY ammeter. When things
      are running normally (alternator carrying ship's loads and
      battery fully charged) then it SHOULD read at or near zero.
      Turn some things on with the engine not running. Let them run
      of the battery for 10 minutes or so. The ammeter should be
      showing a (-) value - energy is coming out of the battery.
      Take a voltmeter reading.

---

August 15, 2007 - September 02, 2007

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hd

---