AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hj
November 10, 2007 - November 23, 2007
These EV200 contactors are available from electronics suppliers. I got mine online
from Newark electronics. They had several configurations in stock.
Dave Doucette
drdavevk30(at)cs.com
"Fergus Kyle" wrote:
>
>Perhaps someone can give me direction in a particularly troublesome regime.
>I refer to "TYCO". At somebody's suggestion, I dialled up:
>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf,
>which gave me a somewhat expensive solution to the low output of the Rotax
>dynamo on my 914. Its advantage was to reduce the holding current to a
>large contactor to a small percentage of one Amp. I believe Ron Parigoris
>was the source of my info, but others had added to the list as well.
>The info sheet gives the description of the device as -
>"TYCO EV200 series contactor with 1 form A (SPST-NO)" and under the photo
>is:
>"EV200 Series Contactor
>(CZONKAR Relay, Type III)". What the significance of the 'Czonka ' is, is
>left to the customer to divine.
>I attempted to order a copy from the Canadaian office, which after 10
>minutes of opting button 1 or other, left me talking to a clerk who admitted
>no knowledge of contactors. I then tried to order from the US office and got
>another series of button choices which promised technical assistance and
>delivered only the names of 6 women with no hint of their duties - all of
>this on long distance. I finally managed to find a sales clerk somewhere in
>USA who promised to deliver the required contactor and yesterday I picked it
>up in NY and paid the requisite duties and import tariffs only to find that
>it bears no connection with the above, but boasts a "GIGAVAC GX11BAA" tag. I
>have no idea what its holding current is, [try to find a column on the spec
>page which lists that] nor can I find anyone (human that is) who is willing
>to clarify the discrepancy.
> Failing education from Bob or Ron - or any other kind correspondent
>- I am going to recommend staying a hundred miles from
>TYCO/CZONKA/KILOVAC/GIGAVAC and its myriad ancillaries.
>Cheers, Ferg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 11/09/07 |
Gary Hall wrote:
> I appreciate your efforts in trying to provide a service but Yahoo lists
> are free and if I have to support you then I'll opt out.
>
> Your choice,
>
> Warm regards,
>
> gary
>
Matt's lists cost you the sight of a couple of donation-request emails
per year. Contribution is voluntary.
On the other hand, it's pretty hard for me to think of dealing with the
clunkiness of Yahoo as 'free'...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Rotax 912 |
I posted some pics of the connector in question, I used a crimper as specified
on Bobs site.
Just go to:
http://www.701builder.com
I put a link at the top of the homepage called Rotax Ignition Wiring.
hope this helps
Brian Unruh
Long Island
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Magneto and VM1000 Dimming |
Functional checkout of my (Nuckolls inspired)electrical system has gone well
so far with no smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an
Odyssey 680 a couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it
would at least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start
and maybe a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the
case. Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't
produce enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks
when shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed
lead acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got
enough oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
ungrounded the resistance across the pleads (I used a shielded wire with the
shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch as Bob recommends, no
local grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
the same results?
Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming.
I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Dean
RV-6A N197DM
closer to 1st flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Magneto and VM1000 Dimming |
Yea, I believe the VM1000 only dims from the front panel.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto and VM1000 Dimming
-->
Functional checkout of my (Nuckolls inspired)electrical system has gone well
so far with no smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an
Odyssey 680 a couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it
would at least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start
and maybe a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the
case. Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't
produce enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks
when shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed
lead acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got
enough oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
ungrounded the resistance across the pleads (I used a shielded wire with the
shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch as Bob recommends, no
local grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
the same results?
Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming. I
used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Dean
RV-6A N197DM
closer to 1st flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 11/09/07 |
Thank you Charlie,
Isn't it amazing how different people determine value?
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs -
11/09/07
-->
Gary Hall wrote:
> I appreciate your efforts in trying to provide a service but Yahoo
> lists are free and if I have to support you then I'll opt out.
>
> Your choice,
>
> Warm regards,
>
> gary
>
Matt's lists cost you the sight of a couple of donation-request emails per
year. Contribution is voluntary.
On the other hand, it's pretty hard for me to think of dealing with the
clunkiness of Yahoo as 'free'...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto and VM1000 Dimming |
I went through that too, Dean..
If you measure the resistance between the p-connection on the mag and
the mag case, you are either measuring the resistance through the
primary winding of the coil in the mag, or through the breaker points in
the mag (depending on where mag/engine are positioned - making the
points open or closed). In either case, it's a low resistance value.
Normal behavior.
Regards,
Matt-
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
> Functional checkout of my (Nuckolls inspired)electrical system has gone well
> so far with no smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an
> Odyssey 680 a couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it
> would at least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start
> and maybe a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the
> case. Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't
> produce enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks
> when shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed
> lead acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got
> enough oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
>
> I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
> side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
> position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
> short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
> ungrounded the resistance across the pleads (I used a shielded wire with the
> shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch as Bob recommends, no
> local grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
> resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
> an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
> time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
> I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
> resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
> that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
> problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
> the same results?
>
> Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming.
> I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
> don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
> experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
> an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
>
> Dean
> RV-6A N197DM
> closer to 1st flight.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tyco and all its problems |
| From: | "dballin" <dballin(at)gmail.com> |
Another solution is Gigavac. Their GX11 is basically the same as the Tyco ev200,
but less expensive.
http://www.gigavac.com/products/relays/gigavac/index.htm
I had a very good experience ordering from them. They evidently are a bunch of
ex Tyco people, are very knowledgeable and friendly.
Dan Ballin
Legacy #286
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145073#145073
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tyco and all its problems |
dballin a crit :
> Another solution is Gigavac. Their GX11 is basically the same as the Tyco ev200,
but less expensive.
>
> http://www.gigavac.com/products/relays/gigavac/index.htm
>
Dan,
It seems the GX11 hold current is about 700 mA, whereas the EV200 is 140
mA....
Or am I missing the obvious ?
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 11/09/07 |
you get what you pay for one way or another. if one's time is worth
nothing then wasting time reading garbage can seem like good value.
On Nov 10, 2007 9:49 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> Gary Hall wrote:
> > I appreciate your efforts in trying to provide a service but Yahoo lists
> > are free and if I have to support you then I'll opt out.
> >
> > Your choice,
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > gary
> >
> Matt's lists cost you the sight of a couple of donation-request emails
> per year. Contribution is voluntary.
>
> On the other hand, it's pretty hard for me to think of dealing with the
> clunkiness of Yahoo as 'free'...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Post Mortem - Matronics List Pummeled By Spam... |
Dear Listers,
Over a 3-day period, Thursday 11/8 though Saturday 11/10, the Matronics Lists were
pummeled with over 450,000 spam emails causing posting delays and a few duplicate
messages. Yeah, I really said nearly half a million spams! The good
news is that I don't believe a single one of them actually made it to the Lists
thanks to the aggressive List filtering code and the Barracuda spam filter.
The bad news was that it caused quite a back log of email messages starting Friday
and continuing until late Saturday when I noticed that delivery seemed a bit
sluggish. By about 11pm on Saturday night, I had managed to get the backlog
cleared out of the spam filter by temporarily adjusting some of the filtering.
A check of the queues this morning, and everything looks like its working great
and there are no incoming filtering delays and spam levels appear to be back
to "normal".
There were a number of people asking what was going on, so I thought that I'd send
out a follow up post mortem on the event...
November is the annual List Fund Raiser. Your contribution directly enables me
to buy systems like the Barracuda spam filter that keep the List free of that
garbage. Please make a contribution to support your Lists!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Z14 Bat/Alt Master switch circuit questions |
Bob,
I'm building a Z-14 (dual bat, dual alt, split bus) with a 100amp primary
alt, a 20amp aux alt (SD20), and identical Odyssey style, AGM batteries.
Thus, I've biased my heavy/normal loads toward the primary side/bus (heated
prop, heated seats, etc).
I noted the z-14 drawing has s700-2-10 (three way) bat/alt master switches,
which are functionally equivalent to traditional Cessna style split master
switches. I understand this is a useful approach for preventing activation
of an alternator without an associated battery on-line. However, as shown,
it also means that taking a battery off-line dictates that the associated
alternator is off-line.
It seems that it would still be "ok" to leave an alternator on-line, with
it's associated battery off-line, as long as the cross-tie and other battery
were still on-line. However, this is not possible as shown in a std Z-14.
I'm interested in knowing more regarding these potential scenarios and
potential alternative approaches.
1) What typically happens when a battery fails that might cause someone
to want it off-line?
a. Shorts a cell, which causes it to drop approx 2 volts (???)
i. Would
I even know this while the alternator is working???
ii. What
happens if it (and the associated alt) is left on-line???
b. Battery cable becomes disconnected, or contactor fails, etc - which
causes the battery to become off-line
i. What
happens to the alternator that is now working without an associated battery?
ii. How
would I know to turn on the cross-tie (assuming it was "normally" off) to
tie the lone alternator to the remaining good battery?
c. Other Failure scenarios???
2) It seems the wiring alternatives would include:
a. Do nothing (leave z14 as-is) since the potential loss of a battery
is low, and even so I could simply either 1) leave the failed battery and
associated good alt on-line (with the cross connector) and/or 2) complete an
expedited landing with only the aux power system.
b. Include a pullable breaker (or fuse) in series with the battery
contactor side of the s700-2-10 master switch to allow the alternator to be
on-line with the battery off-line (by pulling that breaker/fuse) and leaving
the switch in the both-on position. Of course this essentially overrides
the inherent alternator only prevention and implies the user knows the
cross-tie must therefore also be on.
c. Create a more complex "logic-based" circuit with separate bat and
alt switches that only energizes the alternator switches when a appropriate
battery is also connected (either the associated battery or the other
battery and the cross-tie)
d. Create fully separate bat and alt switches and leave it up to the
pilot to get it right (the simplest, but perhaps not the safest).
e. Other???
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV8 firewall ground block location |
Where have you guys been mounting the firewall ground
block on your RV8? Seems like there are two possible
locations- one penetrating the baggage compartment,
the other below the baggage compartment floor. One
interferes with baggage, the other possibly with the
rudder pedals. I'd appreciate any insight you all
might have.
Sam Ray
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
I am trying to find a double A (AA) battery replacement power supply that runs
from a 12v socket. I cannot for the life of me remember what these are called,
thus my Google searches have been fruitless.
If somebody knows where to find such a thing please let me know. I have two Lightspeed
headsets that each take a pair of AA batteries for the noise canceling
function. I want to find some of these AA adapters and make it a more permanent
installation.
Thanks very much,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145215#145215
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
Hi Mike,
Check out Thomas Distributing for most of your small battery and charger needs.
I've been buying from these guys for years with no problems whatsoever. Go
to Shop By Category and click on Chargers, then Chargers by Battery Size, then
select one of the four categories for AA batteries. I'll endorse the Maha brand
of chargers, since that's why I have and know. I've had the MH-C204F for
~8 years with no problems whatsoever. It's not listed anymore, but if you select
AA-AAA Chargers, you'll see Mahas listed. If I had to buy a AA charger today,
I would select the Maha MH-C204GT (AC Adaptor) or MH-C204GT-DC (AC and 12V
DC Car Cord Adaptor). You, of course, need the latter for 12V usage.
Also, check out Thomas Distributing's AA NiMH battery selection. I see that they
now have 2850 mAH batteries. Mine are 8 year old GP 1800 and 2000 mAH batteries,
and they do just fine on cross-country trips.
http://www.thomasdistributing.com/
Henador Titzoff
Mig-Weld Fulcrum
----- Original Message ----
From: mikef <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:28:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called??
Hi All,
I am trying to find a double A (AA) battery replacement power supply
that runs from a 12v socket. I cannot for the life of me remember what
these are called, thus my Google searches have been fruitless.
If somebody knows where to find such a thing please let me know. I have
two Lightspeed headsets that each take a pair of AA batteries for the
noise canceling function. I want to find some of these AA adapters and
make it a more permanent installation.
Thanks very much,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145215#145215
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Henador,
THanks for that tip on chargers. It is a good source, but not exactly what I am
looking for.
I want to replace the AA batteries with an adapter that slots into the spot that
the two AA normally go. Then that is wired to a 12v socket plug. That way I
never have to worry about charged batteries. Just plug in and go. I know this
thing is out there, I've seen them. Now I just cannot seem to find them. And I
remember there were models for a 9 volt replacement as well as AA.
Thanks again,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145237#145237
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
OK, finally found them. 'battery eliminator'. Kind of like Ahnolad, the Eliminator.
http://www.qcavionix.com/battery_eliminators.php?cat 500
Thanks all.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145241#145241
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
Thank you, Mike, for turning us on to this remarkable jewel of electronics. I'm
gonna look into it myself! :)
Henador Titzoff
Mig-Weld Fulcrum
----- Original Message ----
From: mikef <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:41:50 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called??
OK, finally found them. 'battery eliminator'. Kind of like Ahnolad,
the Eliminator.
http://www.qcavionix.com/battery_eliminators.php?cat 500
Thanks all.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Heffley <list(at)toddheffley.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Belly Com Antenna Shadowing |
donald
You might consider waiting before you drill another footprint in the
bottom of the airplane.
My experince is that a Lower bent whip, near the middle of the
wing/fuselage is an ideal location.
Is it possible that you are fighting a bad antenna/antenna ground, or
(more likely) a bad coax/coax connector/Rack mount connector....
An interfence with the gear would seem reasonable for a whip mounted
within an INCH of a gear leg.
I am picturing your installation is a foot from each gear leg...???...
Keep lookn', before you start drillin'.
todd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Satellite antenna ground planes required? |
I have 2 (two) satellite antennas mounted to the top of my RV-10 cabin.
On is for a WAAS GPS sensor and the Other is for an XM weather
receiver.The cabin top is entirely made of fiberglass/epoxy composite.
I've looked in vain for information as to whether or not groundplanes
are required for these antennas, and if so what size/dimension. I would
dearly appreciate any guidance and direction the list or it's Sponsor
might provide.
Thanks
Deems Davis # 406
'Its all done....Its just not put together'
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Satellite antenna ground planes required? |
Both will work fine looking thru fiberglass Just figure out a mount
under side. Best way to prove it is to do it. That was my method.
Paul
=============
At 07:11 PM 11/11/2007, you wrote:
>
>I have 2 (two) satellite antennas mounted to the top of my RV-10
>cabin. On is for a WAAS GPS sensor and the Other is for an XM
>weather receiver.The cabin top is entirely made of fiberglass/epoxy
>composite. I've looked in vain for information as to whether or not
>groundplanes are required for these antennas, and if so what
>size/dimension. I would dearly appreciate any guidance and direction
>the list or it's Sponsor might provide.
>
>Thanks
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>'Its all done....Its just not put together'
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "noelk" <noelk(at)pcug.org.au> |
I have a crimping tool for PIDG-type connectors that, while bought locally here
in Australia, appears to be identical to the RCT-1 from B&C. It did not come
with any instructions regarding the pressure setting dial. Are there any general
guidelines regarding the pressure setting to use for different wire gauges?
If not, what are the things to look for in the finished crimp in order to assess
whether the pressure setting is correct?
Regards
Noel Karppinen
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145320#145320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called?? |
>Re: AA battery replacer? What is this thingy called??
>From: "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
>Thanks again, Mike
I know what you are asking, you want to connect a 12 volt cigarette to 3 volt
power supply to your head-set through some dummy AA cells (with wires sticking
out them).
Well you could just solder or clip some wires in and route them out to a plug
and the power supply. I am not sure they make AA with wires sticking out of them.
You could make them but that is a lot of work for little gain. Do you wnat
extra wires running all over and a 12v to 3 v power supply going all the time.
Mike if I where you, I would by a bunch of rechargeable nickel-metal hydride
batteries, abbreviated NiMH.
Get the biggest capacity ones. Than just charge say 4 or 6 of them up and put
them in your plane. You could also charge the "spare set" with a portable 12v
cigarette lighter charger. You really don't want wires running all over do you?
Just get a home charger and charge them there. I have about 30 NiiMH batteries
I run through my charger. They last a long time in service.
George
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto and VM1000 Dimming |
My VM1000 would dim with my B&C dimmer....then I started having problems with the
backlight not working at all. JPI told me there was something wrong with my
wiring - checked that. I haven't flown yet but they wouldn't repair it - and
wanted too much money for me to give JPI. I bought an Advanced Flight Systems
AF3400EM - used most of the existing wiring and am a happy camper now.
Parting out my VM1000 to keep others going.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
>Sent: Nov 11, 2007 2:47 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto and VM1000 Dimming
>
>
>Functional checkout of my (Nuckolls inspired)electrical system has gone well
>so far with no smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an
>Odyssey 680 a couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it
>would at least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start
>and maybe a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the
>case. Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't
>produce enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks
>when shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed
>lead acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got
>enough oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
>
>I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
>side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
>position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
>short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
>ungrounded the resistance across the pleads (I used a shielded wire with the
>shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch as Bob recommends, no
>local grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
>resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
>an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
>time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
>I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
>resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
>that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
>problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
>the same results?
>
>Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming.
>I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
>don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
>experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
>an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
>
>Dean
>RV-6A N197DM
>closer to 1st flight.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Satellite antenna Proximity? |
Is there a concern in mounting 3 GPS antennas within 12" of each other?
One is WAAS for a GNS-430W, One is for EFIS, and one is for a handheld
Garmin 396.
ERic--
RV-10, N104EP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14 Bat/Alt Master switch circuit questions |
>Bob,
>
>
>I m building a Z-14 (dual bat, dual alt, split bus) with a 100amp primary
>alt, a 20amp aux alt (SD20), and identical Odyssey style, AGM
>batteries. Thus, I ve biased my heavy/normal loads toward the primary
>side/bus (heated prop, heated seats, etc).
>
>
>I noted the z-14 drawing has s700-2-10 (three way) bat/alt master
>switches, which are functionally equivalent to traditional Cessna style
>split master switches. I understand this is a useful approach for
>preventing activation of an alternator without an associated battery
>on-line. However, as shown, it also means that taking a battery off-line
>dictates that the associated alternator is off-line.
>
>
>It seems that it would still be ok to leave an alternator on-line, with it
>s associated battery off-line, as long as the cross-tie and other battery
>were still on-line. However, this is not possible as shown in a std Z-14.
>
>
>I m interested in knowing more regarding these potential scenarios and
>potential alternative approaches&
>
>
>1) What typically happens when a battery fails that might cause
>someone to want it off-line?
Doesn't happen in a adequately mainatined RG battery.
>a. Shorts a cell, which causes it to drop approx 2 volts (???)
>
> i.
> Would I even know this while the alternator is working??
> ii. What
> happens if it (and the associated alt) is left on-line???
Not a scenario to consider.
>b. Battery cable becomes disconnected, or contactor fails, etc -
>which causes the battery to become off-line
>
> i.
> What happens to the alternator that is now working without an associated
> battery?
Voltage regulation might become a bit less stable . . . not big deal.
Alternator at-risk for being "stalled" by hi-inrush load but easily
accommodated by closing crossfeed contactor after the stall-event.
> ii. How
> would I know to turn on the cross-tie (assuming it was normally off) to
> tie the lone alternator to the remaining good battery?
Any time one of the two busses goes dark -OR- if the alternator
is known to be off-line (low volts warning light).
>c. Other Failure scenarios???
>
>
>2) It seems the wiring alternatives would include:
>
>
>a. Do nothing (leave z14 as-is) since the potential loss of a battery
>is low, and even so I could simply either 1) leave the failed battery and
>associated good alt on-line (with the cross connector) and/or 2) complete
>an expedited landing with only the aux power system.
Gross battery failures in a maintained battery
are exceedingly rare. I cannot say "zero" but
it's so close to zero that you and I are unlikely
to hear of anyone who had the experience and even
less likely to experience it ourselves.
>
>
>b. Include a pullable breaker (or fuse) in series with the battery
>contactor side of the s700-2-10 master switch to allow the alternator to
>be on-line with the battery off-line (by pulling that breaker/fuse) and
>leaving the switch in the both-on position. Of course this essentially
>overrides the inherent alternator only prevention and implies the user
>knows the cross-tie must therefore also be on.
>
>
>c. Create a more complex logic-based circuit with separate bat and
>alt switches that only energizes the alternator switches when a
>appropriate battery is also connected (either the associated battery or
>the other battery and the cross-tie)
>
>
>d. Create fully separate bat and alt switches and leave it up to the
>pilot to get it right (the simplest, but perhaps not the safest).
>
>
>e. Other???
Z-14 has simmered on the stove for over 10 years
with considerable praying over the list of failure
modes by lots of folks. As published, it meets the
design goals for minimum parts count and simple
operating procedures that avoid becoming a
diagnostician/mechanic in flight. If it were my
airplane, I'd install it as-published.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | My SL-70 findings |
Reposted from other lists - hopefully to elicit Bob N's comments!
Here's what I've done/found:
Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific tests individually
- all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first piece of coax) with
a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
No change
Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
Open from center to shield
Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains very low
The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to pass encoder
info to the GPS
Here's what I think:
The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in for repair -
off to call GarminAT repair.
The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the first chunk
of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the resistance
problem.
Here's where I need comments:
RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like the center conductor.
The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the plating appears
to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the connector should
(but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
This is the same tray connector (I think) that has been recently mentioned on this
list.
Thanks in advance,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TRIM Disconnect Switch |
>
>Way off topic here..
>
>Any time I hear the "patent" word in the midst of real innovators I cringe.
>
>PLEASE look at
>
>"Case Against Patents" on Don Lancaster's WWW.tinaja.com
>
>Then if you want to know how real innovators make money from ideas,
>read "Riskdown" on the same site.
Agreed. I've had numerous clients bring up the
topic of seeking formalized "protections" of one
kind or another, including patents. I refer them
to the biographies of individuals like Edwin
Armstrong . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong
who had a "great idea" but not the resources to
exploit it . . . in particular a high-demand
marketplace. His patent battles ultimately consumed
both his material and spiritual existence.
I always tell my customers that the best way
to "protect their investment" is to vigorously
and skillfully exploit it while working diligently
to be the first to obsolete the present incarnation
of the idea before competition does it for them.
Nowhere has this philosophy been more successfully
practiced than in the computer accessories business.
Had a client in KC seek my help some years ago
on a product that would be manufactured for a total
of perhaps 18 months but 9-12 months more typical.
Many of their products ran their market life
in two or three batches of production only to be
replaced by the next greatest thing.
Return on investment peaks when the agile
supplier of goods figures out how to optimize
their product in ways most attractive to
consumers. These folks are always successful
and probably much more successful than those
who spend $time$ arguing the finer points
of their patents before a jury educated in
American public schools.
There is probably no feature of an RV that
is worthy of patenting or even copyrighting
but Mr. V has demonstrated his ability
to offer an attractive product that is constantly
evolving into the next greatest thing.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Satellite antenna ground planes required? |
>
>I have 2 (two) satellite antennas mounted to the top of my RV-10 cabin. On
>is for a WAAS GPS sensor and the Other is for an XM weather receiver.The
>cabin top is entirely made of fiberglass/epoxy composite. I've looked in
>vain for information as to whether or not groundplanes are required for
>these antennas, and if so what size/dimension. I would dearly appreciate
>any guidance and direction the list or it's Sponsor might provide.
Ground planes at 1.5 GHz are not terribly
large in terms of real estate . . . and depending
on the antenna's design, may not be necessary
at all.
What ever manner of shelf, fabricated from aluminum
sheet and used to position the antennas at the
top of the fuselage will no doubt prove to be
adequate.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Newman" <rnewman(at)lutron.com> |
| Subject: | antenna proximity |
Eric, I studied all the documents I could find on this subject when
I did our new panel in our Glastar and found nothing suggest a problem
would occur. So I mounted our two Garmin GPS antennas within about 6"
of each other. One feeds our GNS-530 and one feeds our Garmin 250-XL.
On occasion I stick the remote antenna for my hand held Garmin on the
skylight of The glastar within about 12" of the other two antennas.
I've flown this combo for about a year including IFR. I've had zero
problems.
Bob Newman
www.tcwtech.com
If you want to check out our instrument panel fed by this combination
of antennas visit the web site listed above and then scroll down to the
bottom of our home page, click on "visit or new instruement panel
N99RN"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net> |
| Subject: | Bus Bar Question |
Are the brass strips sold by B&C adequate to use as a bus bar for a 12V
ship on a 60 amp circuit-breaker ? The brass strips are 0.5 inches
wide, but only .025 thick. Seems quite thin considering the 6 AWG cable
that feeds it. Should I use something a little thicker?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Satellite antenna Proximity? |
Eric, the information i received on the same subject, indicated that for
the WAAS and Weather antennas, the only promimity issue was to avoid
placing them close to TRANSMITTING antennas.
Deems Davis # 406
'Its all done....Its just not put together'
http://deemsrv10.com/
Eric Parlow wrote:
>
>
> Is there a concern in mounting 3 GPS antennas within 12" of each other?
> One is WAAS for a GNS-430W, One is for EFIS, and one is for a handheld
> Garmin 396.
>
> ERic--
> RV-10, N104EP
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fuses and fusible links |
Bob: Your book says "B-lead fuse kit from our website catalog" which I'm
not able to locate on your site- is it still available?
B&C has acquired all of our parts business.
See http://bandc.biz
If you're thinking of using a fusible link
in the output of a PM alternator or perhaps
an SD-20, consider also the MAXI fuse in-line
fuse holders. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuse_Holders/MaxiFuse_Holder.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuse_Holders/Maxi_Holder.gif
You can get these at auto parts stores along
with matching fuses . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/maxi.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/MAXI_Specs.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Satellite antenna Proximity? |
>
>
>Is there a concern in mounting 3 GPS antennas within 12" of each other?
>One is WAAS for a GNS-430W, One is for EFIS, and one is for a handheld
>Garmin 396.
>
>ERic--
>RV-10, N104EP
No
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Tools |
>
>I have a crimping tool for PIDG-type connectors that, while bought locally
>here in Australia, appears to be identical to the RCT-1 from B&C. It did
>not come with any instructions regarding the pressure setting dial. Are
>there any general guidelines regarding the pressure setting to use for
>different wire gauges? If not, what are the things to look for in the
>finished crimp in order to assess whether the pressure setting is correct?
>
>Regards
>
>Noel Karppinen
The RCT-1 doesn't have an adjustment. I suspect
your adjustment has more to do with how much force
it takes to complete the handle-stroke as opposed
to closure of the dies. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
The dies should close completely and the tool
should not take excessive hand-force to
complete the cycle.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bus Bar Question |
>Are the brass strips sold by B&C adequate to use as a bus bar for a 12V
>ship on a 60 amp circuit-breaker ? The brass strips are 0.5 inches wide,
>but only .025 thick. Seems quite thin considering the 6 AWG cable that
>feeds it. Should I use something a little thicker?
Nope. While they appear "thin" the surface area
and local attachments for rejecting heat
are superior to insulated wire.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | unswitched input - PM1000II |
Has anyone tried to use the input for aircraft radio of PS Enginerring
PM1000II intercom (pins 17 and 4) as an unswitched/unmuted input for
warnings etc.?
If yes, what is the recommended resistor in line of the signal to the
intercom?
(PS Engineering is reluctant to give advice on the subject.)
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tyco and all its problems |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Gilles, You didn't miss anything. The reasons for using the EV200aaana or the GX11
are more than just hold current. (Gigavac also has a lower hold current model
if you ask)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is mostly a repost.
Compare---
____________________Type 70__________GX-11
Weight.........................12.5 Oz.............18 Oz
Temp...........................50 DegC...........75-85 DegC
(50 degC 122 F) makes the type 70 unusable....
Position........................Cap Down..........Any
Environmental...............Dust-Proof.........Hermetically sealed
Coil Suppression............Must be added....Built in
B&C Type 70 uses diodes, GX-11 uses transorbs (SnapJacks!)
Continuous Amps............80 at 50C..........150A at 75C
Inrush A.........................150...................500-2000
Open against Vmax.......... 35V.................>>100V
(...same as Kilovac)
Hold current.....................1.0 A................700 mA
(Kilovac is 100 mA, Gigavac has lower hold currents on request)
G-force opening...............2G ??................>>10G
Anyway the GX11 will be about $120, but the Type 70 ($37.00 from Newark) is not
really useable in my opinion. You may want the accessory contacts and long leads...couldn't
hurt.
The Kilovac EV200aaana (aka Blue Sea 9012) is still great (similar to the Gigavac
GX11).
The type 70 is problematic even if very common and long in the tooth. It is deficient
in four main areas:
1) Poor coil suppression (this can be retrofitted to improve it)
2) Inadequate operating temperature. My GUESS is that the early ones had fiber/bakelite
interiors, now they are Nylon. Regardless 122F spec is way too low to
use.
3) Inadequate G force withstand. 2G ??
4) Open against Vmax. 35V. They could sustain an arc if the alternator runs away.
--------
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=145413#145413
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tyco and all its problems |
| From: | "dballin" <dballin(at)gmail.com> |
Gilles
You are absolutely right and my mistake. Gigavac does make a more efficient model
the GX11TA 24v 45mA hold down current. You just have to ask for it!
Thanks for catching my error.
Dan Ballin
Legacy #286
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145421#145421
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV8 firewall ground block location |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
I'm building an -8A QB, using fuses vice CBs. My ground block is on the
lower firewall on the left side (looking fwd) of the deep baggage
compartment hole. My fuse blocks are on the forward side of the aft deep
baggage compartment bulkhead. After wiring is complete, I'll build a
lightweight container around the blocks to isolate them from cargo. Give
up a few cubic inches, but provide easy access.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved (Again)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder issues (antenna based?) |
Here's what I've done/found:
Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific tests individually
-all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first piece of coax) with
a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
No change
Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
Open from center to shield
Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains very low
The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to pass encoder
info to the GPS
Here's what I think:
The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in for repair -
off
to call GarminAT repair.
The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the first chunk
of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the resistance
problem.
Here's where I need comments:
RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like the center conductor.
The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the plating appears
to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the connector should
(but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
Thanks in advance,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
I have now read my new Aero Electric Connection cover to cover. Even
for someone with a university education in electronics, it was still
fabulously enlightening. Thanks Bob !
One of the things I have already learned is that Bob has designed
everything as it is for a particular and often unapparent reason.
So I have questions before I change anything :-)
I am building a night VFR aircraft which will have a Dynon as the main
instruments and engine monitoring. I will probably have a real ASI
and altimeter, since I find them much easier to read and I can happily
fly without the Dynon then. We take long distance trips, so I am more
concerned with failures that make it difficult to fly 10 hours home
than flight safety to get back on the ground, since I am usually
flying in nice weather.
In my 400 hours of flying, I have already had an alternator failure in
a rental aircraft. Although it was uneventful really, I would not
want to fly a long trip home without any electrics.
So Z-12 looks like a good fit for me, with an SD-8 as the backup
alternator (brilliant idea this product).
Figure 17-4 shows an SD-8 charging the battery directly, whereas Z-12
is like 17-8 with the two alternators are in parallel, and thus the
SD-8 cannot charge the battery with the contactor open. I don't think
the B&C SB1B-14 regulator is intended for the SD-8. So wire the SD-8
like figure 17-4 ?
It is easy to put a long list of items on the endurance bus. However,
maybe that doesn't matter. The likely failure modes need to be
analyzed. In the event of an alternator failure, switches can be used
to turn off unnecessary devices, so it doesn't matter which bus they
are really on (just contactor hold current). In the event of an
electrical fire, the battery contactor will be switched off, so only
the necessary items for an immediate emergency landing need to be on
the endurance bus.
Maybe an electrical fire is far less likely since I will be using
fuses almost entirely. Unlike a circuit breaker that cannot be
trusted to pop, the fuse will likely blow. No fire, smoke or smell,
so usually no need to turn off the battery contactor ??
The diode tying the main bus to the endurance bus seems unnecessary.
The main bus could easily be wired to pin 3 of the e-bus alternate
feed switch. This implies the diode is more reliable than the switch
(which is only switched once to test at each run-up). If it is a
reliability concern, why not wire the switch and keep the diode ? Or
is there another reason I haven't even guessed at ?
I will appreciate everyone's input.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sensornetics Efs and Efis system, feedback needed |
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I was going with the dynon d100-d180 combo when the guy from can-zac (sorry, terrible with names but he is very well know, loved the stratch building video) mentioned http://www.sensornetics.com/.
I have looked at this product and it seems superior to the dynon and about
2k less expensive.
I am leary of purchasing an unknown system. Can anyone give feedback on system
and support from this company?
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145459#145459
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I have to put my 2 cents in. If a person gives a service worth something then we
should be willing to pay something for it.
There are a couple of good reasons for doing this for free but they can only
last for a very limited time. The reasons might be boredom, learning or enjoyment
of coding. Each reason is valid but all only last for a limited time.
I am sure Matt could find something better to do, has learned all he need about
coding, and has had so much coding it is no longer enjoyable doing the same
thing over and over.
Now that he has no reason to pay the massive bills to run the server, the only
option left is to pay for his time. If he is not given sufficient reasons
to run this site he may just turn the darn thing off. If he were to do that I
would be up the creek with no paddle.
Anyone who thinks yahoo groups are worthwhile except for general chit chat about
planes is crazy. I am in 5 groups and get maybe 4 emails a day. The responses
to yahoo are so small that I have e-mails sent to me anytime anyone puts
in a message. If I tried that with matronics I would be so overloaded with e-mails
I would spend an hour a day erasing e-mails.
My point is until I found matronics from the Zenith site, I had no informational
source from the net and was completely lost.
I figure if we each give minimum $20 and he gets 2,000 checks each year that
should help with the bills and leave enough for a few adult beverages at the
end of the day.
If you really think yahoo is better because it's free, then be so kind as to
not use up our bandwidth with nonesense.
SEND A CHECK!!!!! If you can afford a $100 hamburger you can afford something
for Matt.
P.S. I don't know Matt. I have only been on this site since July when I bought
my kit.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145462#145462
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensornetics Efs and Efis system, feedback |
needed
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
While the sensornetics products look pretty slick, it doesn't appear that
they include any type of gyro capability. That probably represents at
least a portion of the cost savings.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> I was going with the dynon d100-d180 combo when the guy from can-zac
> (sorry, terrible with names but he is very well know, loved the stratch
> building video) mentioned http://www.sensornetics.com/.
> I have looked at this product and it seems superior to the dynon and
> about 2k less expensive.
> I am leary of purchasing an unknown system. Can anyone give feedback on
> system and support from this company?
> Don
>
> --------
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals
> for assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145459#145459
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
mosquito56 wrote:
>
> I have to put my 2 cents in. If a person gives a service worth something then
we should be willing to pay something for it.
> There are a couple of good reasons for doing this for free but they can only
last for a very limited time. The reasons might be boredom, learning or enjoyment
of coding. Each reason is valid but all only last for a limited time.
> I am sure Matt could find something better to do, has learned all he need
about coding, and has had so much coding it is no longer enjoyable doing the
same thing over and over.
> Now that he has no reason to pay the massive bills to run the server, the
only option left is to pay for his time. If he is not given sufficient reasons
to run this site he may just turn the darn thing off. If he were to do that
I would be up the creek with no paddle.
> Anyone who thinks yahoo groups are worthwhile except for general chit chat
about planes is crazy. I am in 5 groups and get maybe 4 emails a day. The responses
to yahoo are so small that I have e-mails sent to me anytime anyone puts
in a message. If I tried that with matronics I would be so overloaded with e-mails
I would spend an hour a day erasing e-mails.
> My point is until I found matronics from the Zenith site, I had no informational
source from the net and was completely lost.
> I figure if we each give minimum $20 and he gets 2,000 checks each year that
should help with the bills and leave enough for a few adult beverages at the
end of the day.
> If you really think yahoo is better because it's free, then be so kind as
to not use up our bandwidth with nonesense.
>
> SEND A CHECK!!!!! If you can afford a $100 hamburger you can afford something
for Matt.
>
> P.S. I don't know Matt. I have only been on this site since July when I bought
my kit.
>
>
I've sent a check, but I hate to see things going overboard. Massive
server? I don't know how many list Matt's running, but the Aeroelectric
list and a dozen like it would run fine on a 5yr-old low end computer
contected to a residential broadband connection. I ran several list a
while back, and like you say, it gets old. It can be rather tedious at
times, and it is one more responsibility that isn't building airplanes.
Matt does more than I ever cared to, with the virus/spam scanning and
all, but it is still a fairly intermittent duty. Maintaining the forums
may be different. I would never run one, because I don't even like to
use them.
Yahoo irritates the snot out of me every time I try (generally
unsuccessfully) log on. All the useless graphics, and adds for consumer
CRAP flooding my connection just grates on my last nerve. You're paying
every time you log onto Yahoo, because they are selling YOU. You are
the product they sell to advertisers, and everything about their site
screams that at you. I appreciate a clean, uncluttered text interface
and I'm willing to pay a few dollars to keep it.
Matt deserves his due. I just object to the hyperbole.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Europa List" <n914va(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Power schematic for review |
Here's my plan for my Europa with a ULPower Ul260i powerplant. Comments
please. Thank you.
Vaughn Teegarden
Hoping to finish before I die
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sensornetics Efs and Efis system, feedback |
needed
I saw a demo of this product at a show a few years back. Very good
display - very clear. Correct, as far as the EFIS is concerned it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to map a GPS signal. No value there,
everyone sells that these days.
If you need a very compact engine monitor, this is a good way to go. As
far as duplicating data how many engine monitors can one use? I now have
an AF3500, a D100 and a GRT EIS which all have their own purpose but can
display or add engine information for low cost and I don't need to punch
another hole in the panel.
If you just want to go for a cheap efis display, this might do, but
you'd better have a good gps signal to back it up. Add 12k for something
you can really trust and the value starts to disappear. It's probably
better to spend 2-5k on something you might need to rely on later. Also,
if you start listing the D100 features you'd have to replace with
something else, you'll be writing more checks.
I didn't see anything on battery backup?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sensornetics Efs and Efis system,
feedback needed
-->
While the sensornetics products look pretty slick, it doesn't appear
that they include any type of gyro capability. That probably represents
at least a portion of the cost savings.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> I was going with the dynon d100-d180 combo when the guy from can-zac
> (sorry, terrible with names but he is very well know, loved the
> stratch building video) mentioned http://www.sensornetics.com/.
> I have looked at this product and it seems superior to the dynon
> and about 2k less expensive.
> I am leary of purchasing an unknown system. Can anyone give
> feedback on system and support from this company? Don
>
> --------
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between
> individuals for assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145459#145459
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power schematic for review |
>Here's my plan for my Europa with a ULPower Ul260i powerplant. Comments
>please. Thank you.
Wondering why you left off OV protection?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Sensornetics Efs and Efis system, feedback needed |
Don,
I don't have any information on the Sensornetics equipment, however I did a
lot of research on EFIS systems before purchasing a GRT Sport System; I am
very happy with that decision. The other two majors are also very good (AFS,
Dynon).
I will pass along my experience; and that is you get what you pay for. If a
system is that much less than the competitors, I would ask myself why and
think long and hard about the value of their offering. Too many times on my
Bearhawk project I thought I'd save money choosing the least expensive
option only to have it cost me more in the long run. Now I look for overall
value instead of initial cost and that has worked well for me.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Mike Creek
____________________________________________________________________________
You Wrote:
I was going with the dynon d100-d180 combo when the guy from can-zac (sorry,
terrible with names but he is very well know, loved the stratch building
video) mentioned http://www.sensornetics.com/.
I have looked at this product and it seems superior to the dynon and
about 2k less expensive.
I am leary of purchasing an unknown system. Can anyone give feedback on
system and support from this company?
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power schematic for review |
This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
overvoltage protection.
"The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
Vaughn
---- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power schematic for review
>
>
>
>>Here's my plan for my Europa with a ULPower Ul260i powerplant. Comments
>>please. Thank you.
>
> Wondering why you left off OV protection?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Problems are the price of progress. )
> ( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
> ( Good news weakens me." )
> ( -Charles F. Kettering- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power schematic for review |
>
>
>This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
>overvoltage protection.
>
>"The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
??? Hmmmm . . . This would be a first for
PM rectifier/regulator products that I'm
aware of. Can you tell me the manufacturer
and part number for this device?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power schematic for review |
I will see if I can find that information.
Vaughn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power schematic for review
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
>>overvoltage protection.
>>
>>"The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
>
> ??? Hmmmm . . . This would be a first for
> PM rectifier/regulator products that I'm
> aware of. Can you tell me the manufacturer
> and part number for this device?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Power schematic for review |
Bob, Vaughn
Maybe they are referring to the regulator circuit itself but we need to
protect against the failure of this component.
Peter H
-----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: Tuesday, 13 November 2007 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power schematic for review
>
>
>This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
>overvoltage protection.
>
>"The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
??? Hmmmm . . . This would be a first for
PM rectifier/regulator products that I'm
aware of. Can you tell me the manufacturer
and part number for this device?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List of Contributors |
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of
my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by popping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
>I've sent a check, but I hate to see things going overboard. Massive
>server? I don't know how many list Matt's running, but the Aeroelectric
>list and a dozen like it would run fine on a 5yr-old low end computer
>contected to a residential broadband connection. I ran several list a
>while back, and like you say, it gets old. It can be rather tedious at
>times, and it is one more responsibility that isn't building airplanes.
>Matt does more than I ever cared to, with the virus/spam scanning and all,
>but it is still a fairly intermittent duty. Maintaining the forums may be
>different. I would never run one, because I don't even like to use them.
>Yahoo irritates the snot out of me every time I try (generally
>unsuccessfully) log on. All the useless graphics, and adds for consumer
>CRAP flooding my connection just grates on my last nerve. You're paying
>every time you log onto Yahoo, because they are selling YOU. You are the
>product they sell to advertisers, and everything about their site screams
>that at you. I appreciate a clean, uncluttered text interface and I'm
>willing to pay a few dollars to keep it.
>
>Matt deserves his due. I just object to the hyperbole.
Nothing hyperbolic about it . . . take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
$2500 a month!
Obviously, there's a lot more snort here than what's
necessary to support the lists and I'm certain that
Matt has other sources of cash flow to justify putting
this system together in the first place. My own
website resides on this system for which I pay $35
a month . . . a bargain! At the same time, I'm
reminded of a privilege I enjoyed when
KTVH television donated space and power on the
1200 foot platform of their tower in Hutchinson
KS for the Air Capitol Amateur Repeater
Association's 146.22/82 repeater. We had altitude
that normally rented for .25/foot/month or $300.
I helped install that system 37 years ago, those
are the toes of my boots seen in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/KTVH.jpg
The amateur radio fraternity for 100+ miles around
Hutchinson have enjoyed the value of access to that
tower without having to pay the $150,000 rent that
other folks have paid to share the same space over
the years.
Yes, KTVH has other revenue sources that justify
putting the tower up irrespective of the club's
ability or willingness to "donate" to their
coffers. In retrospect, I regret that as president
of the club for many years, I didn't have the presence
of mind to acknowledge an exceedingly unique privilege
we enjoyed.
We should at least have sent some nice cheese,
nut and fruit baskets every Christmas to the
technical and management staff that supported and
tolerated us for all those years . . . and still
do to this day.
It's too easy to loose sight of the true value
received from the graciousness of our hosts as
we go through life. I'd like to take this opportunity
to raise the awareness of the List members as
to the unique position we occupy on Matt's system
and in particular, alternatives we'd be
stuck with if Matt had not taken it upon himself
to share the best he knows how to do with the
rest of us.
We have no right to demand anything of Matt and
every obligation to share the load. In addition
to renting website space on his system, the
'Connection donates about $500 of in-kind
products to support the fund raiser. A few
years ago, Matt was assaulted with a
frivolous lawsuit by JPI over allegations
of trademark infringement. The 'Connction
mounted a drive to contribute to Matt's
defense. As I recall, the AeroElectric-
List raised about $3500.
Whip out your credit cards guys. Don't know about
you but it would be a sad day in my life should
we find it necessary to conduct this List on AOL
or Yahoo just because Matt's personal $burdens$
assumed on our behalf were not adequately shared
by us all.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Questions |
>
>I have now read my new Aero Electric Connection cover to cover. Even
>for someone with a university education in electronics, it was still
>fabulously enlightening. Thanks Bob !
>One of the things I have already learned is that Bob has designed
>everything as it is for a particular and often unapparent reason.
>So I have questions before I change anything :-)
Good thinking . . .
>I am building a night VFR aircraft which will have a Dynon as the main
>instruments and engine monitoring. I will probably have a real ASI
>and altimeter, since I find them much easier to read and I can happily
>fly without the Dynon then. We take long distance trips, so I am more
>concerned with failures that make it difficult to fly 10 hours home
>than flight safety to get back on the ground, since I am usually
>flying in nice weather.
>
>In my 400 hours of flying, I have already had an alternator failure in
>a rental aircraft. Although it was uneventful really, I would not
>want to fly a long trip home without any electrics.
>
>So Z-12 looks like a good fit for me, with an SD-8 as the backup
>alternator (brilliant idea this product).
Why not 13/8? Z-12 is a standby alternator retrofit
philosophy for airplanes already flying. Not really
intended for new design.
>Figure 17-4 shows an SD-8 charging the battery directly, whereas Z-12
>is like 17-8 with the two alternators are in parallel, and thus the
>SD-8 cannot charge the battery with the contactor open. I don't think
>the B&C SB1B-14 regulator is intended for the SD-8. So wire the SD-8
>like figure 17-4 ?
Let's not mix/match features across architectures.
Concentrate on lowest parts count (which translates
to minimized weight, $time$ to install and cost of
ownership) that meets mission goals.
>It is easy to put a long list of items on the endurance bus. However,
>maybe that doesn't matter. The likely failure modes need to be
>analyzed. In the event of an alternator failure, switches can be used
>to turn off unnecessary devices, so it doesn't matter which bus they
>are really on (just contactor hold current). In the event of an
>electrical fire, the battery contactor will be switched off, so only
>the necessary items for an immediate emergency landing need to be on
>the endurance bus.
It does matter . . . you need to set you own
design goals for performance in the endurance mode
of en route flight. With one alternator, battery
capacity is used to support en route loads so we
strive to keep them very low . . . say 2-3 amps
so that there are some reserves in the battery for
approach to landing.
As soon as you add the SD-8, NOW endurance loads
can be up to 8A and hold the battery completely
in reserve for approach to landing.
>Maybe an electrical fire is far less likely since I will be using
>fuses almost entirely. Unlike a circuit breaker that cannot be
>trusted to pop, the fuse will likely blow. No fire, smoke or smell,
>so usually no need to turn off the battery contactor ??
I've never seen a breaker refuse to open on a
hard fault. But they DO allow more energy to be
driven into the fault condition than their faster
cousins. But yes, circuit protection of either
variety can be expected to avoid bad smells in the
cockpit.
>The diode tying the main bus to the endurance bus seems unnecessary.
>The main bus could easily be wired to pin 3 of the e-bus alternate
>feed switch. This implies the diode is more reliable than the switch
>(which is only switched once to test at each run-up). If it is a
>reliability concern, why not wire the switch and keep the diode ? Or
>is there another reason I haven't even guessed at ?
The diode IS more reliable than a switch. Further,
the modification you suggest runs BOTH power paths
for the e-bus through the single component . . . i.e.
single point of failure for power to the e-bus.
>I will appreciate everyone's input.
If I were building an airplane today, Z-13/8 is my
architecture of choice for kind of aircraft I would be
building and the manner in which I plan to use it. I
suspect that Z-13/8 would be most adequate for 98%
of the OBAM aircraft being licensed every year.
Do your load analysis. Decide which devices will
reside on which busses. Then starting with Z-13/8,
deduce what failure mode or design goal is not
being accommodated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | ROT - Network costs |
I am fully supportive of Matt's activity.
I only wanted to comment on the network pricing. If they are paying $2,500
for a local T1 in Wichita, you need to find another provider. I'm getting
a 10mb pipe into my office for $1,500 here in Columbus.
-----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: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not)
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
$2500 a month!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ROT - Network costs |
>
>I am fully supportive of Matt's activity.
>
>I only wanted to comment on the network pricing. If they are paying $2,500
>for a local T1 in Wichita, you need to find another provider. I'm getting
>a 10mb pipe into my office for $1,500 here in Columbus.
That was a price quoted to me about 10 years ago.
Like all things in the communications market
driven by a rapidly evolving technology and
intense competition, the prices are no doubt
better by now . . . but it's still a whole lot
more than my favorite high-speed Internet
connection!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> I've sent a check, but I hate to see things going overboard. Massive
>> server? I don't know how many list Matt's running, but the
>> Aeroelectric list and a dozen like it would run fine on a 5yr-old low
>> end computer contected to a residential broadband connection. I ran
>> several list a while back, and like you say, it gets old. It can be
>> rather tedious at times, and it is one more responsibility that isn't
>> building airplanes.
>> Matt does more than I ever cared to, with the virus/spam scanning and
>> all, but it is still a fairly intermittent duty. Maintaining the
>> forums may be different. I would never run one, because I don't even
>> like to use them.
>> Yahoo irritates the snot out of me every time I try (generally
>> unsuccessfully) log on. All the useless graphics, and adds for
>> consumer CRAP flooding my connection just grates on my last nerve.
>> You're paying every time you log onto Yahoo, because they are selling
>> YOU. You are the product they sell to advertisers, and everything
>> about their site screams that at you. I appreciate a clean,
>> uncluttered text interface and I'm willing to pay a few dollars to
>> keep it.
>>
>> Matt deserves his due. I just object to the hyperbole.
>
> Nothing hyperbolic about it . . . take a peek at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
>
> This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
> that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
> grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
> has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
> I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
> $2500 a month!
Let's put some numbers on it, and then decide if it is hyperbolic or not.
Your message that I'm responding to was 5.5kB, not including the
headers. Let's use 5kB as an average message size (because it's a nice
round number). 5kB translates to 40kb (bytes to bits), which will tend
to use 50kb of bandwidth over ethernet. Most telecom works out to 80%
efficient once all the overhead is accounted for.
On an extremely busy day, a list might get 100 messages (again, just an
easy number), and we're looking at 64 lists...6400 messages at 50,000
bits each...that's 320,000,000 bits per day, or 37,037bps. All the
email list running full tilt would stress a good analog modem, but just
barely. Mail is a store-and-forward protocol, so daily averaging would
actually work. No, that rack isn't a resurrected 486, but a resurrected
486 will do the job we're discussing without breaking a sweat, even if
you added some decent virus scanning. A 486 with a modem is not what I
would consider a "massive server". The original comment was about the
hardware required to run the list, not what Matt had.
The hardware requirements to run a mailing list are very modest at
most. The typical time requirements are modest. The tedium of dealing
with a spam attack when you'd rather be doing is high.
I get far more out of each mailing list that I'm subscribed to than I do
from all the magazines I subscribe to. The benefits far outweigh the
costs, so, yes, break out the credit-cards. Acknowledge that Matt's
contribution is far greater than what we're individually paying for it.
I'm very grateful that Matt allows us, as guest, to use a portion of his
servers to openly exchange ideas and information. I'm much more
grateful that he expends the occasional weekend to keep the
communication lines open. I'm willing to spend a little to show my
appreciation. I don't think a thousand baskets of fruit and nuts will
be beneficial to Matt, and the Paypal option was easier anyway, but we
do have to keep it real.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> On an extremely busy day, a list might get 100 messages (again, just
> an easy number), and we're looking at 64 lists...6400 messages at
> 50,000 bits each...that's 320,000,000 bits per day, or 37,037bps. All
> the email list running full tilt would stress a good analog modem, but
> just barely. Mail is a store-and-forward protocol, so daily averaging
> would actually work. No, that rack isn't a resurrected 486, but a
> resurrected 486 will do the job we're discussing without breaking a
> sweat, even if you added some decent virus scanning. A 486 with a
> modem is not what I would consider a "massive server". The original
> comment was about the hardware required to run the list, not what Matt
> had.
Hi Ernest,
I've been doing Unix Systems adminstration for the past 18 years or
so, and I can assure you that you are missing a huge part of the
picture. As a part of my daily job I run a small mail server with about
a dozen mailing lists on it, with a small number of people subscribed.
The system is a dual-core 2.8 Ghz machine with a couple of gig of RAM.
You would think this would be overkill to run these lists, however, that
vile and foul entity known as SPAM makes this poor machine struggle at
times, at rare times causing hours of backlog. We literally get
hundreds of thousands of SPAM messages per day, which take a huge amount
of processing and computing resources to filter. I can safely assure
you that a 486 would choke and die on my small mailing lists, and would
in no way be able to handle the loads of Matt's mailing lists.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power schematic for review |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
>
> This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
> overvoltage protection.
> "The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
An over-voltage protector comes in two basic flavors.
1) A load dump over-voltage is 60V for 500 mS (or so). This is not hard to protect
against.
2) A hard failure of the regulator or alternator, in the worst case puts out 60V
(or more!) forever. OUCH.
Both problems need amelioration.
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
---Clint Eastwood
--------
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=145739#145739
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | My SL-70 findings |
My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
and rarely have problems.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>
>
> Reposted from other lists - hopefully to elicit Bob N's comments!
>
> Here's what I've done/found:
>
> Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
> If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific
> tests individually
> - all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
> Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first
> piece of coax) with
> a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
> No change
> Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
> Open from center to shield
> Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
> Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains
> very low
> The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to
> pass encoder
> info to the GPS
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in
> for repair -
> off to call GarminAT repair.
> The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the
> first chunk
> of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the
> resistance
> problem.
>
> Here's where I need comments:
> RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like
> the center conductor.
> The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the
> plating appears
> to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the
> connector should
> (but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
> This is the same tray connector (I think) that has been recently
> mentioned on this
> list.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My SL-70 findings |
Charlie,
Thanks for the response....I'm still doing ground testing - haven't got the big
fan up front running yet. I have a regulated power supply feeding my PC680 battery
set up for 13.5VDC. I've also called GarminAT repair - they said to chase
down the resistance in the antenna coax first.
When yours fails, does it still process altitude data to your GPS? Have you tried
turning the inner knob to see which subtest invoked the failure mode?
Just curious to see how it acts overall.
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>Sent: Nov 13, 2007 12:37 PM
>To: "Ralph E. Capen" , AeroElectric List
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>
>
>My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
>transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
>through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
>triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
>start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
>start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
>and rarely have problems.
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>>
>>
>> Reposted from other lists - hopefully to elicit Bob N's comments!
>>
>> Here's what I've done/found:
>>
>> Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
>> If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific
>> tests individually
>> - all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
>> Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first
>> piece of coax) with
>> a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
>> No change
>> Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
>> Open from center to shield
>> Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
>> Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains
>> very low
>> The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to
>> pass encoder
>> info to the GPS
>>
>> Here's what I think:
>>
>> The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in
>> for repair -
>> off to call GarminAT repair.
>> The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the
>> first chunk
>> of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the
>> resistance
>> problem.
>>
>> Here's where I need comments:
>> RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like
>> the center conductor.
>> The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the
>> plating appears
>> to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the
>> connector should
>> (but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
>> This is the same tray connector (I think) that has been recently
>> mentioned on this
>> list.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Dj Merrill wrote:
> You would think this would be overkill to run these lists, however, that
> vile and foul entity known as SPAM makes this poor machine struggle at
> times, at rare times causing hours of backlog. We literally get
> hundreds of thousands of SPAM messages per day, which take a huge amount
> of processing and computing resources to filter. I can safely assure
> you that a 486 would choke and die on my small mailing lists, and would
> in no way be able to handle the loads of Matt's mailing lists.
>
> -Dj
>
>
There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come along
with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I supposed to
compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my wife.
Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Ernest Christley wrote:
>>
> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>
> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
*grin* No worries. At first glance I would totally agree with you
that a smaller machine should be able to handle the load, and several
years ago it could have back before SPAM became so overwhelming. You
would not believe the struggle we have with handling SPAM. Balancing
the load on the servers, the aggressiveness of the filters, and keeping
everything updated is a complete nightmare.
I only wish we could make sending out SPAM a capital offense... or
resort to the rules of the Old West!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Power Diagram for peer review - Comments please |
| From: | "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net> |
here is yet another diagram for peer review. I am a novice at best in the electrical
department and want this system to be accurate and reliable. I have used
Bob's drawings to make this hybrid power diagram for my specific case.
As a background, here is what I am working with:
- Rotax 914
- External 40 Amp Alternator (primary)
- Rotax internal alternator (as backup)
- Single battery
My understanding is that the two alternators can be setup on switches and in the
event that I have a failure of the primary, I can switch it off and switch on
the backup. I pulled pieces and parts from various drawings and need someone
or a couple someones to provide some review. I appreciate the help!
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (under Construction)
914 Turbo
Ogden, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145775#145775
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rotax_914_modified_102.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Not to get political about things, but if our fine government, instead of spending
millions and thousands of man-hours going after some college kid with a nickel
bag of dope, they would put their time and resources into spanking-the-spammers,
that would be doing some good that affects nearly everyone. For sure,
Spam is not a victimless crime!!!
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not)
Ernest Christley wrote:
>>
> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>
> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
*grin* No worries. At first glance I would totally agree with you
that a smaller machine should be able to handle the load, and several
years ago it could have back before SPAM became so overwhelming. You
would not believe the struggle we have with handling SPAM. Balancing
the load on the servers, the aggressiveness of the filters, and keeping
everything updated is a complete nightmare.
I only wish we could make sending out SPAM a capital offense... or
resort to the rules of the Old West!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground
block for my rv8- checked with B&C, they only make the
two sizes, and do not sell the parts. Are the fast on
tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
SteinAir has them...
http://www.steinair.com/accessories.htm
Neal
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground block for my rv8- checked
with B&C, they only make the two sizes, and do not sell the parts. Are the
fast on tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
I run several mailservers and manage several racks of servers in heavily
laden production environments. One of our spam gateways gets 1M messages
per month with about 50,000 of them being valid emails that are let through.
This particular spam gateway appliance (much like Matt's Barracuda Spam
Gateway) costs us about $1000/yr in subscription fees to run. It was about
$4000 to purchase when new. Rack space, bandwidth, and electricity to host
is not included. I would say this one server cost me about $250-$300/month.
Spam is about 97% of all email. Really sucks.
-Ben Westfall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I have just seen your post and I am also interested in the 601-Jab3300 z/20 diagram.
I haven't seen any answers to your post but would like to know more about
this diagram
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145801#145801
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes,
Go to Steinair.com he has them for like a buck per strip. Get a piece of
Brass plate and solder one up.
I made a 60 tab ground block for about $5...Brass bolt form the hardware
store.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sam
ray
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground block for my rv8-
checked with B&C, they only make the two sizes, and do not sell the
parts. Are the fast on tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
>
> Not to get political about things, but if our fine government,
> instead of spending millions and thousands of man-hours going after
> some college kid with a nickel bag of dope, they would put their time
> and resources into spanking-the-spammers, that would be doing some
> good that affects nearly everyone. For sure, Spam is not a
> victimless crime!!!
The problem is that (for example) over the past 2 to 3 weeks, about 80
to 85 percent of the spam on my mail server has been comming from
Poland. It's not something that our government alone is going to fix.
Just my $0.02.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Switching High Current |
I now have a hundred hours on my Lancair Legacy wired using Z13-8. I'm
happy that I've only had a few electrical issues, none of which were
significant. But I'm wondering about my master relay, a continuous duty
one from B&C.
My airplane uses a hydraulic pump to raise and lower the landing gear.
The pump is powered by an electric motor protected by a 40 amp ANL fuse.
I haven't measured it, but factory specs indicate that current peaks at
close to 100 amps just before the pump shuts off as it produces peak
pressure.
The hydraulic pump automatically turns on and off to maintain set
pressure whenever the master switch is on. When the airplane is parked
overnight, hydraulic pressure bleeds down enough that the automatic
pressure switch closes. Of course, since the master switch is turned
off, the pump doesn't turn on.
But when I turn on the airplane's master switch, the hydraulic pump
immediately runs for a split second to restore hydraulic pressure. I
think that the master relay is therefore switching approximately 100
amps. My understanding is that a continuous duty relay, like the master
relay, can carry large current loads once it is closed, but it isn't
good at switching large loads.
Should I expect premature failure of my master relay? If so, I'll just
carry a spare. They're reasonably cheap and light weight.
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Switching High Current |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
There may be some concern with making the connection (turning on the
system including the pump), but I'd guess the real limitation is on
breaking the connection. It wouldn't surprise me if your master relay
lives a normal lifespan under this kind of use. I'll be interested in
what the experts come up with.. :)
Regards,
Matt-
> I now have a hundred hours on my Lancair Legacy wired using Z13-8. I'm
> happy that I've only had a few electrical issues, none of which were
> significant. But I'm wondering about my master relay, a continuous duty
> one from B&C.
>
> My airplane uses a hydraulic pump to raise and lower the landing gear.
> The pump is powered by an electric motor protected by a 40 amp ANL fuse.
> I haven't measured it, but factory specs indicate that current peaks at
> close to 100 amps just before the pump shuts off as it produces peak
> pressure.
>
> The hydraulic pump automatically turns on and off to maintain set pressure
> whenever the master switch is on. When the airplane is parked overnight,
> hydraulic pressure bleeds down enough that the automatic pressure switch
> closes. Of course, since the master switch is turned off, the pump
> doesn't turn on.
>
> But when I turn on the airplane's master switch, the hydraulic pump
> immediately runs for a split second to restore hydraulic pressure. I
> think that the master relay is therefore switching approximately 100 amps.
> My understanding is that a continuous duty relay, like the master relay,
> can carry large current loads once it is closed, but it isn't good at
> switching large loads.
>
> Should I expect premature failure of my master relay? If so, I'll just
> carry a spare. They're reasonably cheap and light weight.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis Johnson
> Lancair Legacy #257
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tyco and all its problems |
>
>Anyway the GX11 will be about $120, but the Type 70 ($37.00 from Newark)
>is not really useable in my opinion.
I presume we're discussing use of the Type 70 as an
alternator b-lead disconnect device. For use as battery
contactor (99.99% of all applications in 200,000 or
so airplanes for 60 years) the down-sides
are not so significant.
> You may want the accessory contacts and long leads...couldn't hurt.
>
>The Kilovac EV200aaana (aka Blue Sea 9012) is still great (similar to the
>Gigavac GX11).
>
>The type 70 is problematic even if very common and long in the tooth. It
>is deficient in four main areas:
>
>1) Poor coil suppression (this can be retrofitted to improve it)
Not "poor" but "no" coil suppression as a factory installed
feature. This is typical of the majority of contactors and relays
on the market. It's presumptuous for a manufacturer to
include coil suppression out-of-hand . . . this should
be left up to the system integrator. Tests
here have shown that the simple diode arc
suppression offers no significant effects
on relay/contactor service life.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
>2) Inadequate operating temperature. My GUESS is that the early ones had
>fiber/bakelite interiors, now they are Nylon. Regardless 122F spec is way
>too low to use.
. . . under the cowl perhaps. Unless irradiated
by exhaust stack IR, parts under the cowl spend
very little time in a 122F environment . . . and
the most striking scenarios involve hot-soak of
airspace under the cowl after engine shutdown.
Under this scenario, the b-lead contactor is
de-energized which eliminates a large source
of temperature rise energy, internal coil
dissipation. These contactors have been used
successfully on the firewall of thousands of
aircraft.
>
>3) Inadequate G force withstand. 2G ??
Where does this come from and of what
significance? I found no manufacturer's
data limiting acceleration. Since inflight
g-loading is applied while the contactor
is energized, g-loads are not an issue
for as-installed performance. I'll have
to dig through the archives but I believe
tests showed that it takes 4+ G of linear
acceleration to close a de-energized contactor.
>4) Open against Vmax. 35V. They could sustain an arc if the alternator
>runs away.
Don't know where "35" comes from, it depends
on lots of variables not characterized by
White Rogers in the data sheets. Yes, if
the contactor is called upon to do a real
OV shutdown, there is a risk with current
designs that an arc will establish between
spreading contacts and continue to destruction
of the contactor as well. However, it poses
no little if any risks to the rest of the system.
But an investigative goal I have for this
winter when the drive stand . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternator_Test_Stand/DSCN0961.JPG
. . . is running will be to see if I can deliberately
precipitate meltdown in an S701 contactor.
Irrespective of this yet to be demonstrated condition,
the AEC9004 . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
will keep dv/dt stresses on the low-cost contactor
well within its design limits. I've had two readers
comment on conducted noise emissions from EV200
contactors . . . so all is not 'golden' with
the $high$ contactors.
Test plans for the repeatable experiment are in
place. We'll be able to convert WAGs and hypothesis to
demonstrable working practice in the not too distant
future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Switching High Current |
The data sheet for the Stancore-WhiteRogers contactors
can be viewed at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_70-Series.pdf
The p/n of interest to us is the 70-902 which is
said to have a service rating of 80A Continuous and
150A inrush. Further down in the data sheet, we're told
that the manufacturer signs up to 100,000 cycles
of performance at rated load.
You have correctly observed that the added load
of a hydraulic pump motor becoming active at the same
time the battery contactor is closing (contacts
bouncing) is more stressful than if the contactor
is allowed to close and become stable before the
added stress of starting a motor is added
to the mix.
However, the stresses are not extra-ordinary with
respect to the device's ratings. Having said that,
it's a given that your contactor isn't going to last
100,000 cycles in your airplane . . . with or without
added motor startup loads. Laboratory confirmation of
service life was accomplished at 4 cycles per minute
so the whole 100,000 cycle test took 25,000 minutes or
about 17 days in the relatively pristine environment
of the test lab sans humidity and temperature
cycles applied over years of service.
In your airplane, the effects of TIME will prove more
severe than effects of utilization and it would not
be surprising for you to experience a contactor failure
on a par with experience in the field with the same
contactor on other aircraft. Replacement every 5-10
years is average. I had two Cessnas in my rental fleet
need new contactors in the 6-months I owned the airport
and I have no idea how long these were in service but
it's a certainty that neither device had more than
a few thousand cycles on them.
Suffice it to say at about $18 each ( http://alliedelec.com
and http://newark.com ) the 70 series devices are a good value
on spam-cans and even better value on OBAM aircraft
architectured for failure-tolerance.
It's a good that you're perceptions of "added
stress" are correct and that you've raised the question.
The answer is, "I see no return on investment of the $time$
needed to mitigate these stresses." Yes, in a fleet of
100 aircraft wired and operated just like yours, you
MIGHT see a observable decrease in service life in battery
contactors for ships that DO get the battery-on motor
inrush load as opposed to those that DON'T, But in the
grand grand scheme of things, the differences will be
insignificant.
>
>There may be some concern with making the connection (turning on the
>system including the pump), but I'd guess the real limitation is on
>breaking the connection. It wouldn't surprise me if your master relay
>lives a normal lifespan under this kind of use. I'll be interested in
>what the experts come up with.. :)
YES! A study of relay and contactor switching physics
readily demonstrates that for most applications, contact
opening is the more stressful activity. But a feature
of switch physics oft overlooked is contact BOUNCE that
occurs every time the switch closes. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/switch_transition_CK7201.jpg
This is the transition/conduction trace for a miniature
toggle switch like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/miniswitches.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/CK7000.jpg
Note that total transition time from first motion
of closed contact until stable condition against
the opposite contact is small . . . about 1.4 milliseconds.
Note further that the contact closes, opens and re-closes
about 8 times in the exemplar trace. This is TYPICAL of
virtually all mechanical switches, relays and contactors.
This BOUNCE means that the contact OPENS under inrush loads
multiple times for each action that goes toward moving the
switch to a new, CLOSED position. I have numerous failure
studies on aircraft where especially unique conditions
NOT specified in manufacturer's data sheets precipitated
tense failures for crew on relays that had VERY FEW total
operating cycles on them. The stressor exhibited only during
contact "closure" when in fact, the multiple micro-events
during closure bounce provided part of the recipe for
sticking the relays (and a runaway trim actuator).
I mention this only to point out that while manufacturer's
data is useful and quite probably truthful, it cannot
and does not cover all the simple-ideas that feed
recipes for success . . . or failure. Too many of our
contemporaries are content to rely on the snapshot of
knowledge offered by the data sheets but find they
lack understanding when things are not behaving as
the data sheets suggest they should.
Bob . . .
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> > I now have a hundred hours on my Lancair Legacy wired using Z13-8. I'm
> > happy that I've only had a few electrical issues, none of which were
> > significant. But I'm wondering about my master relay, a continuous duty
> > one from B&C.
> >
> > My airplane uses a hydraulic pump to raise and lower the landing gear.
> > The pump is powered by an electric motor protected by a 40 amp ANL fuse.
> > I haven't measured it, but factory specs indicate that current peaks at
> > close to 100 amps just before the pump shuts off as it produces peak
> > pressure.
> >
> > The hydraulic pump automatically turns on and off to maintain set pressure
> > whenever the master switch is on. When the airplane is parked overnight,
> > hydraulic pressure bleeds down enough that the automatic pressure switch
> > closes. Of course, since the master switch is turned off, the pump
> > doesn't turn on.
> >
> > But when I turn on the airplane's master switch, the hydraulic pump
> > immediately runs for a split second to restore hydraulic pressure. I
> > think that the master relay is therefore switching approximately 100 amps.
> > My understanding is that a continuous duty relay, like the master relay,
> > can carry large current loads once it is closed, but it isn't good at
> > switching large loads.
> >
> > Should I expect premature failure of my master relay? If so, I'll just
> > carry a spare. They're reasonably cheap and light weight.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dennis Johnson
> > Lancair Legacy #257
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hi All,
>
>I'm getting ready for the electrical system in my zenith 601XL with a
>Jabiru 3300.
>
>I'm trying to keep things simple and am thinking about going with the Z-20
>Small Jabiru System. That diagram switches the main bus thru the Master
>switch instead of a battery contactor. Whats the practical cutoff in terms
>of current for using a contactor vs routing directly thru the switch. Any
>downside to adding a contactor to this plan ? Any upsides ?
>
>Any issues with the Z-20 plan ?
The reason for NOT having a battery contactor in Z-20
is to eliminate the energy lost keeping a battery
contactor closed when that loss is a significant
total of the alternator's output. Figure Z-17 is
similarly devoid of battery contactor for the same
reason.
This architecture is appropriate to engines having
PM alternators on the order of 10A or less . . .
which means bus loads of 10A or less. This architecure
does not offer a secondary means for shutting the
system down in case of a stuck starter contactor
but these events are rare.
If you want a battery contactor, wire per Z-16 but
be sure to include battery contactor loads in your
calculations for equipment you plan to install
and your engine's ability to support those loads with
what ever alternator is installed.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>I have just seen your post and I am also interested in the 601-Jab3300
>z/20 diagram. I haven't seen any answers to your post but would like to
>know more about this diagram
>Don
P.S. I just looked up the 3300 and find that it's alternator
is 15A continuous, 22A intermittent. Z-16 is the appropriate
architecture for this engine.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
>
>SteinAir has them...
>
> http://www.steinair.com/accessories.htm
>
>Neal
>
>
>Bob
>I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground block for my rv8- checked
>with B&C, they only make the two sizes, and do not sell the parts. Are the
>fast on tabs commercially available?
Yes but not easy to find. You COULD consider something like
a D-sub connector soldered to a sheet of thin brass to
accommodate the majority of grounds which are 3A or less
and use screws/ring terminals to tie down the few high
current grounds. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
You could do a variation on a theme for the firewall
ground block where there is a combination of high-density
wiring for low current grounds and coarser density for
a few high current grounds.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
I'm looking for the tabs with a pair spacing of 0.26
inch across- the steinair tabs have a larger spacing
for a larger terminal block and are only a single
pair. I've found 3 tab pairs made by Amp in the Tyco
catalog, but nothing like the larger 12 pair sets used
by B&C. I was hoping Bob would know where I can get
these...
Sam Ray
>SteinAir has them...
> http://www.steinair.com/accessories.htm
>Neal
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
>
>I'm looking for the tabs with a pair spacing of 0.26
>inch across- the steinair tabs have a larger spacing
>for a larger terminal block and are only a single
>pair. I've found 3 tab pairs made by Amp in the Tyco
>catalog, but nothing like the larger 12 pair sets used
>by B&C. I was hoping Bob would know where I can get
>these...
When I crafted that product mucho years ago, I
found a reel of paired tabs in an industrial
surplus store. That first real carried us through
a number of years of production. I don't know where
Bill gets them now.
He probably purchases on reels as an industrial
offering by AMP or T&B. I've never seen them in
small quantities/sizes as catalog items.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire Layout Ideas |
Folks,
I would like some guidelines on how to distribute the following wires
through the fuselage to minimize interference:
1) #4 Battery Cables for rear battery
2) 2 GPS-Waas antennas
3) 1 XM Antenna
4) 1 Com Antenna inside the rudder.
5) Ray Allen Trim Tab
6) ELT
7) Master Relay
8) Strobe/Position lights
I know I should keep the Com Antenna cable away from the GPS Antenna and
cables.
How best to distribute the rest .
This is a LancAir IV-P. Carbon Fiber fuselage . Fiber Glass Vertical and
Rudder.
Richard T. Schaefer E-mail: schaefer@RTS-Services.com
RTS Services Inc Web: http://www.RTS-Services.com
<http://www.rts-services.com/>
7330 Cave Hollow ___ Voice: (512) 923-2755
Austin, TX 78750 | Fax: (830) 798-9644
`---------(*)---------'
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Thermo-Couples through pressure bulkhead |
Folks,
What is the effect of running EGT, and CHT thermocouples through a
bulkhead connector?
I believe these are all "K" type thermo couples and I believe that if they
are extended need to be done
with thermo couple wire. But can I have a connector with gold contacts
joining two pieces of thermo couple wire?
r.t.s.
Richard T. Schaefer E-mail: schaefer@RTS-Services.com
RTS Services Inc Web: http://www.RTS-Services.com
<http://www.rts-services.com/>
7330 Cave Hollow ___ Voice: (512) 923-2755
Austin, TX 78750 | Fax: (830) 798-9644
`---------(*)---------'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm looking for the tabs with a pair spacing of 0.26
>> inch across- the steinair tabs have a larger spacing
>> for a larger terminal block and are only a single
>> pair. I've found 3 tab pairs made by Amp in the Tyco
>> catalog, but nothing like the larger 12 pair sets used
>> by B&C. I was hoping Bob would know where I can get
>> these...
>
> When I crafted that product mucho years ago, I
> found a reel of paired tabs in an industrial
> surplus store. That first real carried us through
> a number of years of production. I don't know where
> Bill gets them now.
>
> He probably purchases on reels as an industrial
> offering by AMP or T&B. I've never seen them in
> small quantities/sizes as catalog items.
I ordered a handful from Digikey.
Catalog page 341.
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T073/P0341.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
Hi Sam,
What part of mine are you talking about?
The SA-9900 people pointed you to previously (below) are what you are
wanting - they have five pairs of tabs (10 total) and are spaced exactly
.26" apart.
I think Perhaps you were looking at something else because these are NOT
what you are describing below?!?!
Look again and you'll see they are exactly what you're describing! They are
a whopping $1.00 each, as everyone pretty much noted before.
Cheers,
Stein
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of sam
>ray
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:51 AM
>To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block
>
>
>I'm looking for the tabs with a pair spacing of 0.26
>inch across- the steinair tabs have a larger spacing
>for a larger terminal block and are only a single
>pair. I've found 3 tab pairs made by Amp in the Tyco
>catalog, but nothing like the larger 12 pair sets used
>by B&C. I was hoping Bob would know where I can get
>these...
>
>Sam Ray
>
>>SteinAir has them...
>
>> http://www.steinair.com/accessories.htm
>
>>Neal
>
>
>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses and fusible links |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Bob,
The initial electrical schematic for my 20 amp Jabiru alternator main bus and e-bus's
included fuse links as their means of protection based on your writings.
This post tells me I could go either way with a fuse link or an in-line fuse
in my application. Your comments in the lead-in material for your Z-diagrams
say that in-line fuse-holders for the 20 amp SD-20 alternator level of loads
are "marginal at best." I am a bit confused with this contradiction so if you
could please clarify your position, I would appreciate it. I am more familiar
with in-line fuse-holders and would like to use them, but not if their reliability
in this application is in question.
If I were to use an in-line fuse for the 20 amp alternator output, would I use
a minimum 25 amp fuse to ward off nuisance trips?
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145999#145999
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses and fusible links |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>The initial electrical schematic for my 20 amp Jabiru alternator main bus
>and e-bus's included fuse links as their means of protection based on your
>writings. This post tells me I could go either way with a fuse link or an
>in-line fuse in my application. Your comments in the lead-in material
>for your Z-diagrams say that in-line fuse-holders for the 20 amp SD-20
>alternator level of loads are "marginal at best." I am a bit confused
>with this contradiction so if you could please clarify your position, I
>would appreciate it. I am more familiar with in-line fuse-holders and
>would like to use them, but not if their reliability in this application
>is in question.
>
>If I were to use an in-line fuse for the 20 amp alternator output, would I
>use a minimum 25 amp fuse to ward off nuisance trips?
The fuseholders and fuses I cited were the MAXI series
devices that fill applications from 20 to 80 amps
as described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/MAXI_Specs.pdf
. . . as opposed to the smaller ATC series which I
recommend up to and including 15A circuits. The data
sheet is here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
The full range of in-line fuse holders citing
the fuses they fit is illustrated here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/Bussmann_in_line_Holders.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses and fusible links |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
OK, that really helps clear it up for me. I did not initially understand that
the Maxi fuses and holders are on a whole different playing field the plain-Jane
automotive blade fuses and holders. I see that the maxi specs show fuses starting
off at 20 amps and going up in 10 amp intervals to 80 amps. For my 20
amp application, is the 30 amp maxi fuse the appropriate size?
Thank again!
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146012#146012
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermo-Couples through pressure bulkhead |
Not if you can help it. Try your best to use the TC wire and ground in
one solid strand from the sensor to the instrument, if at all possible.
You'll vastly improve your error rate that way.
David M.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard T. Schaefer
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermo-Couples through pressure bulkhead
Folks,
What is the effect of running EGT, and CHT thermocouples through a
bulkhead connector?
I believe these are all "K" type thermo couples and I believe that if
they are extended need to be done
with thermo couple wire. But can I have a connector with gold contacts
joining two pieces of thermo couple wire?
r.t.s.
Richard T. Schaefer E-mail: schaefer@RTS-Services.com
RTS Services Inc Web: http://www.RTS-Services.com
7330 Cave Hollow ___ Voice: (512) 923-2755
Austin, TX 78750 | Fax: (830) 798-9644
`---------(*)---------'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/13/2007 9:22 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermo-Couples through pressure bulkhead |
I've run stranded and solid thermocouples through
ordinary machined pins in connectors with insignificant
effects on accuracy. While connector pins of material
"foreign" to the thermocouple wire alloy is inserted
into the Seebeck signal path and while each new joint
introduces error, the joints are paired in opposite
polarities and over the small space of a connector
mass, are very close in temperature to each other.
I'd recommend using a connector that puts a 4-quadrant
crimp on machined metal pins
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_Machined_Pins.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
as opposed to soldering or using sheet metal, b-crimp pins.
Bob . . .
(---------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Layout Ideas |
There are no practical limitations on proximity of
wires for the purpose of limiting exchange of
noises between wires. We don't do it on the
heavy iron and you shouldn't need to do it on
your OBAM aircraft either.
Bob . . .
>Folks,
>
> I would like some guidelines on how to distribute the following wires
> through the fuselage to minimize interference:
>
>
>1) #4 Battery Cables for rear battery
>
>2) 2 GPS-Waas antennas
>
>3) 1 XM Antenna
>
>4) 1 Com Antenna inside the rudder.
>
>5) Ray Allen Trim Tab
>
>6) ELT
>
>7) Master Relay
>
>8) Strobe/Position lights
>
>
>I know I should keep the Com Antenna cable away from the GPS Antenna and
>cables.
>
>How best to distribute the rest &
>
>
>This is a LancAir IV-P. Carbon Fiber fuselage & Fiber Glass Vertical and
>Rudder.
>
>
>Richard T. Schaefer E-mail:
>schaefer@RTS-Services.com>schaefer@RTS-Services.com
>
>RTS Services Inc Web:
><http://www.rts-services.com/>http://www.RTS-Services.com
>
>7330 Cave Hollow ___ Voice: (512) 923-2755
>Austin, TX 78750 | Fax: (830) 798-9644
> `---------(*)---------'
>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Layout Ideas |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 12:47 11/14/2007, you wrote:
>There are no practical limitations on proximity of
>wires for the purpose of limiting exchange of
>noises between wires. We don't do it on the
>heavy iron and you shouldn't need to do it on
>your OBAM aircraft either.
>
>Bob . . .
Not even for Stormscope antenna proximal to 400Hz power and/or CFS
5kHz autopilot power lines?
The SS IM has pretty specific guidance otherwise IIRC...
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses and fusible links |
>
>
>OK, that really helps clear it up for me. I did not initially understand
>that the Maxi fuses and holders are on a whole different playing field the
>plain-Jane automotive blade fuses and holders. I see that the maxi specs
>show fuses starting off at 20 amps and going up in 10 amp intervals to 80
>amps. For my 20 amp application, is the 30 amp maxi fuse the appropriate size?
Yes. You can get holders and fuses at
most auto parts stores.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kool site, click on aeroplane and cockpit will be displayed |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Kool site, click on aeroplane and cockpit will be displayed:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/test/archives/2007/articles/jan_07/cockpits/cockpits.html
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | My SL-7- findings |
Ralph,
Unfortunately, I cannot answer either question. My GPS is not hooked
to the SL-70, so no way to determine if it still processes data. The
only time I have ever seen a FAIL message was right after engine
start. And as I said, with a "FAIL" message, I just turn the set off,
then back on and it works normally. I have never checked the fail
mode, but I will take a look the next time I fly. Unfortunately, that
will be about ten days or so, due to a deer hunting trip.
I'll keep you posted.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
-----------------------------------------
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> Thanks for the response....I'm still doing ground testing - haven't
> got the big
> fan up front running yet. I have a regulated power supply feeding
> my PC680 battery
> set up for 13.5VDC. I've also called GarminAT repair - they said
> to chase
> down the resistance in the antenna coax first.
>
> When yours fails, does it still process altitude data to your GPS?
> Have you tried
> turning the inner knob to see which subtest invoked the failure mode?
>
> Just curious to see how it acts overall.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>> Sent: Nov 13, 2007 12:37 PM
>> To: "Ralph E. Capen" , AeroElectric List
>>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>>
>>
>> My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
>> transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
>> through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
>> triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
>> start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
>> start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
>> and rarely have problems.
>>
>> Charlie Brame
>> RV-6A N11CB
>> San Antonio
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Wire Layout Ideas |
Bob,
By this do you mean to say, run all wires as is most convenient to the
install process?. I too was planning on separating antenna wires from mic
wires, and both from auto pilot wires, +/- power wires close together or
even twisted etc. Although I have not completely figured out how to do this
in an RV7. I just don't want ANY interference and have to re-wire to get
it. BTW I've never done this before. More advice please.
Bevan
RV7A wiring
-----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, November 14, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Layout Ideas
-->
There are no practical limitations on proximity of wires for the purpose of
limiting exchange of noises between wires. We don't do it on the heavy iron
and you shouldn't need to do it on your OBAM aircraft either.
Bob . . .
>Folks,
>
> I would like some guidelines on how to distribute the following
> wires through the fuselage to minimize interference:
>
>
>1) #4 Battery Cables for rear battery
>
>2) 2 GPS-Waas antennas
>
>3) 1 XM Antenna
>
>4) 1 Com Antenna inside the rudder.
>
>5) Ray Allen Trim Tab
>
>6) ELT
>
>7) Master Relay
>
>8) Strobe/Position lights
>
>
>I know I should keep the Com Antenna cable away from the GPS Antenna
>and cables.
>
>How best to distribute the rest &
>
>
>This is a LancAir IV-P. Carbon Fiber fuselage & Fiber Glass Vertical
>and Rudder.
>
>
>Richard T. Schaefer E-mail:
>schaefer@RTS-Services.com>schaefer@RTS-Services.com
>
>RTS Services Inc Web:
><http://www.rts-services.com/>http://www.RTS-Services.com
>
>7330 Cave Hollow ___ Voice: (512) 923-2755
>Austin, TX 78750 | Fax: (830) 798-9644
> `---------(*)---------'
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contrib
>ution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matron
>ics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wire Layout Ideas |
Bob,
By this do you mean to say, run all wires as is most convenient to the
install process?. I too was planning on separating antenna wires from mic
wires, and both from auto pilot wires, +/- power wires close together or
even twisted etc. Although I have not completely figured out how to do this
in an RV7. I just don't want ANY interference and have to re-wire to get
it. BTW I've never done this before. More advice please.
Understand. Know that when we wire a BIG airplane,
the electro-wienies are at the bottom of the food
chain when it comes to space claims on board the
airplane. We get what's left over after fuel,
engine, flight, hydraulics and air-conditioning
are installed. The only time we had the luxury of
choosing to route THIS wire separate from THAT
wire was when the first electrical system went aboard
something like big honking radial engined machine
that offered relatively open spaces and few competing
systems.
Fortunately, systems designed for modern aircraft
have matured along with the airplanes . . . and
they're designed to run in happy co-habitation
with other systems. By design and qualification,
we craft devices that DO NOT require special
consideration from the installer to insure
harmonious communities potential victims
and antagonists.
The wild is replete with ol' mechanic's
hangar tales about how some intractable
interference problem was cured by separating
the bundles of squabbling systems. However, if
one tracks down root cause of the
symptoms, it's likely that one or both systems
lacked the pedigree to be installed aboard
aircraft . . . or cars . . . or boats. Or
some important instruction for installing one
of the systems was ignored.
It doesn't take long for a handful of real
problems (masked by the wrong solutions) to
morph into a body of sage advice from many
a wizened mechanic concerning the building
of "fences" between potentially recalcitrant
systems. While well intentioned, 99% of
what we hear has no basis in physics. Happily
for you (and for those of us still building
heavy iron) the inter-system squabbles are
pretty much taken care of at the factory.
Route your wires for convenience and good
craftsmanship. There's no automatic value
to be achieved by separating any wires based
on hangar legend.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Wire Layout Ideas |
Thank you very much. Onward and Upward !!
Bevan
-----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, November 14, 2007 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Layout Ideas
-->
Bob,
By this do you mean to say, run all wires as is most convenient to the
install process?. I too was planning on separating antenna wires from mic
wires, and both from auto pilot wires, +/- power wires close together or
even twisted etc. Although I have not completely figured out how to do this
in an RV7. I just don't want ANY interference and have to re-wire to get
it. BTW I've never done this before. More advice please.
Understand. Know that when we wire a BIG airplane,
the electro-wienies are at the bottom of the food
chain when it comes to space claims on board the
airplane. We get what's left over after fuel,
engine, flight, hydraulics and air-conditioning
are installed. The only time we had the luxury of
choosing to route THIS wire separate from THAT
wire was when the first electrical system went aboard
something like big honking radial engined machine
that offered relatively open spaces and few competing
systems.
Fortunately, systems designed for modern aircraft
have matured along with the airplanes . . . and
they're designed to run in happy co-habitation
with other systems. By design and qualification,
we craft devices that DO NOT require special
consideration from the installer to insure
harmonious communities potential victims
and antagonists.
The wild is replete with ol' mechanic's
hangar tales about how some intractable
interference problem was cured by separating
the bundles of squabbling systems. However, if
one tracks down root cause of the
symptoms, it's likely that one or both systems
lacked the pedigree to be installed aboard
aircraft . . . or cars . . . or boats. Or
some important instruction for installing one
of the systems was ignored.
It doesn't take long for a handful of real
problems (masked by the wrong solutions) to
morph into a body of sage advice from many
a wizened mechanic concerning the building
of "fences" between potentially recalcitrant
systems. While well intentioned, 99% of
what we hear has no basis in physics. Happily
for you (and for those of us still building
heavy iron) the inter-system squabbles are
pretty much taken care of at the factory.
Route your wires for convenience and good
craftsmanship. There's no automatic value
to be achieved by separating any wires based
on hangar legend.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
I am using your Z19RB architecture in my RV7 with Eggenfellner Subaru E6T.
With the dual batteries and battery contactors in the rear of the plane and
a single "fat wire" coming forward do you see any problem with putting a bus
bar (like Stein's BB235: http://www.steinair.com/images/store/bb2305.jpg)
near the firewall to terminate the fat wire?
I would continue the fat wire from this bus bar to the starter contactor on
the engine. The feed for the "Main Power Distribution Bus" would come from
this bus rather than the starter contactor as depicted on Z19RB. This way I
can do all the wiring (and testing) behind the firewall without having the
engine mounted. I can see that I have created one more joint in the run
from the batteries to the starter contactor but is that really a problem?
Also, I have a pair of Gigavac GX11 contactors for the battery contactors
and I was wondering how best to connect the coil ground wire (and optional
NO/NC/COM contact wires if I choose) to the wires carrying them to the
instrument panel mounted switch? Possible choices include:
AMP "Mate-n-Lock" / Molex
Mount a terminal strip with faston tabs by each contactor
AMP Knife Splice?
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Europa ULPower schematic |
Attached is the revised drawing of the system. As you can see, I have
added crowbar overvoltage. I've yet to hear from ULPower in regards to
the internal shunt that they use in their rectifier/regulator to provide
overvoltage protection. Were it sufficient to provide OV protection in
case the r/r failed, is there any harm in having the OV protection
module as inserted into this drawing? Am I worried about OV? You bet. I
had a Cougar that suffered a regulator failure. Since a light in the
dash only tells you that something is amiss, I wrongly assumed that the
battery was not being charged and turned of the fan, radio,etc and
continued the 20 miles home. When I raised the hood, the battery was
almost roud and whistling as it released acid gas into the air. I
quickly shut the hood for a few hours and let things cool down. I
wouldn't care to repeat the episode in 3D.
Vaughn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least 0 or 0 worth
of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription
to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least
that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get
a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to
think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the
Lists?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far
during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively
through YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
I see that AvWeb and Aviation Consumer are doing a survey of pilots who have
had a battery fail. You can participate here:
http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id4269
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My SL-7- findings |
Cool - thanks - let me know....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>Sent: Nov 14, 2007 7:20 PM
>To: "Ralph E. Capen" , AeroElectric List
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-7- findings
>
>
>Ralph,
>
>Unfortunately, I cannot answer either question. My GPS is not hooked
>to the SL-70, so no way to determine if it still processes data. The
>only time I have ever seen a FAIL message was right after engine
>start. And as I said, with a "FAIL" message, I just turn the set off,
>then back on and it works normally. I have never checked the fail
>mode, but I will take a look the next time I fly. Unfortunately, that
>will be about ten days or so, due to a deer hunting trip.
>
>I'll keep you posted.
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>-----------------------------------------
>
>
>> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>>
>>
>> Charlie,
>>
>> Thanks for the response....I'm still doing ground testing - haven't
>> got the big
>> fan up front running yet. I have a regulated power supply feeding
>> my PC680 battery
>> set up for 13.5VDC. I've also called GarminAT repair - they said
>> to chase
>> down the resistance in the antenna coax first.
>>
>> When yours fails, does it still process altitude data to your GPS?
>> Have you tried
>> turning the inner knob to see which subtest invoked the failure mode?
>>
>> Just curious to see how it acts overall.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ralph
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>> From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>>> Sent: Nov 13, 2007 12:37 PM
>>> To: "Ralph E. Capen" , AeroElectric List
>>>
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>>>
>>>
>>> My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
>>> transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
>>> through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
>>> triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
>>> start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
>>> start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
>>> and rarely have problems.
>>>
>>> Charlie Brame
>>> RV-6A N11CB
>>> San Antonio
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hooray. Aircraft Spruce is selling LED landing lights! |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
See their website.
You will see lots more of these soon. As always--buy these if you are going to
fly very soon--otherwise wait for more products, higher performance at lower cost.
--------
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=146188#146188
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Wherefore loadmeters? |
Does anyone know where Bob's articles on load meters are? I thought it
might be in Chapter 7, but I couldn't find it.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "scgck(at)juno.com" <scgck(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | alternatives to alternator circuit breaker |
I would like to eliminate the 60A circuit breaker from my experim
ental project instrument panel. Is there a suitable fuse, current limite
r or fusible link which would survive the heat and vibration in the engi
ne cowling between the alternator and starter contactor on the starter.
thanks,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternatives to alternator circuit breaker |
Chris,
Check the archives, there is lots of info on the ANL series of fuses.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "scgck(at)juno.com" <scgck(at)juno.com>
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:06 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternatives to alternator circuit breaker
> I would like to eliminate the 60A circuit breaker from my
> experimental project instrument panel. Is there a suitable fuse,
> current limiter or fusible link which would survive the heat and
> vibration in the engine cowling between the alternator and starter
> contactor on the starter.
> thanks,
> Chris
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternatives to alternator circuit breaker |
Use an ANL 60A fuse. These are slow blow. They are often found under the
cowl!
You should be able to find them at Aircraft Spuce or many of the other
suppliers.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
scgck(at)juno.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternatives to alternator circuit breaker
I would like to eliminate the 60A circuit breaker from my
experimental project instrument panel. Is there a suitable fuse, current
limiter or fusible link which would survive the heat and vibration in the
engine cowling between the alternator and starter contactor on the starter.
thanks,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | WTB: PS PM-2000 intercom |
| From: | "Bob Gross" <rpgross(at)bellsouth.net> |
Looking for a new or used PM-2000 or PM-3000 intercom.
Thanks
Bob
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternatives to alternator circuit breakeralternatives |
to circuit breakers
I got my ANL fuse and mount from B and C Aircraft
Wally Hunt
RV-4 Finishing Kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
>Does anyone know where Bob's articles on load meters are? I thought it
>might be in Chapter 7, but I couldn't find it.
>
>Sam
There are no articles specific to the topic
of loadmeters. In general, these are generic
ammeters but instead of calibrating the scale
plate in amperes, they are calibrated in percent
with 100% being full scale. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Loadmeter_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
The handy thing about this calibrating convention
is that a single instrument can be used with
any size alternator or generator. The full
scale sensitivity of instrument in amperes is
set by the size of the companion shunt. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/20-50_Shunt.jpg
A 20A shunt goes with alternators like the SD-20
and the instrument reads full scale when 100%
of the 20A machine is being taxed. It follows that
other sized alternators are monitored with the
appropriately sized shunt on the same instrument.
When the system is fitted with more than one
alternator, a single instrument can be switched
between the two sources, each fitted with the
appropriate sized shunt; wired as described here:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19RB question |
>
>Bob,
>
>I am using your Z19RB architecture in my RV7 with Eggenfellner Subaru E6T.
>
>With the dual batteries and battery contactors in the rear of the plane and
>a single "fat wire" coming forward do you see any problem with putting a bus
>bar (like Stein's BB235: http://www.steinair.com/images/store/bb2305.jpg)
>near the firewall to terminate the fat wire?
>
>I would continue the fat wire from this bus bar to the starter contactor on
>the engine. The feed for the "Main Power Distribution Bus" would come from
>this bus rather than the starter contactor as depicted on Z19RB. This way I
>can do all the wiring (and testing) behind the firewall without having the
>engine mounted. I can see that I have created one more joint in the run
>from the batteries to the starter contactor but is that really a problem?
>
>Also, I have a pair of Gigavac GX11 contactors for the battery contactors
>and I was wondering how best to connect the coil ground wire (and optional
>NO/NC/COM contact wires if I choose) to the wires carrying them to the
>instrument panel mounted switch? Possible choices include:
> AMP "Mate-n-Lock" / Molex
> Mount a terminal strip with faston tabs by each contactor
> AMP Knife Splice?
My personal choice would be knife splices but either
of the other two technologies would probably be okay
if installed with good craftsmanship. My personal
design goals call for lowest parts count and minimized
process requirements. Knife splices and heat shrink
are the most attractive solutions to those goals.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
I am looking for some help or suggestions on how to reduce the normal
bus voltage of 12 to 14 volts DC in my experimental kitplane to one-half
volt for a circuit that activates the GPS OK flag in my CDI.
I have a portable moving-map GPS in my airplane. By sending the GPS
signal through a SMART COUPLER II by Porcine Associates, I get analog
left-right signals that will drive my Navaid autopilot and/or CDI.
However, in order for the CDI to function, it needs an electrical signal
to the GPS OK flag of more than 250 mV and less than 900 mV. I can use
the GPS OK signal from my Smart Coupler II, but it is a full 12-14 volts
(100 milliamps). THIS IS TOO MUCH VOLTAGE for my Course Deviation
Indicator GPS OK flag. I need to reduce the voltage to something
in-between the minimum and maximum allowable voltage (.25 - .90 volts).
My choice is .5 volts or one-half volt.
Can you tell me how to accomplish this? I found voltage regulators in
several supply catalogs (i.e., Jameco) that reduce voltage, but none of
them reduce it down to the needed level of one-half volt.
With appreciation,
Bob J. Rogers
Mustang II (almost ready to fly)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
If you can settle for 0.7V then you could use a resistor and a diode in
series. Wire a 1K2 resistor (1/4W) to the output of your SC-II, then to a
standard silicon diode (1N4004 will do), then to Ground. The diode needs to
be conducting, so there's 0.7V across it. That is well within your margin.
So:
+12V Output o---[ 1K2 ]------(X)----->|-----o GND
The (X) marks your 0.7V signal to the CDI. The resistor causes a current of
about 10 mA to flow when there's 12V present. The diode is conducting and
causes a 0.7V drop.
Hope this helps,
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt?
>
>
>
> I am looking for some help or suggestions on how to reduce the normal
> bus voltage of 12 to 14 volts DC in my experimental kitplane to one-half
> volt for a circuit that activates the GPS OK flag in my CDI.
>
> I have a portable moving-map GPS in my airplane. By sending the GPS
> signal through a SMART COUPLER II by Porcine Associates, I get analog
> left-right signals that will drive my Navaid autopilot and/or CDI.
> However, in order for the CDI to function, it needs an electrical signal
> to the GPS OK flag of more than 250 mV and less than 900 mV. I can use
> the GPS OK signal from my Smart Coupler II, but it is a full 12-14 volts
> (100 milliamps). THIS IS TOO MUCH VOLTAGE for my Course Deviation
> Indicator GPS OK flag. I need to reduce the voltage to something
> in-between the minimum and maximum allowable voltage (.25 - .90 volts).
> My choice is .5 volts or one-half volt.
>
> Can you tell me how to accomplish this? I found voltage regulators in
> several supply catalogs (i.e., Jameco) that reduce voltage, but none of
> them reduce it down to the needed level of one-half volt.
>
> With appreciation,
>
> Bob J. Rogers
> Mustang II (almost ready to fly)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 40 amp B&C Alternator wiring??? |
Just finished reading the instructions to wiring a B&C L-40 40 Amp Alternat
or and wanted some varification of my understanding as to my application.(F
ig. Z13)
(Question1...Why two male connectors on the alternator at the F position).
(Question2: How is the best way to ground the alternator?)
I would run an 18awg from the LR3 #4 position to the two F male connection
on the alternator per the following instructions:
5. Install the field plug on the harness. Refer to the diagram below for th
e correct terminal locations. Even though only one field connection is requ
ired, it is recommended both terminals be installed in the connector body t
o help stabilize the connector under high vibration conditions. It is furth
er recommended that the two terminals be jumped together for a redundant fi
eld connection. This may be accomplished by crimping a short (2 or 3") jump
er along with the field wire from the regulator in one of the terminals. Pl
ace a short length of heat shrink tubing over the wires before crimping. In
stall a second short piece of shrink tube over the free end of the jumper.
The other end of the jumper is then crimped in the second terminal. Solder
both terminals and the shrink the tubing over the wires and the crimped are
a of the terminals. Install the terminals in the slots in the connector bod
y. Check to see that the terminals have locked into the connector body. Ins
tall the connector in the alternator and be sure the connector locks into t
he alternator receptacle
Frank @ SGU RV7A 97%done 95% to go
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
On 16-Nov-07, at 12:39 PM, Rogers, Bob J. wrote:
> >
>
>
> I am looking for some help or suggestions on how to reduce the normal
> bus voltage of 12 to 14 volts DC in my experimental kitplane to one-
> half
> volt for a circuit that activates the GPS OK flag in my CDI.
>
> I have a portable moving-map GPS in my airplane. By sending the GPS
> signal through a SMART COUPLER II by Porcine Associates, I get analog
> left-right signals that will drive my Navaid autopilot and/or CDI.
> However, in order for the CDI to function, it needs an electrical
> signal
> to the GPS OK flag of more than 250 mV and less than 900 mV. I can
> use
> the GPS OK signal from my Smart Coupler II, but it is a full 12-14
> volts
> (100 milliamps). THIS IS TOO MUCH VOLTAGE for my Course Deviation
> Indicator GPS OK flag. I need to reduce the voltage to something
> in-between the minimum and maximum allowable voltage (.25 - .90
> volts).
> My choice is .5 volts or one-half volt.
>
> Can you tell me how to accomplish this? I found voltage regulators
> in
> several supply catalogs (i.e., Jameco) that reduce voltage, but none
> of
> them reduce it down to the needed level of one-half volt.
Assuming that very little current would be needed at this input, you
could simply use two resistors to make a voltage divider. Put two
resistors in series, with one of them approximately 24 times the
resistance of the other one (the range of required voltages is quite
large, so you have a fair bit of leeway on this value of 24 times).
Hook one end of the big resistor to 14v, and one end of the small
resistor to ground. Pick off the voltage you need where the two
resistors join up. Make sure the sum of the two resistors is high
enough to limit the current flow through the divider circuit to an
acceptably low level. The power draw will be very low as long as you
keep the current low by choosing high enough values for the
resistors. E.g, if the total of the two resistors is 1000 ohms, the
current would be 0.014 amps, and the power dissipated in the large
resistor would be about 0.19 watt, so 1/4 watt resistors would work.
I'm not sure what the commonly available resistor values are, so I
won't try to suggest which ones to look for.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
Here's a little circuit to act as a voltage detector, resistor should be
at least 1/4 watt rated.
-Bob Newman
www.tcwtech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
Bob,
<< bus voltage activates the GPS OK flag in my CDI. >>
Rob Turk's method of tapping the voltage between a resistor and a
forward biased diode is an excellent way to get a low current
regulated voltage. For your application an even simpler way will
work.
A sufficiently high resistor in the line between the Smart
Coupler output and the CDI input will do the job. I would use
the highest resistor which turns on the flag with a 9 volt
battery. To be on the safe side, I would start with at least
220k ohms and slowly work my way down until the battery reliably
turns on the flag. Almost any local amateur radio operator will
have a selection of resistors, or small variable resistors, with
which to find the right value.
If the CDI documentation specifies the current drawn by the flag
then you can use Ohm's law to calculate the resistor:
resistor equals voltage divided by current
If the current is given in milliamps (ma) then the resulting
resistor is in kilohms (kohm). But even then I would use the
battery/test resistor method. Setting the resistor value with 9
volts gives you a margin that if the buss voltage is high enough
to run the coupler then the output is high enough to display the
flag.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob,
Re: the Eggenfellner installation and Z19. Eggenfellner recommends a 200
amp ANL fuse close to the positive battery post on each battery. I don't
see this reflected in your design, so in your opinion is this justified
or just an uber precaution?
Thanks
-----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, November 16, 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19RB question
-->
>-->
>
>Bob,
>
>I am using your Z19RB architecture in my RV7 with Eggenfellner Subaru
>E6T.
>
>With the dual batteries and battery contactors in the rear of the plane
>and a single "fat wire" coming forward do you see any problem with
>putting a bus bar (like Stein's BB235:
>http://www.steinair.com/images/store/bb2305.jpg)
>near the firewall to terminate the fat wire?
>
>I would continue the fat wire from this bus bar to the starter
>contactor on the engine. The feed for the "Main Power Distribution
>Bus" would come from this bus rather than the starter contactor as
>depicted on Z19RB. This way I can do all the wiring (and testing)
>behind the firewall without having the engine mounted. I can see that
>I have created one more joint in the run from the batteries to the
>starter contactor but is that really a problem?
>
>Also, I have a pair of Gigavac GX11 contactors for the battery
>contactors and I was wondering how best to connect the coil ground wire
>(and optional NO/NC/COM contact wires if I choose) to the wires
>carrying them to the instrument panel mounted switch? Possible choices
include:
> AMP "Mate-n-Lock" / Molex
> Mount a terminal strip with faston tabs by each contactor
> AMP Knife Splice?
My personal choice would be knife splices but either
of the other two technologies would probably be okay
if installed with good craftsmanship. My personal
design goals call for lowest parts count and minimized
process requirements. Knife splices and heat shrink
are the most attractive solutions to those goals.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
Thanks Bob,
Any thoughts on the first question?
>>>> I am using your Z19RB architecture in my RV7 with
>>>> Eggenfellner Subaru E6T.
>>>>
>>>> With the dual batteries and battery contactors in the rear
>>>> of the plane and
>>>> a single "fat wire" coming forward do you see any problem
>>> with putting a bus
>>>> bar (like Stein's BB235:
>>> http://www.steinair.com/images/store/bb2305.jpg)
>>>> near the firewall to terminate the fat wire?
>>>>
>>>> I would continue the fat wire from this bus bar to the
>>> starter contactor on
>>>> the engine. The feed for the "Main Power Distribution Bus"
>>> would come from
>>>> this bus rather than the starter contactor as depicted on
>>> Z19RB. This way I
>>>> can do all the wiring (and testing) behind the firewall
>>> without having the
>>>> engine mounted. I can see that I have created one more
>>> joint in the run
>>>> from the batteries to the starter contactor but is that
>>> really a problem?
>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Sam
On Nov 16, 2007 7:53 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >Does anyone know where Bob's articles on load meters are? I thought it
> >might be in Chapter 7, but I couldn't find it.
> >
> >Sam
>
> There are no articles specific to the topic
> of loadmeters. In general, these are generic
> ammeters but instead of calibrating the scale
> plate in amperes, they are calibrated in percent
> with 100% being full scale. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Loadmeter_2.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
>
>
> The handy thing about this calibrating convention
> is that a single instrument can be used with
> any size alternator or generator. The full
> scale sensitivity of instrument in amperes is
> set by the size of the companion shunt. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/20-50_Shunt.jpg
>
> A 20A shunt goes with alternators like the SD-20
> and the instrument reads full scale when 100%
> of the 20A machine is being taxed. It follows that
> other sized alternators are monitored with the
> appropriately sized shunt on the same instrument.
>
> When the system is fitted with more than one
> alternator, a single instrument can be switched
> between the two sources, each fitted with the
> appropriate sized shunt; wired as described here:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
--
Sam Hoskins
www.MistakeProofing.Net
www.MistakeProofing.net/blog/
618-967-0016 ph.
312-212-4086 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Probably unlikely, but the CDI might have a FET input which would have
extremely high equivalent resistance (or low leakage current - in the nano
Amps), and the IV curve may be non-linear. The output leakage current on
the Smart Coupler may be significantly higher than the input
leakage/operating current on the CDI. If this were the case, no matter
how high the resistance value of the interconnect resistor you're
proposing, you may not be able to control the voltage on the CDI. A
voltage divider is a safer way to go (at least for prototyping) though
your proposal will probably work.
Matt-
>
>
> Bob,
>
> << bus voltage activates the GPS OK flag in my CDI. >>
>
> Rob Turk's method of tapping the voltage between a resistor and a
> forward biased diode is an excellent way to get a low current
> regulated voltage. For your application an even simpler way will
> work.
>
> A sufficiently high resistor in the line between the Smart
> Coupler output and the CDI input will do the job. I would use
> the highest resistor which turns on the flag with a 9 volt
> battery. To be on the safe side, I would start with at least
> 220k ohms and slowly work my way down until the battery reliably
> turns on the flag. Almost any local amateur radio operator will
> have a selection of resistors, or small variable resistors, with
> which to find the right value.
>
> If the CDI documentation specifies the current drawn by the flag
> then you can use Ohm's law to calculate the resistor:
>
> resistor equals voltage divided by current
>
> If the current is given in milliamps (ma) then the resulting
> resistor is in kilohms (kohm). But even then I would use the
> battery/test resistor method. Setting the resistor value with 9
> volts gives you a margin that if the buss voltage is high enough
> to run the coupler then the output is high enough to display the
> flag.
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I convert 14v DC to one-half volt? |
Matt,
<< high resistor in the line >> << CDI might have a FET input
which would have extremely high equivalent resistance .. If this
were the case .. you may not be able to control the voltage >>
My King KI209 specifies a flag input impedance of 1k. So at
least for this instrument a single resistor should work. But
issues like this are why I suggest he try the 9 volt battery/test
resistors method first. No objection to the 2nd resistor or
forward biased diode method (in fact my first thought) but in
this application simplest might work just fine.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
Another question about load meters.
Most ammeters display +/- amps; charge/discharge.
Why do load meters not display +/- percent?
Should a panel contain both a load meter and an ammeter, or can we get away
with strictly a load meter?
Thanks.
Sam
On Nov 16, 2007 7:53 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >Does anyone know where Bob's articles on load meters are? I thought it
> >might be in Chapter 7, but I couldn't find it.
> >
> >Sam
>
> There are no articles specific to the topic
> of loadmeters. In general, these are generic
> ammeters but instead of calibrating the scale
> plate in amperes, they are calibrated in percent
> with 100% being full scale. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Loadmeter_2.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
>
>
> The handy thing about this calibrating convention
> is that a single instrument can be used with
> any size alternator or generator. The full
> scale sensitivity of instrument in amperes is
> set by the size of the companion shunt. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/20-50_Shunt.jpg
>
> A 20A shunt goes with alternators like the SD-20
> and the instrument reads full scale when 100%
> of the 20A machine is being taxed. It follows that
> other sized alternators are monitored with the
> appropriately sized shunt on the same instrument.
>
> When the system is fitted with more than one
> alternator, a single instrument can be switched
> between the two sources, each fitted with the
> appropriate sized shunt; wired as described here:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
--
Sam Hoskins
www.MistakeProofing.Net
www.MistakeProofing.net/blog/
618-967-0016 ph.
312-212-4086 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wherefore loadmeters?
Another question about load meters.
Most ammeters display +/- amps; charge/discharge.
Only battery ammeters function this way. i.e. measuring current into
or out of the battery.
Why do load meters not display +/- percent?
Because you are normally measuring the amount of load on the
alternator, which under all "normal" circumstances can only be positive.
(negative flow, i.e. feeding power INTO the alternator can only occur
with certain types of alternator failure)
Should a panel contain both a load meter and an ammeter, or can we get
away with strictly a load meter?
Neither are necessary. The most useful "meter" is a voltmeter, and
even it isn't necessary. All you really care about is whether or not
your alternator is carrying the necessary loads and keeping the battery
charged. If it is then the system voltage will be maintained at the
regulator setting (14+ volts) If it isn't the voltage will sag, your low
voltage warning will inform you of the fact, and you employ your load
reduction procedures (switch to your endurance buss with its
predetermined minimal loads) to fly to your destination where you
troubleshoot the problem.
Thanks.
You're welcome
Sam
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop> |
| Subject: | Wherefore loadmeters? |
Sam,
The conventional battery ammeter measures current going into the battery
under charging conditions (+ reading), or flowing out of the battery (-
reading) when the alternator is not supporting the load. When the
alternator is supporting the load and the battery is fully charged, the
ammeter will show very little deflection.
The load meter measures only alternator output,regardless of whether that
output is supporting the load or charging the battery.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wherefore loadmeters?
Another question about load meters.
Most ammeters display +/- amps; charge/discharge.
Why do load meters not display +/- percent?
Should a panel contain both a load meter and an ammeter, or can we get away
with strictly a load meter?
Thanks.
Sam
On Nov 16, 2007 7:53 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>Does anyone know where Bob's articles on load meters are? I thought it
>might be in Chapter 7, but I couldn't find it.
>
>Sam
There are no articles specific to the topic
of loadmeters. In general, these are generic
ammeters but instead of calibrating the scale
plate in amperes, they are calibrated in percent
with 100% being full scale. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Loadmeter_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg>
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
The handy thing about this calibrating convention
is that a single instrument can be used with
any size alternator or generator. The full
scale sensitivity of instrument in amperes is
set by the size of the companion shunt. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/20-50_Shunt.jpg
A 20A shunt goes with alternators like the SD-20
and the instrument reads full scale when 100%
of the 20A machine is being taxed. It follows that
other sized alternators are monitored with the
appropriately sized shunt on the same instrument.
When the system is fitted with more than one
alternator, a single instrument can be switched
between the two sources, each fitted with the
appropriate sized shunt; wired as described here:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
--
Sam Hoskins
www.MistakeProofing.Net
www.MistakeProofing.net/blog/ <http://www.MistakeProofing.net/blog/>
618-967-0016 ph.
312-212-4086 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! And pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Whyfor Loadmeters? Am I missing something?
I suggest that unless you can find a really great reason for having a loadmeter.
Don't bother.
My airplane will not have one. One the other hand what my airplane does have (sleeping
in a large box full of stuff....) is a Xantrex XBM battery monitor. This
puppy monitors the health of the battery and tells me how long the battery
will power the airplane at the current load and lots more. MUCH better information.
See: http://www.xantrex.com/support/web/id/1006/support1.asp
and http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/7/product.asp
"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their horrid
history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They learned
to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to believe or
what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be scrutinized,
it was a great discovery...."
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool
--------
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=146873#146873
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
Did you get a chance to try the batteries I sent to you? Just curious.
Kevin
On Nov 9, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Bob,
>> You should receive the batteries Monday or Tuesday via USPS.
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 78.6 hours
>> Luana, IA.
>
> Very good sir. I'll put them on the precision
> "battery killer" right away.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Z13/8 over current protection |
Based on Bob's previous comments, I have decided that Z13/8 is more
suitable for my aircraft.
Should I include an ANL limiter between the battery contactor and the
main power bus ?
Perhaps the fuselink shown between the endurance bus and the alternate
feed switch might provide more encompassing protection located between
the main power bus and the diode ?
Why both a fuselink and a breaker in the feed from the main power bus
to the regulator ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
protection while the other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
to confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Huh.. Sounds logical, but I recently got a ride in a Pilatus that had a
comm system that allowed talking/receiving on two different frequencies at
the same time. I was talking to an FBO on the unicom while the pilot was
talking to the SLC approach controller. Not sure how they make that work,
but it seemed to be okay. Possibly each receiver was being relayed-out
while the other transmitter was operating and I just didn't notice it.
Matt-
>
> I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
> keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
> one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
> opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
> An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
> transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
> radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
> radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
> so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
> protection while the other transmits.
> This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
> to confirm this is indeed the case.
> True ??
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Good Morning Matt,
Every air carrier aircraft I ever flew that was equipped with VHF
Communication radios allowed simultaneous use of both transmitters. My WAG would
be
that it is, and was, a matter of proper spacing of the antennas.
I wonder if an antenna on the top of a metal airplane would interfere with
one on the belly? My Bonanza Has such an arrangement, but I have never
attempted simultaneous use of the radios.
Inquisitive minds want to know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:43:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
Huh.. Sounds logical, but I recently got a ride in a Pilatus that had a
comm system that allowed talking/receiving on two different frequencies at
the same time. I was talking to an FBO on the unicom while the pilot was
talking to the SLC approach controller. Not sure how they make that work,
but it seemed to be okay. Possibly each receiver was being relayed-out
while the other transmitter was operating and I just didn't notice it.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 08:35 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>
>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>keep them farther apart.
Anetnna separation is indeed a factor, but not the only one. Small
A/C inherently have a more difficult time due to the difficulties
encountered in achieving separation. Small composite or fabric makes
it even more difficult due to the lack of metal ground plane
area. OTOH, large metal A/C can take advantage of both separation,
as well as the RF shadow created by the ground referenced skin, and
place antennae on the top and bottom; thus achieving both separation
and shielding. This type of an installation can be quiet effective
for satisfactory, simultaneous com usage.
>The idea was that two pilots could each use
>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
This is a supported function, split, on at least some of the PS audio
panels, with caveats mentioned above perhaps necessary for a
successful outcome.
>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>transmit simultaneously.
>The intense field strength produced by one
>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>protection while the other transmits.
Some radios do have an interlock function to prevent inadvertent
transmissions from one interfering with reception on the other. This
is an option, not a requirement, and not all radios or audio panels
have this 'feature'.
>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>to confirm this is indeed the case.
>True ??
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Just another thought.
My recollection is that we were told to avoid transmitting on the same
frequency that the other radio was receiving. Other than that caution, I recall
no
difficulties involved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:57:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
Every air carrier aircraft I ever flew that was equipped with VHF
Communication radios allowed simultaneous use of both transmitters. My WAG would
be
that it is, and was, a matter of proper spacing of the antennas.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Wells" <georgewells(at)roadrunner.com> |
I have a problem of reported background noise and a weak transmission
when I ask for a radio check which just started about 3 weeks ago. Prior
to that checks were loud and clear.
My engine is a Rotax 912ULS and I am sure it's engine noise that I am
getting.
My reception is fine on all channels I have tried. When I transmit, the
red light on the Microair 760 Radio sort of blinks in time to a beep -
beep in the headset. As I increase RPM on the 912 the beeps increase
until they are almost a solid tone at around 5000 RPM.
I am stumped so any suggestions to solve this you have are welcomed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Smith <planesmith(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt alternator I w
ould like to use on my RV project. What are the options for a regulator? VR
166 (generic Ford) with OV protection, B&C, or what? I've gone through the
AeroElectric book and the archives but haven't found a definitive answer, m
aybe the answer is too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
Thanks,
Vern Smith
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i=92m Init
iative now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 10:48 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt
>alternator I would like to use on my RV project. What are the
>options for a regulator? VR166 (generic Ford) with OV protection,
>B&C, or what? I've gone through the AeroElectric book and the
>archives but haven't found a definitive answer, maybe the answer is
>too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
>Thanks,
>
>Vern Smith
Might want to look at some of the offerings here:
http://zeftronics.com/
R15V00RevA is about the same as B&C LR3C-14 for less $$$.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down
the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part number
is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast Avionics
(part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator is
putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V = L*di/dt, I
suppose).
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Jeff,
We use more then one VHF transmitter on the airliners all the time. I
have used both VHF transmitters on my Lancair at the same time with only
36" between antennas without a problem.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Page
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
protection while the other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
to confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 over current protection |
>
>Based on Bob's previous comments, I have decided that Z13/8 is more
>suitable for my aircraft.
>
>Should I include an ANL limiter between the battery contactor and the
>main power bus ?
There is not one shown because this pathway has
not been demonstrated to benefit from adding the
protection . . . in fact, the FARS exempt this piece
of wire from getting such protection in TC aircraft.
>Perhaps the fuselink shown between the endurance bus and the alternate
>feed switch might provide more encompassing protection located between
>the main power bus and the diode ?
?? the purpose of this link is to protect the wire
between the battery bus and the switch. Moving it
someplace else would not help that wire . . .
>Why both a fuselink and a breaker in the feed from the main power bus
>to the regulator ?
Because if the main bus is a fuse block -AND- it's remotely mounted
for convenience of installation and maintenance then it's also
remote to the panel where the 5A breaker needs to go. This puts a
longer-than-6-inches hot wire between the fuse block and the
breaker that is part of the crowbar ov protection system and should
be mounted on the panel. This piece of wire is best protected with
a fusible link having a fault-reaction response-time that is
longer than for the breaker. If you used a fuse here, the fuse
would open before the breaker does and negate the convenience
of putting the breaker on the panel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/spanel.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
>
>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>protection while the other transmits.
>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>to confirm this is indeed the case.
Not true. Depending on the quality of the receivers
in each radio, the "listening" transceiver may be
overloaded by an adjacent "talking" radio but the further
apart they are in frequency of interest, you may be able
to carry on dual conversations. I've never found it
necessary to "protect" a non-transmitting radio from
one that is transmitting.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
>I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt alternator I
>would like to use on my RV project. What are the options for a regulator?
>VR166 (generic Ford) with OV protection, B&C, or what? I've gone through
>the AeroElectric book and the archives but haven't found a definitive
>answer, maybe the answer is too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
>Thanks,
Your options are varied and numerous. You can
go the generic route and assemble regulator, ov
protection and lv warning from individual components
or go the Cadillac rout with the B&C LR3 series
controllers with everything in one package. There
is no one choice inherently superior to others
beyond avoiding products with demonstrably poor
service lives (i.e. poor return on investment).
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
I have a problem of reported background noise and a weak transmission when
I ask for a radio check which just started about 3 weeks ago. Prior to that
checks were loud and clear.
My engine is a Rotax 912ULS and I am sure it's engine noise that I am getting.
My reception is fine on all channels I have tried. When I transmit, the red
light on the Microair 760 Radio sort of blinks in time to a beep - beep in
the headset. As I increase RPM on the 912 the beeps increase until they are
almost a solid tone at around 5000 RPM.
I am stumped so any suggestions to solve this you have are welcomed.
You need to investigate quality of your
power on the electrical system. With a
good battery in place and a properly
functioning alternator/regulator-rectifier,
there should be no way for the engine's
rpm to reflect upon your transmitter's
operation.
Check your alternator's output voltage under
full and light loads . . . make sure it's
stable. Put a known good "test" battery in
parallel with the ship's battery, or temporarily
replace the ships battery to see if it makes
a difference.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Thanks Bob.. That jogged my memory. The real challenge would be to run
multiple transceivers through a single antenna..
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>>keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
>>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
>>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>>transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
>>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>>protection while the other transmits.
>>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>>to confirm this is indeed the case.
>
> Not true. Depending on the quality of the receivers
> in each radio, the "listening" transceiver may be
> overloaded by an adjacent "talking" radio but the further
> apart they are in frequency of interest, you may be able
> to carry on dual conversations. I've never found it
> necessary to "protect" a non-transmitting radio from
> one that is transmitting.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
If transmitting simultaneously on two radios was dangerous for the radios,
why would the high end audio panels allow this?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
Jeff,
We use more then one VHF transmitter on the airliners all the time. I have
used both VHF transmitters on my Lancair at the same time with only 36"
between antennas without a problem.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to keep them
farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use one of the
radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as opposed to merely
monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to transmit
simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one radio
transmitting would damage the receive section of the other radio. Thus
there is a lockout connection wired between the radios, so that the
non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self protection while the
other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios to
confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
> My airplane will not have one. One the other hand what my airplane does have
(sleeping
> in a large box full of stuff....) is a Xantrex XBM battery monitor. This
> puppy monitors the health of the battery and tells me how long the battery
> will power the airplane at the current load and lots more. MUCH better information.
>
>
> See: http://www.xantrex.com/support/web/id/1006/support1.asp
> and http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/7/product.asp
>
The manufacturer:
http://www.tbs-electronics.nl/products_expert501_downloads.htm#table
Cheers,
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Great find but an ANL fuse will offer the same protection and keep you
or a curious passenger from ruining your alternator. Not to mention it
cost about 1/10 of that breaker. Why are you so interested in isolating
your alternator? When my alternator fails it doesn't run a-muck in the
engine compartment and burst into flames, it simply becomes another lawn
ornament.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Lewis
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:06 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com;
rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker
Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down
the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part number
is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast Avionics
(part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the
alternator is putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V
= L*di/dt, I suppose).
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
>
>Thanks Bob.. That jogged my memory. The real challenge would be to run
>multiple transceivers through a single antenna..
That CAN be done. It's most commonly accomplished with
carefully crafted filters that go in series with the antenna
feedlines for each radio. A good example of this technology
is a critter called a "duplexer".
Back in the days when I was working with amateur radio repeater
stations, it was useful have a single antenna for both
RECEIVING an exceedingly tiny incoming signal (0.5 microvolts)
on one frequency while simultaneously TRANSMITTING that same
information on a second frequency (typically 600 KHz removed from
receive) with a strength on the order of 50 volts or 10 million
times stronger!
I've built the device shown here several times:
http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/2mduplexer.html
The thing is built of pieces of 4" copper tubing. The
six cavities are distributed with three in the transmitter
antenna line, three in the receiver. They are crafted with
mirror image band-pass/band-reject response curves
shown here:
http://www.repeater-builder.com/pix/dupfig15.jpg
Note that each cavity set strongly rejects one
frequency while strongly passing another. With these
devices properly crafted and tuned to match the
frequencies of the transmitter and receiver, full
duplex operation of the two devices can be accomplished
on one antenna.
Obviously, this technology is useful ONLY for one
pair of frequencies. For example, I could craft a
duplexer to allow a pair of transceivers to use
a single antenna on 119.5 and 121.6 . . . but as
soon as I rotated set the frequencies to any other
combination, this finely tuned isolation between
the two transceivers would be lost. The other down
side of this technology is that the duplexer would use
up most of your baggage compartment!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
This thread has stirred a lot of concerns together which
I will attempt to put into perspective.
First, know that designers of upper-end production aircraft
have made a effort to get high-current, noise-carrying
conductors off the panel. The alternator is the strongest
noise source on the bus and it's b-lead is the strongest
emitter of magnetically coupled noise in the airplane. Hence,
a migration of b-lead protection out of the cockpit and onto
the firewall as seen here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Firewall_Ckt_Protection.jpg
Second, I cringe when concerns for the actions of
"curious passengers" are raised as drivers for how a
cockpit is laid out or fitted . . . I've flown hundreds
of passengers and never have I had to admonish anyone
to "not touch that". There would be only ONE time
that I might have to educate someone on passenger cockpit
etiquette. The second incident would result in a dispatched
return to the field and a polite request that the individual
exit the aircraft.
Third, it has been suggested that a breaker might serve
as the last-ditch means by which a pilot can bring a runaway
alternator to heel . . . or at least disconnect it from the
system. This logic is flawed for several reasons: (1) breakers
are designed to disconnect hard downstream faults in a system
where the voltage are on the order of 32 volts or less. (2)
A runaway alternator is capable of raising the b-lead terminal
to hundreds of volts in milliseconds where it is NOT reasonable
to expect the breaker to also serve as a SWITCH for reliable
disconnect of the offending alternator. Any attempt to use
a breaker (particularly a miniature one with plastic housing!)
for this purpose is to flirt with probability of cockpit fire
and much smoke.
Finally, know that a 60A breaker on a 60A alternator is
DESIGNED to nuisance trip. The b-lead protection on an alternator
should stay closed at current levels perhaps 20% higher than
the nameplate rating of the alternator. The GA spam-can community
really blew it when 60A b-lead breakers were installed in 100,000+
aircraft with 60A alternators.
The ideas cited above are drivers for my personal design
goals that strive to (1) move b-leads out of the cockpit and
(2) supply any-time, any-conditions, positive ON-OFF control
of all energy sources to the aircraft crew.
Of course, we're free to establish and satisfy any alternative
design goals. Incorporation of the 60A, panel mounted,
pullable breaker to satisfy the goals cited is, in my humble
opinion, ignoring a lot of experience and thoughtful reasoning
suggesting that panel a mounted, b-lead breaker is not the
best-we-know-how-to-do.
Bob . . .
>Great find but an ANL fuse will offer the same protection and keep you or
>a curious passenger from ruining your alternator. Not to mention it cost
>about 1/10 of that breaker. Why are you so interested in isolating your
>alternator? When my alternator fails it doesn't run a-muck in the engine
>compartment and burst into flames, it simply becomes another lawn ornament.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Lewis
>Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com;
>rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker
>
>Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
>breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
>two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down the
>part number, and found several sources on the net. The part number is
>413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast Avionics (part
>number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
>
>Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator is
>putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V = L*di/dt, I
>suppose).
>
>moz-screenshot5.jpg
>
>
>--
>
>Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
>
>RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
>
>RV-10 #40059 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Smith <planesmith(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
Because of the 70 amp rating I didn't realize my options were so wide open.
Thanks for the replies,
Vern Smith
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:24:16 -0600> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.co
m> From: nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Regulator Op
ote:> > >I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt alter
nator I > >would like to use on my RV project. What are the options for a r
egulator? > >VR166 (generic Ford) with OV protection, B&C, or what? I've go
ne through > >the AeroElectric book and the archives but haven't found a de
finitive > >answer, maybe the answer is too obvious. Any insights will be h
elpful.> >Thanks,> > Your options are varied and numerous. You can> go the
generic route and assemble regulator, ov> protection and lv warning from in
dividual components> or go the Cadillac rout with the B&C LR3 series> contr
ollers with everything in one package. There> is no one choice inherently s
uperior to others> beyond avoiding products with demonstrably poor> service
lives (i.e. poor return on investment).> > Bob . . .> > ------------------
----------------------)> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )> ( a thing
wrong, gives it a superficial )> ( appearance of being right . . . )> ( )>
====> > >
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i=92m Init
iative now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
>Because of the 70 amp rating I didn't realize my options were so wide open.
>Thanks for the replies,
>
>Vern Smith
Unlike generators . . . the regulator is NOT affected
by the size of the alternator. I've installed the LR3
series regulators on alternators from 35 to 105 amps
with good results.
A generator's regulator MUST be aware of the generator's
loads for the purpose of adjusting output to LIMIT the
output current and prevent burned wires, commutator
and brushes. Before the advent of solid state
rectifiers, a generator's regulator needed three
separate "relay" looking devices for the purpose
of controlling voltage, limiting current and electrical
disconnection of a generator that is turning too slow
or stopped. An exemplar regulator looked like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/GenReg_2A.jpg
Alternators are inherently current limited so
don't need attention from the regulator for
protection. They are inherently incapable of
reverse current flow through the rectifiers
that converts the alternator's AC to system DC
current. This leaves only the voltage regulator
function which was handled with a simpler device
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/ALTREG2.jpg
where the right-hand critter is the votlage
regulator. The one on the left is a field
control relay which is surplus to management
of the alternator in most systems. A solid
state version without a field control relay
looks more like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
and will work just fine with about any externally
regulated alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another Z-19 in the making (front batt) |
Question:
Z-19 shows a 6 AWG running from the starter contactor to the
feed bolt on the main power dist. bus. What type of connector will I use
to adapt the 6 AWG cable to the 10-32 bolt on the bus? My main bus is a
B & C standard 12 slot fuse holder (see attached).
Some add'l information if you happen to be working with a
Lancair. I will be using the electrically dependent 2.5 Subaru STI.
Pictures - What you are looking at is the avionics shelf for a
Legacy. A simple but very strong piece of prepreg fiberglass with a Z-19
trap door added for maintenance access. The holes on the lower left are
for accessing the back of B & C fast-on switches on the lower left
front face of the panel. The larger holes in the rear are for all of the
antennas, fuel lines, brake lines and whatever else runs up from the
center of the cabin.
All busses are attached with 10-32 bolts, washers and nylock
nuts. Bolts are torqued and trimmed to within two exposed threads
(Lancair standard). I don't think they're coming off. If I'm really
worried about bolts coming loose, I normally epoxy the exposed threads.
Epoxy is the best and cheapest loctite available. Of course you need to
cut things off if you want to change them, so don't use it on off-on
type bolts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltmeter / Ampmeter |
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I was looking thru the infamous aeroelectric download and saw a real nice little
ampmeter/voltmeter. It looked like a small meter. Does anyone know what it is
and where I can find one?
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147141#147141
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
In addition to other concerns, if they are push on connections, I'd
would not expect them to stand up to 60+ amps very long. Can you even
get push on connectors for awg 6 wire?
Ken
Tim Lewis wrote:
> Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
> breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
> two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down
> the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part
> number is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast
> Avionics (part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
>
> Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator
> is putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V =
> L*di/dt, I suppose).
>
>--
>Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
>RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
>RV-10 #40059 under construction
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
The breaker uses a 3/8" screw (huge flat head) on both lugs.
Tim
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 975 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
Ken wrote:
>
> In addition to other concerns, if they are push on connections, I'd
> would not expect them to stand up to 60+ amps very long. Can you even
> get push on connectors for awg 6 wire?
> Ken
>
> Tim Lewis wrote:
>
>> Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
>> breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
>> two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted
>> down the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part
>> number is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast
>> Avionics (part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
>>
>> Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator
>> is putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V =
>> L*di/dt, I suppose).
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltmeter / Ampmeter |
>
>
>I was looking thru the infamous aeroelectric download and saw a real nice
>little ampmeter/voltmeter. It looked like a small meter. Does anyone know
>what it is and where I can find one?
>Don
I have one left, but I'd rather not sell it to you.
The instrument shown at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadvolt.jpg
was a custom device crafted for the AeroElectric Connection
to support a product we sold for about a year. Unfortunately,
the supplier of the instrument was unwilling to support
warranty on their product and I was experiencing about 10%
failure rates. I had originally committed to purchase 100
instruments to go with this product:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021-704F.pdf
Unfortunately, we had a falling out over quality and
we never sold more than the first batch of 25.
We got back into the analog instrument market with
availability of a high quality instrument that
became the core for this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
I've flirted with the idea of adding an expanded scale
voltmeter as companion to the loadmeter. Did a prototype
a couple of years ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Expanded_Scale_VM_Proto.jpg
I even tried duplicating the functionality of the earlier volt-
loadmeter by squeezing both voltmeter and loadmeter scales onto
the same scale plate . . . it gets pretty tiny and not easy
to read. It is a nice instrument. 1.75" square with pivot and
jewel movement. For the moment, the only product I'm prepared to
offer is the loadmeter.
Bob . . .
>--------
>Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals
> for assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147141#147141
>
>
>--
>11/18/2007 5:15 PM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
>From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
>
>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
Do you really need it? I fly two crew planes and we rarely if ever are chatting
on two radios at the some time, even though we have 4 radios.
I think one antenna on top of the plane and bottom would be a better separation
than wing tips. G
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Voltmeter / Ampmeter |
Don,
I have a matching pair, volt/ampmeter and a dual fuel indicator which reads
header and main.
I will be able to get the details tomorrow.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mosquito56
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2007 4:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltmeter / Ampmeter
I was looking thru the infamous aeroelectric download and saw a real nice
little ampmeter/voltmeter. It looked like a small meter. Does anyone know
what it is and where I can find one?
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147141#147141
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 over current protection |
> >Perhaps the fuselink shown between the endurance bus and the alternate
> >feed switch might provide more encompassing protection located between
> >the main power bus and the diode ?
>
> ?? the purpose of this link is to protect the wire
> between the battery bus and the switch. Moving it
> someplace else would not help that wire . . .
To me, it would seem that the wire between the Battery Bus and E-Bus
Alternate Feed switch is protected by the 7A fuse from the Battery Bus ?
If a short to ground occurred in that wire, and the 7A Battery Bus
fuse blows, then the source of power becomes the Main Power
Distribution Bus if the E-Bus Alternate Switch is closed. The
fuselink as shown blows.
If the fuselink is moved to between the Diode and the Main Power
Distribution Bus, the fuselink would still blow, but would also
protect the wires connecting the diode - those have no protection at
all as shown ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Thanks for the numerous replies and comments to my question concerning
transmitting simultaneously with two radios.
Unanimously everyone said it can be made to work, with the usual
caveats of mounting the antennas with sufficient spacing, etc.
I was also pointed to commercial audio panels that offer this configuration.
So I am back to planning this and will report back in a couple of
years when my airplane is flying to indicate how it all worked out.
Meanwhile, there is a particular avionics tech's advice I will be
ignoring from here on !
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... |
Dear Listers,
Each year I like to explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity
to express why I think the List Services here provide a superior experience
over the commercial equivalents.
I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running
a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from
the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run
the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying
banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell little-blue-pills or other
garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years
regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the
non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once
a year during November to encourage members to support the Lists.
I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits over
the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to
be significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from any of these
Lists directly. Each incoming message is filtered and dangerous attachments stripped
off prior to posting. I also provide a Photo and File Share feature that
allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can
be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before
they are posted. More recently, I have enabled limited posting of a number of
file formats including pictures and PDFs.
Another very important feature of this system in my opinion is the extensive List
Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives
go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the very
fast Search Engine, the huge size of some of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly
finding the data you're looking for.
And added just a couple of years ago is the new Email List Forum that allows members who prefer the Web BBS-style of List interaction. The beauty of the new List Forums is that they contain the exact same content that is distributed via email. Messages posted via email are cross-posted to the respective Forum and vice versa. The Forums also allow for another convenient method of sharing pictures and other files (http://forums.matronics.com ). Additionally, added recently is the List Wiki that allows members to build their own "Online List Encyclopedia" of sorts, documenting various aspects of their project for all to share ( http://wiki.matronics.com ).
I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since
about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where also building
RVs. It has grown into nearly 70 different aviation-related Email Lists and
an associated web site that receives over 34,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally,
the List Email system forwarded well over 77,000 postings last year, accounting
for an unbelievable 33,000,000 (yes, that's 33 MILLION) email messages
delivered to Matronics List subscribers! I think there's a lot of value in supporting
a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving
a high quality service all _without any advertising budget_!
I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the
quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message,
Search the Archives, use the List Browser, or surf the Forums and Wiki sites.
The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a
while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate,
and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
List Fund Raiser!
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8/SD20 question |
Bob,
The SD8/SD20 alternators are vacuum pad mounted. The output chart shows the
alt output at various RPMs. Obviously there is a "gear-ratio" between the
engine and the vacuum pump pad. Do you know what this ratio is and does it
vary? In other words, what RPM can I expect the alt to turn at a cruise RPM
of say 2000-2300 RPM? My engine will be IO-360 ECI or Superior, all
electric. This is needed to know what to expect for amp output.
Also, How much does a battery contactor weigh?
Thanks for your excellent resource and discussion list.
Bevan
RV7A All electric
Trying to decide between SD8 as backup Alt or SD20 for a few pounds more
including second contactor.
-----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, January 31, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-13/8 Switch Question
-->
>
>
>
>Listers / Bob,
>
>I'm planning my electrical system (Z-13/8, Plane Power main alt) and
>panel and want the switches and layout to be as simple and logical as
possible.
>I am considering using two 2-1 switches for the master and the
>alternators as follows:
>
>Master Switch
>Down EBUS: Closes circuit between battery bus and E-bus.
>Middle BATT: Only Battery bus is live.
>Up MAIN: Normal flight position, grounds contacter making Main bus
>live, E-bus is live via diode from Main.
>
>Alternator Switch
>Down BKUP: Grounds contactor making SD-8 backup live to battery.
>Middle OFF: No power source available.
>Up MAIN: Closes circuit between Main bus and main alternator field.
>
>To my thinking, this is plenty logical and user-friendly. In effect,
>these two would replace the following three switches in Z-13/8:
>1. DC Power Master Switch (2-3)
>2. E-Bus Alternate Feed (1-3)
>3. Aux Alt Off/On (1-3)
>
>Questions:
>1. Is this a bad idea in terms of failure exposure - does my risk go up
>by using fewer switches or by using 3-position switches? If so, the
>next three questions are largely moot.
Combined functions open opportunities for single
failures of a switch to affect more than one function.
Choose your combinations carefully. Also be aware that
fewer switches is "simpler" but combined functionality
is more "complex."
>2. Can it be done such that the first is BATT / EBUS / MAIN and the
>second is OFF / BKUP / MAIN such that fully down is off, fully up is
>normal, and middle is "Houston, we have a problem"? This is my first
>choice, but I haven't been able to work out a way to do it with any
>other 3-position switch that I'm aware of. If there is an Off-On-On
>like a 2-1 but with Off on bottom, that would do it, if there is some
>cool way to do it with a 2-10 I haven't conjured it.
This could turn into a long debate as to the desirability
of doing (or not doing) any particular thing. Keep in mind that
the Z-figures have been combed for a number of years to keep
the operation logical and produced an attractive failure mode
effects analysis. While the switch panels illustrated to support
Z-13/8 may have a lot of features, I've resisted efforts to
combine functionality for systems other than cabin comfort,
landing/taxi/wig-wag and other lighting. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Z13-30-ElexIgn.pdf
>3. I lose the ability to have both alternators plugging away at the
>battery at the same time, is this a bug or a feature?
13/8 is not intended to be run with two alternators.
>4. I also lose the ability of having both the Main bus live, and the
>E-Bus live direct from the Battery bus w/o the attendant voltage drop
>from the diode. Again, bug or feature?
What you propose will predictably function as you've suggested.
Just be aware that the considerations for architecture and
functionality goes deeper than numbers of switches and occupied
panel space. Consider further that you'll no doubt want to
sell this airplane at some future date. The more familiar your
prospective customer is with the functionality of the controls,
the better.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans recommended position
for the battery is on the firewall in the engine compartment which I agree
with. That being said, the contactors would be located nearby. Would it
follow that the battery bus should also be located on the engine side of the
firewall and if so, would it be appropriate to use a fuse block style as
we've come to appreciate? In other words, would the fuse block style and
associated faston terminals stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer
to see the fuses inside the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner
environment), but to get to here there would be a little more than 6 inches
of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
> >I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
> >keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each
> use >one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and
> FSS (as >opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
> Do you really need it? I fly two crew planes and we rarely if ever are
> chatting on two radios at the some time, even though we have 4 radios.
> I think one antenna on top of the plane and bottom would be a better
> separation than wing tips. G
Yes. When flying in the USA, I am often trying with difficulty to
raise FSS so I can open my flight plan immediately after takeoff.
This is a high workload time, since I am watching for other traffic
near the airport and also contacting departure to get flight
following. With two pilots and two radios, one can talk with ATC and
the other to FSS.
Top and bottom would be better separation, but I will be installing
amphibious floats, so I am concerned that the wires and floats will
interfere with the radio (assuming I don't manage to break the antenna
off by accident).
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Location of battery bus |
>Good morning Bob,
>
>Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans recommended
>position for the battery is on the firewall in the engine compartment
>which I agree with. That being said, the contactors would be located
>nearby. Would it follow that the battery bus should also be located on
>the engine side of the firewall and if so, would it be appropriate to use
>a fuse block style as we've come to appreciate? In other words, would the
>fuse block style and associated faston terminals stand up in the FF
>environment? I would prefer to see the fuses inside the cockpit just aft
>of the firewall (cleaner environment), but to get to here there would be a
>little more than 6 inches of unprotected wire.
Don't agonize over it. Do as you've suggested.
Make sure the always-hot wire coming through
the firewall is well absolutely not going to
suffer insulation failure by reason of poor
mechanical support/protection.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8/SD20 question |
>
> Bob,
>
>The SD8/SD20 alternators are vacuum pad mounted. The output chart shows the
>alt output at various RPMs. Obviously there is a "gear-ratio" between the
>engine and the vacuum pump pad. Do you know what this ratio is and does it
>vary? In other words, what RPM can I expect the alt to turn at a cruise RPM
>of say 2000-2300 RPM? My engine will be IO-360 ECI or Superior, all
>electric. This is needed to know what to expect for amp output.
You need to check with an engine guru. Call B&C. The
pad gear ratio is either 1:1.5 or 1:1.3 depending on
whether it's a Lycoming or Continental product and
the details escape me at the moment.
>Also, How much does a battery contactor weigh?
The S701 series are 0.8 pounds.
>Thanks for your excellent resource and discussion list.
Your most welcome.
>Trying to decide between SD8 as backup Alt or SD20 for a few pounds more
>including second contactor.
The SD20 is really intended for those unfortunate
individuals who are locked into the ever-safer,
ever-more-expensive, ever-less-efficient, ever-
less-useful world of TC aircraft. These airplanes
benefit greatly from an SD-20 installed like Z-12.
In the OBAM aircraft world, you're first free
to architecture, craft and understand a system that
will get you to airport of intended destination
BATTERY-ONLY if that is your design goal. Adding
the SD-8 on top of an artfully crafted system
increases your endurance capacity to 8A while
holding a battery completely in reserve for
approach to landing.
Given the demonstrated reliability of modern
alternators teamed with the capability offered
by a properly maintained RG battery, there is
no practical reason to burden your airplane and
your budget with an SD-20. I illustrate it in
the 'Connection because it's out there, it's a
good product and it satisfies a rarely encountered
suite of design goals which I humbly suggest
applies to an exceedingly small number of OBAM aircraft.
I keep reminding folks that the vast majority
of light aircraft flown in IMC environments
are architectured like a 1968 C-172. Yet in
all the years of crappy alternators, generally
ignored, flooded-batteries, and woefully ignorant
pilots, a very small number of unhappy arrivals
with the earth have root cause in electrical system
failure. Let's not jack up the worry-pressure by
praying over Z-11, Z-12, Z-13/8 and Z-14 hoping
for a life-preserving epiphany.
If you're planning an all-electric airplane
then Z-13/8 combined with a modern alternator
and dutifully maintained battery gives you
system reliability exceeding that which costs
$tens of thousands$ and $hundreds of pounds$
in the heavy-iron birds.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
Morning All,
I am working on some of the electronics of our -7A slider and have a couple
of questions.
Here are some details of our installation:
* I am going with a modified Z19RB electrical system and I am using
some suggestions from Gary at Eggenfellner for wiring our E-Bus.
* We are using Honeywell AML34 lighted rockers and all the information
I see is that they handle 15A - I know we will need some relays.
* One of those switches will be an On-Off-On for switching between
Primary Bus and Essential Bus in the event of an alternator failure.
Questions:
Is there a relay out there that is capable of switching between two
different power sources and outputting to a single power source?
Would I have to use two separate relays for switching between the Primary
Bus and Essential Bus?
While I am using an auto conversion, I am not shopping the local Auto Zone
for electrical equipment. What type of relays would I get? Are Bosch
(insert Amperage) Solid State Relays suitable for our uses?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
| From: | "Jonathan B. Cook" <jonathan.cook(at)symech.com> |
Hello Scott,
I am also planning on using the Honeywell AML switches.
The 34 series will handle 15A, but only comes in ON-OFF.
To have the On-Off-On switch you would use a AML 24 series. (like AML24
F B C 2 CA 04) The AML 24 series can switch 5A which should be able
fine for switching a relay.
Jonathan Cook
RV7
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
R. Shook
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question about Relays/Switches
Morning All,
I am working on some of the electronics of our -7A slider and have a
couple of questions...
Here are some details of our installation:
* I am going with a modified Z19RB electrical system and I am
using some suggestions from Gary at Eggenfellner for wiring our E-Bus.
* We are using Honeywell AML34 lighted rockers and all the
information I see is that they handle 15A - I know we will need some
relays.
* One of those switches will be an On-Off-On for switching between
Primary Bus and Essential Bus in the event of an alternator failure.
Questions:
Is there a relay out there that is capable of switching between two
different power sources and outputting to a single power source?
Would I have to use two separate relays for switching between the
Primary Bus and Essential Bus?
While I am using an auto conversion, I am not shopping the local Auto
Zone for electrical equipment. What type of relays would I get? Are
Bosch (insert Amperage) Solid State Relays suitable for our uses?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Relays/Switches |
>Morning All,
>
>I am working on some of the electronics of our -7A slider and have a
>couple of questions&
>
>Here are some details of our installation:
>
> I am going with a modified Z19RB electrical system and I am using
>some suggestions from Gary at Eggenfellner for wiring our E-Bus.
>
> We are using Honeywell AML34 lighted rockers and all the
>information I see is that they handle 15A I know we will need some relays.
>
> One of those switches will be an On-Off-On for switching between
>Primary Bus and Essential Bus in the event of an alternator failure.
>
>Questions:
>
>Is there a relay out there that is capable of switching between two
>different power sources and outputting to a single power source?
Why solid state? Your AML switch is mechanical,
why not drive a mechanical relay too?
>Would I have to use two separate relays for switching between the Primary
>Bus and Essential Bus?
Probably . . .
>While I am using an auto conversion, I am not shopping the local Auto Zone
>for electrical equipment. What type of relays would I get? Are Bosch
>(insert Amperage) Solid State Relays suitable for our uses?
Where have you found a solid state relay by Bosch.
I've seen some Hella products. See:
http://tinyurl.com/yuvyt9
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
| From: | "Jonathan B. Cook" <jonathan.cook(at)symech.com> |
Hello Scott,
I also wanted to Add that I and other have/are using AMP automotive
fuses. One of the benefits is that you can use 1/4 " fast on
connectors. I plan on using AMP type fuses that have a tap with a hole
so I can bolt these fuses to some structure in the fuselage. Dan
Checkoway shows this on his site.
Dan Describes McMaster-carr relays 9672k12
http://www.rvproject.com/20030608.html http://www.mcmaster.com/
Dan Shows the relays http://www.rvproject.com/20030610.html
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jonathan B. Cook
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Question about Relays/Switches
Hello Scott,
I am also planning on using the Honeywell AML switches.
The 34 series will handle 15A, but only comes in ON-OFF.
To have the On-Off-On switch you would use a AML 24 series. (like AML24
F B C 2 CA 04) The AML 24 series can switch 5A which should be able
fine for switching a relay.
Jonathan Cook
RV7
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
R. Shook
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question about Relays/Switches
Morning All,
I am working on some of the electronics of our -7A slider and have a
couple of questions...
Here are some details of our installation:
* I am going with a modified Z19RB electrical system and I am
using some suggestions from Gary at Eggenfellner for wiring our E-Bus.
* We are using Honeywell AML34 lighted rockers and all the
information I see is that they handle 15A - I know we will need some
relays.
* One of those switches will be an On-Off-On for switching between
Primary Bus and Essential Bus in the event of an alternator failure.
Questions:
Is there a relay out there that is capable of switching between two
different power sources and outputting to a single power source?
Would I have to use two separate relays for switching between the
Primary Bus and Essential Bus?
While I am using an auto conversion, I am not shopping the local Auto
Zone for electrical equipment. What type of relays would I get? Are
Bosch (insert Amperage) Solid State Relays suitable for our uses?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
>Hello Scott,
>
>
>I also wanted to Add that I and other have/are using AMP automotive fuses.
AMP automotive fuses? Did you mean Relays?
> One of the benefits is that you can use 1/4 fast on connectors. I plan
> on using AMP type fuses that have a tap with a hole so I can bolt these
> fuses to some structure in the fuselage. Dan Checkoway shows this on his site.
>
>Dan Describes McMaster-carr relays 9672k12
><http://www.rvproject.com/20030608.html>http://www.rvproject.com/20030608.html
>http://www.mcmaster.com/
>
>Dan Shows the relays
><http://www.rvproject.com/20030610.html>http://www.rvproject.com/20030610.html
These are plain vanilla electro-mechanical relays,
not solid state.
The part number Dan cites (9672K12)
is no longer available. McMaster
suggests a 9672K32 (or weatherproof
9672K44) which you can see at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Misc/McMaster_p865.pdf
It takes two pass transistors in a solid
state relay to effect double pole, double
throw functionality. If there's much interest
in such a device, we could look into supplying
it . . . probably in the same package as
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9030/9030.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker
>First, know that designers of upper-end production aircraft
>have made a effort to get high-current, noise-carrying
>conductors off the panel.
Never heard noise in my plane with B-lead CB in panel.
I would just say prove it. Modern internally regulated alternators
are not noisy so it's a moot point. Old Gen from days gone by, yes
noisy.
>Second, I cringe when concerns for the actions of
>"curious passengers" are raised as drivers for how a
>cockpit is laid out or fitted . . .
You are stretching. Does the passenger have a control
yoke or stick they could shove right after takeoff or
right before landing? No Bozo allowed.
>Third, it has been suggested that a breaker might serve
>as the last-ditch means by which a pilot can bring a runaway
>alternator to heel . . . or at least disconnect it from the
>system. This logic is flawed for several reasons: (1) breakers
>are designed to disconnect hard downstream faults in a system
>where the voltage are on the order of 32 volts or less. (2)
>A runaway alternator is capable of raising the b-lead terminal
>to hundreds of volts in milliseconds where it is NOT reasonable
>to expect the breaker to also serve as a SWITCH for reliable
>disconnect of the offending alternator. Any attempt to use
>a breaker (particularly a miniature one with plastic housing!)
>or this purpose is to flirt with probability of cockpit fire
>and much smoke.
With all due respect I think your logic is flawed. It may fit for external
regulated alternators but not for internally regulated ones.
A CB is RATED to disconnect at 32volts many many times, however
it can handle much more. No I don't have an absolute number but
when most 12 volt alternators with a so called over voltage rarely
exceeds 17 v much less 32 v, your point is moot, 32v good enough.
When you say 100's of VOLTS and Cockpit FIRE, it's fear mongering
not based on facts. Science and engineering are based on facts not
emotional reasons. CB catch on fire? Really? OK, prove it.
Small 40 / 60 amp alternators are not pumping 100's of volts or amps.
Internally regulated alternators typically go to 16 or 17 volts, if
regulation fails, easily controlled by a CB. Yes there may have
been one "screw lose" case where voltage was truly out of control,
but it's rare, and the voltage was undetermined. I doubt it got to
over 32 volts.
Also an ANL fuse will not blow with 100's of volts, it's a current
device. If you want to wire your airplane like a Toyota with fuses, fine,
but there is no need to make stuff up against CB's in the panel.
>Finally, know that a 60A breaker on a 60A alternator is
>DESIGNED to nuisance trip. The b-lead protection on an alternator
>should stay closed at current levels perhaps 20% higher than
>the nameplate rating of the alternator. The GA spam-can community
>really blew it when 60A b-lead breakers were installed in 100,000+
>aircraft with 60A alternators.
Easily solved by sizing the CB properly. I guess they don't have
smart people working for the GA spam-can community. Frankly CB's
can take slight overloads for a period of time with out a trip. Again
moot point Bob, if the alternator can only put out 45 amps.
>In my humble opinion, ignoring a lot of experience and
>thoughtful reasoning suggesting that panel a mounted, b-lead
>breaker is not the best-we-know-how-to-do.
>Bob . . .
What?
Fuses are fine. Buth with (stock) internal regulation the CB is a good
reason to use a B-lead CB. Other engineers have worked on this
Bob. The pull-able CB for the B-lead is specified. It's irresponsible of
you to be so stubborn and opinionated, making ONE blanked edict
that one size fits all. Fuses are not a BE ALL solution for every
application. Follow the manufactures recommendation!
In my humble opinion, I disagree with Bob with my thoughtful reasoning
and facts. I don't care what you use but know why you are using it. I
don't believe you will have noise or won't be able to disconnect the
b-lead manually if you want to. When people talk 100's of volts & fire
they are exaggerating in non-scientific emotional arguments, not
engineering. Have Bob prove these are real problems. I could come
up with lots of NIT PICK reasons a fuse really is a poor choice.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Why would anyone want to reset a tripped 60A breaker in flight ?
If you want to disable the alternator than switching off the alternator
field would generate a lot less transients that components have to deal
with.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
Bob,
Thank you much for the information. Those look like the regular vanilla
automotive relays that I have used for years in cars.
Are those suitable for our applications? I am just not certain I want to
entrust tens of thousands of dollars of my airplane and its ESSENTIAL BUS to
a $9 relay.
If that's the case, I could use a SPDT continuous duty relay (like a Marine
application) found here -
http://www.ebasicpower.com/pc/ARCR038/ALLRELAYS/Relay%2C+12V%2C+85+Amp%2C+S.
P.D.T. to power my E-Bus from my Main Battery.
I could even get radical and have the Main Battery power my E-Bus when the
coil is energized and have it switch to my Aux Battery when coil is not
energized. Since there is already a SPST Continuous Duty Relay upstream of
both my main battery and aux battery, powering down the plane shouldn't be a
problem.
Thoughts?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
-----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: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 14:12
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Question about Relays/Switches
>Hello Scott,
>
>
>I also wanted to Add that I and other have/are using AMP automotive fuses.
AMP automotive fuses? Did you mean Relays?
> One of the benefits is that you can use 1/4 fast on connectors. I plan
> on using AMP type fuses that have a tap with a hole so I can bolt these
> fuses to some structure in the fuselage. Dan Checkoway shows this on his
site.
>
>Dan Describes McMaster-carr relays 9672k12
><http://www.rvproject.com/20030608.html>http://www.rvproject.com/20030608.h
tml
>http://www.mcmaster.com/
>
>Dan Shows the relays
><http://www.rvproject.com/20030610.html>http://www.rvproject.com/20030610.h
tml
These are plain vanilla electro-mechanical relays,
not solid state.
The part number Dan cites (9672K12)
is no longer available. McMaster
suggests a 9672K32 (or weatherproof
9672K44) which you can see at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Misc/McMaster_p865.pdf
It takes two pass transistors in a solid
state relay to effect double pole, double
throw functionality. If there's much interest
in such a device, we could look into supplying
it . . . probably in the same package as
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9030/9030.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
Bevan, this is what I did on my 7a for block locations. Small Tab forest on
FW side to large forest on cabin side. Fuse blocks on the inside are on a
swing down tray. Ran the battery lead to the always hot bus to a fuse slot
which really protects the wrong end of the wire but it seemed better than
nothing (maybe a fusible link on the battery end would be better). Wire is
about 14" from Battery to bus as I remember it but not likely to have a
problem.
Bill S
7a
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans recommended position
for the battery is on the firewall in the engine compartment which I agree
with. That being said, the contactors would be located nearby. Would it
follow that the battery bus should also be located on the engine side of the
firewall and if so, would it be appropriate to use a fuse block style as
we've come to appreciate? In other words, would the fuse block style and
associated faston terminals stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer
to see the fuses inside the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner
environment), but to get to here there would be a little more than 6 inches
of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny(at)wiktel.com> |
| Subject: | Z-19/RB question re: Internally shunted ammeter |
Bob, my ammeter has an internal shunt (VDO gauge). This may be a dumb
question but... Is there any way to get away from running the heavy B-lead
cable thru the firewall to the ammeter and then back thru the firewall to
the current limiter and starter contactor?
The second logical question, I guess, is this: is it unwise to hang the
integrity of my alternator's output on the innards of a cheap gauge, or is a
shunt a shunt? This didn't occur to me when I bought the gauges.
BTW, my alternator has an internal regulator so I am incorporating your
interim schematic that puts a Crowbar Contactor in the B-lead to unload the
alternator if the crowbar trips the circuit breaker.
Thanks for all your help... :=))
Johnny Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
Thanks Bill
Looks very good. Nice fuse block mount. Can you access it without taking a
control stick out and crawling underneath? Maybe just leaning over sideways
from the pilot seat?
I see a SD8 ? alternator. Can I assume you've wired up per Z13/8? Just a
guess, correct me if I'm wrong. Based on Bob's comments, I'm thinking that
Z13/8 will be ideal for me. Not sure what size Odyssey batt I need. Have
not completed a load analysis yet. If you are flying yet, I would like to
know what schematic Z drawing you're using and how you like it.
Bevan
Attached is a pic of my panel so far. No real wiring done yet. Just making
everything fit.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Bevan, this is what I did on my 7a for block locations. Small Tab forest on
FW side to large forest on cabin side. Fuse blocks on the inside are on a
swing down tray. Ran the battery lead to the always hot bus to a fuse slot
which really protects the wrong end of the wire but it seemed better than
nothing (maybe a fusible link on the battery end would be better). Wire is
about 14" from Battery to bus as I remember it but not likely to have a
problem.
Bill S
7a
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans recommended position
for the battery is on the firewall in the engine compartment which I agree
with. That being said, the contactors would be located nearby. Would it
follow that the battery bus should also be located on the engine side of the
firewall and if so, would it be appropriate to use a fuse block style as
we've come to appreciate? In other words, would the fuse block style and
associated faston terminals stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer
to see the fuses inside the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner
environment), but to get to here there would be a little more than 6 inches
of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Bob Archer used to sell (and probably still does) an antenna switch
which allows for reception on two radios simultaneously and locks out
the non-transmitting radio (whichever one it is) upon closing the PTT of
either.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Bob.. That jogged my memory. The real challenge would be to run
>> multiple transceivers through a single antenna..
>
>
> That CAN be done. It's most commonly accomplished with
> carefully crafted filters that go in series with the antenna
> feedlines for each radio. A good example of this technology
> is a critter called a "duplexer".
>
> Back in the days when I was working with amateur radio repeater
> stations, it was useful have a single antenna for both
> RECEIVING an exceedingly tiny incoming signal (0.5 microvolts)
> on one frequency while simultaneously TRANSMITTING that same
> information on a second frequency (typically 600 KHz removed from
> receive) with a strength on the order of 50 volts or 10 million
> times stronger!
>
> I've built the device shown here several times:
>
> http://www.repeater-builder.com/rbtip/2mduplexer.html
>
> The thing is built of pieces of 4" copper tubing. The
> six cavities are distributed with three in the transmitter
> antenna line, three in the receiver. They are crafted with
> mirror image band-pass/band-reject response curves
> shown here:
>
> http://www.repeater-builder.com/pix/dupfig15.jpg
>
> Note that each cavity set strongly rejects one
> frequency while strongly passing another. With these
> devices properly crafted and tuned to match the
> frequencies of the transmitter and receiver, full
> duplex operation of the two devices can be accomplished
> on one antenna.
>
> Obviously, this technology is useful ONLY for one
> pair of frequencies. For example, I could craft a
> duplexer to allow a pair of transceivers to use
> a single antenna on 119.5 and 121.6 . . . but as
> soon as I rotated set the frequencies to any other
> combination, this finely tuned isolation between
> the two transceivers would be lost. The other down
> side of this technology is that the duplexer would use
> up most of your baggage compartment!
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Running avionics on power supply |
No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power supply
instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the circuit (PC680).
Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or can I hook it
to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator?
Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
Likewise: I have a CB power supply (13.8v 3amp) which I thought of using to
power up the system - to the vacant battery terminal or where?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:56 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>
>
> No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
>
> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power
> supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the
> circuit (PC680).
> Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or can I
> hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator?
>
> Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
>
> Ralph Capen
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
| From: | "Terry Phillips" <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
I am have reached the point in my building where I have to address some electrical
design issues. I need to install the servo for the R.A. Allen electric elevator
trim tab. The servo has 5 leads, and is supplied with a length of 5-conductor
Belden 8445 cable to connect to the controls in the cockpit. A check on
the Internet shows that this cable is PVC insulated with 5 22AWG wires. I have
a several questions.
1. I was planning to use Tefzel insulated cable as much as possible. Is it worthwhile
to replace R.A. Allen's PVC insulated cable with Tefzel insulated cable?
2. For this application cable would be better than 5 individual wires, because
the wires must pass outside the skin from the elevator to the fuselage. After
looking around on the Internet, I was unable to find a 5-conductor cable with
Tefzel wire insulation and a Tefzel jacket. I did find a company, TPC Wire,
http://www.tpcwire.com/tpc/pdf/03_TrOxCable_6.pdf,
that sells 100 ft lengths of shielded cable with Tefzel wire insulation and a polyurethane
exterior cover that should work (part no. 61506). They don't have
5 conductor cable, but the 6 conductor cable would not be much heavier. Does such
a cable look like a reasonable substitute? Are there other sources for Tefzel
insulated cable that I should consider?
3. The servo instructions suggest soldering the cable conductors to the servo leads
and wrapping the joints with electrical tape. I was originally planning to
use butt splice crimp connectors instead of soldering. I'm now considering using
a 9 conductor d-sub plug. Are the d-sub plugs a good choice for a remote
location, like the elevator?
4. If one uses a d-sub, should the plug itself be secured to the elevator (how?)
or would cable ties or an adel clamps on the cable provide adequate support.
5. Also, since TPC Wire has a $100 minumum order, it behooves me to buy cable for
other uses in the airplane in this one order. E.g., power for the nav lights,
headlights, etc. One use that I'm considering is to buy some 24 conductor cable
to pass through the firewall to carry engine instrument signals. Which brings
me back to the d-sub connectors. Would d-subs be reasonable replacement for
the terminal strips that I have seen used to connect engine instruments to
wires passing through the firewall? Can d-subs handle engine compartment temperatures?
Will thermocouple leads crimped into d-sub pins work OK? Are d-subs robust
enough to endure the correction of wiring goofs?
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Rudder done--finally; working on the stab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147691#147691
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Replacement STC |
11/21/2007
Hello Bob Nuckolls and other list experts, My friend wants to replace the
two conventional 12 volt lead acid Gill batteries in his 24 volt system
Beech Sierra with two 12 volt Concorde recombinant gas batteries.
I can find tables that shows the correct batteries, but also show that an
STC (held by Wilco) is involved:
http://www.concordebattery.com/aag3.php?id=2775
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/finalfaapma.pdf (see page 8)
What is the proper procedure / FAA required paperwork / permission from STC
holder, to make this battery switch?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
Terry,
Bob has a decent webpage that covers your question #3 below.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
There is another good article on "Soldering D-Sub Connectors" that can be
found here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/dsubs/d_solder.html
-Ben Westfall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors
I am have reached the point in my building where I have to address some
electrical design issues. I need to install the servo for the R.A. Allen
electric elevator trim tab. The servo has 5 leads, and is supplied with a
length of 5-conductor Belden 8445 cable to connect to the controls in the
cockpit. A check on the Internet shows that this cable is PVC insulated with
5 22AWG wires. I have a several questions.
1. I was planning to use Tefzel insulated cable as much as possible. Is it
worthwhile to replace R.A. Allen's PVC insulated cable with Tefzel
insulated cable?
2. For this application cable would be better than 5 individual wires,
because the wires must pass outside the skin from the elevator to the
fuselage. After looking around on the Internet, I was unable to find a
5-conductor cable with Tefzel wire insulation and a Tefzel jacket. I did
find a company, TPC Wire,
http://www.tpcwire.com/tpc/pdf/03_TrOxCable_6.pdf,
that sells 100 ft lengths of shielded cable with Tefzel wire insulation and
a polyurethane exterior cover that should work (part no. 61506). They don't
have 5 conductor cable, but the 6 conductor cable would not be much heavier.
Does such a cable look like a reasonable substitute? Are there other sources
for Tefzel insulated cable that I should consider?
3. The servo instructions suggest soldering the cable conductors to the
servo leads and wrapping the joints with electrical tape. I was originally
planning to use butt splice crimp connectors instead of soldering. I'm now
considering using a 9 conductor d-sub plug. Are the d-sub plugs a good
choice for a remote location, like the elevator?
4. If one uses a d-sub, should the plug itself be secured to the elevator
(how?) or would cable ties or an adel clamps on the cable provide adequate
support.
5. Also, since TPC Wire has a $100 minumum order, it behooves me to buy
cable for other uses in the airplane in this one order. E.g., power for the
nav lights, headlights, etc. One use that I'm considering is to buy some 24
conductor cable to pass through the firewall to carry engine instrument
signals. Which brings me back to the d-sub connectors. Would d-subs be
reasonable replacement for the terminal strips that I have seen used to
connect engine instruments to wires passing through the firewall? Can d-subs
handle engine compartment temperatures? Will thermocouple leads crimped into
d-sub pins work OK? Are d-subs robust enough to endure the correction of
wiring goofs?
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Rudder done--finally; working on the
stab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147691#147691
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
I am at the same decision point. There seems to be a funny rumor out
there that the battery buss needs to be sitting on top of the battery.
Voltage drop for 12-14 volts may be an issue over 12' but not over 12".
I will mount them inside where it is clean and dry but still close to
the firewall.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:21 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Bevan, this is what I did on my 7a for block locations. Small
Tab forest on FW side to large forest on cabin side. Fuse blocks on the
inside are on a swing down tray. Ran the battery lead to the always hot
bus to a fuse slot which really protects the wrong end of the wire but
it seemed better than nothing (maybe a fusible link on the battery end
would be better). Wire is about 14" from Battery to bus as I remember
it but not likely to have a problem.
Bill S
7a
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans
recommended position for the battery is on the firewall in the engine
compartment which I agree with. That being said, the contactors would
be located nearby. Would it follow that the battery bus should also be
located on the engine side of the firewall and if so, would it be
appropriate to use a fuse block style as we've come to appreciate? In
other words, would the fuse block style and associated faston terminals
stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer to see the fuses inside
the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner environment), but to get
to here there would be a little more than 6 inches of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
a
tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
FWIW,
I've been powering my pannel from a PC680 with a battery charger
connected to it and have not had any problems. The charger output
voltage was fluctuating (or I had bad connections) when I powered
directly from it so using the battery as a sink made it work just
fine. The follwing equipment is being powered this way:
GRT Sport
SL30
GTX327
GRT EIS
TT AP
PSE 3000
Hope this helps,
Mike
Quoting JOHN TIPTON :
>
>
> Likewise: I have a CB power supply (13.8v 3amp) which I thought of
> using to power up the system - to the vacant battery terminal or where?
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "Aeroelectric-list" ; "Avionics
> List"
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:56 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>
>
>>
>>
>> No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
>>
>> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a
>> power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a
>> battery in the circuit (PC680).
>> Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or
>> can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the
>> alternator?
>>
>> Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
>>
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
Your charger is connected directly to the battery?
-----Original Message-----
>From: "mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Nov 21, 2007 1:01 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>
>
>FWIW,
>
>I've been powering my pannel from a PC680 with a battery charger
>connected to it and have not had any problems. The charger output
>voltage was fluctuating (or I had bad connections) when I powered
>directly from it so using the battery as a sink made it work just
>fine. The follwing equipment is being powered this way:
>
>GRT Sport
>SL30
>GTX327
>GRT EIS
>TT AP
>PSE 3000
>
>Hope this helps,
>Mike
>
>Quoting JOHN TIPTON :
>
>>
>>
>> Likewise: I have a CB power supply (13.8v 3amp) which I thought of
>> using to power up the system - to the vacant battery terminal or where?
>>
>> John
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>> To: "Aeroelectric-list" ; "Avionics
>> List"
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:56 PM
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
>>>
>>> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a
>>> power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a
>>> battery in the circuit (PC680).
>>> Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or
>>> can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the
>>> alternator?
>>>
>>> Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
>>>
>>> Ralph Capen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
yes, the battery charger is connected directly to the battery.
Quoting "Ralph E. Capen" :
>
>
> Your charger is connected directly to the battery?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
>> Sent: Nov 21, 2007 1:01 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> I've been powering my pannel from a PC680 with a battery charger
>> connected to it and have not had any problems. The charger output
>> voltage was fluctuating (or I had bad connections) when I powered
>> directly from it so using the battery as a sink made it work just
>> fine. The follwing equipment is being powered this way:
>>
>> GRT Sport
>> SL30
>> GTX327
>> GRT EIS
>> TT AP
>> PSE 3000
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mike
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TIPTON :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise: I have a CB power supply (13.8v 3amp) which I thought of
>>> using to power up the system - to the vacant battery terminal or where?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>>> To: "Aeroelectric-list" ; "Avionics
>>> List"
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:56 PM
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Running avionics on power supply
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
>>>>
>>>> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a
>>>> power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a
>>>> battery in the circuit (PC680).
>>>> Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or
>>>> can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the
>>>> alternator?
>>>>
>>>> Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
>>>>
>>>> Ralph Capen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:23:04 -0800 (PST)
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker
>
> >First, know that designers of upper-end production aircraft
> >have made a effort to get high-current, noise-carrying
> >conductors off the panel.
>
>Never heard noise in my plane with B-lead CB in panel.
>I would just say prove it. Modern internally regulated alternators
>are not noisy so it's a moot point. Old Gen from days gone by, yes
>noisy.
George, this has nothing to do with the style of
regulator. 3-phase rectified AC has a 5% built-in ripple
component that is a physical artifact of the product.
I've encountered magnetically coupled noises in both
automobiles and aircraft. So your statement about "modern
internally regulated alternators not being noisy" is
demonstrably in error and your admonition to "prove it"
is a manifestation of your proven history of inability
or unwillingness to carry on discussions based on
physics and simple-ideas.
I've troubleshot and fixed a number of magnetically
coupled alternator whine problems on aircraft and once
in my own automobile. It's doubtful that any demonstration
would be sufficient "proof" to make this phenomenon
real and significant in your limited understanding.
Alternators are much more noisy than generators.
> >Third, it has been suggested that a breaker might serve
> >as the last-ditch means by which a pilot can bring a runaway
> >alternator to heel . . . or at least disconnect it from the
> >system. This logic is flawed for several reasons: (1) breakers
> >are designed to disconnect hard downstream faults in a system
> >where the voltage are on the order of 32 volts or less. (2)
> >A runaway alternator is capable of raising the b-lead terminal
> >to hundreds of volts in milliseconds where it is NOT reasonable
> >to expect the breaker to also serve as a SWITCH for reliable
> >disconnect of the offending alternator. Any attempt to use
> >a breaker (particularly a miniature one with plastic housing!)
> >or this purpose is to flirt with probability of cockpit fire
> >and much smoke.
>
>With all due respect I think your logic is flawed. It may fit for external
>regulated alternators but not for internally regulated ones.
It matters not what style of alternator is being
considered, any alternator running self-excited by
a field voltage which is a product of it's own output
is capable of well over 100 volts of output. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_110V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf
>
>A CB is RATED to disconnect at 32 volts many many times, however
>it can handle much more. No I don't have an absolute number but
>when most 12 volt alternators with a so called over voltage rarely
>exceeds 17 v much less 32 v, your point is moot, 32v good enough.
Yes, the runaway alternators that were NOT putting out
hundreds of volts were being loaded by a battery that
was dutifully sacrificing itself by accepting what the
alternator could deliver due to its inherent current
limiting.
But the very act of opening the b-lead on a runaway
alternator disconnects the battery and all other parts
of the ship's systems. As soon as the contacts of the
'switch' open, the alternator becomes unrestrained and
b-lead voltage will rise rapidly to values much greater
than the 32-volt rating of the breaker. Once you strike
the arc between the opening contacts, one has 100+
volts at 40-60 amps (4,000+ watts) of potential power
being dumped into the fire. This would probably be
contained by an all-metal enclosure like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg
but enclosures like this . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/6041_Contactor.jpg
. . . have proven incapable of containing such fires
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/6041_Contactor_Failure.jpg
>
>When you say 100's of VOLTS and Cockpit FIRE, it's fear mongering
>not based on facts. Science and engineering are based on facts not
>emotional reasons. CB catch on fire? Really? OK, prove it.
It is an absolute certainty that an enclosure like this
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/circuitbreakers.jpg
will not contain such fires either.
>
>Small 40 / 60 amp alternators are not pumping 100's of volts or amps.
>Internally regulated alternators typically go to 16 or 17 volts, if
>regulation fails, easily controlled by a CB. Yes there may have
>been one "screw lose" case where voltage was truly out of control,
>but it's rare, and the voltage was undetermined. I doubt it got to
>over 32 volts.
As soon as the runaway alternator is disconnected from
the system by pulling a breaker, the battery is relieved
of sacrificial duties and the voltage at the alternator's
b-lead will rise rapidly and to magnitudes previously cited. . .
the Mother of All Load Dumps.
>
>Also an ANL fuse will not blow with 100's of volts, it's a current
>device. If you want to wire your airplane like a Toyota with fuses, fine,
>but there is no need to make stuff up against CB's in the panel.
Fuses are not expected to protect against over-voltage events
but over-current events. Know that a runaway alternator has
NEVER put out more current that what's established by the
physics of it's magnetics. I.e, not enough to open the
b-lead protection irrespective of it's design (assuming
it is sized for sufficient headroom to avoid nuisance
tripping). Nonetheless, bus voltages are carried upward
to many times greater than normal bus voltage unless
some well considered means for stopping it has been included
in the design.
> >Finally, know that a 60A breaker on a 60A alternator is
> >DESIGNED to nuisance trip. The b-lead protection on an alternator
> >should stay closed at current levels perhaps 20% higher than
> >the nameplate rating of the alternator. The GA spam-can community
> >really blew it when 60A b-lead breakers were installed in 100,000+
> >aircraft with 60A alternators.
>
>Easily solved by sizing the CB properly. I guess they don't have
>smart people working for the GA spam-can community. Frankly CB's
>can take slight overloads for a period of time with out a trip. Again
>moot point Bob, if the alternator can only put out 45 amps.
That's what I said. The 60A breaker is too small for
being used with a 60A alternator. Yes, MOST nuisance
tripping is avoided by the noteworthy time delays
inherent in the design of CBs . . . but the majority
of nuisance trips of breakers in light aircraft are
the 60A b-lead breaker tied to a 60A alternator.
Your off-hand comment about the intelligence of folks
working in GA is uncalled for and yet another manifestation
of your long and oft demonstrated history of belligerent,
ill-informed, nay ignorant participation on this List.
There are MANY folks within GA that would very much
like to rectify the condition cited . . . but it's never
bubbled to the top-ten-problems list with an airframe OEM and
the FAA makes it insanely $difficult$ to make even the
simplest changes. Hence, this marginal design has
endured for decades more out of resignation to the
authority of a higher power than of ignorance or apathy.
> >In my humble opinion, ignoring a lot of experience and
> >thoughtful reasoning suggesting that panel a mounted, b-lead
> >breaker is not the best-we-know-how-to-do.
> >Bob . . .
>
>What?
>
>Fuses are fine. Buth with (stock) internal regulation the CB is a good
>reason to use a B-lead CB. Other engineers have worked on this
>Bob. The pull-able CB for the B-lead is specified. It's irresponsible of
>you to be so stubborn and opinionated, making ONE blanked edict
>that one size fits all. Fuses are not a BE ALL solution for every
>application. Follow the manufactures recommendation!
This isn't a fuses/breakers discussion, it's
an examination of the physics which govern assembly
of some exceedingly simple ideas into recipes for
success with an acknowledgment of hazards which
should be considered as part of a thoughtful design.
>
>In my humble opinion, I disagree with Bob with my thoughtful reasoning
>and facts. I don't care what you use but know why you are using it. I
>don't believe you will have noise or won't be able to disconnect the
>b-lead manually if you want to. When people talk 100's of volts & fire
>they are exaggerating in non-scientific emotional arguments, not
>engineering. Have Bob prove these are real problems. I could come
>up with lots of NIT PICK reasons a fuse really is a poor choice.
George, you have been politely requested to keep
your comments on this topic to yourself . . . they've
been read many times for years on this List and debunked
as recorded and published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf
You have designed nothing, fixed nothing, contributed
nothing to the understanding of physics, serviced no
customers, taught no classes, or offered a 100% satisfaction
assured warranty for your products. Yet you persist
in lurking at the edges of a sandbox not of your
construction to throw rocks and mud while hiding behind
a pseudonym decorated with much alphabet soup of
self proclaimed titles/accolades. You claim superior
engineering insight while never having demonstrated
it with useful work-product.
I've demonstrated/experienced/explained every assertion
I've ever made based on my hands-on experiences with these
systems since I did my first OV relay design for Cessna
Aircraft in 1975. Your belittling diatribes and circular
arguments contribute nothing to the advancement of
our science, understanding or art and yet you deign to
call me a liar. Your brand of 'science' is not welcome
in this classroom. You sir are the secretive, fraudulent
participant in these discussions and I will ask you
politely for the third or forth time, please go away.
Bob . . .
(---------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
(---------------------------------------)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
>Why would anyone want to reset a tripped 60A breaker in flight ?
>
>If you want to disable the alternator than switching off the alternator
>field would generate a lot less transients that components have to deal with.
Yes, you'll have to research this topic in the
archives a bit. It's not about whether or not
one should 'reset' a tripped breaker but one
of selecting design goals. I.e, is it (1)
reasonable to assume an alternator with a "broken"
internal regulator can be depended upon to
remain at or below 17 volts and (2)
depend on a panel mounted b-lead breaker
to disconnect said alternator from the bus
after (3) the pilot becomes aware of the OV
condition.
It has been suggested that this design
goal is a suitable alternative to architectures
and goals embraced by the vast majority
of the TC aviation community.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Relays/Switches |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you much for the information. Those look like the regular vanilla
>automotive relays that I have used for years in cars.
>
>Are those suitable for our applications? I am just not certain I want to
>entrust tens of thousands of dollars of my airplane and its ESSENTIAL BUS to
>a $9 relay.
Sure, why not? What can a relay DO that puts the
equipment at risk? In this case, it's used in but
on of two power paths which should share no common
hardware. So if one path is down it is (1) preflight
detectable, (2) does not cause an immediate hazard
to flight for in flight failure.
>If that's the case, I could use a SPDT continuous duty relay (like a Marine
>application) found here -
>http://www.ebasicpower.com/pc/ARCR038/ALLRELAYS/Relay%2C+12V%2C+85+Amp%2C+S.
>P.D.T. to power my E-Bus from my Main Battery.
How big are the loads on your e-bus?
>I could even get radical and have the Main Battery power my E-Bus when the
>coil is energized and have it switch to my Aux Battery when coil is not
>energized. Since there is already a SPST Continuous Duty Relay upstream of
>both my main battery and aux battery, powering down the plane shouldn't be a
>problem.
>Thoughts?
Methinks thou worriest too much. First, assume
that ANY piece of hardware you incorporate into
your system can and at some time will fail in
flight. The proceed to architecture your system
with the following in mind:
Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things
break"
The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things
break, no immediate hazard is created."
The third: "Things needed for comfortable termination of
flight require backup or special consideration to insure
operation and availability"
The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing
it or want some new feature, not because it damned near got
you killed."
If you've done your homework, then no single
failure of a component will put the flight
at risk for unhappy termination. The thought
process goes toward designing for failure
tolerance as opposed to seeking components
that will never fail.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
>
>Bob Archer used to sell (and probably still does) an antenna switch which
>allows for reception on two radios simultaneously and locks out the
>non-transmitting radio (whichever one it is) upon closing the PTT of either.
Now, THAT'S a different set of circumstances and design
goals. Here there is acknowledgment of risk to a receiver
from a transmitter's output for DIRECTLY paralleled transceivers
on a single antenna. This is a very useful alternative to the
dual antenna installation where it's acceptable to have
the non-transmitting transceiver become unusable while
talking on the other.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Replacement STC |
>
>11/21/2007
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls and other list experts, My friend wants to replace the
>two conventional 12 volt lead acid Gill batteries in his 24 volt system
>Beech Sierra with two 12 volt Concorde recombinant gas batteries.
>
>I can find tables that shows the correct batteries, but also show that an
>STC (held by Wilco) is involved:
>
>http://www.concordebattery.com/aag3.php?id=2775
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/finalfaapma.pdf (see page 8)
>
>What is the proper procedure / FAA required paperwork / permission from
>STC holder, to make this battery switch?
Call Wilco and I'm sure they'll be able to cite
the process down to the last signature on your
ship's paperwork. Generally speaking, the battery
STC's are probably the simplest of "mods" to accomplish
on a TC aircraft. I crafted a couple of STCs for B&C
some years ago to put Genesis RG batteries (Hawker)
on the smaller Cessnas and Pipers. When you buy
the battery + STC it will come with the proper permission
documents.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
Great job Bill. Your work looks good.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:21 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Bevan, this is what I did on my 7a for block locations. Small
Tab forest on FW side to large forest on cabin side. Fuse blocks on the
inside are on a swing down tray. Ran the battery lead to the always hot
bus to a fuse slot which really protects the wrong end of the wire but
it seemed better than nothing (maybe a fusible link on the battery end
would be better). Wire is about 14" from Battery to bus as I remember
it but not likely to have a problem.
Bill S
7a
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans
recommended position for the battery is on the firewall in the engine
compartment which I agree with. That being said, the contactors would
be located nearby. Would it follow that the battery bus should also be
located on the engine side of the firewall and if so, would it be
appropriate to use a fuse block style as we've come to appreciate? In
other words, would the fuse block style and associated faston terminals
stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer to see the fuses inside
the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner environment), but to get
to here there would be a little more than 6 inches of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
a
tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Dorris Jr <medorrisjr(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
With several hundred, uh thousands (they become blurred and seemingly insig
nificant) of flight hours I now attempt a life-long goal of building my ow
n airplane. My self-professed weakness is wiring, electronics and electric
ity in general. Thus, my reason for joining this forum. I read every post
with an open mind and hopefully add to my limited understanding of the tra
veling electron.
In following this thread of "Pullable 60 Amp Breaker" I am reminded of some
thing I learned a long time ago. The only difference between a jet pilot a
nd a jet engine is the fact that a jet engine stops whining when you shut i
t down.
Happy Thanksgiving & Best Regards to all,
Marvin
om: nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pullable 60 A
III" > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:23:04 -0800
(PST)> From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pull
able 60 Amp Breaker> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> > >> > >First, kn
ow that designers of upper-end production aircraft> > >have made a effort t
o get high-current, noise-carrying> > >conductors off the panel.> >> >Never
heard noise in my plane with B-lead CB in panel.> >I would just say prove
it. Modern internally regulated alternators> >are not noisy so it's a moot
point. Old Gen from days gone by, yes> >noisy.> > George, this has nothing
to do with the style of> regulator. 3-phase rectified AC has a 5% built-in
ripple> component that is a physical artifact of the product.> I've encount
ered magnetically coupled noises in both> automobiles and aircraft. So your
statement about "modern> internally regulated alternators not being noisy"
is> demonstrably in error and your admonition to "prove it"> is a manifest
ation of your proven history of inability> or unwillingness to carry on dis
cussions based on> physics and simple-ideas.> > I've troubleshot and fixed
a number of magnetically> coupled alternator whine problems on aircraft and
once> in my own automobile. It's doubtful that any demonstration> would be
sufficient "proof" to make this phenomenon> real and significant in your l
imited understanding.> Alternators are much more noisy than generators.> >
> > >Third, it has been suggested that a breaker might serve> > >as the las
t-ditch means by which a pilot can bring a runaway> > >alternator to heel .
. . or at least disconnect it from the> > >system. This logic is flawed fo
r several reasons: (1) breakers> > >are designed to disconnect hard downstr
eam faults in a system> > >where the voltage are on the order of 32 volts o
r less. (2)> > >A runaway alternator is capable of raising the b-lead termi
nal> > >to hundreds of volts in milliseconds where it is NOT reasonable> >
>to expect the breaker to also serve as a SWITCH for reliable> > >disconnec
t of the offending alternator. Any attempt to use> > >a breaker (particular
ly a miniature one with plastic housing!)> > >or this purpose is to flirt w
ith probability of cockpit fire> > >and much smoke.> >> >With all due respe
ct I think your logic is flawed. It may fit for external> >regulated altern
ators but not for internally regulated ones.> > It matters not what style o
f alternator is being> considered, any alternator running self-excited by>
a field voltage which is a product of it's own output> is capable of well o
ver 100 volts of output. See:> > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_1
10V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf> > >> >A CB is RATED to disconnect at 32 volts man
y many times, however> >it can handle much more. No I don't have an absolut
e number but> >when most 12 volt alternators with a so called over voltage
rarely> >exceeds 17 v much less 32 v, your point is moot, 32v good enough.>
> Yes, the runaway alternators that were NOT putting out> hundreds of volt
s were being loaded by a battery that> was dutifully sacrificing itself by
accepting what the> alternator could deliver due to its inherent current> l
imiting.> > But the very act of opening the b-lead on a runaway> alternator
disconnects the battery and all other parts> of the ship's systems. As soo
n as the contacts of the> 'switch' open, the alternator becomes unrestraine
d and> b-lead voltage will rise rapidly to values much greater> than the 32
-volt rating of the breaker. Once you strike> the arc between the opening c
ontacts, one has 100+> volts at 40-60 amps (4,000+ watts) of potential powe
r> being dumped into the fire. This would probably be> contained by an all-
metal enclosure like:> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s7
01-1.jpg> > but enclosures like this . . .> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/P
ictures/Contactors/6041_Contactor.jpg> > . . . have proven incapable of con
taining such fires> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/6041_Co
ntactor_Failure.jpg> > > > >> >When you say 100's of VOLTS and Cockpit FIRE
, it's fear mongering> >not based on facts. Science and engineering are bas
ed on facts not> >emotional reasons. CB catch on fire? Really? OK, prove it
.> > It is an absolute certainty that an enclosure like this> > http://www.
aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/circuitbreakers.jpg> > will not contain
such fires either.> > >> >Small 40 / 60 amp alternators are not pumping 100
's of volts or amps.> >Internally regulated alternators typically go to 16
or 17 volts, if> >regulation fails, easily controlled by a CB. Yes there ma
y have> >been one "screw lose" case where voltage was truly out of control,
> >but it's rare, and the voltage was undetermined. I doubt it got to> >ove
r 32 volts.> > As soon as the runaway alternator is disconnected from> the
system by pulling a breaker, the battery is relieved> of sacrificial duties
and the voltage at the alternator's> b-lead will rise rapidly and to magni
tudes previously cited. . .> the Mother of All Load Dumps.> > >> >Also an A
NL fuse will not blow with 100's of volts, it's a current> >device. If you
want to wire your airplane like a Toyota with fuses, fine,> >but there is n
o need to make stuff up against CB's in the panel.> > Fuses are not expecte
d to protect against over-voltage events> but over-current events. Know tha
t a runaway alternator has> NEVER put out more current that what's establis
hed by the> physics of it's magnetics. I.e, not enough to open the> b-lead
protection irrespective of it's design (assuming> it is sized for sufficien
t headroom to avoid nuisance> tripping). Nonetheless, bus voltages are carr
ied upward> to many times greater than normal bus voltage unless> some well
considered means for stopping it has been included> in the design.> > > >
>Finally, know that a 60A breaker on a 60A alternator is> > >DESIGNED to nu
isance trip. The b-lead protection on an alternator> > >should stay closed
at current levels perhaps 20% higher than> > >the nameplate rating of the a
lternator. The GA spam-can community> > >really blew it when 60A b-lead bre
akers were installed in 100,000+> > >aircraft with 60A alternators.> >> >Ea
sily solved by sizing the CB properly. I guess they don't have> >smart peop
le working for the GA spam-can community. Frankly CB's> >can take slight ov
erloads for a period of time with out a trip. Again> >moot point Bob, if th
e alternator can only put out 45 amps.> > That's what I said. The 60A break
er is too small for> being used with a 60A alternator. Yes, MOST nuisance>
tripping is avoided by the noteworthy time delays> inherent in the design o
f CBs . . . but the majority> of nuisance trips of breakers in light aircra
ft are> the 60A b-lead breaker tied to a 60A alternator.> > Your off-hand c
omment about the intelligence of folks> working in GA is uncalled for and y
et another manifestation> of your long and oft demonstrated history of bell
igerent,> ill-informed, nay ignorant participation on this List.> There are
MANY folks within GA that would very much> like to rectify the condition c
ited . . . but it's never> bubbled to the top-ten-problems list with an air
frame OEM and> the FAA makes it insanely $difficult$ to make even the> simp
lest changes. Hence, this marginal design has> endured for decades more out
of resignation to the> authority of a higher power than of ignorance or ap
athy.> > > > >In my humble opinion, ignoring a lot of experience and> > >th
oughtful reasoning suggesting that panel a mounted, b-lead> > >breaker is n
ot the best-we-know-how-to-do.> > >Bob . . .> >> >What?> >> >Fuses are fine
. Buth with (stock) internal regulation the CB is a good> >reason to use a
B-lead CB. Other engineers have worked on this> >Bob. The pull-able CB for
the B-lead is specified. It's irresponsible of> >you to be so stubborn and
opinionated, making ONE blanked edict> >that one size fits all. Fuses are n
ot a BE ALL solution for every> >application. Follow the manufactures recom
mendation!> > This isn't a fuses/breakers discussion, it's> an examination
of the physics which govern assembly> of some exceedingly simple ideas into
recipes for> success with an acknowledgment of hazards which> should be co
nsidered as part of a thoughtful design.> > >> >In my humble opinion, I dis
agree with Bob with my thoughtful reasoning> >and facts. I don't care what
you use but know why you are using it. I> >don't believe you will have nois
e or won't be able to disconnect the> >b-lead manually if you want to. When
people talk 100's of volts & fire> >they are exaggerating in non-scientifi
c emotional arguments, not> >engineering. Have Bob prove these are real pro
blems. I could come> >up with lots of NIT PICK reasons a fuse really is a p
oor choice.> > George, you have been politely requested to keep> your comme
nts on this topic to yourself . . . they've> been read many times for years
on this List and debunked> as recorded and published at:> > http://www.aer
oelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html> > http://aeroelectric.com/articles
/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf> > You have designed nothing, fi
xed nothing, contributed> nothing to the understanding of physics, serviced
no> customers, taught no classes, or offered a 100% satisfaction> assured
warranty for your products. Yet you persist> in lurking at the edges of a s
andbox not of your> construction to throw rocks and mud while hiding behind
> a pseudonym decorated with much alphabet soup of> self proclaimed titles/
accolades. You claim superior> engineering insight while never having demon
strated> it with useful work-product.> > I've demonstrated/experienced/expl
ained every assertion> I've ever made based on my hands-on experiences with
these> systems since I did my first OV relay design for Cessna> Aircraft i
n 1975. Your belittling diatribes and circular> arguments contribute nothin
g to the advancement of> our science, understanding or art and yet you deig
n to> call me a liar. Your brand of 'science' is not welcome> in this class
room. You sir are the secretive, fraudulent> participant in these discussio
ns and I will ask you> politely for the third or forth time, please go away
.> > Bob . . .> > (---------------------------------------)> ( . . . a long
habit of not thinking )> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )> ( appe
arance of being right . . . )> ( )> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )> (-------------
==================> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
>
>I am have reached the point in my building where I have to address some
>electrical design issues. I need to install the servo for the R.A. Allen
>electric elevator trim tab. The servo has 5 leads, and is supplied with a
>length of 5-conductor Belden 8445 cable to connect to the controls in the
>cockpit. A check on the Internet shows that this cable is PVC insulated
>with 5 22AWG wires. I have a several questions.
>
>1. I was planning to use Tefzel insulated cable as much as possible. Is it
>worthwhile to replace R.A. Allen's PVC insulated cable with Tefzel
>insulated cable?
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
>2. For this application cable would be better than 5 individual wires,
>because the wires must pass outside the skin from the elevator to the
>fuselage. After looking around on the Internet, I was unable to find a
>5-conductor cable with Tefzel wire insulation and a Tefzel jacket. I did
>find a company, TPC Wire,
>
>http://www.tpcwire.com/tpc/pdf/03_TrOxCable_6.pdf,
>
>that sells 100 ft lengths of shielded cable with Tefzel wire insulation
>and a polyurethane exterior cover that should work (part no. 61506). They
>don't have 5 conductor cable, but the 6 conductor cable would not be much
>heavier. Does such a cable look like a reasonable substitute? Are there
>other sources for Tefzel insulated cable that I should consider?
Run individual 22AWG wires from the connector forward.
The connector as described is light enough to simply
be covered with heat shrink and supported by the cable
assembly, no need to mount it separately. There's no
good reason to treat your trim actuator wires any
differently than a bundle of wires that carry nav,
strobe and antenna wires to the back of the airplane.
>3. The servo instructions suggest soldering the cable conductors to the
>servo leads and wrapping the joints with electrical tape.
It was my first view of a behind the panel rat's nest
of odd pieces of wire and way too much electrical tape
that prompted me to write the first edition of the
'Connection 21 years ago.
> I was originally planning to use butt splice crimp connectors instead of
> soldering. I'm now considering using a 9 conductor d-sub plug. Are the
> d-sub plugs a good choice for a remote location, like the elevator?
Yup, that works. There are some smaller, classier
connectors you could consider too . . . but they're
more expensive, take special tools and don't do
any better job than a d-sub.
>4. If one uses a d-sub, should the plug itself be secured to the elevator
>(how?) or would cable ties or an adel clamps on the cable provide adequate
>support.
Float it on the cable.
>5. Also, since TPC Wire has a $100 minumum order, it behooves me to buy
>cable for other uses in the airplane in this one order. E.g., power for
>the nav lights, headlights, etc. One use that I'm considering is to buy
>some 24 conductor cable to pass through the firewall to carry engine
>instrument signals.
Please don't do this. In over 30 years of
systems design and integration I've never seen
a practical need for multi-conductor bundles
other than those called out as shielded
for the purpose of protecting a signal path.
Build your bundles one wire at a time.
> Which brings me back to the d-sub connectors. Would d-subs be reasonable
> replacement for the terminal strips that I have seen used to connect
> engine instruments to wires passing through the firewall?
Sure.
> Can d-subs handle engine compartment temperatures?
Yes.
> Will thermocouple leads crimped into d-sub pins work OK?
Yes. Been doing it for years.
> Are d-subs robust enough to endure the correction of wiring goofs?
Depends on how clumsy you are. I've got connectors
in my data acquisition systems where some pins have
been removed/replaced over a dozen times. Be nice to
them and they'll do well for you for a long time.
Terminal strips are labor intensive, drive up
parts count, use threaded (ugh) fasteners. Crimped
joints into machined pins/terminals are far less
troublesome for maintenance and cost of ownership.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Location of battery bus |
Bevan, I am using Z13/8 with the HD Endurance bus plus an Aux Bat and bus
for the EFIS. I tried to shoot a picture at about the same angle as your
picture with the tray down. I personally think it's very easy to get to,
but probably not in flight. My copilot stick is removable, pic attached.
Also Aux Bat and bus under AHRS. Note battery (P212 7ah) is attached below
AHRS.
Hope this helps, locations work nice for me.
Bill S
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Thanks Bill
Looks very good. Nice fuse block mount. Can you access it without taking a
control stick out and crawling underneath? Maybe just leaning over sideways
from the pilot seat?
I see a SD8 ? alternator. Can I assume you've wired up per Z13/8? Just a
guess, correct me if I'm wrong. Based on Bob's comments, I'm thinking that
Z13/8 will be ideal for me. Not sure what size Odyssey batt I need. Have
not completed a load analysis yet. If you are flying yet, I would like to
know what schematic Z drawing you're using and how you like it.
Bevan
Attached is a pic of my panel so far. No real wiring done yet. Just making
everything fit.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Bevan, this is what I did on my 7a for block locations. Small Tab forest on
FW side to large forest on cabin side. Fuse blocks on the inside are on a
swing down tray. Ran the battery lead to the always hot bus to a fuse slot
which really protects the wrong end of the wire but it seemed better than
nothing (maybe a fusible link on the battery end would be better). Wire is
about 14" from Battery to bus as I remember it but not likely to have a
problem.
Bill S
7a
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Location of battery bus
Good morning Bob,
Considering Z-13/20 architecture in an RV7A. The Vans recommended position
for the battery is on the firewall in the engine compartment which I agree
with. That being said, the contactors would be located nearby. Would it
follow that the battery bus should also be located on the engine side of the
firewall and if so, would it be appropriate to use a fuse block style as
we've come to appreciate? In other words, would the fuse block style and
associated faston terminals stand up in the FF environment? I would prefer
to see the fuses inside the cockpit just aft of the firewall (cleaner
environment), but to get to here there would be a little more than 6 inches
of unprotected wire.
Thanks again.
Bevan
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
>
>
>With several hundred, uh thousands (they become blurred and seemingly
>insignificant) of flight hours I now attempt a life-long goal of building
>my own airplane. My self-professed weakness is wiring, electronics and
>electricity in general. Thus, my reason for joining this forum. I read
>every post with an open mind and hopefully add to my limited understanding
>of the traveling electron.
>
>In following this thread of "Pullable 60 Amp Breaker" I am reminded of
>something I learned a long time ago. The only difference between a jet
>pilot and a jet engine is the fact that a jet engine stops whining when
>you shut it down.
It is for folks such as yourself that at least
some among us must go out of their way to protect
the liberties of all against the attacks of a
few. This is the simple-idea that defines
honorable behavior. I (and I'm sure others)
will continue to sift and refine the inventions
to be formed from solid understanding of their
component simple-ideas. You have come to the
right place sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
>
>
>No replies to my initial post, so trying again....
>
>Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power
>supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the
>circuit (PC680).
>Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or can I
>hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator?
>
>Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything.....
Some years ago I sold a 13.8 volt, 25A switchmode
power supply along with instructions on how to wire
it to the aircraft such that it emulated the ship's
alternator. This allowed a builder to fire up all but
the heaviest loads on the electrical system and to
exercise all the systems just as if the engine were
running and the alternator was turned ON.
If you have a well behaved power supply (13.8 volts
preferred, current limited against accidental shorts)
then you can basically hook it up about anywhere. Across
the battery is fine. This makes the battery master
capable of disconnecting your supply from system by
turning the battery master OFF.
See:
http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=5386+PS
also, the various smart-chargers with more robust
outputs like those shown on pages 6 and 7 of:
http://www.schumacherproducts.com/assets/pdf/sec_catalog.pdf
can be used. Again, just connect across the battery,
plug into wall and use the battery master for
control.
Wall-Mart sells several of these models. Get one
with 10A or more capability.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Are You Thankful For...? |
Dear Listers,
Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many
of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous
feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have been bestowed
upon us.
Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are
for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the
assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists.
One of my favorite kind of comments is when write to me and says something like,
"Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!".
That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists. Its
always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning
to check my List email!!
Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for
their continued operation and upgrade?
The List Contribution Site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Relays/Switches |
Scott R. Shook wrote:
> Are those suitable for our applications? I am just not certain I want to
> entrust tens of thousands of dollars of my airplane and its ESSENTIAL BUS to
> a $9 relay.
>
I'm trusting many thousands of dollars and six years of building time to
several pieces of 3/8" steel tube that cost only a few dollars each.
Your electronics stack if full of components that will go belly up if it
looses a $.03 resister or diode. What happens if a $2 valve stem breaks?
Step back a moment and think about it. Eliminating a component from
consideration because it isn't expensive enough is just silly. Is the
thing engineered properly to handle the intended job or not. If the
relay works flawlessly in an automobile, it will work just as well in
reasonably similar conditions (ie, an airplane).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running avionics on power supply |
JOHN TIPTON wrote:
>
>
> Likewise: I have a CB power supply (13.8v 3amp) which I thought of
> using to power up the system - to the vacant battery terminal or where?
>
I've been using a surplus computer power supply to test my installation.
The yellow wires are a very well regulated 12V. The blue wire has to be
tied to one of the black wires. Black is ground. It will only deliver
a few amps, and will shut itself down if overloaded, which I consider a
feature since it will keep me from frying anything in many cases.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Relays/Switches |
>
>
>Scott R. Shook wrote:
>>Are those suitable for our applications? I am just not certain I want to
>>entrust tens of thousands of dollars of my airplane and its ESSENTIAL BUS to
>>a $9 relay.
>>
>I'm trusting many thousands of dollars and six years of building time to
>several pieces of 3/8" steel tube that cost only a few dollars each.
>Your electronics stack if full of components that will go belly up if it
>looses a $.03 resister or diode. What happens if a $2 valve stem breaks?
>
>Step back a moment and think about it. Eliminating a component from
>consideration because it isn't expensive enough is just silly. Is the
>thing engineered properly to handle the intended job or not. If the relay
>works flawlessly in an automobile, it will work just as well in reasonably
>similar conditions (ie, an airplane).
I've spent most of a career associated with and often
directly with a process called failure mode effects analysis
or FMEA for short. The process calls for studying a
system schematic and going through it part by part deducing
the effects of any expected failure. For example, resistors
may go open (usually because of bad connection or physical
damage) but they don't go shorted. They also don't change
value in profound ways. They may drift out of precise calibration
but a 47K resistor doesn't suddenly become a 33K resistor.
This is the process that must be conducted to determine
how any circuit (discrete components or integrated circuits)
to decide what the ramifications are for any probable
failure mode.
Once those modes are deduced, then depending on hazard
levels for those failures, a statistical study for
failures/flight hour may be conducted to see what
measures should be put into place to (1) reduce
risk to airframe and occupants and/or (2) reduce
risk cost of ownership.
In the case of a relay used to handle the e-bus
alternate feed, yes . . . relays are among the
LEAST reliable devices you can put into a system.
This is why I expressed a good bit of concern for
this electrically dependent engine installation
and the numbers of relays incorporated. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Too_Many_Relays.jpg
This installation was in serious need of
some re-design for simplification.
Having said that, modern automotive relays
are exceedingly robust and seldom troublesome
in our cars. So . . .
The question to be asked and answered in this
conversation is, "Does failure of a plain-
vanilla automotive relay pose risk of hazard
for any given flight?" Given that we're
talking about a failure tolerant design, the
answer should be "no". Indeed, the e-bus is
fitted with two, independent power sources and
routes. Further, the e-bus should drive only
those devices needed for minimum energy sustenance
of devices needed for en-route operations. If
one of those systems is necessary for comfortable
termination of flight, then a backup for that
system should be installed . . . and wired to
the main bus.
The point here is that architecture and parts
selection should be driven more by the big picture
for failure modes and propose missions for the
aircraft. The perceived or real "quality" of
a device should be more of a cost of ownership issue
than a safety issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
Guys, I have a Ps 1000ll in my experimental and it has worked flawlessly
for three years. On my last couple of flights there is an annoying nois
e when i use the intercom between the pilot and co pilot. Some facts..
The plane is quite noisy. mostly due to the V-8 Ford up front. ya it has
mufflers but...
When I call ATC they say my transmissions are clear and noise free.
This only happens at high noise levels in the cockpit, on the ground or
throttled back the intercom works great.
I use Lightspeed 20-3G's for headphones and it happens with ANR either o
n or off.
Any ideas guys???
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.Haaspowerair.com
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jim-bean(at)att.net |
| Subject: | re;Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
I used a DB-9 for the 5 wire servo cable. On my RV-8 it is mounted just in front
of the stabilizer spar on the flat surface just below the rudder. A flexible
cable comes from the serve, along the elevator spar. This makes it easy to remove
the horizontal if you need to.
Jim Bean
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> Guys, I have a Ps 1000ll in my experimental and it has worked flawlessly
> for three years. On my last couple of flights there is an annoying noise
> when i use the intercom between the pilot and co pilot. Some facts..
>
> The plane is quite noisy. mostly due to the V-8 Ford up front. ya it has
> mufflers but...
>
> When I call ATC they say my transmissions are clear and noise free.
>
> This only happens at high noise levels in the cockpit, on the ground or
> throttled back the intercom works great.
>
> I use Lightspeed 20-3G's for headphones and it happens with ANR either
> on or off.
>
> Any ideas guys???
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.Haaspowerair.com <http://www.Haaspowerair.com>
What is the nature of the 'annoying noise'? Is it electronic in nature,
or just very loud airplane noise?
This might not be relevant, but what's the condition of the ear pads on
the Lightspeeds? If the slick-feeling 'skins' on the ear muffs (at least
on my older 15XL's) are cracked and/or peeling, it totally destroys the
noise reduction ability of the headset.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New consumer product battery |
Doing some house maintenance this weekend and during
a trip to Home Depot for some parts and supplies, I
was "sucked in" by a Black and Decker "VPX Power" display
at the checkout stand.
http://www.vpxsystem.com/
The battery for this new line of cordless power tools
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Battery_1.jpg
is LiIon and the battery on display was advertised at 7 volts.
A very compact critter . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Charger_F1.jpg
but no place on the packaging (or later on the 'net)
was I able to discover the capacity of this device.
Sooooo . . . keeping Lord Kelvin's admonition about
numbers in mind, I purchased a battery/charger
combination to do some testing.
I've got the battery on charge right now. Will cap-test
it later today and report the results. This product
(or a pair of them) might offer some interesting
solutions to brown-out protection and/or small
back-up batteries. Watch this space.
In the mean time, I'll get back to making little
piles of sawdust and drill chips.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric- Batteries |
Bob,
A week or two back I sent you two AA cells to test. Have you had time
to do so?
Just curious to find out if I made a good purchase or not.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.4 hours
Luana, IA.
November 10, 2007 - November 23, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hj