AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ih
December 05, 2008 - December 18, 2008
to the task of keeping the smoke inside the wires they
feed. The switch-breaker you've cited has a very close
cousin in service on the Beech Bonanza and Baron lines
to the tune of 80,000+ units over the past 25 years or
more.
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Does the Alternator shut down if battery power |
is removed?
At 05:41 PM 12/3/2008, you wrote:
>
>Given an alternator and an LR3 controller, with the engine running,
>will the alternator shut down if the battery master is switched off?
Not if you simply shut off the battery. Few airplanes are
wired with separate battery and alternator switches. The vast
majority of alternators on aircraft are wired with some form
of interlocking between battery master and alternator controls
to prevent alternator operation without the battery.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Progressive-Xfr_Split-Rocker_Switches.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
>I'm guessing that the alternator will continue to function normally
>since it's still self-exciting the field line. Shutting down the
>alternator would require pulling the field breaker.
Not if you wire it per the recommendations in Appendix Z
cited above (which is consistent with legacy alternator
installations on most certified aircraft). In any case,
your alternator field current should be controllable by some
switch whether independent of the battery master (al la Bonanza/
Baron) or ganged with the battery switch.
>Is that correct?
>
>Thanks
>Bill Watson
>RV10 with a Z-14
If you're wired per Z-14 as published then your alternator
is controlled by the DC Power Master switch. Down is all power
OFF, mid position is BAT ON only, up position is BAT+ALT.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help debugging an alternator noise problem |
Andy
I don't see a reply to you so I'll add a little incidental info.
I can confirm that the 20 amp nominal single phase (two output wires)
John Deere permanent magnet alternator should not add noticeable noise
to your system. I do not use a capacitor and my batteries are smaller
than yours. I use the John Deere regulator which works fine as long as
it is not disconnected from the battery while the engine is running. In
fact mine is hard wired to the battery because it will fail (max
charging and no regulation) if disconnected with the engine running. I
don't know if your battery switch could be an issue but it doesn't sound
likely. My Overvoltage relay is between the alternator and the
regulator. I do have a small filter on the strobe power supplies. In
general a large electrolytic capacitor will tend to destroy itself
visibly if wired backwards. Capacitors can certainly be tested if
someone has a tester. However if it holds a charge it is probably fine.
By that I mean if you see a spark when you connect it to a battery and
it retains voltage after being disconnected for a minute or more.
Generally it is recommended that a small resister (a few ohms) be put in
series with a large capacitor to slow the charging or discharging
(reduce wear and tear) when testing like this although often folks just
look for the spark to confirm current going in and then again back out
when the terminals are shorted. Reversing the polarity may make the
capacitor explode so keep positive terminal to positive battery
terminal. A large capacitor when charged can provide a momentary large
current so it is good to discharge them before handling them or
installing them.
I'm not familiar with your regulator so I'd be suspicious of it unless
you know others are using it with no problem. My radio is an icom but I
would not expect yours to be more sensitive to noise.
Ken
Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote:
> I submitted this before, but am now including much more information, per
> Bob's request.
>
> Problem - I am getting a lot of clearly alternator (or voltage regulator
> noise) on the receive side of my radio. There is no noise on only
> battery power, or with the alternator disconnect relay unpowered. The
> noise is very low at idle, and increases in both volume and frequency as
> RPM increases, At high RPM makes it very difficult to understand
> transmissions. Radio is a Terra 760D fed from the main bus. I have
> checked to be sure that the problem persists even with no other
> equipment powered up (not coming somehow from lights or avionics).
>
> System - The system is pretty similar to Z-17, except that I have two
> batteries (PC-680) connected through a marine selector switch
> (A-B-Both-Off) and no master relay.
>
> There is a secondary EFIS bus which can be powered through a DC-DC
> regulator, but the problem does not depend on whether this bus is
> powered up or not.
>
> In place of the SD-8, I have an 18 amp John Deere permanent magnet
> alternator feeding through a 4-wire motorcycle voltage regulator (Crane
> Fireball, installation doc here http://tinyurl.com/17a), connected to
> the main bus using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit as shown in
> the diagram, which includes a big filter capacitor.
>
> Bus voltage is fine with the alternator connected (about 14V) and the
> charging portion is working OK.
>
> Questions:
> [1] Should not the big capacitor be filtering out this noise?
> [2] Could the capacitor be bad? Can I test it?
> [3] What would happen if I wired the cap backwards?
> (I will check ASAP.)
> [4] Is there other or additional filtering I could put on the
> feed? If so, what?
> [5] Are there other things I could check/test?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
> N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help debugging an alternator noise problem |
At 03:16 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote:
>I submitted this before, but am now including much more information,
>per Bob's request.
>
>Problem - I am getting a lot of clearly alternator (or voltage
>regulator noise) on the receive side of my radio. There is no noise
>on only battery power, or with the alternator disconnect relay
>unpowered. The noise is very low at idle, and increases in both
>volume and frequency as RPM increases, At high RPM makes it very
>difficult to understand transmissions. Radio is a Terra 760D fed
>from the main bus. I have checked to be sure that the problem
>persists even with no other equipment powered up (not coming somehow
>from lights or avionics).
>
>System - The system is pretty similar to Z-17, except that I have
>two batteries (PC-680) connected through a marine selector switch
>(A-B-Both-Off) and no master relay.
>
>There is a secondary EFIS bus which can be powered through a DC-DC
>regulator, but the problem does not depend on whether this bus is
>powered up or not.
>
>In place of the SD-8, I have an 18 amp John Deere permanent magnet
>alternator feeding through a 4-wire motorcycle voltage regulator
>(Crane Fireball, installation doc here
><http://tinyurl.com/17a>http://tinyurl.com/17a), connected to the
>main bus using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit as shown in
>the diagram, which includes a big filter capacitor.
>
>Bus voltage is fine with the alternator connected (about 14V) and
>the charging portion is working OK.
>
>Questions:
>[1] Should not the big capacitor be filtering out this noise?
Not necessarily
>[2] Could the capacitor be bad? Can I test it?
>[3] What would happen if I wired the cap backwards?
> (I will check ASAP.)
It makes smoke . . . or even loud noises!
>[4] Is there other or additional filtering I could put on the
> feed? If so, what?
>[5] Are there other things I could check/test?
Yes, you need to play the Noise Game . . . it's
sorta like Clue. You have a victim, a probable
source . . . now you need a propagation mode. This
process is described in the 'Connection chapter on
Noise.
You may have a ground loop that injects noise into
an audio system . . . this is a very common condition.
Operate the victim from a 12v lantern battery independent
of the aircraft bus to see if the noise goes away.
This tells you if the noise is coming in from the bus
or other pathway(s).
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to find closed-end lugs for Super-CCA cable |
At 01:24 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote:
>Where is the best place to buy lugs for Eric Jones' Super-CCA
>electric cable in #4 size? My partners wants a "closed end" type as
>suggested by Bob Nuckolls on one of his weekend seminars. It appears
>that Eric only sells the open end type. This would be a type which
>uses the "solder pellet" which you drop into the lug, then insert
>the wire and heat.
Hmmm . . . I may have mentioned the closed-end devices as
being an alternative . . . but I don't think I spoke to
them being preferred. In fact, they're more difficult to
install using the "copper wedge and solder" technique
described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
The open-end structure lets you (1) drive wedges and
(2) observe the results of your skill in applying heat
and solder to achieve the desired result. Closed-end
devices are soldered blind and difficult to wedge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gautier, Thomas N" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs |
Bob,
Our club Arrow IV has recently experienced a spate of alternator and
related electrical system maintenance issues. The symptoms that the club
members complained about centered on alternator drop outs which could often,
if not always, be cured by turning the alternator off and then back on.
There may have been an outright alternator failure of some sort as well. I
haven't followed the maintenance in detail since I haven't, until today,
flown the plane in the last month.
The upshot of all the maintenance is that first the voltage regulator
and then the alternator were replaced. The symptom reported after voltage
regulator replacement but before alternator replacement was that the
alternator was dropping out every 10 minutes in the last half hour of a
cross country trip. I was the first to fly the plane after the alternator
replacement and I found the system to still be misbehaving.
In my flight immediately upon starting the engine and switching on the
alternator the alternator ammeter (a load meter, I think) showed 70 amps,
pretty steady, recharging the battery I presume. Then, in less than a minute
the ammeter began swinging from 30A to 70A 2 or 3 times a second. I've read
your dancing ammeter posts so I assumed this was not particularly
troublesome (except that these swings were larger than I had seen before).
Then, after my first turn around the pattern, I noticed that the alternator
had dropped off line. It came back after cycling the alternator switch,
however the ammeter dancing was now as large as 0A to 70A. This behavior
continued for a couple more turns around the pattern, with full stop
landings, as I watched what was going on. I had to reset the alternator
twice more over the span of 20 minutes.
So, the plane's electrical problems are not solved and I'm trying to
help the owner and his mechanic figure out what is really wrong. I dug some
of your posts about dancing ammeters out of the archive and I'm ready to
show them to the plane's owner. However I'd like to get your opinion as to
whether I'm on the right track. Can the aging wiring problem that causes
dancing ammeters also cause the alternator to frequently drop off line?
Regards,
Nick Gautier
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "grjtucson" <george(at)georgejenson.com> |
Hello Listers,
A few questions for my RV-7, Z-11 system, E-Mag/P-Mag.
1. Can I run the Main Bus feed from the Alternator side of the ANL60 Current Limiter?
The wiring run would be slightly easier and there's a secondary reason...
2. If I can do #1, would that provide sufficient protection for the 8AWG feed line
to the Main Bus? That feed has no protection in Z-11 and it seems like it
should. I foresee little risk of that line shorting to ground, but the consequences
would be significant.
3. If I can't do #1, can I / should I use a 12AWG fusible link to protect the Main
Bus feed line?
4. My Battery Bus feed line will exceed 6". It's roughly the same run length as
the Main Bus feed, something like 24". Can I / should I protect it with a fusible
link? Same rationale as the Main Bus feed. It would be a 14AWG run (Battery
bus is source for the E-Bus Alt Feed) with an 18AWG fusible link.
5. This is more FYI and for comment, but I'm wiring my E-Mag and P-Mag each the
same way:
- E-Bus to 2A panel breaker to mag for power
- SPST switch and shielded P-lead for each mag
My thinking is that they should be wired identically and treated much the same
as mags. E-Bus 'cuz their important, the individual breakers will allow me to
power down the P-Mag to test it, and finally the shielded P-leads allow me to
switch to traditional mags if ever needed. It is far less complicated than many
schemes I've seen and uses cheaper switches (albeit two pricey panel breakers).
Any holes in my plan?
6. Finally, is there any problem with feeding those panel breakers through a fuse
on the E-Bus? My only other panel breaker, the Field, will be fed through a
fusible link from the Main Bus screw terminal.
Thanks in advance,
George Jenson
Tucson, AZ
--------
George Jenson -
Tucson, AZ - RV-7 Standard Build
Empennage Completed 1/06
Wings Completed 11/06
Fuselage in Progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217845#217845
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Questions |
At 07:14 PM 12/5/2008, you wrote:
>
>Hello Listers,
>
>A few questions for my RV-7, Z-11 system, E-Mag/P-Mag.
>
>1. Can I run the Main Bus feed from the Alternator side of the ANL60
>Current Limiter? The wiring run would be slightly easier and there's
>a secondary reason...
How about the system side of the ANL? The reason
the ANL would open is because of a fault in the
alternator or its feeder. This is an exceedingly
rare event but it would take down the whole system
if you feed from the alternator side.
>2. If I can do #1, would that provide sufficient protection for the
>8AWG feed line to the Main Bus? That feed has no protection in Z-11
>and it seems like it should. I foresee little risk of that line
>shorting to ground, but the consequences would be significant.
FAT wires in airplanes that feed large busses
and connect starters and batteries together do not
require protection. You won't find such protection
in any certified light aircraft. Here's an excerpt
from FAR23
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/Part23_electrical_A.pdf
Check out paragraph 23.1357 . . .
>3. If I can't do #1, can I / should I use a 12AWG fusible link to
>protect the Main Bus feed line?
Not useful . . .
>4. My Battery Bus feed line will exceed 6". It's roughly the same
>run length as the Main Bus feed, something like 24". Can I / should
>I protect it with a fusible link? Same rationale as the Main Bus
>feed. It would be a 14AWG run (Battery bus is source for the E-Bus
>Alt Feed) with an 18AWG fusible link.
No, that 6" thing is a design goal. The world does
not spin down to a halt if it is longer. Treat this
feeder with the same concerns for design, installation,
and maintenance as your prop bolts. Satisfy yourself
that there is NO way this wire's functionality can
become compromised.
>5. This is more FYI and for comment, but I'm wiring my E-Mag and
>P-Mag each the same way:
>- E-Bus to 2A panel breaker to mag for power
>- SPST switch and shielded P-lead for each mag
>
>My thinking is that they should be wired identically and treated
>much the same as mags. E-Bus 'cuz their important, the individual
>breakers will allow me to power down the P-Mag to test it, and
>finally the shielded P-leads allow me to switch to traditional mags
>if ever needed. It is far less complicated than many schemes I've
>seen and uses cheaper switches (albeit two pricey panel breakers).
>Any holes in my plan?
The switching arrangements shown in Z-11 for Emagair
products are consistent with their recommendations
and consideration of the effects of possible failure
modes. This is your airplane . . . if you have comfort
requirements that go beyond these recommendations, by
all means, address them.
>6. Finally, is there any problem with feeding those panel breakers
>through a fuse on the E-Bus? My only other panel breaker, the Field,
>will be fed through a fusible link from the Main Bus screw terminal.
Breakers fed with like sized fuses will never operate.
The fuses are 10x or more faster than breakers. You might
as well use switches . . . which are already part of the
suggested design. If you have a desire to incorporate
breakers, then the battery bus fuses need to up-size to
30A devices and the feeder wire from bus to breaker
should up-size to 14AWG or so.
It's my recommendation that you wire the airplane as
suggested in Z-11. This architecture was developed
over 15 or so years of considerations for the uniqueness
of the OBAM aircraft community based on 40+ years
of experience in the TC aircraft world. Changes can and
should be made if you find the recommendations lacking in
some way for (1) minimizing weight, parts count and/or cost,
(2) operational convenience or (3) safety. In these
cases proposed changes should be evaluated by everyone as
a candidate for revising Z-11 as published.
But it's your airplane . . . your safest operational
mode requires that you need to fly it with comfort
and understanding.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs |
At 04:11 PM 12/5/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Our club Arrow IV has recently experienced a spate of alternator and
>related electrical system maintenance issues. The symptoms that the club
>members complained about centered on alternator drop outs which could often,
>if not always, be cured by turning the alternator off and then back on.
>There may have been an outright alternator failure of some sort as well. I
>haven't followed the maintenance in detail since I haven't, until today,
>flown the plane in the last month.
By "drop out" do you mean that the alternator shuts down completely?
Do you get a low voltage warning or does the ammeter go to zero
and stay there?
> The upshot of all the maintenance is that first the voltage regulator
>and then the alternator were replaced. The symptom reported after voltage
>regulator replacement but before alternator replacement was that the
>alternator was dropping out every 10 minutes in the last half hour of a
>cross country trip. I was the first to fly the plane after the alternator
>replacement and I found the system to still be misbehaving.
>
> In my flight immediately upon starting the engine and switching on the
>alternator the alternator ammeter (a load meter, I think) showed 70 amps,
>pretty steady, recharging the battery I presume. Then, in less than a minute
>the ammeter began swinging from 30A to 70A 2 or 3 times a second. I've read
>your dancing ammeter posts so I assumed this was not particularly
>troublesome (except that these swings were larger than I had seen before).
>Then, after my first turn around the pattern, I noticed that the alternator
>had dropped off line. It came back after cycling the alternator switch,
>however the ammeter dancing was now as large as 0A to 70A. This behavior
>continued for a couple more turns around the pattern, with full stop
>landings, as I watched what was going on. I had to reset the alternator
>twice more over the span of 20 minutes.
I'm trying to deduce if you're speaking to an intermittent operation.
A lack of ability for the alternator to deliver any power at all . . . or
an unstable condition where the alternator is always developing some
power but the regulation is unstable.
> So, the plane's electrical problems are not solved and I'm trying to
>help the owner and his mechanic figure out what is really wrong. I dug some
>of your posts about dancing ammeters out of the archive and I'm ready to
>show them to the plane's owner. However I'd like to get your opinion as to
>whether I'm on the right track. Can the aging wiring problem that causes
>dancing ammeters also cause the alternator to frequently drop off line?
You use the words "dancing ammeter". Go to
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script.cgi
Search the AeroElectric List archive using search string . . .
dancing & ammeter
You will unearth a lot of conversation about a phenomenon
common to older airplanes where the voltage regulator senses
bus voltage through the same wire that supplies field current.
This sets up the possibility for a "negative resistance" (read
oscillation) of voltage regulator stability that can be
anything from barely noticeable to quite severe.
It has nothing to do with the alternator or the regulator and
everything to do with condition of ALL wires, components and
joints between the bus and the regulator. The 30-year fix is to
replace ALL these components.
If you're describing an oscillating voltage condition, then
the discussions and recommended fixes described in the archives
are the road to Nirvana. If you're describing an intermittent
functionality where the alternator output goes to zero and
stays there for some observable time interval . . . you're
chasing a loose connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gautier, Thomas N" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs |
Bob,
Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry I was not more specific.
The current symptom of the airplane is that the alternator will shut
down and produce no current. The load meter goes to zero and the voltage
drops to the battery voltage, a little over 12v on my flight. Turning the
alternator half of the split master off and then back on restores alternator
output, the load meter goes to 70A briefly and then starts dancing. I
carelessly did not observe the voltage with the alternator working. After
ten or 15 minutes the alternator output will again go to zero. Cycling the
alternator half of the master will again restore the load meter indication.
The 5A alternator field breaker does not pop during this process. I am
unsure how long I left the alternator off line before cycling the split
master.
I did search the archives for 'dancing & ammeter' and I understand the
issue of excessive resistance in the voltage sense/field current wire. Looks
to me like this plane has that problem. You seem to be saying that the
alternator drop out I describe is not related to the dancing ammeter symptom
but that the drop outs are probably caused by a loose connection. But why
would cycling the alternator half of the master reliably restore operation
if there was a loose connection?
Are there any more tests you would suggest?
Thanks much for your attention.
Nick Gautier
You wrote:
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs
At 04:11 PM 12/5/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Our club Arrow IV has recently experienced a spate of alternator and
>related electrical system maintenance issues. The symptoms that the club
>members complained about centered on alternator drop outs which could often,
>if not always, be cured by turning the alternator off and then back on.
>There may have been an outright alternator failure of some sort as well. I
>haven't followed the maintenance in detail since I haven't, until today,
>flown the plane in the last month.
By "drop out" do you mean that the alternator shuts down completely?
Do you get a low voltage warning or does the ammeter go to zero
and stay there?
> The upshot of all the maintenance is that first the voltage regulator
>and then the alternator were replaced. The symptom reported after voltage
>regulator replacement but before alternator replacement was that the
>alternator was dropping out every 10 minutes in the last half hour of a
>cross country trip. I was the first to fly the plane after the alternator
>replacement and I found the system to still be misbehaving.
>
> In my flight immediately upon starting the engine and switching on the
>alternator the alternator ammeter (a load meter, I think) showed 70 amps,
>pretty steady, recharging the battery I presume. Then, in less than a minute
>the ammeter began swinging from 30A to 70A 2 or 3 times a second. I've read
>your dancing ammeter posts so I assumed this was not particularly
>troublesome (except that these swings were larger than I had seen before).
>Then, after my first turn around the pattern, I noticed that the alternator
>had dropped off line. It came back after cycling the alternator switch,
>however the ammeter dancing was now as large as 0A to 70A. This behavior
>continued for a couple more turns around the pattern, with full stop
>landings, as I watched what was going on. I had to reset the alternator
>twice more over the span of 20 minutes.
I'm trying to deduce if you're speaking to an intermittent operation.
A lack of ability for the alternator to deliver any power at all . . . or
an unstable condition where the alternator is always developing some
power but the regulation is unstable.
> So, the plane's electrical problems are not solved and I'm trying to
>help the owner and his mechanic figure out what is really wrong. I dug some
>of your posts about dancing ammeters out of the archive and I'm ready to
>show them to the plane's owner. However I'd like to get your opinion as to
>whether I'm on the right track. Can the aging wiring problem that causes
>dancing ammeters also cause the alternator to frequently drop off line?
You use the words "dancing ammeter". Go to
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script.cgi
Search the AeroElectric List archive using search string . . .
dancing & ammeter
You will unearth a lot of conversation about a phenomenon
common to older airplanes where the voltage regulator senses
bus voltage through the same wire that supplies field current.
This sets up the possibility for a "negative resistance" (read
oscillation) of voltage regulator stability that can be
anything from barely noticeable to quite severe.
It has nothing to do with the alternator or the regulator and
everything to do with condition of ALL wires, components and
joints between the bus and the regulator. The 30-year fix is to
replace ALL these components.
If you're describing an oscillating voltage condition, then
the discussions and recommended fixes described in the archives
are the road to Nirvana. If you're describing an intermittent
functionality where the alternator output goes to zero and
stays there for some observable time interval . . . you're
chasing a loose connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Questions |
| From: | "grjtucson" <george(at)georgejenson.com> |
Bob,
I'll wire per Z-11 on the bus feeds, thanks for the lesson and illumination.
I am, however, going to wire per E-Mag Air on the mags. For the power feeds, E-Mag
calls for a breaker for the E-Mag and a switch and breaker for the P-Mag,
optionally combining the switch and breaker. I'm just going to use breakers for
both, pulling the P-Mag's when I test it's generator. I prefer the simplicity
of a SPST switch consistently used for both, and should I ever switch to standard
mags, I just delete my panel breakers.
I will feed the breakers from the terminal of the E-bus, not through a fuse.
BTW, the present revision M of Z-13/8 has the P-Mag generator unable to be tested
(open P-Lead and no power) short of powering down the Main bus. I'd think having
the P-Mag get a 3 pos. switch as you had on Rev L would be superior. The
P-Mag would then be Off-On-Bat and the E-Mag would be Off-Bat-On, and you could
feed both from the Battery Bus.
Also, for what it's worth, E-Mag Air does call for 18AWG feeders and grounds, contrary
to the Z diagrams.
Thanks for doing what you do :)
George
--------
George Jenson -
Tucson, AZ - RV-7 Standard Build
Empennage Completed 1/06
Wings Completed 11/06
Fuselage in Progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218027#218027
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs |
At 09:28 AM 12/7/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry I was not more specific.
Not a problem . . .
> The current symptom of the airplane is that the alternator will shut
>down and produce no current. The load meter goes to zero and the voltage
>drops to the battery voltage, a little over 12v on my flight. Turning the
>alternator half of the split master off and then back on restores alternator
>output, the load meter goes to 70A briefly and then starts dancing. I
>carelessly did not observe the voltage with the alternator working. After
>ten or 15 minutes the alternator output will again go to zero. Cycling the
>alternator half of the master will again restore the load meter indication.
>The 5A alternator field breaker does not pop during this process. I am
>unsure how long I left the alternator off line before cycling the split
>master.
These split-rocker switches are close cousins to the S700 series
Carling toggle switches offered by B&C and described here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling_G-series.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Cutaway.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Front.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Rear.jpg
I used to have a plastic bag in my desk drawer that contained
two split-rockers removed from TC aircraft that were plagued
with some form of alternator recalcitrance . . . teardown inspection
showed that the contacts on the alternator were badly degraded
due to combinations of corrosion exacerbated by time, and current
draw thorough the switch's rising contact resistance. Next
time I put my hands on them, I'll get them photographed for the
rogue's gallery of switch failures.
> I did search the archives for 'dancing & ammeter' and I understand the
>issue of excessive resistance in the voltage sense/field current wire. Looks
>to me like this plane has that problem.
It's quite possible . . .
> You seem to be saying that the
>alternator drop out I describe is not related to the dancing ammeter symptom
>but that the drop outs are probably caused by a loose connection. But why
>would cycling the alternator half of the master reliably restore operation
>if there was a loose connection?
You're very close to answering your own question with
a high probability of accuracy . . . what gets "wiggled"
when you cycle the switch?
> Are there any more tests you would suggest?
Sure, take a voltmeter along and do the divide/conquer study.
Connect a test lead at half-way between bus and alternator
field terminal. See if you can get the problem to repeat.
If symptom repeats and voltage disappears during alternator
misbehavior, move test point toward the bus 1/4 of the way
and test again. If you're feeling really confident about the
switch, just probe the downstream side of the switch.
Now, if there's alternator ammeter wiggle when things are
working "normally", then perhaps you can get the folks to
do the bus-to-regulator refurbishment cited in the aforementioned
articles . . . most likely, this will fix both the dancing
ammeter -AND- the alternator drop out. If you do replace the
switch for any reason, I'd like to have the carcass.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Questions |
At 11:42 AM 12/7/2008, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I'll wire per Z-11 on the bus feeds, thanks for the lesson and illumination.
>
>I am, however, going to wire per E-Mag Air on the mags. For the
>power feeds, E-Mag calls for a breaker for the E-Mag and a switch
>and breaker for the P-Mag, optionally combining the switch and
>breaker. I'm just going to use breakers for both, pulling the
>P-Mag's when I test it's generator. I prefer the simplicity of a
>SPST switch consistently used for both, and should I ever switch to
>standard mags, I just delete my panel breakers.
>
>I will feed the breakers from the terminal of the E-bus, not through a fuse.
>
>BTW, the present revision M of Z-13/8 has the P-Mag generator unable
>to be tested (open P-Lead and no power) short of powering down the
>Main bus. I'd think having the P-Mag get a 3 pos. switch as you had
>on Rev L would be superior. The P-Mag would then be Off-On-Bat and
>the E-Mag would be Off-Bat-On, and you could feed both from the Battery Bus.
Given that there are two ignition systems with a high
degree of reliability . . . either one of which runs
the engine just fine . . . Emagair told me that there
was very little to be gained by frequent testing of
the E-Mag's self supporting capabilities. They suggested
a couple of times a year. This is easy to do at the same
time you deliberately drop the main bus to do battery-only
endurance verifications or what-ever. The point is that
the system wired as shown CAN be tested by the pilot either
in pre-flight or during flight with the controls configured
as shown.
As shown, one achieves automatic load-shedding of the
E-mag during battery-only ops because IT IS fed from
the main bus.
>Also, for what it's worth, E-Mag Air does call for 18AWG feeders and
>grounds, contrary to the Z diagrams.
Yeah, not necessary from the perspective of operating physics.
It's a mechanical robustness thing.
>Thanks for doing what you do :)
My pleasure sir. I'm pleased that you receive good
value from the effort.
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: | List of Contributors 2008 |
Dear Listers,
This year's Fund Raiser has drawn to a close and I want to thank everyone that
so generously made a contribution this year in support of the Matronics Email
List and Forum operation. Your generosity keeps the wheels on this cart and I
truly appreciate the many kind words of encouragement and financial reimbursement.
If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser, please
feel free to do so. The great List Fund Raiser gifts will be available
on the Contribution site for a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution
today and still get your great gift! Once again, the URL for the Contribution
web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of discounted merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated!
And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2008 List of Contributors current
as of 12/7/08! Have a look at this list of names as *these* are the people
that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you
enough for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser!
THANK YOU!
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2008.html
I will be shipping out all of the gifts around the end of December. In most cases,
gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service.
Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
I know this has been discussed before, but it's hitting a little closer to
home, and I thought I'd bring it up again.
While installing my new ICOM IC-A210 com radio
<http://icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx>I
found this little warning block in the pilot's instruction manual:
"CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have been
started. It is very important for protection of the power supply circuit."
(On the other hand, my Dynon D180 installation manual states several times
that it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
For other matters of confusion, the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER connect
to a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the installation
instructions say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit breaker. The
specifications listed on the web site says it uses up to 5A during
transmitting.
So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start? Or
should I not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gautier, Thomas N" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop outs |
Bob,
Thanks. I'll send your comments along to the owner and mechanic and
I'll try to get the switch carcass if its replaced.
Nick Gautier
You Wrote:
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dancing ammeter and alternator drop
outs
At 09:28 AM 12/7/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry I was not more specific.
Not a problem . . .
> The current symptom of the airplane is that the alternator will shut
>down and produce no current. The load meter goes to zero and the voltage
>drops to the battery voltage, a little over 12v on my flight. Turning the
>alternator half of the split master off and then back on restores alternator
>output, the load meter goes to 70A briefly and then starts dancing. I
>carelessly did not observe the voltage with the alternator working. After
>ten or 15 minutes the alternator output will again go to zero. Cycling the
>alternator half of the master will again restore the load meter indication.
>The 5A alternator field breaker does not pop during this process. I am
>unsure how long I left the alternator off line before cycling the split
>master.
These split-rocker switches are close cousins to the S700 series
Carling toggle switches offered by B&C and described here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling_G-series.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Cutaway.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Front.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Rear.jpg
I used to have a plastic bag in my desk drawer that contained
two split-rockers removed from TC aircraft that were plagued
with some form of alternator recalcitrance . . . teardown inspection
showed that the contacts on the alternator were badly degraded
due to combinations of corrosion exacerbated by time, and current
draw thorough the switch's rising contact resistance. Next
time I put my hands on them, I'll get them photographed for the
rogue's gallery of switch failures.
> I did search the archives for 'dancing & ammeter' and I understand the
>issue of excessive resistance in the voltage sense/field current wire. Looks
>to me like this plane has that problem.
It's quite possible . . .
> You seem to be saying that the
>alternator drop out I describe is not related to the dancing ammeter symptom
>but that the drop outs are probably caused by a loose connection. But why
>would cycling the alternator half of the master reliably restore operation
>if there was a loose connection?
You're very close to answering your own question with
a high probability of accuracy . . . what gets "wiggled"
when you cycle the switch?
> Are there any more tests you would suggest?
Sure, take a voltmeter along and do the divide/conquer study.
Connect a test lead at half-way between bus and alternator
field terminal. See if you can get the problem to repeat.
If symptom repeats and voltage disappears during alternator
misbehavior, move test point toward the bus 1/4 of the way
and test again. If you're feeling really confident about the
switch, just probe the downstream side of the switch.
Now, if there's alternator ammeter wiggle when things are
working "normally", then perhaps you can get the folks to
do the bus-to-regulator refurbishment cited in the aforementioned
articles . . . most likely, this will fix both the dancing
ammeter -AND- the alternator drop out. If you do replace the
switch for any reason, I'd like to have the carcass.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
At 09:22 AM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>I know this has been discussed before, but it's hitting a little
>closer to home, and I thought I'd bring it up again.
>
>While installing my new
><http://icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx>ICOM
>IC-A210 com radio I found this little warning block in the pilot's
>instruction manual:
>"CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have
>been started. It is very important for protection of the power
>supply circuit."
I've heard that this radio is at risk for damage to any
voltages over 16v during an OV condition. There are no
"spikes" that exceed this value during cranking but if
the radio was not blessed with design goals conforming
to DO160 recommendations, perhaps they're admitting
to a vulnerability that most suppliers to the industry
choose to live with.
>(On the other hand, my Dynon D180 installation manual states several
>times that it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
Yup, they probably did due diligence under the recommendations
for DO160 compliance.
>For other matters of confusion, the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER
>connect to a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the
>installation instructions say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit
>breaker. The specifications listed on the web site says it uses up
>to 5A during transmitting.
The 5A breaker would be fine. Your transmissions are so
short and the receive power so low that you're not likely
to trip a 5A breaker.
>So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine
>start? Or should I not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
Turn it off/on as part of your post/pre-flight checklist.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
Sam=2C
The short 'n sweet answer to...
"So=2C how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start?"
...is. Reach over and twist the ON/OFF knob CCW until it clicks!
I do the "5 M's" mnoemonic on shutdown to help me remember to switch everyt
hing off=2C including the Master.
...Music (turn off all avionics in addition to radios if needed)
...Mags (quick mag check=2C just to let you know that the rpm's drop on one
mag)
...Mixture (full lean for engine cut-off)
...Mags (both off)
...Master (off)
No fancy electronic knowledge required. Just good airmanship.
Rodney in Tennessee
Date: Mon=2C 8 Dec 2008 09:22:07 -0600
From: sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
I know this has been discussed before=2C but it's hitting a little closer t
o home=2C and I thought I'd bring it up again.
While installing my new ICOM IC-A210 com radio I found this little warning
block in the pilot's instruction manual:
"CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have been st
arted. It is very important for protection of the power supply circuit."
(On the other hand=2C my Dynon D180 installation manual states several time
s that it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
For other matters of confusion=2C the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER conne
ct to a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the installation
instructions say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit breaker. The specif
ications listed on the web site says it uses up to 5A during transmitting.
So=2C how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start? Or sh
ould I not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
_________________________________________________________________
Suspicious message? There=92s an alert for that.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broa
d2_122008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: [OhioValleyRVators] Food For Thought |
This looked like a good idea to consider for the Z-diagram library, or at
least kick around here...
-Bill B
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valentine Kozak <hangar_p1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Food For Thought
I heard of a recent incident where an RV made an off airport landing
due to a failure of an engine driven fuel pump. Maybe someone was
just "joking" around but consider the following.
If the boost pump was wired so that whenever the fuel pressure
dropped below a preset value (around 15-20 psi for fuel injected
engines) the pump would run without intervention of the pilot.
This could be accomplished by a pressure sensor in the high pressure
side of the fuel supply. A boost pump switch would have a three
position switch with "On-Off-Auto" positions. An indicator light
would be on the panel to show th pilot when the boost pump is
operating.
The pilot would have the option of selecting "On" for take off and
landing or leave the switch in "Auto" and reference the indicator
light for boost pump operation.
Suggested switch position would be "Auto" for take off, landing and
cruise. Should fuel pressure drop below limits during any one of
these operations "Auto" would turn on the boost pump without the
pilot attempting guess why the engine is not operating correctly. The
indicator light would inform the pilot of a fuel pressure problem
which makes the use of the boost pump necessary.
Just an idea to make things a little easier on the pilot.
Val Kozak
Haven't given up on the RV-8
__._,_.___ Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/message/18882;_ylc=X3oDMTM3aWZ1Z2NiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRtc2dJZAMxODg4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjYEdHBjSWQDMTg4ODI->(
1) Reply (via web post)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJybDhlajNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRtc2dJZAMxODg4MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY-?act=reply&messageNum=18882>|
Start
a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc3UxdmdoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY->
Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3FyZ2VhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY->|
Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndjRrMGY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjI4NzY2MDI2>|
Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbWk0aWI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY->|
Links<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbjRyZm9pBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMjI4NzY2MDI2>|
Polls<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaHQwNWViBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xscwRzdGltZQMxMjI4NzY2MDI2>|
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOW9pNTFhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY->
MARKETPLACE
------------------------------
>From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13r53rt8e/M=493064.12016295.13271503.10835568/D=groups/S=1705786083:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1228773226/L=/B=ZeeSRkLaX.Q-/J=1228766026521240/A=5530388/R=0/SIG=11nuutlas/*http://explore.yahoo.com/groups/kraftmealsmadesimple/>
[image: Yahoo!
Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGFoOG9zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTIyODc2NjAyNg-->
Change settings via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOW00bDBuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjI4NzY2MDI2>(Yahoo!
ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest|
Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb3I1bGU3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTIyODc2NjAyNg-->|
Yahoo!
Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
- 2
New Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJnazcyZmgxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2cGhvdARzdGltZQMxMjI4NzY2MDI2>
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMGptNGVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyMjg3NjYwMjY->
Health Zone
Look your best!<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13opdjctf/M=493064.12016236.12445728.9977693/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1228773226/L=/B=Z.eSRkLaX.Q-/J=1228766026521240/A=4430620/R=0/SIG=11fhbjsi1/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/>
Groups to help you
look & feel great.
Yahoo! News
Fashion News<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o2mjnll/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1228773226/L=/B=aOeSRkLaX.Q-/J=1228766026521240/A=3848621/R=0/SIG=12u6o6g3h/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/1597;_ylt=A9FJqa5Gxa5E2jgAYQKVEhkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHNlYwNzbg-->
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Yahoo! Finance
Guides, news,
advice & more.
.
__,_._,___
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Rodney Dunham wrote:
> Sam,
>
> The short 'n sweet answer to...
> "So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start?"
> ...is. Reach over and twist the ON/OFF knob CCW until it clicks!
>
What if the on/off switch is a push button type?
> I do the "5 M's" mnoemonic on shutdown to help me remember to switch
> everything off, including the Master.
> ...Music (turn off all avionics in addition to radios if needed)
> ...Mags (quick mag check, just to let you know that the rpm's drop on
> one mag)
> ...Mixture (full lean for engine cut-off)
> ...Mags (both off)
> ...Master (off)
>
> No fancy electronic knowledge required. Just good airmanship.
And there's nothing wrong with good airmanship...however...
'Good airmanship' is so often code words for learning another lists of
mnemonics to overcome the shortfalls of a poor system design. Why
should I be forced to turn off so many systems manually before turning
off a master switch? I don't have to do that in an automobile. An
airplane engine is not that significantly different. Granted, the
certificated airplanes are stuck by Federal decree with their glorious
bobby-sock era glory, but the year is 2008, we're building and
maintaining our own systems, and we no longer have to suffer such
idiocy. The airplane should be built to accommodate the pilot, not the
other way around.
There are valid reasons to learn lists of mnemonics, mostly for
transitioning configurations from one flight regime to the next.
Shutdown shouldn't be one of them. All of my switches are in one
place. The shutdown procedure is to verify that all the switches are in
the down position. There is no point in anything more complicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3F? |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0ANice post Earnest, I totally agree. The responses to Sam's question hav
e been disappointing. =0A=0A =0A=0AI am NOT an electrical wiz. That said,
I think you are in need of a Transorb or TVS (Transient voltage Suppressor)
Sam (or maybe Eric's Snap-Jacks??). The purpose of these little guys is t
o protect devices from overvoltage conditions by clamping the voltage at so
me set point. They are placed between the device and power supply. I'm no
t good one to recommend part numbers but there are lots of possibilities at
Digi-Key.=0A=0A =0A=0AMy goal in using these in my plane was not to allow
me to leave the power switch on all the time. Rather, I wanted to avoid fr
ying some peice of equipment when the day comes that I accidentally start/s
hutdown with something on.=0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message
-----=0AFrom: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>=0ASent: Monday, Dec
ember 8, 2008 4:14pm=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: A
eroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: Ernest Christley =0A=0ARodney Dunham wrote:=0A> Sam,=0A>
=0A> The short 'n sweet answer to...=0A> "So, how do I make sure the ICOM i
s always off before engine start?"=0A> ...is. Reach over and twist the ON/O
FF knob CCW until it clicks!=0A>=0AWhat if the on/off switch is a push butt
on type?=0A> I do the "5 M's" mnoemonic on shutdown to help me remember to
switch =0A> everything off, including the Master.=0A> ...Music (turn off al
l avionics in addition to radios if needed)=0A> ...Mags (quick mag check, j
ust to let you know that the rpm's drop on =0A> one mag)=0A> ...Mixture (fu
ll lean for engine cut-off)=0A> ...Mags (both off)=0A> ...Master (off)=0A>
=0A> No fancy electronic knowledge required. Just good airmanship.=0AAnd th
ere's nothing wrong with good airmanship...however...=0A=0A'Good airmanship
' is so often code words for learning another lists of =0Amnemonics to over
come the shortfalls of a poor system design. Why =0Ashould I be forced to t
urn off so many systems manually before turning =0Aoff a master switch? I d
on't have to do that in an automobile. An =0Aairplane engine is not that si
gnificantly different. Granted, the =0Acertificated airplanes are stuck by
Federal decree with their glorious =0Abobby-sock era glory, but the year is
2008, we're building and =0Amaintaining our own systems, and we no longer
have to suffer such =0Aidiocy. The airplane should be built to accommodate
the pilot, not the =0Aother way around.=0A=0AThere are valid reasons to lea
rn lists of mnemonics, mostly for =0Atransitioning configurations from one
flight regime to the next. =0AShutdown shouldn't be one of them. All of my
switches are in one =0Aplace. The shutdown procedure is to verify that all
the switches are in =0Athe down position. There is no point in anything mor
e complicated.=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Hi Sam,
I have the IC-A200 (not TSO version) and 90% of time it is turned on when I crank
the engine. I have the 40A alt and the regulator from B&C. After hundreds
of starts, I have not found any problems. I don't remember the fuse size but
it is sized for wire protection. Earl
You wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, but it's hitting a little closer to home,
and I thought I'd bring it up again.
While installing my new ICOM IC-A210 com radio I found this little warning block
in the pilot's instruction manual:
"CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have been started.
It is very important for protection of the power supply circuit."
(On the other hand, my Dynon D180 installation manual states several times that
it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
For other matters of confusion, the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER connect to
a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the installation instructions
say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit breaker. The specifications listed
on the web site says it uses up to 5A during transmitting.
So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start? Or should I
not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Thanks everyone.
Yes, using checklists is good airmanship. However, I would like to make
sure that if I FORGET, there will still be no catastrophe with my radio.
The feedback seems to be mixed that if even we forget, the radio will be
able to handle it.
As an aside, I do training and consulting in Mistake-Proofing (cheap plug:
www.mistakeproofing.net), also known in Japanese as Poka-Yoke.
The idea behind Mistake-Proofing is simply; even if someone forgets to do
something, no damage occurs. Dynon has done that.
I'll just have to do my best "remembering".
Sam
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:22 AM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but it's hitting a little closer to
> home, and I thought I'd bring it up again.
>
> While installing my new ICOM IC-A210 com radio
> <http://icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx>I
> found this little warning block in the pilot's instruction manual:
> "CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have been
> started. It is very important for protection of the power supply circuit."
>
>
> I've heard that this radio is at risk for damage to any
> voltages over 16v during an OV condition. There are no
> "spikes" that exceed this value during cranking but if
> the radio was not blessed with design goals conforming
> to DO160 recommendations, perhaps they're admitting
> to a vulnerability that most suppliers to the industry
> choose to live with.
>
>
> (On the other hand, my Dynon D180 installation manual states several times
> that it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
>
>
> Yup, they probably did due diligence under the recommendations
> for DO160 compliance.
>
>
> For other matters of confusion, the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER connect
> to a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the installation
> instructions say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit breaker. The
> specifications listed on the web site says it uses up to 5A during
> transmitting.
>
>
> The 5A breaker would be fine. Your transmissions are so
> short and the receive power so low that you're not likely
> to trip a 5A breaker.
>
>
> So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start? Or
> should I not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
>
>
> Turn it off/on as part of your post/pre-flight checklist.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Thanks everyone.
Yes, using checklists is good airmanship. However, I would like to make
sure that if I FORGET, there will still be no catastrophe with my radio.
The feedback seems to be mixed that if even we forget, the radio will be
able to handle it.
As an aside, I do training and consulting in Mistake-Proofing (cheap plug:
www.mistakeproofing.net), also known in Japanese as Poka-Yoke.
The idea behind Mistake-Proofing is simply; even if someone forgets to do
something, no damage occurs. Dynon has done that.
I'll just have to do my best "remembering".
Sam
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:22 AM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but it's hitting a little closer to
> home, and I thought I'd bring it up again.
>
> While installing my new ICOM IC-A210 com radio
> <http://icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx>I
> found this little warning block in the pilot's instruction manual:
> "CAUTION: DO NOT turn the power ON until the aircraft engines have been
> started. It is very important for protection of the power supply circuit."
>
>
> I've heard that this radio is at risk for damage to any
> voltages over 16v during an OV condition. There are no
> "spikes" that exceed this value during cranking but if
> the radio was not blessed with design goals conforming
> to DO160 recommendations, perhaps they're admitting
> to a vulnerability that most suppliers to the industry
> choose to live with.
>
>
> (On the other hand, my Dynon D180 installation manual states several times
> that it is okay to have the unit on when starting).
>
>
> Yup, they probably did due diligence under the recommendations
> for DO160 compliance.
>
>
> For other matters of confusion, the ICOM Pilot's manual says "NEVER connect
> to a power source that is fused at more than 5A". But the installation
> instructions say to use 18AWG wire with a 10 A circuit breaker. The
> specifications listed on the web site says it uses up to 5A during
> transmitting.
>
>
> The 5A breaker would be fine. Your transmissions are so
> short and the receive power so low that you're not likely
> to trip a 5A breaker.
>
>
> So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start? Or
> should I not bother? I have a B&C permenant magnet alternator.
>
>
> Turn it off/on as part of your post/pre-flight checklist.
>
> 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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
At 04:31 PM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>Nice post Earnest, I totally agree. The responses to Sam's question
>have been disappointing.
>
>I am NOT an electrical wiz. That said, I think you are in need of a
>Transorb or TVS (Transient voltage Suppressor) Sam (or maybe Eric's
>Snap-Jacks??). The purpose of these little guys is to protect
>devices from overvoltage conditions by clamping the voltage at some
>set point. They are placed between the device and power
>supply. I'm not good one to recommend part numbers but there are
>lots of possibilities at Digi-Key.
>
>My goal in using these in my plane was not to allow me to leave the
>power switch on all the time. Rather, I wanted to avoid frying some
>peice of equipment when the day comes that I accidentally
>start/shutdown with something on.
>
>Jon
At various times over 40+ years of hammering on
airplanes (and cars!) I've watched for start-up
anomalies with sufficiently sophisticated equipment
to capture and identify such gremlins. I've never
seen a start-up spike and I've looked at systems
running the gamut from C-150 to big Lears and
Beechjets.
Equipment qualified under DO-160 guidelines can
stand 20 volts for 1 second, 40 volts for 100
mS. THESE conditions are possible during alternator
load-dump without a battery on line. A combination
of conditions that is exceedingly unlikely to
occur in an airplane conforming to architectures
found in legacy design goals (Like the z-figures
and 99% of all TC aircraft flying).
It is not difficult to design products that comply
with DO-160 guidelines. In 40+ years of supplying
products to all manner of military and civil aircraft
I've never had to ask a customer to "shut me off"
for the purpose of start-up protection. Nowadays, the
whole idea of spikes moves forward on fear of the
unknown, unseen and un-demonstrated.
Don't loose any sleep over it . . . save your money
for more useful investments in system performance.
"Spike" suppression isn't one of them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Food For Thought |
At 02:38 PM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>This looked like a good idea to consider for the Z-diagram library,
>or at least kick around here...
>
>-Bill B
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Valentine Kozak <<mailto:hangar_p1(at)yahoo.com>hangar_p1(at)yahoo.com>
>Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
>Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Food For Thought
>To:
>OhioValleyRVators(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
>I heard of a recent incident where an RV made an off airport landing
>due to a failure of an engine driven fuel pump. Maybe someone was
>just "joking" around but consider the following.
>
>If the boost pump was wired so that whenever the fuel pressure
>dropped below a preset value (around 15-20 psi for fuel injected
>engines) the pump would run without intervention of the pilot.
>Just an idea to make things a little easier on the pilot.
>
>Val Kozak
What you've hypothesized has been done. Other airplanes
I've flow call for the boost pump to be ON for takeoff
and approach to landing. The times I've allowed a tank
to run dry en route, the boost pump switch was turned on
before the tank was switched.
If this guy lost power and had enough altitude to
effect a choice of landings, he certainly had enough
time to get a fuel pump turned on. This is a case where
adherence to abnormal ops check lists is a pretty
inexpensive alternative to power-off, off-field
landings.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
Spikes are not always the problem. This would stem from poor startup
regulation as the alternator comes on line.
Low voltage (during cranking) can cause some solid state devices that
normally operate in a switching mode to operate in a linear mode.
This can cause a device that normally does not need to dissipate heat to get
hot and potentially destroy itself.
A Transorb or TVS will not protect against these types of problems.
r.t.s.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jon(at)finleyweb.net
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
Nice post Earnest, I totally agree. The responses to Sam's question have
been disappointing.
I am NOT an electrical wiz. That said, I think you are in need of a
Transorb or TVS (Transient voltage Suppressor) Sam (or maybe Eric's
Snap-Jacks??). The purpose of these little guys is to protect devices from
overvoltage conditions by clamping the voltage at some set point. They are
placed between the device and power supply. I'm not good one to recommend
part numbers but there are lots of possibilities at Digi-Key.
My goal in using these in my plane was not to allow me to leave the power
switch on all the time. Rather, I wanted to avoid frying some peice of
equipment when the day comes that I accidentally start/shutdown with
something on.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 4:14pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
Rodney Dunham wrote:
> Sam,
>
> The short 'n sweet answer to...
> "So, how do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start?"
> ...is. Reach over and twist the ON/OFF knob CCW until it clicks!
>
What if the on/off switch is a push button type?
> I do the "5 M's" mnoemonic on shutdown to help me remember to switch
> everything off, including the Master.
> ...Music (turn off all avionics in addition to radios if needed)
> ...Mags (quick mag check, just to let you know that the rpm's drop on
> one mag)
> ...Mixture (full lean for engine cut-off)
> ...Mags (both off)
> ...Master (off)
>
> No fancy electronic knowledge required. Just good airmanship.
And there's nothing wrong with good airmanship...however...
'Good airmanship' is so often code words for learning another lists of
mnemonics to overcome the shortfalls of a poor system design. Why
should I be forced to turn off so many systems manually before turning
off a master switch? I don't have to do that in an automobile. An
airplane engine is not that significantly different. Granted, the
certificated airplanes are stuck by Federal decree with their glorious
bobby-sock era glory, but the year is 2008, we're building and
maintaining our own systems, and we no longer have to suffer such
idiocy. The airplane should be built to accommodate the pilot, not the
other way around.
There are valid reasons to learn lists of mnemonics, mostly for
transitioning configurations from one flight regime to the next.
Shutdown shouldn't be one of them. All of my switches are in one
place. The shutdown procedure is to verify that all the switches are in
the down position. There is no point in anything more complicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3F? |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AOk, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't und
erstand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does a car ha
ve a relay that disconnects all electronics during engine start or are the
components better designed or ???=0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0A-----Original Messag
e-----=0AFrom: "Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com>=0ASent: Tu
esday, December 9, 2008 9:18am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubj
ect: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0ASpikes are not always the problem. This would stem from poor start
up regulation as the alternator comes on line.=0A=0ALow voltage (during cra
nking) can cause some solid state devices that normally operate in a switch
ing mode to operate in a linear mode.=0A=0AThis can cause a device that nor
mally does not need to dissipate heat to get hot and potentially destroy it
self.=0A=0A =0A=0AA Transorb or TVS will not protect against these types of
problems.=0A=0A =0A=0Ar.t.s.=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom: owner-aer
oelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of jon(at)finleyweb.net=0ASent: Monday, December 08,
2008 4:32 PM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElect
ric-List: Need for start-up protection?=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0ANice post Earnest
, I totally agree. The responses to Sam's question have been disappointing
. =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AI am NOT an electrical wiz. That said, I think
you are in need of a Transorb or TVS (Transient voltage Suppressor) Sam (or
maybe Eric's Snap-Jacks??). The purpose of these little guys is to protec
t devices from overvoltage conditions by clamping the voltage at some set p
oint. They are placed between the device and power supply. I'm not good o
ne to recommend part numbers but there are lots of possibilities at Digi-Ke
y.=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AMy goal in using these in my plane was not to al
low me to leave the power switch on all the time. Rather, I wanted to avoi
d frying some peice of equipment when the day comes that I accidentally sta
rt/shutdown with something on.=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AJon=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.
com>=0ASent: Monday, December 8, 2008 4:14pm=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matron
ics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?=0A
unham wrote:=0A> Sam,=0A>=0A> The short 'n sweet answer to...=0A> "So, how
do I make sure the ICOM is always off before engine start?"=0A> ...is. Reac
h over and twist the ON/OFF knob CCW until it clicks!=0A>=0AWhat if the on/
off switch is a push button type?=0A> I do the "5 M's" mnoemonic on shutdow
n to help me remember to switch =0A> everything off, including the Master.
=0A> ...Music (turn off all avionics in addition to radios if needed)=0A> .
..Mags (quick mag check, just to let you know that the rpm's drop on =0A> o
ne mag)=0A> ...Mixture (full lean for engine cut-off)=0A> ...Mags (both off
)=0A> ...Master (off)=0A>=0A> No fancy electronic knowledge required. Just
good airmanship.=0AAnd there's nothing wrong with good airmanship...however
...=0A=0A'Good airmanship' is so often code words for learning another list
s of =0Amnemonics to overcome the shortfalls of a poor system design. Why
=0Ashould I be forced to turn off so many systems manually before turning
=0Aoff a master switch? I don't have to do that in an automobile. An =0Aair
plane engine is not that significantly different. Granted, the =0Acertifica
ted airplanes are stuck by Federal decree with their glorious =0Abobby-sock
era glory, but the year is 2008, we're building and =0Amaintaining our own
systems, and we no longer have to suffer such =0Aidiocy. The airplane shou
ld be built to accommodate the pilot, not the =0Aother way around.=0A=0AThe
re are valid reasons to learn lists of mnemonics, mostly for =0Atransitioni
ng configurations from one flight regime to the next. =0AShutdown shouldn't
be one of them. All of my switches are in one =0Aplace. The shutdown proce
dure is to verify that all the switches are in =0Athe down position. There
is no point in anything more complicated.=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Aht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Ahttp://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0A=0A=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.
ribution Gifts! Incentive Free Terrific s> [http://www.matronics.com/contri
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List] http://www.matronics.com/Navi
=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Gents,
FWIW:
I don't switch the Avionics Master on till after the engine is started and switch
it off before I shut the engine down. This procedure was drubbed into me
back in the 60's when I was a student pilot and it has stuck with me since. It
is also in the check lists of the two aircraft I fly most frequently. This
procedure seems to preclude any issues of bus voltage drop or spikes affecting
the expensive electrical goodies.
This morning, I observed what occurred when I started my 2007 Ford Ranger Pickup
(manual & small V-6). When the starter is engaged, the other electrical stuff
drops off line till the starter is disengaged. So it appears that in the case
of my little pickup, there is some mechanism to disconnect the electronics
(in my case, the AM/FM radio/CD player) when the engine is started.
Just my two cents...
Check six,
Bob Borger
On Tuesday, December 09, 2008, at 08:37AM, wrote:
>
>Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't understand
why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does a car have a relay
that disconnects all electronics during engine start or are the components better
designed or ???
>
>
>
>Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't
understand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does a
car
have a relay that disconnects all electronics during engine start or are
the
components better designed or ???
Jon
Most of us don't even notice that when we turn the ignition switch, in
our
automobile, to the momentary start position, the radio and most
accessories
are turned off until the switch is released to run. Do you suppose
there is
a reason for this??
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Robert, A key statement in your post is "buss voltage drop or spikes
affecting the expensive electrical goodies." I agree with your post
totally. Most of us building understand we do not want to damage our
expensive electrical goodies, we only want to purchase them once!
Consequently, we should follow our check list. Just my two cents.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Borger" <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
>
> Gents,
>
> FWIW:
>
> I don't switch the Avionics Master on till after the engine is started and
> switch it off before I shut the engine down. This procedure was drubbed
> into me back in the 60's when I was a student pilot and it has stuck with
> me since. It is also in the check lists of the two aircraft I fly most
> frequently. This procedure seems to preclude any issues of bus voltage
> drop or spikes affecting the expensive electrical goodies.
>
> This morning, I observed what occurred when I started my 2007 Ford Ranger
> Pickup (manual & small V-6). When the starter is engaged, the other
> electrical stuff drops off line till the starter is disengaged. So it
> appears that in the case of my little pickup, there is some mechanism to
> disconnect the electronics (in my case, the AM/FM radio/CD player) when
> the engine is started.
>
> Just my two cents...
>
> Check six,
> Bob Borger
>
> On Tuesday, December 09, 2008, at 08:37AM, wrote:
>>
>>Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't
>>understand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does a
>>car have a relay that disconnects all electronics during engine start or
>>are the components better designed or ???
>>
>>
>>
>>Jon
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 9:59 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Robert Borger wrote:
>
> Gents,
>
> FWIW:
>
> I don't switch the Avionics Master on till after the engine is started and switch
it off before I shut the engine down. This procedure was drubbed into me
back in the 60's when I was a student pilot and it has stuck with me since.
It is also in the check lists of the two aircraft I fly most frequently. This
procedure seems to preclude any issues of bus voltage drop or spikes affecting
the expensive electrical goodies.
>
Great training, and you are to be commended for your good airmanship.
That's not the issue, though. The issue is whether the good training
serves any purpose or if it is just an extra hazing point.
The spikes have never been shown to exist. Short of a stuck bendix gear
turning the starter into a generator, I've not heard of any theory that
explains how a spike COULD exist.
If the low voltage does damage to the radio during the few seconds that
you are cranking, what is it going to do the day your alternator drops
offline and you have a low voltage for many minutes. Will your radio
burn up during the situation when you need it most? If this was a
common problem with radios when pilots encountered electrical problems,
wouldn't we have heard about it? Mostly what I've heard is more along
the lines of pilots talking to center to get help until their battery
runs out completely.
And how about working on your avionics on the ground. If your
troubleshooting and your battery starts to run down, do you run the risk
of burning up your radio?
> This morning, I observed what occurred when I started my 2007 Ford Ranger Pickup
(manual & small V-6). When the starter is engaged, the other electrical stuff
drops off line till the starter is disengaged. So it appears that in the
case of my little pickup, there is some mechanism to disconnect the electronics
(in my case, the AM/FM radio/CD player) when the engine is started.
>
Could it be so that all of the batteries power can be used to crank the
engine? This would also be a valid reason to turn off everything in an
airplane before start, but is totally unrelated to protecting
electronics from some ghostly danger that hasn't been shown to exist and
can't exist if our theories of DC electronics hold water.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Ernest Christley wrote:
> Could it be so that all of the batteries power can be used to crank the
> engine? This would also be a valid reason to turn off everything in an
> airplane before start, but is totally unrelated to protecting
> electronics from some ghostly danger that hasn't been shown to exist and
> can't exist if our theories of DC electronics hold water.
Yes, because that big old air conditioner is also running of the same
accessory circuit. You don't want those kinds of loads on the engine
while trying to start it.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
It is amazing how deeply embedded the myth is. I have heard it from many
flight instructors and read many posts promoting it on this list. Even after
the technology has progressed and the specifications require tolerance, the
myth persists. I am inclined to believe Bob Nuckolls assertions based on a
long history in the industry and his many attempts to find the illusive
"killer spike". It is too bad to have to include unnecessary and redundant
steps in your procedures that continue to feed that myth. And even add a
single point potential failure in the form of an "avionics master". The myth
will never go away! Also watch out for black cats, ladders and broken
mirrors. A little salt over the shoulder before each flight might help.
Regards to all,
Richard Dudley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
>
>
> Robert Borger wrote:
>>
>> Gents,
>>
>> FWIW:
>>
>> I don't switch the Avionics Master on till after the engine is started
>> and switch it off before I shut the engine down. This procedure was
>> drubbed into me back in the 60's when I was a student pilot and it has
>> stuck with me since. It is also in the check lists of the two aircraft I
>> fly most frequently. This procedure seems to preclude any issues of bus
>> voltage drop or spikes affecting the expensive electrical goodies.
>>
> Great training, and you are to be commended for your good airmanship.
> That's not the issue, though. The issue is whether the good training
> serves any purpose or if it is just an extra hazing point.
>
> The spikes have never been shown to exist. Short of a stuck bendix gear
> turning the starter into a generator, I've not heard of any theory that
> explains how a spike COULD exist.
>
> If the low voltage does damage to the radio during the few seconds that
> you are cranking, what is it going to do the day your alternator drops
> offline and you have a low voltage for many minutes. Will your radio burn
> up during the situation when you need it most? If this was a common
> problem with radios when pilots encountered electrical problems, wouldn't
> we have heard about it? Mostly what I've heard is more along the lines of
> pilots talking to center to get help until their battery runs out
> completely.
> And how about working on your avionics on the ground. If your
> troubleshooting and your battery starts to run down, do you run the risk
> of burning up your radio?
>
>> This morning, I observed what occurred when I started my 2007 Ford Ranger
>> Pickup (manual & small V-6). When the starter is engaged, the other
>> electrical stuff drops off line till the starter is disengaged. So it
>> appears that in the case of my little pickup, there is some mechanism to
>> disconnect the electronics (in my case, the AM/FM radio/CD player) when
>> the engine is started.
>>
> Could it be so that all of the batteries power can be used to crank the
> engine? This would also be a valid reason to turn off everything in an
> airplane before start, but is totally unrelated to protecting electronics
> from some ghostly danger that hasn't been shown to exist and can't exist
> if our theories of DC electronics hold water.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | More debugging of alternator whine problem |
I have continued the testing of the electrical system on my 601XL in
attempts to reduce or eliminate the alternator whine. No luck yet.
Here is what I have done so far:
[1] Ran radio off an isolated battery. No noise.
[2] Disconnected shield ground for headset wires. Noise persists.
[3] Disconnected power for headsets which runs along side the audio
wires. (Thought this was a good candidate!) Noise persists.
Additional notes:
[4] Whine increases significantly in volume when adding power. Implies
it is power related, not ground loop, yes?
[5] Noted that some Z-diagrams for permanent magnet setups show
alternator control relay between alternator and regulator, and some show
this between regulator and bus. Mine is the latter. Any reason to
suspect this?
[6] Noted that for installation diagram of motorcycle voltage regulator,
they show it connected directly to the battery. In my plane, the
voltage regulator feeds the primary buss separately from the batteries.
That is, there are two power feeds to the buss. Any chance that moving
the connection from the regulator directly to the battery and removing
the "extra" buss feed would have any effect?
Still hoping, and with a filter on order,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "philip smith" <madriver(at)wildblue.net> |
Here's one for you electrical types. The elevator trim servo in my CH 701
( read MAC ) runs really fast. When checking out the wiring I used a common
9v battery to confirm the wiring and it ran substantially slower - what
resistor - gizmo do I put in series with the 12v to reduce the voltage to
about 9v and slow things down. What would the circuit look like in a
schematic?
Thanks Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
Phil Ray Allen makes a speed controller just for that. kina pricy at
app. $45.00 I think it is fully adjustable over a broad range. Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: philip smith
To: Aeroelectric-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Speed
Here's one for you electrical types. The elevator trim servo in my CH
701
( read MAC ) runs really fast. When checking out the wiring I used a
common
9v battery to confirm the wiring and it ran substantially slower -
what
resistor - gizmo do I put in series with the 12v to reduce the voltage
to
about 9v and slow things down. What would the circuit look like in a
schematic?
Thanks Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
10/14/2008 2:02 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
At 09:29 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't
>understand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft.
>Does a car have a relay that disconnects all electronics during
>engine start or are the components better designed or ???
It's not a "problem" in cars. That shutdown of the
accessories in automobiles is for load shedding during
cranking that maximizes available energy from the battery
for starting. This is especially important when the
battery is nearing failure from age or abuse.
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>Most of us don't even notice that when we turn the ignition switch,
>in our automobile, to the momentary start position, the radio and
>most accessories are turned off until the switch is released to
>run. Do you suppose there is a reason for this??
The most complex components in your car are used to
orchestrate fuel and ignition control. Obviously,
these cannot be turned off during cranking . . .
the car would never start!
The path to Nirvana is found by simply designing
accessories to dance to the music described in
DO-160 and similar documents for other industries.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/DO-160.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Load_Dump_A.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/DC_Power_System_Dynamics_C.pdf
My points are (1) it's stone simple to design products
that live happily with anything the ship's bus can
throw at it and (2) it's been done by ALL suppliers
to TC aircraft for 35+ years and most suppliers
to OBAM aircraft (including the 'Connection) for
20+ years. Finally, (3) in spite of many queries to folks
who worked in TC aircraft community (like Narco, King,
Terra, Lear, Cessna, Beech, Wilcox, etc), not one
individual has come forward to identify the source,
character and total energy contained in the most feared
"spike". It's one of those deeply held beliefs that
endures to this day: "I know spikes exist because
folks have worshiped at the altar of AV master switches
for decades . . . can that many true believers be
wrong?"
Nobody would happier to be proven in error about this
than I. Once the source is identified, simple repeatable
experiments will confirm its existence and magnitude.
I'd be pleased to write an article about it . . . and
cite co-authorship to the individual who discovers
(a) what does it, (b) how is it shaped, and (c)how much energy
does it contain?
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More debugging of alternator whine problem |
At 12:04 PM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>I have continued the testing of the electrical system on my 601XL in
>attempts to reduce or eliminate the alternator whine. No luck
>yet. Here is what I have done so far:
>
>[1] Ran radio off an isolated battery. No noise.
Okay, this suggests that the noise is coming in through
the power line. A filter is called for. What kind of radio
are we talking about? How much current does it draw in
receive and transmit?
>
>[2] Disconnected shield ground for headset wires. Noise persists.
>
>[3] Disconnected power for headsets which runs along side the audio
>wires. (Thought this was a good candidate!) Noise persists.
>
>Additional notes:
>
>[4] Whine increases significantly in volume when adding
>power. Implies it is power related, not ground loop, yes?
Not necessarily but when you did the isolated battery
test, that eliminated all other root causes.
>
>[5] Noted that some Z-diagrams for permanent magnet setups show
>alternator control relay between alternator and regulator, and some
>show this between regulator and bus. Mine is the latter. Any
>reason to suspect this?
No
>
>[6] Noted that for installation diagram of motorcycle voltage
>regulator, they show it connected directly to the battery. In my
>plane, the voltage regulator feeds the primary buss separately from
>the batteries. That is, there are two power feeds to the buss. Any
>chance that moving the connection from the regulator directly to the
>battery and removing the "extra" buss feed would have any effect?
Try it.
If you have a test filter identified, you're on
the right track. I have another filter that MIGHT
be suited to your task if you'd like to give it
a try it would be interesting to know . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
At 11:31 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> It is too bad to have to include unnecessary and redundant steps
> in your procedures that continue to feed that myth. And even add a
> single point potential failure in the form of an "avionics master".
> The myth will never go away! Also watch out for black cats, ladders
> and broken mirrors. A little salt over the shoulder before each
> flight might help.
Our customer base tends to help perpetuate the myth too.
I had this discussion with numerous folks at Beech/RAC over
a period of 20 years. All agreed that the AV Master could
be dispensed with. Marketing objected stating that it was
too much a part of the operating procedure and they didn't
want to introduce new features that high time pilots might
find troubling. It was decided that genuflecting at the
altar of AV master switches would continue although that deity
seems to have vacated the temple many years ago.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
As for me..Having my entire avionics stack that I risk my life on in IMC to
one master switch with one fuse is not smart.
For me I have 4 switches to turn off before start/shutdown..Its just not a
big deal to turn them off..and if i forget then its probably not an issue a
nyway.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
At 09:29 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't unders
tand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does a car have
a relay that disconnects all electronics during engine start or are the com
ponents better designed or ???
It's not a "problem" in cars. That shutdown of the
accessories in automobiles is for load shedding during
cranking that maximizes available energy from the battery
for starting. This is especially important when the
battery is nearing failure from age or abuse.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Yahoo Mail" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
I started my flying with the military and they did not have a master
avionics switch, so when I started flying civilian aircraft with the master
avionics switch I thought this is cool you do not have to turn on each radio
individually you do it with just one switch. I thought it was just for
convenience. My aircraft will have a master avionics switch.
Lynn A. Riggs
http://home.comcast.net/~lariggs/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
-----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, December 09, 2008 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
At 11:31 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> It is too bad to have to include unnecessary and redundant steps
> in your procedures that continue to feed that myth. And even add a
> single point potential failure in the form of an "avionics master".
> The myth will never go away! Also watch out for black cats, ladders
> and broken mirrors. A little salt over the shoulder before each
> flight might help.
Our customer base tends to help perpetuate the myth too.
I had this discussion with numerous folks at Beech/RAC over
a period of 20 years. All agreed that the AV Master could
be dispensed with. Marketing objected stating that it was
too much a part of the operating procedure and they didn't
want to introduce new features that high time pilots might
find troubling. It was decided that genuflecting at the
altar of AV master switches would continue although that deity
seems to have vacated the temple many years ago.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Food For Thought |
The Cessna 400 has a "High Pump Enable" that is on during takeoff and climbs
to 10,000'. Off otherwise.
Actually they are on "Low On" over 10,000' for vapor suppression.
During the "Enable" a low fuel pressure will cause the external fuel pump to
run in "High" mode. This
Is latched until the "High Pump Enable" is set to off.
You must be able to disable a latched fuel pump. Some continental engines do
not like high fuel pressures when the
Throttle is not wide open. They can flood or die from being to rich. This is
typically from a poor setup.
The problem is that there are lots of these engines that have poor setups!
You might want to check to see if you can run your engine at idle power with
the fuel pump on.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Food For Thought
At 02:38 PM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
This looked like a good idea to consider for the Z-diagram library, or at
least kick around here...
-Bill B
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valentine Kozak <hangar_p1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Food For Thought
I heard of a recent incident where an RV made an off airport landing
due to a failure of an engine driven fuel pump. Maybe someone was
just "joking" around but consider the following.
If the boost pump was wired so that whenever the fuel pressure
dropped below a preset value (around 15-20 psi for fuel injected
engines) the pump would run without intervention of the pilot.
Just an idea to make things a little easier on the pilot.
Val Kozak
What you've hypothesized has been done. Other airplanes
I've flow call for the boost pump to be ON for takeoff
and approach to landing. The times I've allowed a tank
to run dry en route, the boost pump switch was turned on
before the tank was switched.
If this guy lost power and had enough altitude to
effect a choice of landings, he certainly had enough
time to get a fuel pump turned on. This is a case where
adherence to abnormal ops check lists is a pretty
inexpensive alternative to power-off, off-field
landings.
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: | Need for start-up protection? |
Bob,
I too have never understood the fear of a voltage "spike" during engine
start BUT, I always assumed that while the average pilot may not know
what's going on here electrically, he may have reason to be concerned just
the same. I always thought one could assume that during engine cranking,
the buss voltage would sag. This sagging would "under power" the
electronics currently turned on, and it would be this extreme low voltage
event that would cause damage to sensitive things. I call it a "brown out"
and many electronics don't like it. They malfunction in many ways. Sort of
like not knowing whether they're supposed to be off, or on, or...off, no
on etc.
In your experience, could this voltage sag for several seconds cause trouble
for some electronics (certified or not) in aircraft?
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: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
-->
At 11:31 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> It is too bad to have to include unnecessary and redundant steps in
> your procedures that continue to feed that myth. And even add a single
> point potential failure in the form of an "avionics master".
> The myth will never go away! Also watch out for black cats, ladders
> and broken mirrors. A little salt over the shoulder before each flight
> might help.
Our customer base tends to help perpetuate the myth too.
I had this discussion with numerous folks at Beech/RAC over
a period of 20 years. All agreed that the AV Master could
be dispensed with. Marketing objected stating that it was
too much a part of the operating procedure and they didn't
want to introduce new features that high time pilots might
find troubling. It was decided that genuflecting at the
altar of AV master switches would continue although that deity
seems to have vacated the temple many years ago.
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: | Need for start-up protection? |
I do think it MAY be for protection, secondly for convenience. However, I
will have a backup switch in the form of "EBUSS" switch for redundancy.
Bevan
RV7A wiring based on Z13/8
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Yahoo
Mail
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
-->
I started my flying with the military and they did not have a master
avionics switch, so when I started flying civilian aircraft with the master
avionics switch I thought this is cool you do not have to turn on each radio
individually you do it with just one switch. I thought it was just for
convenience. My aircraft will have a master avionics switch.
Lynn A. Riggs
http://home.comcast.net/~lariggs/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
-----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, December 09, 2008 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
At 11:31 AM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> It is too bad to have to include unnecessary and redundant steps in
> your procedures that continue to feed that myth. And even add a single
> point potential failure in the form of an "avionics master".
> The myth will never go away! Also watch out for black cats, ladders
> and broken mirrors. A little salt over the shoulder before each flight
> might help.
Our customer base tends to help perpetuate the myth too.
I had this discussion with numerous folks at Beech/RAC over
a period of 20 years. All agreed that the AV Master could
be dispensed with. Marketing objected stating that it was
too much a part of the operating procedure and they didn't
want to introduce new features that high time pilots might
find troubling. It was decided that genuflecting at the
altar of AV master switches would continue although that deity
seems to have vacated the temple many years ago.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | portable, handheld |
hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like an ammeter] that
will allow you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching one
end to the wire inside the conductor. then the device will pick out the
wire in a bundle. what is this thing called, please?
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
At 08:37 PM 12/9/2008, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I too have never understood the fear of a voltage "spike" during engine
>start BUT, I always assumed that while the average pilot may not know
>what's going on here electrically, he may have reason to be concerned just
>the same.
We TEACH people to be concerned. It's a primal force that
sells a LOT of products! Just watch TV for an hour and count
the commercials designed to instill fear of: getting old,
hardening of the arteries, pressure in the plumbing too high,
pressure in other plumbing too low, skin cancer, hydro-planing,
home invasion, less than snow white clothes . . . you name it.
In this case, we (at Cessna in 1968) didn't understand transistors
and second-breakdown. It was assumed that "spikes" from the starters
was killing our new hybrid vacuum tube/transistor radios.
In fact, it was brown-out, not spikes that was killing the
rather fragile, germanium power transistors in power supplies
(the audio systems were okay).
The Avionics Master was born there with siblings at Piper,
Beech, et. als. 40 years later, we've learned to make products
live with the ship's power as presented . . . but we neglected to
un-learn a deeply held belief that has now morphed into an almost
primal fear.
> I always thought one could assume that during engine cranking,
>the buss voltage would sag. This sagging would "under power" the
>electronics currently turned on, and it would be this extreme low voltage
>event that would cause damage to sensitive things. I call it a "brown out"
>and many electronics don't like it. They malfunction in many ways. Sort of
>like not knowing whether they're supposed to be off, or on, or...off, no
>on etc.
>
>In your experience, could this voltage sag for several seconds cause trouble
>for some electronics (certified or not) in aircraft?
Absolutely! One of the DO160 recommendations is that
a product EXPECT brownout during starter inrush time.
Here's what my last van did in the summer time, it's
worse in winter:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_1.gif
Here's Dr. Dee's little red roller skate . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
Here's a B400A Beechjet . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
All of these vehicles have electronics that in some
cases is expected to perform during the brown-out for the
purpose of getting an engine started. Other systems are
allowed to complain but should recover gracefully after
the brownout event passes. Graceful recovery is something
that a number of OBAM aircraft equipment suppliers choose
to forego.
Here's an excerpt from DO160 speaking to a suite of
power interruption/brown-out tests for digital
equipment qualified to various classifications.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/DO-160_Section_16_Excerpt_1.pdf
The idea is that whoever has some notion of supplying
equipment to virtually any alternator/battery DC
system aboard vehicles has no excuse for not considering
the demonstrable gremlins that need to be tolerated
if not dispatched.
All of my processor based stuff resets within milliseconds
of having normal power restored. I'll be helping some folks
with a suite of engine controls early next year. THIS system
will have to operate through any transient event that does
not drop below 6 volts . . . and recover gracefully for
all events that drop lower. Not a big deal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | elhershb(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: portable, handheld |
That would be a tick tracer.
Ed Hershberger
40430
Fuse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like an ammeter] that will allow
you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching one end to the wire
inside the conductor. then the device will pick out the wire in a bundle. what
is this thing called, please?
bob noffs
That would be a tick tracer.
Ed Hershberger
40430
Fuse
hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like
an ammeter] that will allow you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching
one end to the wire inside the conductor. then the device will pick out
the wire in a bundle. what is this thing called, please?
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
jon(at)finleyweb.net wrote:
> Ok, then what is the answer? I am one of the folks that just can't
> understand why this is not a problem in cars but is in aircraft. Does
> a car have a relay that disconnects all electronics during engine
> start or are the components better designed or ???
>
Nothing that complicated. An automotive ignition switch is a multi-pole
device. In the "run" position, it connects B+ to two terminals:
"ignition" and "accessory". When it is turned to the momentary "start"
position, it disconnects B+ from the "accessory" pole. Usually,
everything that isn't essential to running the engine is connected to
"accessory"; hence, the radio (and, often, the
cigarette_lighter/accessory_power socket) drop out, until one allows the
switch to spring back to the "run" position. Thus, no need for a check list.
HTH,
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joemotis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: portable, handheld |
A tick tracer is used to detect voltage by induction. I believe that what he
is looking for is a Toner. A toner is a 9 volt powered signal generator with
2 leads to clip to the conductor and a ground/ The other half is an inductive
amplifier that picks up the signal usually a DeeDO "tone" Quite useful on
telephone back boards and any place else you are trying to pick a conductor out
of a rat's nest.
Joe Motis
Do no Archive
In a message dated 12/9/2008 7:46:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
elhershb(at)comcast.net writes:
That would be a tick tracer.
Ed Hershberger
40430
Fuse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like an ammeter] that will
allow you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching one end to the
wire inside the conductor. then the device will pick out the wire in a bundle.
what is this thing called, please?
bob noffs
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Break a P+B toggle circuit breaker |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Borrowed a new P+B toggle circuit breaker form local IA to help with
design of electrical stuff that is going in and behind passenger headrest
of our Europa XS monowheel.
I wanted to screw on a ring terminals to get better idea of space
requirements.
Sounds easy enough. Grabbed my favorite #2 screwdriver and removed first
screw, the second one was unbelievably tight. I got it loose, but put a
crack in the plastic housing because the torque required to loosen the
screw distorted the lug. What an idiot, even though the factory should
have not tightened down the screw so tight, I should have just held the
lug with a pair of pliers to prevent any stress from being transmitted to
housing, instead of holding the housing and loosening the screw.
OK $25 mistake, won't let that happen again. Figured would let others in
on my mistake so it happens not to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since I am now the proud owner of a cracked P+B toggle breaker, even
though a little JB Weld could fix it, I decided to dissect. I never liked
the high factor of wigulation (feel) the toggle has on these units so
figured I needed a look. My business is copiers, and several times a year
I end up taking apart switches and relays to do field repair to get
machines going till I can obtain a new one. I am pretty aware of what
fails in electrical parts such as this.
WOW!!! If you ever wondered why a P+B non pull able breaker is around 5
bucks, and why a P+B toggle breaker is around $25, take a look inside.
There are close to 4 dozen parts on the toggle breaker!
>From talking to people who have experience with these toggle breakers long
term, they acknowledge good reliability, but man are there a lot of things
in there that can fail. One thing I am pretty confident assuming, once
breaker is closed I think it will maintain a pretty reliable connection.
Trying to close contacts is a different story. It is a mechanical
nightmare that highly stresses many components. There are things that are
greased, and when it becomes well used and grease goes away from the
friction contact area and strategic plastic parts such as the white
plastic lever that connects the toggle with the main mechanism become
brittle, I can see a failure when trying to close contacts.
I went as far as reassembling the unit onto just one side, installed
bracing, bonded strategic pins, levers and springs so the unit can be
operated with half the cover is off!
Guess this is a leftover from when I was a kid playing with invisible V8s
and invisible radial aeroplane motors.
Impressive unit.
If anyone wants to see some pics let me know.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: portable, handheld |
joe, that's it! thanks, bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: Joemotis(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: portable, handheld
A tick tracer is used to detect voltage by induction. I believe that
what he is looking for is a Toner. A toner is a 9 volt powered signal
generator with 2 leads to clip to the conductor and a ground/ The other
half is an inductive amplifier that picks up the signal usually a DeeDO
"tone" Quite useful on telephone back boards and any place else you are
trying to pick a conductor out of a rat's nest.
Joe Motis
Do no Archive
In a message dated 12/9/2008 7:46:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
elhershb(at)comcast.net writes:
That would be a tick tracer.
Ed Hershberger
40430
Fuse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like an ammeter]
that will allow you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching
one end to the wire inside the conductor. then the device will pick out
the wire in a bundle. what is this thing called, please?
bob noffs
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
st
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites
in one pcid=emlcntaolcom00000010">Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Break a P+B toggle circuit breaker |
Ron,
Please post the pics in an album on your build website.
Bob Borger
On Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at 01:43AM, wrote:
>
>
>If anyone wants to see some pics let me know.
>
>Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
No need for a fancy controller unless you want a continuously variable
response. Try a diode or two in the line. Each diode will drop the
voltage about 0.8-0.9 volts. Be sure you use diodes that can handle the
load. Example - A 1N4001 might be rated for 1A at 50V. Should be fine,
I'd think.
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent Pin |
Crimper
I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub pins
and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after crimping and I
just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see the difference
between that connection and others I recently made.
So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the wire
be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or should it be
in the pin)?
Should I solder? Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on
D-subs? Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead? Crimp and
solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that may be an option).
Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
Bill "building an RV10 panel" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent |
Pin Crimper
At 08:04 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>
>I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub
>pins and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after
>crimping and I just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see
>the difference between that connection and others I recently made.
>
>So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>
>In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the
>wire be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or
>should it be in the pin)?
Insulation can touch the pin but the wires need to be
inserted a minimum depth as observed through the inspection
hole. My installations have a pretty good gap between
end of pin and insulation when the strands are fully
inserted on the pin.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
If your tool looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
There are no adjustments to be made. The tool is set up for
D-sub, 20AWG pins like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg
and should produce a finished joint like the first
picture above.
If your tool looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_1.jpg
then there are adjustments to be made in addition to selecting
the right pin positioner. The tool should have come with instructions.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_2.JPG
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_3.JPG
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Tool-Locater_Cross_Reference.jpg
>Should I solder?
No . . .
> Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on D-subs?
Millions of these pins are installed every day world wide and
deliver as advertised. You need to figure out what's going
on with your materials, tools, techniques . . .
>Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead?
No, these are more problematic for the neophyte builder than
machined pins. I don't even keep them in the shop. We've
been 100% machined pins for 20+ years.
>Crimp and solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that
>may be an option).
No, that's an inspection hole. If the wires are sufficiently
inserted you can see the strands through the hole.
>Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
What tool do you have? What pins are you trying to install and
what connector is the target residence for the pins? Are you
trying to install 22AWG (high density) pins with the 20AWG
standard density) tool?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: portable, handheld |
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
I believe your talking about a circuit tracer !
writes:
> hi all, there is a portable , handheld device[ like an ammeter] that
> will allow you to follow a wire thru a bundle of wires by attaching
> one end to the wire inside the conductor. then the device will pick
> out the wire in a bundle. what is this thing called, please?
> bob noffs
____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on consolidating your debt.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2PBHOxNVrx6k3ZAyz5akIp3WQZhlKJ6mUzFuJ6GJ49mzmoJ/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent |
Pin Crimper
Bill,
Marc has posted a good document on his website concerning connectors. http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html
I've picked up the Daniels crimper of Ebay, so I can't offer any advice on the
4way ident crimper.
I would recommend not using solder. I think that is just putting a ticking time
bomb into your panel.
bob
>
> From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
> Date: 2008/12/10 Wed AM 09:04:18 EST
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent
Pin Crimper
>
>
> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub pins
> and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after crimping and I
> just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see the difference
> between that connection and others I recently made.
>
> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>
> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the wire
> be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or should it be
> in the pin)?
>
> Should I solder? Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on
> D-subs? Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead? Crimp and
> solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that may be an option).
>
> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>
> Bill "building an RV10 panel" Watson
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
The correct way to reduce the speed is to pulse-width modulate the input (kind
of like jabbing the button fast). Reducing the voltage reduces the motor torque
and thus the trim force. You might get away with it in some applications...but
still...there is a point where applying low voltage to a stalled armature will
just fry the brushes.
--------
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=218674#218674
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Your automobile doesn't require some "special" technique to get everything going.
This is the classic "accident waiting to happen".
The Air Force did a study of airmen where they turned on a red/green indicator
light and the airman had to push a button in response to the green light. In
about three cases per-thousand, the very best airmen either didn't push the button
when the green light turned on, or pushed the button when the red light turned
on. This seems to be the performance limit of for the best human brains.
So if you have to turn off the avionics before starting. You'll screw it up 0.3
percent of the time. This can be expensive, and unnecessary.
--------
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=218680#218680
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> Your automobile doesn't require some "special" technique to get everything going.
This is the classic "accident waiting to happen".
>
> The Air Force did a study of airmen where they turned on a red/green indicator
light and the airman had to push a button in response to the green light. In
about three cases per-thousand, the very best airmen either didn't push the
button when the green light turned on, or pushed the button when the red light
turned on. This seems to be the performance limit of for the best human brains.
>
> So if you have to turn off the avionics before starting. You'll screw it up 0.3
percent of the time. This can be expensive, and unnecessary.
>
>
Exactly, Eric. Years of training to work around a problem will never
beat eliminating the problem in the first place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent |
Pin Crimper
I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
I'm using a tool that looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I was
using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig tail.
In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to crimp
concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of the
insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
(non-high density).
For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going to
follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals along
with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing. It's a good
solution for this particular connection.
I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if I
want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
What do you think?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:04 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub
>> pins and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after
>> crimping and I just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see
>> the difference between that connection and others I recently made.
>>
>> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>>
>> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the
>> wire be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or should
>> it be in the pin)?
>
> Insulation can touch the pin but the wires need to be
> inserted a minimum depth as observed through the inspection
> hole. My installations have a pretty good gap between
> end of pin and insulation when the strands are fully
> inserted on the pin.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
>
>
> If your tool looks like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>
> There are no adjustments to be made. The tool is set up for
> D-sub, 20AWG pins like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg
>
>
> and should produce a finished joint like the first
> picture above.
>
> If your tool looks like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_1.jpg
>
>
> then there are adjustments to be made in addition to selecting
> the right pin positioner. The tool should have come with instructions.
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_2.JPG
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_3.JPG
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Tool-Locater_Cross_Reference.jpg
>
>
>> Should I solder?
>
> No . . .
>
>
>> Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on D-subs?
>
> Millions of these pins are installed every day world wide and
> deliver as advertised. You need to figure out what's going
> on with your materials, tools, techniques . . .
>
>> Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead?
>
> No, these are more problematic for the neophyte builder than
> machined pins. I don't even keep them in the shop. We've
> been 100% machined pins for 20+ years.
>
>> Crimp and solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that may
>> be an option).
>
> No, that's an inspection hole. If the wires are sufficiently
> inserted you can see the strands through the hole.
>
>
>> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>
> What tool do you have? What pins are you trying to install and
> what connector is the target residence for the pins? Are you
> trying to install 22AWG (high density) pins with the 20AWG
> standard density) tool?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>The correct way to reduce the speed is to pulse-width modulate the
>input (kind of like jabbing the button fast). Reducing the voltage
>reduces the motor torque and thus the trim force. You might get away
>with it in some applications...but still...there is a point where
>applying low voltage to a stalled armature will just fry the brushes.
This is not true. Motor torque is a function of average
armature current . . . whether the voltage is supplied
as a steady state or pulse-width modulated source. The
only way to reduce speed while RETAINING the actuator's
maximum torque capabilities is to add electronics that
maintains motor speed irrespective of load and voltage
(within bounds).
I did a tutorial on motor performance for a client last
week. Here's the set of power point slides I used in
that presentation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Motors/DC_Motor_Performance_in_small_Actuators.ppt
There are three major drivers of motor performance.
(1) internal losses - i.e. total resistance of
brushes and windings. (2) Torque constant (Kt)
as a function proportional to average current.
(3) Counter emf constant as a function proporational
to motor RPM.
The first three figures in the PP presentation
speak to ways these parameters can be measured for
any particular PM motor.
Figure 4 is a compendium of motor performance
constants and their relationships with respect to
the speed that a motor can be expected to run
when the applied voltage and torque requirements
are known. Of particular interest is the last
expression in the top box where all constants
are combined in the Great Motor Performance
formula.
There are ways the algebraic models can be illustrated
and analyzed graphically. Figure 5 shows the speed
torque curve for a motor we were discussing for
a particular small actuator design.
Stall torque at 28v applied = 4.5 in-oz
Stall current at 28V = .74 amps yielding
a K(t) value of 6.1 in-oz/amp.
Counter EMF constant K(e) of 4.5v/1000RPM
Internal resistance of 37.8 ohms at room
temperature.
Figure 5 explores the effects of variable
system loads when the motor is supplied
with fixed voltages. The top set of data
points show that over an operating range
of .72 to 1.82 in-oz of torque, the speed
of this motor can be expected to run between
5340 RPM at (C) and 3780 RPM at (B).
Let us suppose we want to drive the actuator
at 1/6th nominal speed over the same ranges
of load torque. With a nominal load of 1.22
in-oz, the voltage needs to be reduced to
11.2 volts. Now as torque varies over the
same range, speed varies from 1430 RPM at
(F) and is incapable of carrying the expected
torque level. The motor will stall.
Figure 6 shows us what's necessary to maintain
a constant speed over full torque range. Here
we see that 11.2 volts gets us 1/6th speed
at nominal torque. At full torque (point H)
we need to increase applied voltage to
15.1 volts. At minimum torque (point J),
applied voltage can be reduced to 8 volts
applied. This functionality can be achieved
ONLY with active electronics that adjusts
motor applied voltage such that speed is
well regulated.
Smart DC motor controls for maintenance of
speed under variable loads is what butters
our bread these days.
It matters not how the voltage is adjusted.
It can be smart voltage regulator, duty-cycle
pwm, or even a series resistor. NONE of these
techniques will offer a STABLE speed with
respect to load.
Having said that, the effects of constant
applied voltage for the Ray-Allen actuators
is not too big a deal. The reason for slowing
them down is to effect good control over fine
changes in pitch at cruising speed. Torque
loads on the actuator under this condition are
not wildly variable. Set the voltage at the
most useful speed and you'll probably not notice
much variability of performance at cruise.
For approach to landing, running the motor wide
open is often the solution in order to achieve
rapid changes in combinations of descent rate/
airspeed/power during approach maneuvers.
There's a host of articles on motor performance
on the 'net for those interested in exploring these
critters in more detail.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
At 10:28 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>
>Your automobile doesn't require some "special" technique to get
>everything going. This is the classic "accident waiting to happen".
>
>The Air Force did a study of airmen where they turned on a
>red/green indicator light and the airman had to push a button in
>response to the green light. In about three cases per-thousand, the
>very best airmen either didn't push the button when the green light
>turned on, or pushed the button when the red light turned on. This
>seems to be the performance limit of for the best human brains.
>
>So if you have to turn off the avionics before starting. You'll
>screw it up 0.3 percent of the time. This can be expensive, and unnecessary.
Which presupposes that the reason for turning the avionics
OFF in the first place is the magic wand that prevents
expensive damage. In support of the study cited above, I
can't tell you how many times I got into an airplane where
the avionics master switch was already ON. Since the pre-flight
check list doesn't say "Avionics Master Switch - Check OFF"
then the electro-whizzies would already be ON when I started
the engine. I'll suggest it's even more common than the
3 per thousand events cited.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
That crimp seems to be to far to the end for me, mine are in the centre
of the rear cylindrical part, so I'm afraid it's not properly adjusted.
AWG 24 will be to small for this pins (however you might be able when
doubling the wires to get a good grip, just the number of strands are
marginal if no strain relief on a d-sub case housing is done)
br Werner
MauleDriver wrote:
> I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
>
> I'm using a tool that looks like this:
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
> As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
> pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
> would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
> was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig tail.
>
> In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
> clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to
> crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of
> the insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
> attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
> I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
> limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
> (non-high density).
>
> For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going to
> follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
> along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing. It's
> a good solution for this particular connection.
>
> I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if I
> want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>> At 08:04 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub
>>> pins and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after
>>> crimping and I just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see
>>> the difference between that connection and others I recently made.
>>>
>>> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>>> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>>> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>>> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>>>
>>> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the
>>> wire be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or
>>> should it be in the pin)?
>>
>> Insulation can touch the pin but the wires need to be
>> inserted a minimum depth as observed through the inspection
>> hole. My installations have a pretty good gap between
>> end of pin and insulation when the strands are fully
>> inserted on the pin.
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> If your tool looks like this:
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>>
>> There are no adjustments to be made. The tool is set up for
>> D-sub, 20AWG pins like . . .
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg
>>
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg
>>
>>
>> and should produce a finished joint like the first
>> picture above.
>>
>> If your tool looks like this:
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_1.jpg
>>
>>
>> then there are adjustments to be made in addition to selecting
>> the right pin positioner. The tool should have come with instructions.
>>
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_2.JPG
>>
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_3.JPG
>>
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Tool-Locater_Cross_Reference.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Should I solder?
>>
>> No . . .
>>
>>
>>> Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on D-subs?
>>
>> Millions of these pins are installed every day world wide and
>> deliver as advertised. You need to figure out what's going
>> on with your materials, tools, techniques . . .
>>
>>> Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead?
>>
>> No, these are more problematic for the neophyte builder than
>> machined pins. I don't even keep them in the shop. We've
>> been 100% machined pins for 20+ years.
>>
>>> Crimp and solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that
>>> may be an option).
>>
>> No, that's an inspection hole. If the wires are sufficiently
>> inserted you can see the strands through the hole.
>>
>>
>>> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>>
>> What tool do you have? What pins are you trying to install and
>> what connector is the target residence for the pins? Are you
>> trying to install 22AWG (high density) pins with the 20AWG
>> standard density) tool?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent |
Pin Crimper
Having worked with both solder and crimp for around 30 years, I'd have
to say that the solder comment is...terrorism?? ;-)
I've seen solder joints fail when they weren't done properly, and I've
seen crimps fail when they weren't done properly.
I've seen wires break where the 'wicked' (one syllable) solder stopped
in the wire, and I've seen wires break at the end of a crimped
connector. Either will break if not properly supported outside the joint.
Until the recent availability of inexpensive d-sub crimpers, you had to
just be a tool collector to buy a crimper for the few hundred
connections in one airplane when solder works just as well and the
amortized cost of the crimper alone was roughly $1 per crimp. The solder
cup type connectors are still a lot cheaper than the machined removable
pins; they are just less convenient to wire for a novice.
I actually have more faith in solder, but admit that it's largely
personal preference.
Charlie
rv(at)thelefflers.com wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Marc has posted a good document on his website concerning connectors. http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html
>
> I've picked up the Daniels crimper of Ebay, so I can't offer any advice on the
4way ident crimper.
>
> I would recommend not using solder. I think that is just putting a ticking time
bomb into your panel.
>
> bob
>
>
>> From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
>> Date: 2008/12/10 Wed AM 09:04:18 EST
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent
Pin Crimper
>>
>>
>> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub pins
>> and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after crimping and I
>> just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see the difference
>> between that connection and others I recently made.
>>
>> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>>
>> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the wire
>> be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or should it be
>> in the pin)?
>>
>> Should I solder? Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on
>> D-subs? Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead? Crimp and
>> solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that may be an option).
>>
>> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>>
>> Bill "building an RV10 panel" Watson
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Bob,
I'm getting the impression you are fighting a Up Hill battle.
However, the new plane I'm building will not have an Avionics Master Switch.
An Old Dog has learned a new trick!
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
>
> At 10:28 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >Your automobile doesn't require some "special" technique to get
> >everything going. This is the classic "accident waiting to happen".
> >
> >The Air Force did a study of airmen where they turned on a
> >red/green indicator light and the airman had to push a button in
> >response to the green light. In about three cases per-thousand, the
> >very best airmen either didn't push the button when the green light
> >turned on, or pushed the button when the red light turned on. This
> >seems to be the performance limit of for the best human brains.
> >
> >So if you have to turn off the avionics before starting. You'll
> >screw it up 0.3 percent of the time. This can be expensive, and
unnecessary.
>
> Which presupposes that the reason for turning the avionics
> OFF in the first place is the magic wand that prevents
> expensive damage. In support of the study cited above, I
> can't tell you how many times I got into an airplane where
> the avionics master switch was already ON. Since the pre-flight
> check list doesn't say "Avionics Master Switch - Check OFF"
> then the electro-whizzies would already be ON when I started
> the engine. I'll suggest it's even more common than the
> 3 per thousand events cited.
>
> Bottom line is that it doesn't matter.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Your automobile doesn't require some "special" technique to get everything going.
This is the classic "accident waiting to happen".
> ...
> So if you have to turn off the avionics before starting. You'll screw it up 0.3
percent of the time. This can be expensive, and unnecessary.
>
Umm, Eric,
So - like - your proposed solution is ...?
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
I think you are right about it being too far to the end. I spoke to a
'pro' who uses the same tool and he suggested inserting a small
cellulose plug (i.e. stuff a wad of paper) in the hole of the tool. At
least, that's what he does.
Now I believe there are 2 ways of looking at it - 1) insert the pin and
manually insure that the pin is more or less flush with the face of the
tool or 2) stuff something in the hole so that the pin, when fully
inserted, will remain flush with the tool face. I'm doing both - I
stuffed a 1/16" piece of toothpick in the hole and I'm visually checking
the how far the pin is inserted. Stripping enough insulation so that
some conductor is exposed seems like a good practice too.
None of that is acceptable in a production environment. But this
homebuilder thinks he can handle it since a better tool costs $400.
Thanks.
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> That crimp seems to be to far to the end for me, mine are in the
> centre of the rear cylindrical part, so I'm afraid it's not properly
> adjusted.
>
> AWG 24 will be to small for this pins (however you might be able when
> doubling the wires to get a good grip, just the number of strands are
> marginal if no strain relief on a d-sub case housing is done)
>
> br Werner
>
> MauleDriver wrote:
>> I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> I'm using a tool that looks like this:
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>> As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
>> pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
>> would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
>> was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig
>> tail.
>>
>> In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
>> clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to
>> crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of
>> the insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
>> attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
>> I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
>> limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
>> (non-high density).
>>
>> For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going
>> to follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
>> along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing.
>> It's a good solution for this particular connection.
>>
>> I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if
>> I want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> At 08:04 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub
>>>> pins and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after
>>>> crimping and I just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't
>>>> see the difference between that connection and others I recently made.
>>>>
>>>> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>>>> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>>>> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>>>> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the
>>>> wire be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or
>>>> should it be in the pin)?
>>>
>>> Insulation can touch the pin but the wires need to be
>>> inserted a minimum depth as observed through the inspection
>>> hole. My installations have a pretty good gap between
>>> end of pin and insulation when the strands are fully
>>> inserted on the pin.
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If your tool looks like this:
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>>>
>>> There are no adjustments to be made. The tool is set up for
>>> D-sub, 20AWG pins like . . .
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> and should produce a finished joint like the first
>>> picture above.
>>>
>>> If your tool looks like this:
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_1.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> then there are adjustments to be made in addition to selecting
>>> the right pin positioner. The tool should have come with
>>> instructions.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_2.JPG
>>>
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Quad_3.JPG
>>>
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Tool-Locater_Cross_Reference.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Should I solder?
>>>
>>> No . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>> Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on D-subs?
>>>
>>> Millions of these pins are installed every day world wide and
>>> deliver as advertised. You need to figure out what's going
>>> on with your materials, tools, techniques . . .
>>>
>>>> Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead?
>>>
>>> No, these are more problematic for the neophyte builder than
>>> machined pins. I don't even keep them in the shop. We've
>>> been 100% machined pins for 20+ years.
>>>
>>>> Crimp and solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that
>>>> may be an option).
>>>
>>> No, that's an inspection hole. If the wires are sufficiently
>>> inserted you can see the strands through the hole.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>>>
>>> What tool do you have? What pins are you trying to install and
>>> what connector is the target residence for the pins? Are you
>>> trying to install 22AWG (high density) pins with the 20AWG
>>> standard density) tool?
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
For those who are interested in having your EFIS , GPS, or Engine monitor up
an running before engine starting and having them continue to run through
engine start (without rebooting) we sell a series of products that allow
these products to be supplied with continuous and regulated power even when
the battery voltage drops to 5 volts or less during engine starting. The
product line is called Intelligent Power Stabilizer and we demonstrated it
at our booth at Oshkosh. All the details of what it does and how it works
are available on our web site.
www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
rnewman(at)tcwtech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 09:33 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
Having been to this training required for my employment, I find the
gold standard to be NASA 8739.4
CRIMPING, INTERCONNECTING CABLES, HARNESSES, AND WIRING
http://workmanship.nasa.gov/ws_8739_4.jsp
There is a radio button on page "Click Here to view NASA-STD-8739.4"
that downloads a 2.1MB pdf.
This document is worth a read by anyone wiring flight hardware. It
deals with not only crimp connections, but also stripping, soldered
splices, harnessing, lacing and most anything else you could want to
know about making and inspecting reliable connections, both shielded
and unshielded.
Regarding crimpers, frequently on eBay you can find AFM-8 adjustable
(for differing gage wire) crimpers, Daniels or other, with
positioners to get the pin where it belongs for under $100.
Bob has some great stuff published to make our lives easier and I'm
not quibbling with it, but this really is worth the read. Appendix A
beginning on page 103 details what is and is not acceptable in pictures.
Ron Q.
Ronald Quillin
Principal Electronic Technician
Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA 92093-0424
+1.858.534.4489 V
+1.858.534.2294 F
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 09:33 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
Having been to this training required for my employment, I find the
gold standard to be NASA 8739.4
CRIMPING, INTERCONNECTING CABLES, HARNESSES, AND WIRING
http://workmanship.nasa.gov/ws_8739_4.jsp
There is a radio button on page "Click Here to view NASA-STD-8739.4"
that downloads a 2.1MB pdf.
I also intended to include the link to this visual guide
http://workmanship.nasa.gov/insp.jsp
Excellent color pics and drawings.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Break a P+B toggle circuit breaker |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
"Please post the pics in an album on your build website."
Bob Borger
Hi Bob
Here is a link to album on my build website:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album258&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Click on Break a breaker.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
At 02:55 PM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>I'm getting the impression you are fighting a Up Hill battle.
>However, the new plane I'm building will not have an Avionics Master Switch.
>
>An Old Dog has learned a new trick!
I don't fight battles. Gave that exercise up about 20
years ago when I went to work for OEM air-framers. One
can only be true to one's craft. Study the simple ideas
and how they assemble into useful inventions (good
engineering). Be willing to share that knowledge and
understanding (good teaching). But don't be discouraged
because managers with power over project will have
reasons for embracing alternatives (self preservation).
It's interesting that I'm presently working on a project
that I proposed to my management about 5 years ago to
replace a piece of 1970 technology (4 x 4 x 6" box
full of discrete components for $20K) with a new
design (2 x 2 x 1" box, thimbleful of discretes
and a microprocessor for $1K). We had the people,
the facilities and the excitement to make it happen
in-house. I had concurrence all the way up to the
chief scientist.
I'm brass-boarding the replacement product now as
a consultant to a supplier. My milestone presentation
on the project will be attended by many of those who
opposed doing it in the first place. I'm betting that
even if they remember my earlier proposal, they'll not
be the least bit embarrassed. It's their position that
we should stick to our "core competency" . . . assembling
purchased tinker-toys into airplanes. There's no need
to understand how the tinker-toys work!
I'm finding that this attitude prevails throughout the
general aviation industry. When I began working with
GA about 1975, folks in those facilities knew more
about my craft than I did. Many were my teachers.
Now it's rare to find even the most rudimentary
understanding of electronics at the OEM's.
The point of this long story is to re-enforce the
notion that there are folks with control of
a project that don't cherish confidence that
comes from understanding. The only path open
is to cling to tradition and cover their #$$@#
with lots of specs and requirements. If and when
the project flops, they are guiltless as long as
they produced the "golden requirements". It's
up to somebody else to deliver to those requirements.
It matters not that what they've asked for can not
. . . or should not be done. Our brothers building
airplanes are faced with many of the same
decisions placed before the managers at BeePipCesMo.
We can only be willing to share understanding. The ability/
willingness of individuals to exploit that understanding
is out of our hands. It benefits nobody for you or I
to bring clubs and shields to the conversation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
At 11:33 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
>
>I'm using a tool that looks like this:
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
>pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
>would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
>was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig tail.
>
>In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to
>barely clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper
>seems to crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin,
>allowing any of the insulation into the pin could further compromise
>the crimp. (I'm attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
>I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for
>and limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right
>pins (non-high density).
>
>For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going
>to follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
>along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink
>tubing. It's a good solution for this particular connection.
>
>I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if
>I want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>
>What do you think?
Thanks for the great pictures. I've added those to my
reference library. It seems that Eclipse is back to their
old habits.
When I started stocking that tool many moons ago, I
discovered that the pin-positioner was cut wrong
allowing the pin to set too deep in the tool. This
causes the crimp to happen too far back on the wire
grip as shown here . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_0.jpg
I used to check every tool and modify as shown
here . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_1.jpg
I put every positioner in the lathe and cut it back
on the pin-entry end to achieve the dimension shown.
This moved the pin up in the too such that the
wire-grip was just flush to slightly under-flush
with the face of the tool.
B&C checked the tools too after I turned that
activity over to them. Tim reported to me some
months later that the pin-positioners were coming
in okay. I figured that it was the result of a
letter I wrote to Eclipse citing the problem.
The other part of your problem is putting 24AWG wires
into a 20/22 AWG pin. The tool is designed to have a slightly
over-crimp on 20AWG and slightly under-crimp on 22AWG.
This means it's way under-crimped for 24AWG. You fix this
by striping 24AWG wire 2X length for exposed strands and
fold the strands back to double the amount of copper
in the finished joint.
Alternatively, your idea of a fixed "plug" in the
bottom of the pin-positioner works too but you
have to be VERY careful about too much plug . . .
it can be hard to get out. You can use a small
twist drill to clear the hole.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Some folks have asked about a clearer version of the Power
Point slides I published. Here it is:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Motors/DC_Motor_Performance_in_Small_Actuators.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
If you are interested in a modern power management system for your aircraft that also includes variable-speed trim (runaway trim protection and backup trim controls too) take a look at Vertical Power www.verticalpower.com
In the case of the trim, we have chosen to use PWM to slow down the Ray Allen servos.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218941#218941
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
This is an interesting discussion, and reflects on some of the main design decisions
on our flagship product, the VP-200. Flying is a lot about repetition and
process. We are taught to do the same things and follow the same process on
each flight. Essentially, you divide a flight into "sub-segments" like taxi,
takeoff, cruise, landing and then execute a series of checks and procedures for
each of those modes of flight.
And that's how the VP-200 works - you configure it to turn things on and off, confirm
configuration, and bring up checklist automatically for each mode of flight,
for example.
In the case of turning things on, you can configure it to turn on the avionics
automatically after the engine starts. The process is repeated with precision
on each flight. No 3% chance of error. Of course, this is a separate discussion
from whether the avionics can handle whatever the starting process throws at
them. The point is, much of the process involved in flying is repeatable by the
system so you can focus on actually flying the plane and critical tasks.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218943#218943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
You may consider checking out the Safety Trim system. I bought one, but
have not installed it yet so I can't tell you how well it works.
<http://www.tcwtech.com/Safety-Trim Page.htm>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Dj Merrill wrote:
> <http://www.tcwtech.com/Safety-Trim Page.htm>
>
>
*sigh* I really hate it when people put spaces in web URLs. It
makes direct linking difficult.
Try going to <http://www.tcwtech.com/> and then click on the
"Safety-Trim" link if you want to see it.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
Thanks Bob! That is exactly the problem I have and the solution I'll apply.
It is an Eclipse (should have said that before). The barrel dimension
is .302" rather than .260".
This is has been a valuable exercise for this builder because I come
away with a better understanding of the process and the tools. And a
better understanding of how, as a homebuilder, I can learn and adapt
processes and tools to the building and maintaining of my custom craft.
I guess I'm just saying I grew a bit here.
Thanks to all of you that helped on and off the list. Good stuff.
Bill Watson
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:33 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>> I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> I'm using a tool that looks like this:
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>> As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
>> pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
>> would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
>> was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig
>> tail.
>>
>> In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
>> clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to
>> crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of
>> the insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
>> attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
>> I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
>> limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
>> (non-high density).
>>
>> For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going
>> to follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
>> along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing.
>> It's a good solution for this particular connection.
>>
>> I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if
>> I want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Thanks for the great pictures. I've added those to my
> reference library. It seems that Eclipse is back to their
> old habits.
>
> When I started stocking that tool many moons ago, I
> discovered that the pin-positioner was cut wrong
> allowing the pin to set too deep in the tool. This
> causes the crimp to happen too far back on the wire
> grip as shown here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_0.jpg
>
>
> I used to check every tool and modify as shown
> here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_1.jpg
>
>
> I put every positioner in the lathe and cut it back
> on the pin-entry end to achieve the dimension shown.
> This moved the pin up in the too such that the
> wire-grip was just flush to slightly under-flush
> with the face of the tool.
>
> B&C checked the tools too after I turned that
> activity over to them. Tim reported to me some
> months later that the pin-positioners were coming
> in okay. I figured that it was the result of a
> letter I wrote to Eclipse citing the problem.
>
> The other part of your problem is putting 24AWG wires
> into a 20/22 AWG pin. The tool is designed to have a slightly
> over-crimp on 20AWG and slightly under-crimp on 22AWG.
> This means it's way under-crimped for 24AWG. You fix this
> by striping 24AWG wire 2X length for exposed strands and
> fold the strands back to double the amount of copper
> in the finished joint.
>
> Alternatively, your idea of a fixed "plug" in the
> bottom of the pin-positioner works too but you
> have to be VERY careful about too much plug . . .
> it can be hard to get out. You can use a small
> twist drill to clear the hole.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
I agree, I believe this attitude prevails throughout industry, not limited
to the general aviation industry.
Another interesting ramification is the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. My
father was a Roto Gravure specialist and Inventor, as manager of Formica
Corp. he was unable to get many of his inventions out of their R&D Dept.
without the dept. heads name being included on the application. As you
suggested, many are more interested in their personal status than doing what
is best for the company.
I'm learning allot following the AeroElectric-List, thanks to your,and
others, participation...
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
>
> At 02:55 PM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >I'm getting the impression you are fighting a Up Hill battle.
> >However, the new plane I'm building will not have an Avionics Master
Switch.
> >
> >An Old Dog has learned a new trick!
>
> I don't fight battles. Gave that exercise up about 20
> years ago when I went to work for OEM air-framers. One
> can only be true to one's craft. Study the simple ideas
> and how they assemble into useful inventions (good
> engineering). Be willing to share that knowledge and
> understanding (good teaching). But don't be discouraged
> because managers with power over project will have
> reasons for embracing alternatives (self preservation).
>
> It's interesting that I'm presently working on a project
> that I proposed to my management about 5 years ago to
> replace a piece of 1970 technology (4 x 4 x 6" box
> full of discrete components for $20K) with a new
> design (2 x 2 x 1" box, thimbleful of discretes
> and a microprocessor for $1K). We had the people,
> the facilities and the excitement to make it happen
> in-house. I had concurrence all the way up to the
> chief scientist.
>
> I'm brass-boarding the replacement product now as
> a consultant to a supplier. My milestone presentation
> on the project will be attended by many of those who
> opposed doing it in the first place. I'm betting that
> even if they remember my earlier proposal, they'll not
> be the least bit embarrassed. It's their position that
> we should stick to our "core competency" . . . assembling
> purchased tinker-toys into airplanes. There's no need
> to understand how the tinker-toys work!
>
> I'm finding that this attitude prevails throughout the
> general aviation industry. When I began working with
> GA about 1975, folks in those facilities knew more
> about my craft than I did. Many were my teachers.
> Now it's rare to find even the most rudimentary
> understanding of electronics at the OEM's.
>
> The point of this long story is to re-enforce the
> notion that there are folks with control of
> a project that don't cherish confidence that
> comes from understanding. The only path open
> is to cling to tradition and cover their #$$@#
> with lots of specs and requirements. If and when
> the project flops, they are guiltless as long as
> they produced the "golden requirements". It's
> up to somebody else to deliver to those requirements.
>
> It matters not that what they've asked for can not
> . . . or should not be done. Our brothers building
> airplanes are faced with many of the same
> decisions placed before the managers at BeePipCesMo.
> We can only be willing to share understanding. The ability/
> willingness of individuals to exploit that understanding
> is out of our hands. It benefits nobody for you or I
> to bring clubs and shields to the conversation.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way Indent |
Pin Crimper
I used this crimper and D-Subs on my full panel with no problems but it is
not made to do 24 gauge wire. For that you need to double up the wire and
it will work fine. Assuming you are using 20-22g wire and pins this tool
works nicely.
One other caution is that with this tool you NEVER double crimp a fitting.
If you partially crimp one and then crimp again, you run the risk of taking
the normal 4 point crimp and making it into an 8 point buzz saw for the
wire. While you can carefully position a partially crimped terminal in the
jaws and crimp again, it is very likely to cut some or all of the stains in
the wire if not perfectly repositioned. If you want to try it just crimp a
wire, then rotate it 45 degrees and crimp again. Most likely, the wire will
easily break right at the terminal.
The trick with this tool is to strip the wire correctly and then hold the
pin in the tool with the wire inserted. Pressure on the wire keeps the pin
in the right place in the tool. Then make one smooth firm crimp and leave it
alone.
Hope this helps.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MauleDriver
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way
Indent Pin Crimper
I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be addressed.
I'm using a tool that looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I was
using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig tail.
In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely clear
or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to crimp
concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of the
insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm attaching
2 pics of the pin that failed).
I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and limit
its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins (non-high
density).
For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going to
follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals along with
shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing. It's a good solution
for this particular connection.
I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if I want
to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
What do you think?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:04 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've become a bit concerned about the integrity of my crimped D-sub
>> pins and socket. I've been giving each connection a tug after
>> crimping and I just had one come off. Upon examination, I can't see
>> the difference between that connection and others I recently made.
>>
>> So the question is, what is the proper technique for crimping on
>> Machined D-sub pins with a 4-way indent pin crimper? I've searched
>> Bob's site and the Web in general and can't find any how-to
>> information. None came with the tool I obtained from Stein.
>>
>> In particular, how should the tool be adjusted? How far should the
>> wire be stripped (should the insulation be clear of the pin or should
>> it be in the pin)?
>
> Insulation can touch the pin but the wires need to be
> inserted a minimum depth as observed through the inspection
> hole. My installations have a pretty good gap between
> end of pin and insulation when the strands are fully
> inserted on the pin.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-
> quad-crimp.jpg
>
>
> If your tool looks like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>
> There are no adjustments to be made. The tool is set up for
> D-sub, 20AWG pins like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20
> AWG_Pin.jpg
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20
> AWG_Socket.jpg
>
>
> and should produce a finished joint like the first
> picture above.
>
> If your tool looks like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Qu
> ad_1.jpg
>
>
> then there are adjustments to be made in addition to selecting
> the right pin positioner. The tool should have come with instructions.
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Qu
> ad_2.JPG
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Daniels_4-Qu
> ad_3.JPG
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Tool-Locater
> _Cross_Reference.jpg
>
>
>> Should I solder?
>
> No . . .
>
>
>> Avoid the crimp pins altogether and use solder-on D-subs?
>
> Millions of these pins are installed every day world wide and
> deliver as advertised. You need to figure out what's going on with
> your materials, tools, techniques . . .
>
>> Use the 'regular' crimp on, stamped pins instead?
>
> No, these are more problematic for the neophyte builder than
> machined pins. I don't even keep them in the shop. We've been 100%
> machined pins for 20+ years.
>
>> Crimp and solder (the hole in the barrel of the pin suggests that may
>> be an option).
>
> No, that's an inspection hole. If the wires are sufficiently
> inserted you can see the strands through the hole.
>
>
>> Advice or links are welcome. Thanks
>
> What tool do you have? What pins are you trying to install and
> what connector is the target residence for the pins? Are you
> trying to install 22AWG (high density) pins with the 20AWG
> standard density) tool?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
hi all,
this is to anyone that has recently wired or looked at the installation
manual for this radio.
i wired this radio over a year ago and everything tested out fine.
today i was reinstalling all of my wiring for the last time and i
noticed a wire was broken at the molex connector. actually it looks more
like i cut it. i cant remember if i did cut it or why. the connector is
pin R. pin R and pin 14 connect to the power feed from the bus. the
schematic calls for the power to go to these 2 pins. anyone know of a
reason to feed pin14 and not pinR ?
any input appreciated.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: icom ic-a200 |
Bob,
I just finished my IC-A210 installation and I do have pins R&14 connected.
Except for getting my old GPSMap196 to talk to the A21, everything seems to
be working. I have been corresponding with ICOM Tech
Support<http://www.icomamerica.com/en/contactus.aspx>and there is has
been no mention of removing the wire at R.
Sam
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> this is to anyone that has recently wired or looked at the installation
> manual for this radio.
> i wired this radio over a year ago and everything tested out fine. today i
> was reinstalling all of my wiring for the last time and i noticed a wire was
> broken at the molex connector. actually it looks more like i cut it. i cant
> remember if i did cut it or why. the connector is pin R. pin R and pin 14
> connect to the power feed from the bus. the schematic calls for the power to
> go to these 2 pins. anyone know of a reason to feed pin14 and not pinR ?
> any input appreciated.
> bob noffs
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: icom ic-a200 |
Bob,
I just finished my IC-A210 installation and I do have pins R&14 connected.
Except for getting my old GPSMap196 to talk to the A21, everything seems to
be working. I have been corresponding with ICOM Tech
Support<http://www.icomamerica.com/en/contactus.aspx>and there is has
been no mention of removing the wire at R.
Sam
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> this is to anyone that has recently wired or looked at the installation
> manual for this radio.
> i wired this radio over a year ago and everything tested out fine. today i
> was reinstalling all of my wiring for the last time and i noticed a wire was
> broken at the molex connector. actually it looks more like i cut it. i cant
> remember if i did cut it or why. the connector is pin R. pin R and pin 14
> connect to the power feed from the bus. the schematic calls for the power to
> go to these 2 pins. anyone know of a reason to feed pin14 and not pinR ?
> any input appreciated.
> bob noffs
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: icom ic-a200 |
Bob
A few years ago I traced all those multiple power and also the ground,
and signal ground connections on my A200 and found that they were all
connected together inside the radio. Suspect they were encouraging
redundant connections but there is no actual need for them.
On another thread, I almost always start and shut down with power on
this radio and no problems so far after a couple of hundred hours. No
radio master switch but OTOH one real overvoltage event was trapped by
my overvoltage protection.
Ken
bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> this is to anyone that has recently wired or looked at the installation
> manual for this radio.
> i wired this radio over a year ago and everything tested out fine.
> today i was reinstalling all of my wiring for the last time and i
> noticed a wire was broken at the molex connector. actually it looks more
> like i cut it. i cant remember if i did cut it or why. the connector is
> pin R. pin R and pin 14 connect to the power feed from the bus. the
> schematic calls for the power to go to these 2 pins. anyone know of a
> reason to feed pin14 and not pinR ?
> any input appreciated.
> bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
Good stuff indeed.
Now only last week I installed my Ray Allen elevator trim and attached the AWG24
to AWG22 using D-SUB PINS. One of the AWG 24 wires did indeed disconnect, and
I incorrectly (thanks guys) assumed that I hadn't crimped it right. I redid
it and gave all the pins tug. They stuck fast. Now I know I was lucky.
Next I joined up the MALE FEMALE D-SUB pins and covered each connection in heatshrink.
Then I bundled the lot together and covered with a single larger piece
of heat shrink.
I installed the trim assembly with the heatshrinked bundle poking through the bushing
in the elevator spar. Nice job done (I thought).
Do I need to redo it?
If so, why? i.e. what are the realistic failure modes that the AWG24 side of the
connections might contibute to, in this case, given that I tested each crimp
and each one has two layers of heat shrink holding them together?
Andrew Butler
RV71700
Galway, Ireland.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:09:54 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way
Indent Pin Crimper
Thanks Bob! That is exactly the problem I have and the solution I'll apply.
It is an Eclipse (should have said that before). The barrel dimension
is .302" rather than .260".
This is has been a valuable exercise for this builder because I come
away with a better understanding of the process and the tools. And a
better understanding of how, as a homebuilder, I can learn and adapt
processes and tools to the building and maintaining of my custom craft.
I guess I'm just saying I grew a bit here.
Thanks to all of you that helped on and off the list. Good stuff.
Bill Watson
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:33 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>> I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> I'm using a tool that looks like this:
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>> As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
>> pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
>> would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
>> was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig
>> tail.
>>
>> In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
>> clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to
>> crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of
>> the insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
>> attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
>> I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
>> limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
>> (non-high density).
>>
>> For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going
>> to follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
>> along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing.
>> It's a good solution for this particular connection.
>>
>> I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if
>> I want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Thanks for the great pictures. I've added those to my
> reference library. It seems that Eclipse is back to their
> old habits.
>
> When I started stocking that tool many moons ago, I
> discovered that the pin-positioner was cut wrong
> allowing the pin to set too deep in the tool. This
> causes the crimp to happen too far back on the wire
> grip as shown here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_0.jpg
>
>
> I used to check every tool and modify as shown
> here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_1.jpg
>
>
> I put every positioner in the lathe and cut it back
> on the pin-entry end to achieve the dimension shown.
> This moved the pin up in the too such that the
> wire-grip was just flush to slightly under-flush
> with the face of the tool.
>
> B&C checked the tools too after I turned that
> activity over to them. Tim reported to me some
> months later that the pin-positioners were coming
> in okay. I figured that it was the result of a
> letter I wrote to Eclipse citing the problem.
>
> The other part of your problem is putting 24AWG wires
> into a 20/22 AWG pin. The tool is designed to have a slightly
> over-crimp on 20AWG and slightly under-crimp on 22AWG.
> This means it's way under-crimped for 24AWG. You fix this
> by striping 24AWG wire 2X length for exposed strands and
> fold the strands back to double the amount of copper
> in the finished joint.
>
> Alternatively, your idea of a fixed "plug" in the
> bottom of the pin-positioner works too but you
> have to be VERY careful about too much plug . . .
> it can be hard to get out. You can use a small
> twist drill to clear the hole.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
sam and ken,
you guys answered my questions 100%.
thanks , bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for start up protection |
At 11:05 PM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
>
>OK, I've read the debate on the need for start-up protection and I
>can no longer resist the temptation to weigh in with my 2 cents' worth:
Mike, when you reply to a digest message, it's really
important that you trim off the non-relevant body of
text that you're speaking to. All of our responses are
archived and poorly or un-trimmed responses can really
load the system with "stuff" that makes it difficult
for historians to retrieve value from the archives
later.
>1) With all due respect to my learned colleagues, I worked in the
>aerospace industry for many years and have seen more than one
>product pass DO-160 testing and subsequently fail in-service due to
>aircraft electrical system issues. There are lots of reasons why
>this should not happen, but there are also lots of reasons why it does happen.
>
>2) Many of the tests in DO-160 have a number of test categories with
>differing severity based on the anticipated electrical system
>characteristics to which the product will be exposed. However, the
>"anticipated" characteristics may or may not reflect the actual
>characteristics of any given OBAM aircraft. Further, not all
>equipment is necessarily tested to the most severe category of DO-160.
Your first-hand experiences cannot be argued with.
But we do know that there are reasons for everything.
The simple-ideas in physics and practice (repeatable
experiments) are irrefutable.
If you have observed failures attributed to incompatibility
between accessory and power source, what was the feature
that failed to meet design goals and what was done to
correct it?
Part of my livelihood involves investigation into
"unanticipated" characteristics . . . because
such behaviors are considered failure to meet
design goals.
You have alluded to "actual characteristics
of any given OBAM aircraft". Let us hypothesize
what it would take to cause any aircraft to present
stresses that lie outside the test parameters of
the most relaxed DO-160 recommendation for
robustness.
What piece of hardware would you modify to produce
the sought after event? What would be the nature
of the resultant stress? Amplitude? Duration? Total
energy? How would that modification be expected to
occur in practice as one of our brothers puts his
airplane together?
If you're operating under the premise that DO-160/Mil-Std-704
compliance is fraught with risk, then from what deficiency
of specification, design or craftsmanship does the risk
arise?
When I am chartered to deduce root cause of anomalous
behavior, my customers would probably not pay my bill
if my proffered solution was, "turn the thing off
while you crank the engine." My charter is to identify
the deficiency and correct it . . . not craft out
a work-around to live with it. "Living with it" is
a tacit admission that we're probably not qualified
for the job!
>3) My aircraft is day/VFR, so a total electrical failure is a
>nuisance, not a crisis. Balancing the mission profile of MY
>aircraft and based upon my points above, I would rather deal with
>the risk of a single-point failure of the avionics master switch as
>opposed to the risk of damage to my avionics.
>The foregoing is, admittedly, a personal choice that may not reflect
>others' situations or opinions. I think it best that we concede
>that, like politics and religion, reasonable minds may differ on the
>need for start-up protection. As Bob has said many times, as
>aircraft builders we must each make the choices that we deem
>appropriate for our aircraft.
That's a really broad brush. Most of what passes for
politics and religion requires individuals be persuaded
to adopt a behavior based on goals of others . . .
when both should be matters of precise PERSONAL choice
borne of honorable behavior and understanding.
Let us not drive the art of aircraft fabrication based
on fear of what we do not know (perceived risk) when
conditions driving that fear are not qualified,
quantified, nor accompanied by deduction of root
cause and successful remedy (repeatable experiment).
If you're citing experiences with a notion of enhancing
our knowledge and confidence, then they must be supported
by quality, quantity and remedy. Otherwise, it can
serve only to persuade based on fear of that which is
imagined.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
We are all enlightened by the process. It is however unavoidable that we
are using more $$$ avionics today on top of a system that was designed
too many years ago and has not kept step with other industries. It's
sort of like buying a 32" monitor for a 286 PC (remember those?). I've
got 30k + on the face of my panel and I should probably be concerned
about a motherboard designed back in the 30's. This is where we industry
has left us. We've got marketers and we've got engineers. The marketers
are freelancers and the engineers have their hands tied.
It's time to get some of this cooped up engineering into the fundamental
systems of GA aircraft. You know the big guys have it. I look at the
electrical system in my Porsche and the one in my Lancair and that makes
my head itch. By today's standard the one in my Lancair could have been
designed by an EE freshman which got a "C" in class. Sure it works, but
it doesn't pass muster with what is available to industry.
So here we are, Garmin selling us $100k panels to lay on top of our $20
solenoids. Let's hope the wires don't touch. Oh yes, don't forget to
shut off those fancy gadgets before turning the key.
gl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of F.
Tim Yoder
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
I agree, I believe this attitude prevails throughout industry, not
limited
to the general aviation industry.
Another interesting ramification is the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. My
father was a Roto Gravure specialist and Inventor, as manager of Formica
Corp. he was unable to get many of his inventions out of their R&D Dept.
without the dept. heads name being included on the application. As you
suggested, many are more interested in their personal status than doing
what
is best for the company.
I'm learning allot following the AeroElectric-List, thanks to your,and
others, participation...
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need for start-up protection?
>
> At 02:55 PM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >I'm getting the impression you are fighting a Up Hill battle.
> >However, the new plane I'm building will not have an Avionics Master
Switch.
> >
> >An Old Dog has learned a new trick!
>
> I don't fight battles. Gave that exercise up about 20
> years ago when I went to work for OEM air-framers. One
> can only be true to one's craft. Study the simple ideas
> and how they assemble into useful inventions (good
> engineering). Be willing to share that knowledge and
> understanding (good teaching). But don't be discouraged
> because managers with power over project will have
> reasons for embracing alternatives (self preservation).
>
> It's interesting that I'm presently working on a project
> that I proposed to my management about 5 years ago to
> replace a piece of 1970 technology (4 x 4 x 6" box
> full of discrete components for $20K) with a new
> design (2 x 2 x 1" box, thimbleful of discretes
> and a microprocessor for $1K). We had the people,
> the facilities and the excitement to make it happen
> in-house. I had concurrence all the way up to the
> chief scientist.
>
> I'm brass-boarding the replacement product now as
> a consultant to a supplier. My milestone presentation
> on the project will be attended by many of those who
> opposed doing it in the first place. I'm betting that
> even if they remember my earlier proposal, they'll not
> be the least bit embarrassed. It's their position that
> we should stick to our "core competency" . . . assembling
> purchased tinker-toys into airplanes. There's no need
> to understand how the tinker-toys work!
>
> I'm finding that this attitude prevails throughout the
> general aviation industry. When I began working with
> GA about 1975, folks in those facilities knew more
> about my craft than I did. Many were my teachers.
> Now it's rare to find even the most rudimentary
> understanding of electronics at the OEM's.
>
> The point of this long story is to re-enforce the
> notion that there are folks with control of
> a project that don't cherish confidence that
> comes from understanding. The only path open
> is to cling to tradition and cover their #$$@#
> with lots of specs and requirements. If and when
> the project flops, they are guiltless as long as
> they produced the "golden requirements". It's
> up to somebody else to deliver to those requirements.
>
> It matters not that what they've asked for can not
> . . . or should not be done. Our brothers building
> airplanes are faced with many of the same
> decisions placed before the managers at BeePipCesMo.
> We can only be willing to share understanding. The ability/
> willingness of individuals to exploit that understanding
> is out of our hands. It benefits nobody for you or I
> to bring clubs and shields to the conversation.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins |
At 07:05 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Good stuff indeed.
>
>Now only last week I installed my Ray Allen elevator trim and
>attached the AWG24 to AWG22 using D-SUB PINS. One of the AWG 24
>wires did indeed disconnect, and I incorrectly (thanks guys) assumed
>that I hadn't crimped it right. I redid it and gave all the pins
>tug. They stuck fast. Now I know I was lucky.
>
>Next I joined up the MALE FEMALE D-SUB pins and covered each
>connection in heatshrink. Then I bundled the lot together and
>covered with a single larger piece of heat shrink.
>
>I installed the trim assembly with the heatshrinked bundle poking
>through the bushing in the elevator spar. Nice job done (I thought).
>
>Do I need to redo it?
What is the risk of having the trim actuator fail
to function? It's probably not a big deal in terms of
getting the airplane back on the ground without
breaking a sweat.
What's the cost of ownership issue for having to
fix it at a later date versus doing something about
it now?
Any offer by me or anyone else to assess risk will
be based on magnitudes pulled from where the sun
don't shine. I'll suggest it's a matter of personal
choice taking into consideration that the technology
used was misapplied to the task (too small wire for
a 22/20AWG pin).
>If so, why? i.e. what are the realistic failure modes that the AWG24
>side of the connections might contibute to, in this case, given that
>I tested each crimp and each one has two layers of heat shrink
>holding them together?
Here's an alternative for joining those @$@#$@# 24AWG
conductors to ship's wiring.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
There are other connector technologies that would work
just as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
I am installing VDO fuel senders in the metal fuel tanks of my all-metal kit
aircraft. These senders do not have a ground lug, and the sender, by
design, is not isolated from the fuel tank because the mounting screws are
inserted into a metal mounting ring which is in metal-to-metal contact with
the inside of the fuel tank. The construction manual calls for grounding
the sender to the airframe using a wire from the airframe to a ring terminal
under one of the mounting screws. My concern with this approach is that I
might inadvertently introduce a "ground loop" into the system by grounding
in this fashion. I would prefer to isolate the sender from the airframe and
run a return wire to the universal ground buss on the firewall, but because
of the design of the sender this would be difficult to do. Has anyone else
dealt with installation of these senders, and if so, can you offer me any
advice?
Thanks,
Dave Van Lanen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Need for start-up protection? |
>It's time to get some of this cooped up engineering into the fundamental
>systems of GA aircraft. You know the big guys have it. I look at the
>electrical system in my Porsche and the one in my Lancair and that makes
>my head itch. By today's standard the one in my Lancair could have been
>designed by an EE freshman which got a "C" in class. Sure it works, but
>it doesn't pass muster with what is available to industry.
In what way? Can you help us understand how that box of
plastic under the hood filled with microprocessors, relays,
fuse blocks and sundry sensors reduces "hazard" to accessories
that are powered from the system?
Admittedly, the systems in many vehicles including
aircraft have a lot of bells and whistles that go to
convenience and gee-whiz features at the cost of
ownership and increased complexity (read reduced
reliability). How do they influence rudimentary
performance that goes to risk of death by design flaw?
Just because there are more parts that do more things
does not automatically translate into improvements in
critical performance (reliability).
Your nail gun will become useless if there's no power,
shortage of air, no specialized cartridges of nails, or perhaps
a tiny broken part within. I have hammers that were used
by my grandfather 60+ years ago. They still perform as
designed when new. They also have exceedingly low risk
of failure to perform. If the system in your car is
the new gold-standard for power system design, there has
to be a host of simple-ideas that support the notion.
"Passing muster" is non-specific. What design goals were
honored to craft the system in your Porsche as compared
to design goals honored to craft the electrical systems
in your Lancair?
Check out DC power section of Mil-Std-704F at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/Mil-Std-704f.pdf
and tell us how the Porshe system exceeds or expands
on those requirements and what benefit is derived on
behalf of a DO-160 qualified accessory?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
I added these wires to my RV6A (metal tanks) to ground the senders to the main
spar which has a bonding strap to the field of tabs ground bus.
Works fine so far - no adverse effects - will be flying first flight in a couple
of weeks - just got my airworthiness cert.
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR 0 hrs
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave VanLanen <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Dec 12, 2008 11:02 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
>
>I am installing VDO fuel senders in the metal fuel tanks of my all-metal kit
>aircraft. These senders do not have a ground lug, and the sender, by
>design, is not isolated from the fuel tank because the mounting screws are
>inserted into a metal mounting ring which is in metal-to-metal contact with
>the inside of the fuel tank. The construction manual calls for grounding
>the sender to the airframe using a wire from the airframe to a ring terminal
>under one of the mounting screws. My concern with this approach is that I
>might inadvertently introduce a "ground loop" into the system by grounding
>in this fashion. I would prefer to isolate the sender from the airframe and
>run a return wire to the universal ground buss on the firewall, but because
>of the design of the sender this would be difficult to do. Has anyone else
>dealt with installation of these senders, and if so, can you offer me any
>advice?
>
>Thanks,
>Dave Van Lanen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
Congratulations on the FAA Cert....... Enjoy that first flight!!!
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
>
> I added these wires to my RV6A (metal tanks) to ground the senders to the
main spar which has a bonding strap to the field of tabs ground bus.
>
> Works fine so far - no adverse effects - will be flying first flight in a
couple of weeks - just got my airworthiness cert.
>
> Ralph Capen
> RV6A N822AR 0 hrs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Dave VanLanen <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
> >Sent: Dec 12, 2008 11:02 AM
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
> >
> >I am installing VDO fuel senders in the metal fuel tanks of my all-metal
kit
> >aircraft. These senders do not have a ground lug, and the sender, by
> >design, is not isolated from the fuel tank because the mounting screws
are
> >inserted into a metal mounting ring which is in metal-to-metal contact
with
> >the inside of the fuel tank. The construction manual calls for grounding
> >the sender to the airframe using a wire from the airframe to a ring
terminal
> >under one of the mounting screws. My concern with this approach is that
I
> >might inadvertently introduce a "ground loop" into the system by
grounding
> >in this fashion. I would prefer to isolate the sender from the airframe
and
> >run a return wire to the universal ground buss on the firewall, but
because
> >of the design of the sender this would be difficult to do. Has anyone
else
> >dealt with installation of these senders, and if so, can you offer me any
> >advice?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Dave Van Lanen
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping of machined D-sub pins with 4-Way |
Indent Pin Crimper
Just to close this out. I went ahead and modified the positioner as Bob
describes below. Since my machine shop equipped neighbor was AWOL, I
chucked it up in the drill press and worked it over with a file. Works
perfectly now. A few subtleties in the Eclipse crimpers design now be
come evident, i.e. when the pin is pushed all the way in, there's
effectively a detent which you can feel when inserting the male or
female pin, indicating that everything is in it's proper place for a
good crimp.
So, to repeat, if you have an Eclipse crimper, check the dimension of
the positioner. If it is more than .260" (.302 in my case) as
indicated in Bob's photos below, you can fix it by reducing it to .260".
I picked up my Eclipse from Stein about a year ago but who knows what
vintage it might be.
Thanks again all.
Bill
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:33 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:
>> I think I have several problems and oversights that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> I'm using a tool that looks like this:
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/rct-3.jpg
>> As you said, it is setup for one size of wire and one type of
>> pin/socket. I've been using it on 20AWG and probably 22 AWG which
>> would immediately indicate some inconsistency. But in this case, I
>> was using it on 24AWG wires that was part of a pre-made harness pig
>> tail.
>>
>> In addition, I was trying to strip the wire just far enough to barely
>> clear or be flush with the pin. Given that this crimper seems to
>> crimp concentrically at the the very tip of the pin, allowing any of
>> the insulation into the pin could further compromise the crimp. (I'm
>> attaching 2 pics of the pin that failed).
>> I first need to determine what size wire the crimper is setup for and
>> limit its use to that wire. And re-confirm I'm using the right pins
>> (non-high density).
>>
>> For this particular connection involving the 24AWG wires, I'm going
>> to follow your guidance on using a 9 pin D-sum with solder terminals
>> along with shrink tubing, clear adhesive and more shrink tubing.
>> It's a good solution for this particular connection.
>>
>> I'll have to take a closer look at the adjustable Daniels crimper if
>> I want to get serious... but it may be too expensive to justify.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Thanks for the great pictures. I've added those to my
> reference library. It seems that Eclipse is back to their
> old habits.
>
> When I started stocking that tool many moons ago, I
> discovered that the pin-positioner was cut wrong
> allowing the pin to set too deep in the tool. This
> causes the crimp to happen too far back on the wire
> grip as shown here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_0.jpg
>
>
> I used to check every tool and modify as shown
> here . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/4-Quad/Positioner_Mod_1.jpg
>
>
> I put every positioner in the lathe and cut it back
> on the pin-entry end to achieve the dimension shown.
> This moved the pin up in the too such that the
> wire-grip was just flush to slightly under-flush
> with the face of the tool.
>
> B&C checked the tools too after I turned that
> activity over to them. Tim reported to me some
> months later that the pin-positioners were coming
> in okay. I figured that it was the result of a
> letter I wrote to Eclipse citing the problem.
>
> The other part of your problem is putting 24AWG wires
> into a 20/22 AWG pin. The tool is designed to have a slightly
> over-crimp on 20AWG and slightly under-crimp on 22AWG.
> This means it's way under-crimped for 24AWG. You fix this
> by striping 24AWG wire 2X length for exposed strands and
> fold the strands back to double the amount of copper
> in the finished joint.
>
> Alternatively, your idea of a fixed "plug" in the
> bottom of the pin-positioner works too but you
> have to be VERY careful about too much plug . . .
> it can be hard to get out. You can use a small
> twist drill to clear the hole.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
At 10:02 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>I am installing VDO fuel senders in the metal fuel tanks of my
>all-metal kit aircraft. These senders do not have a ground lug, and
>the sender, by design, is not isolated from the fuel tank because
>the mounting screws are inserted into a metal mounting ring which is
>in metal-to-metal contact with the inside of the fuel tank. The
>construction manual calls for grounding the sender to the airframe
>using a wire from the airframe to a ring terminal under one of the
>mounting screws. My concern with this approach is that I might
>inadvertently introduce a "ground loop" into the system by grounding
>in this fashion. I would prefer to isolate the sender from the
>airframe and run a return wire to the universal ground buss on the
>firewall, but because of the design of the sender this would be
>difficult to do. Has anyone else dealt with installation of these
>senders, and if so, can you offer me any advice?
Metal tanks in a metal airplane will provide sufficient
ground for these senders to work as advertised. Adding
the wire as directed in the instructions will not hurt
anything either. Go ahead and install the requested wire
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: icom ic-a200 |
I recall from the factory manual and internal schematic I got a hold of,
that the power and grounds are ganged internally, but its been a while.
It do recall it's redundant, but it has been a few years.
Please no offense Ken just my 0.02 worth, the manual cautions against
start and stop with power on. It's a long running debate....blaa blaa, but
to each his own, every one has a choice and if it works fine, if you error
on side of caution, good as well.
The IC-200 does not have internal OV protection. So I do suggest folks
use a **Transorb on the CB/fuse for the radio if you don't have a more
elaborate OV protection system on the ICOM.
** Transorb or Mosorb are commercial names for Transient voltage suppressors,
basically special zener diodes, small inexpensive OV devices that will break
down at a specific voltage (range) and trip the CB or fuse. I use a couple for
the few avionics like the IC-200a that do not have internal OV protection or
robustness. Many late model avionics (see your manual) have isolated
internal power supplies with ability to handle spikes, and if the worst should
occur the damage is limited to the power filter & don't use extra OV protection
for those components.
George
PS What OV was that Ken, what happened?
********************************************
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: icom ic-a200
Bob
A few years ago I traced all those multiple power and also the ground,
and signal ground connections on my A200 and found that they were all
connected together inside the radio. Suspect they were encouraging
redundant connections but there is no actual need for them.
On another thread, I almost always start and shut down with power on
this radio and no problems so far after a couple of hundred hours. No
radio master switch but OTOH one real over-voltage event was trapped by
my over-voltage protection.
Ken
********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | icubob(at)newnorth.net |
| Subject: | Re: icom ic-a200 |
someone pointed out to me that a panel switch for the radio and intercom allows
you to turn them on and the volume and squelch are then preset. good idea just
for that reason. bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:04:00 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: icom ic-a200
I recall from the factory manual and internal schematic I got a hold of,
that the power and grounds are ganged internally, but its been a while.
It do recall it's redundant, but it has been a few years.
Please no offense Ken just my 0.02 worth, the manual cautions against
start and stop with power on. It's a long running debate....blaa blaa, but
to each his own, every one has a choice and if it works fine, if you error
on side of caution, good as well.
The IC-200 does not have internal OV protection. So I do suggest folks
use a **Transorb on the CB/fuse for the radio if you don't have a more
elaborate OV protection system on the ICOM.
** Transorb or Mosorb are commercial names for Transient voltage suppressors,
basically special zener diodes, small inexpensive OV devices that will break
down at a specific voltage (range) and trip the CB or fuse. I use a couple for
the few avionics like the IC-200a that do not have internal OV protection or
robustness. Many late model avionics (see your manual) have isolated
internal power supplies with ability to handle spikes, and if the worst should
occur the damage is limited to the power filter & don't use extra OV protection
for those components.
George
PS What OV was that Ken, what happened?
********************************************
From: Ken < klehman(at)albedo.net >
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: icom ic-a200
Bob
A few years ago I traced all those multiple power and also the ground,
and signal ground connections on my A200 and found that they were all
connected together inside the radio. Suspect they were encouraging
redundant connections but there is no actual need for them.
On another thread, I almost always start and shut down with power on
this radio and no problems so far after a couple of hundred hours. No
radio master switch but OTOH one real over-voltage event was trapped by
my over-voltage protection.
Ken
********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
Bob,
Can you explain why I don't need to worry about a ground loop in this
situation, (reference the explanation of ground loops on p. 5-6 of the
AeroElectric manual)?
Thanks,
Dave
Date: Dec 12, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
<http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=77203507?KEYS=se
nder?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=0831038265?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>
At 10:02 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>I am installing VDO fuel senders in the metal fuel tanks of my
>all-metal kit aircraft. These senders do not have a ground lug, and
>the sender, by design, is not isolated ...
Metal tanks in a metal airplane will provide sufficient
ground for these senders to work as advertised. Adding
the wire as directed in the instructions will not hurt
anything either. Go ahead and install the requested wire
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders |
At 10:38 AM 12/13/2008, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Can you explain why I don't need to worry about a ground loop in
>this situation, (reference the explanation of ground loops on p. 5-6
>of the AeroElectric manual)?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dave
Because the loop is small. The tank grounds to the
airframe through mounting straps and brackets and
with a resistance that is a tiny fraction that of
any piece of wire you might install. Yeah, technically
there's a "loop" but so tiny both in architecture and
in terms of antagonistic currents as to be insignificant.
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: icom ic-a200 |
At 03:04 AM 12/13/2008, you wrote:
>
>The IC-200 does not have internal OV protection. So I do suggest folks
>use a **Transorb on the CB/fuse for the radio if you don't have a more
>elaborate OV protection system on the ICOM.
Would you care to recommend a part number? The catalogs
are full of all manner of Transorbs. What voltage and energy
rating device do you recommend?
>
>** Transorb or Mosorb are commercial names for Transient voltage suppressors,
>basically special zener diodes, small inexpensive OV devices that will break
>down at a specific voltage (range) and trip the CB or fuse. I use a
>couple for
>the few avionics like the IC-200a that do not have internal OV protection or
>robustness. Many late model avionics (see your manual) have isolated
>internal power supplies with ability to handle spikes, and if the
>worst should
>occur the damage is limited to the power filter & don't use extra OV
>protection
>for those components.
Which devices might these be? I'm not plugged into
all that circulates into the aircraft accessories
equipment market. If there are specific devices vulnerable
to "spikes" it would be well that we know which products
they are . . . and what levels of abuse is dangerous
for them. If you have specifics to share, it would
be helpful.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Butt Splices |
Bob:
This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do I
use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
terminaltown's website and even "googled" this questions and can't find
anything regarding what type of crimper is used....just instructions of how
to do it.
Thanks
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Butt Splices |
Henry;
Different Bob, but a butt splice is no different than any other type of wire
terminal. Same crimper you would use for say a fast-on or ring, just that
you have two crimps, one on each end instead of just one.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Butt Splices
>
> Bob:
>
> This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do I
> use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
> terminaltown's website and even "googled" this questions and can't find
> anything regarding what type of crimper is used....just instructions of
how
> to do it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Henry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Brown" <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Butt Splices |
Quoting "Henry Trzeciakowski" :
> This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do I
> use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
Pretty much any type will do, if you're talking about the splices like these:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/page98.html
A good choice is a ratcheting tool like the ones here:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/EclipseCrimpTools.html
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Butt Splices |
Bob:
I just tried is on my fuseble link and it worked like a charm !!
Thanks
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Butt Splices
>
> Henry;
>
> Different Bob, but a butt splice is no different than any other type of
wire
> terminal. Same crimper you would use for say a fast-on or ring, just that
> you have two crimps, one on each end instead of just one.
>
> Bob McC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:26 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Butt Splices
>
>
>
> >
> > Bob:
> >
> > This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do
I
> > use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
> > terminaltown's website and even "googled" this questions and can't find
> > anything regarding what type of crimper is used....just instructions of
> how
> > to do it.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Henry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
Bob:
I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using as my
master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do have a
question:
I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
#2 - to battery contactor
#5 - to 5 Amp CB
#1 - to ground
#4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
Thanks
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brown" <dan(at)familybrown.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Butt Splices
>
> Quoting "Henry Trzeciakowski" :
>
> > This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do
I
> > use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
>
> Pretty much any type will do, if you're talking about the splices like
these:
>
> http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/page98.html
>
> A good choice is a ratcheting tool like the ones here:
>
> http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/EclipseCrimpTools.html
>
> --
> Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
> "Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
> more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
> -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need for start-up protection? |
| From: | "tommuller2000" <tommuller(at)fairpoint.net> |
I have dual Dynons (D100 / D120) and the IC-200 com radio and faced the same issue.
Since I need the D120 engine information before startup and don't need the
radio, I put most of my radios on the avionics master, but the Dynons on the
primary master. Once the engine is running, I turn on the avionics master in
the same checklist item as the strobes, position lights and (if needed) the landing
lights.
Since it is also hardened, the Garmin 496 is on the primary master. That way I
can program my destination and check the weather without burning any avgas!
I agree that system design is better than airmanship. I tried to make my airplane
as idiot proof as possible for the times when I am an idiot. Adding unneccessary
cockpit load merely detracts from safety.
--------
Tom Muller
RV-9A, flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219331#219331
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping Butt Splices |
At 12:26 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>This may seem like a rather silly question, but what type of crimper do I
>use to crimp butt splices......I've looked thru your website, looked at
>terminaltown's website and even "googled" this questions and can't find
>anything regarding what type of crimper is used....just instructions of how
>to do it.
>
>Thanks
Successful use of ANY wire termination device that
functions by "mashing" begs understanding with
respect to designed wire size along with dimensions
and shape of the finished joint.
A huge range splices are offered that speak to joining
wires with equally large array of design goals. This is
why I've focused the majority of my suggestions for crimp-on
terminations on a small constellation of products
embraced for decades by the type certificated aircraft
industry. I've written at length about the AMP PIDG
(Pre-Insulated Diamond Grip) devices which are part
of the Mil-T-7928, Type II family of products offered by dozens
of capable manufacturers.
I did comic book . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
. . . that compared two tools suited for application
of devices in this family of terminals . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/s816p.jpg
which includes knife and butt splices . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/knife_splice_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/PIDG-Splices.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg
Now, just because someone says, "My terminal is (better/
same) as the other guy's terminal does not make it so.
Here's a low cost terminal I evaluated some years ago
with the notion of offering them as alternatives to
the AMP PIDG terminals . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/JST_Samples_2.jpg
Electrically, these terminals went on well using
tools already on hand for installing PIDG devices . . .
but you can see the difference in how the insulation
grip was treated. Needless to say, I didn't switch my
inventory to offer these devices.
In terms of butt-splice alternatives, there's a host
of options. We looked at these critters a few weeks
ago . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/Krimpa-Seal_Butt_Splice.jpg
Crimped splices with built-in heat-shrink jackets. Pretty
cool. Worked good. Will last a long time . . . but DO NOT
apply well with PIDG rated tools.
Here's a cut and paste from a message I posted some time
back that suggests a tooling-independent technique for
joining wires:
-------- start of excerpt ------------------
We know that solder sleeves have a wide following in aviation
and other venues for splicing wires.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/619/628.pdf
http://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sections/406%20Solder%20Sleeves.html
http://www.raychem.com/US/datasheets/REVISED32004/Sec_8/8-006_8-011_SolderSleeve.pdf
So, if we can get past the ol' saw about "make it mechanically secure and
then solder for electrical integrity", how about this?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_4.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_5.jpg
This technique provides equivalent mechanical and electrical integrity
with your ordinary hand tools for a lot less cost than pe-fabricated
solder sleeves and splices. The only edge I can see for solder sleeves
is the sealant included in each end of the sleeve . . .
I'll suggest that the technique described meets our needs nicely
for a fraction of the cost. Bulk of the slice is small too.
However, if you're splicing a bundle of multiple wires, it's still
a good idea to stagger the splice locations along the bundle.
----------- end of excerpt ---------
Sorry if this seems like a data dump from a big bucket but
I think this illustrates the potential for error in
communication by limiting your query to "butt splices"
when it comes to tooling.
It's important to know the style of the splice for the
purpose of offering suitable tools. ASSUMING that you're
wanting to install these guys . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/AMP_PIDG_Splices.jpg
you use the same tool as the other PIDG devices illustrated
above.
But consider adding the lap-soldered splices covered with
heat-shrink to your bag-of-tricks. They're lower cost, smaller
volume, and just as reliable as the PIDG splices and
even NASA approved. See section 19 of . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/NASA/NASA-STD-8739p4c4.pdf
. . . and know that there's a lot of options available to
you for joining wires in your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transformer (off subject) |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have
a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from building my panel.? My grandkid's
toy train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged
at the (barely accessible) wall outlet.? The transformer is 120V, 80W.?
Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power line?
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
I should certainly think so.
If that transformer draws anywhere near 15A that's a powerful big train.
Do make sure the terminals are not accessible.
Ron Q.
At 16:38 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
>
>Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical
>question: I have a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from
>building my panel. My grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have
>an on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged at the (barely
>accessible) wall outlet. The transformer is 120V, 80W. Can I
>safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power line?
>
>Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Thanks, Ron.? I plan to make an accessory box for the switch.? - Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
I should certainly think so.
If that transformer draws anywhere near 15A that's a powerful big
train.
Do make sure the terminals are not accessible.
Ron Q.
At 16:38 12/14/2008, you wrote:
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Pleas pardon the diversion,
but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have a bunch of left-over
Carling toggle switches from building my panel.? My grandkid's toy
train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to be
un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall outlet.? The transformer
is 120V, 80W.? Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch
on one leg of the power line?
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
If you are putting the switch on the 110V side of the transformer, be
sure you put the switch on the 'hot' side. (Probably a black wire
inside the wall fixture.) If the switch is going on the train side, it
won't matter too much which wire, but the transformer will still be
pulling a little current.
Bob W.
jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ron.? I plan to make an accessory box for the switch.? - Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 7:17 pm
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I should certainly think so.
>
> If that transformer draws anywhere near 15A that's a powerful big
> train.
>
> Do make sure the terminals are not accessible.
>
>
> Ron Q.
>
> At 16:38 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
>
>
> Pleas pardon the diversion,
> but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have a bunch of left-over
> Carling toggle switches from building my panel.? My grandkid's toy
> train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to be
> un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall outlet.? The transformer
> is 120V, 80W.? Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch
> on one leg of the power line?
>
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
Yes, if you turn off the power first!
Seriously, you want to switch the "Hot" wire. This is the one that goes
to the narrow tab on your wall plug-in. If you look at the plug in,
you'll notice that the two parallel tabs are different sizes (if you
home was built in the last few decades). The narrow tab is the wire
that you want to switch.
I don't know if Bob has a reference drawing for this, though. A purist
would also put an in-line fuse.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical
question: I have a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from
building my panel. My grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have an
on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall
outlet. The transformer is 120V, 80W. Can I safely use a Carling 15A,
125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power line?
Jay in Dallas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
Hi Jay, another thing worth considering is to use the switch to 'break' the hot
side of the line (if it is a single pole type). This would prevent a possible
shocking experience for someone who finds a 'ground' to complete the circuit.
We love our Grand Children. Earl
Merry Christmas!
At 16:38 12/14/2008, you wrote:
> From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
>
> Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have
a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from building my panel. My grandkid's
toy train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged
at the (barely accessible) wall outlet. The transformer is 120V, 80W.
Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power
line?
>
> Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
At 06:38 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical
>question: I have a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from
>building my panel. My grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have
>an on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged at the (barely
>accessible) wall outlet. The transformer is 120V, 80W. Can I
>safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power line?
Absolutely.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Forhan <ohioip(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for Start-Up Protection |
Bob-
My apologies for my previous digest post. That was only my second post, so I'm
still learning the ropes! I'm more of a listener than a talker.
With regard to your questions, I would like to provide you with specific details,
test data and analyses of the products and the airframes that I alluded to,
but I do not wish to "throw" the OEM avionics mfr. or the airframers "under the
bus" to support what is, in the end, nothing more than my personal design philosophy.
Besides, such a discussion would inevitably devolve into a narrowly-focused
critique relating to specific situations rather than a discussion of
the merits of a general design philosophy (i.e., whether or not to incorporate
an avionics master switch).
In a way, I believe you made my point for me. You stated that your livelihood
includes investigating "unanticipated characteristics" and failures to meet design
goals. It is well-known that such characteristics and design failures are
often not discovered until a product is fielded and problems arise in service.
I personally prefer to assume the system-reliability risk of of an avionics
master switch as a safeguard against such potential issues, even if the extent
of the risk of equipment damage is unquantified.
And for the record, I was not trying to "persuade" anyone, instill "fear" of "imagined"
issues, nor prove you wrong. I apologize if I did not clearly convey
my thoughts. I was merely stating that there are two schools of thought on the
subject, both having (IMHO) valid points, and sharing why I elected to utilize
an avionics master switch.
Bob, I feel I must share with you that the tenor of your response has made me more
hesitant to express my thoughts in the future. I'm telling you this not as
a complaint, but rather as honest feedback.
Best Regards,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Vern,? That's exactly what I need to know.? Now I don't need that Z-drawing !?
Thanks - Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Vern Little <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
Yes, if you turn off the power first!
?
Seriously, you want to switch the "Hot" wire.?
This is the one that goes to the narrow tab on your wall plug-in.? If you
look at the plug in, you'll notice that the two parallel tabs are different
sizes (if you home was built in the last few decades).? The narrow tab is
the wire that you want to switch.
?
I don't know if Bob has a reference drawing for
this, though.? A purist would also put an in-line fuse.
?
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From:
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:38
PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transformer
(off subject)
Pleas pardon the
diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have a bunch of
left-over Carling toggle switches from building my panel.? My grandkid's
toy train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged
at the (barely accessible) wall outlet.? The transformer is 120V,
80W.? Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of
the power line?
Jay in Dallas
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need for Start-Up Protection |
At 08:49 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>Bob-
>
>My apologies for my previous digest post. That was only my second
>post, so I'm still learning the ropes! I'm more of a listener than a talker.
No problem . . . just a gentle nudge . . .
>With regard to your questions, I would like to provide you with
>specific details, test data and analyses of the products and the
>airframes that I alluded to, but I do not wish to "throw" the OEM
>avionics mfr. or the airframers "under the bus" to support what is,
>in the end, nothing more than my personal design
>philosophy. Besides, such a discussion would inevitably devolve
>into a narrowly-focused critique relating to specific situations
>rather than a discussion of the merits of a general design
>philosophy (i.e., whether or not to incorporate an avionics master switch).
>
>In a way, I believe you made my point for me. You stated that your
>livelihood includes investigating "unanticipated characteristics"
>and failures to meet design goals. It is well-known that such
>characteristics and design failures are often not discovered until a
>product is fielded and problems arise in service. I personally
>prefer to assume the system-reliability risk of of an avionics
>master switch as a safeguard against such potential issues, even if
>the extent of the risk of equipment damage is unquantified.
>
>And for the record, I was not trying to "persuade" anyone, instill
>"fear" of "imagined" issues, nor prove you wrong. I apologize if I
>did not clearly convey my thoughts. I was merely stating that there
>are two schools of thought on the subject, both having (IMHO) valid
>points, and sharing why I elected to utilize an avionics master switch.
>
>Bob, I feel I must share with you that the tenor of your response
>has made me more hesitant to express my thoughts in the future. I'm
>telling you this not as a complaint, but rather as honest feedback.
Point taken and many have expressed similar feelings.
Please understand that my role here is illuminator
of physics and a random access repository for repeatable
experiments that have served aviation well for longer
than my own decades of participation in the craft.
I'm not happy to be proven wrong . . . because it brings
forward an error in my thinking (and teaching) that begs
immediate rectification. So while not delighted to discover
errors, I am grateful when it happens. So please don't read
emotions or intent into my words that is not specifically
expressed . . . I know this is difficult with only the
printed word for communication.
Alternative "schools of thought" are not useful teaching
tools unless they are part of a revelation of simple-ideas,
data gathered, and demonstrated repeatable experiments.
For example, it was suggested recently that Transorbs be
used downstream of a fuse or breaker to protect some
appliance from an over voltage condition. This idea
has surfaced here on the list in times past and was shown
to be in error after the capabilities of Transorbs
(designed to stand off low energy spikes) was shown
insufficient to stand off a high energy ov event with
an additional expectation of opening the up-stream
circuit breaker.
I asked the individual to recommend a part number of
Transorb for this purpose. I intended to show
an energy analysis for the n'th time that would
tell us how this part could not be expected to
block stresses it was being asked to protect
against . . . stresses that either don't exist
or are easily managed by tried-and-true recipes
for success.
My mission here is to assist 1800 readers (mostly
neophyte builders) in making decisions based
on the collective experiences of myself and many
others who have made a living in this business
for decades. Any 'push back' you might perceived
about your feelings on the topic was not an attempt
to persuade you of anything. It was intended to
remind everyone that there are reasons to do things
based on logic, science and repeatable experiments
. . . and there are reasons to do things because
they make us feel better. I have no personal interest
in anyone's informed decision for any feature
they choose to incorporate in their project. However,
I will do my best to assist them in BEING INFORMED.
My customers don't pay my exorbitant fees to
feel better. They expect (and I offer) the best I
know how to do based on data and experiences I
have at my disposal. I'll be pleased to update
that advice when offered new data. Yeah, there
ARE fielded products that missed established
design goals. But is it our duty as consumers to
discover those errors and kick them back up
the supply chain . . . or should we modify our
behavior (and our designs) to accommodate the
POSSIBILITIES so that poor designs get pampered/
tolerated and perhaps never discovered?
I'm sorry if you don't share my faith in the
skill and integrity of myself and fellow engineers
to do our homework. But folks are paying
me/us good fees because we do our homework and
pretty much expect our associates in the field
to do their homework too. The consequences for
missing the mark should be levied on US and
not upon the consumers of our work-product.
Now, we're probably making this more complicated
than it needs to be. Let's do the reversed
hypothetical: How would you modify a starter/
alternator/battery combination such that it
could be predicted to produce stresses that
exceed industry design goals for the accessories
powered by the system? If you're feeling
good for accommodating potential "accidents of
design" that produce a non-compliant condition
. . . how much of a problem is it to purposefully
design a non-compliant system?
What would you propose we hammer, bend, break
or otherwise modify some component to produce
a system that's hazardous to its appliances?
I think this is exercise useful to demonstrate
that no PURPOSEFUL way exists that demonstrates
or mimics anyone's ACCIDENT. In other words, it's
so easy to do this one right that worrying about
doing it wrong is unworthy of concern.
As I mentioned earlier, I've never asked any
customer of mine to turn off my gizmo to protect
it from anything the airplane can be expected
to throw at it. I've never had a customer bring
me a box of smoked junk because I missed the
design goal. It's not a big deal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Update on alternator whine problem. |
Gang:
I previously reported an alternator whine problem in my recently
completed OBAM aircraft. The plane has an 18A permanent magnet
alternator (John Deere) and a motorcycle-type electronic voltage
regulator (Crane). The wiring is very similar to Z-19, but with dual
batteries. The whine problem was so bad that at cruise power, the radio
was useless.
[1] Following the advice from the Connection and on this list, I tested
the system with the radio hooked to an isolated battery, which confirmed
it was a power problem, not a ground loop or radiation problem.
[2] Noting a difference between the motorcycle wiring diagram and the Z
diagram, I moved the regulator output from feeding directly to the bus
to the manual battery selector switch output. (No master relay.) This
has the effect of using the two batteries as a *big* capacitance and
reduced the whine to a "manageable" level. At least, with this change,
I could hear and understand the radio at all power settings, but it was
still not good.
[3] I installed an automotive-type whine filter (Peripheral PNF-12) on
the + lead to the radio. This is a classic coil-cap type filter that I
got on-line from HiFi Sound Connection (http://tinyurl.com/5ehsal) for
$7.18 with free shipping. The whine problem is now *gone*.
Identify - Analyze - Hypothesize - Test - Confirm
(Repeat as required)
Thanks to group members who helped, and of course to Bob!
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Update on alternator whine problem. |
At 10:22 AM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>Gang:
>
>I previously reported an alternator whine problem in my recently
>completed OBAM aircraft. The plane has an 18A permanent magnet
>alternator (John Deere) and a motorcycle-type electronic voltage
>regulator (Crane). The wiring is very similar to Z-19, but with
>dual batteries. The whine problem was so bad that at cruise power,
>the radio was useless.
>
>[1] Following the advice from the Connection and on this list, I
>tested the system with the radio hooked to an isolated battery,
>which confirmed it was a power problem, not a ground loop or
>radiation problem.
>
>[2] Noting a difference between the motorcycle wiring diagram and
>the Z diagram, I moved the regulator output from feeding directly to
>the bus to the manual battery selector switch output. (No master
>relay.) This has the effect of using the two batteries as a *big*
>capacitance and reduced the whine to a "manageable" level. At
>least, with this change, I could hear and understand the radio at
>all power settings, but it was still not good.
Which confirms a recently modified theory as to the
value of batteries as noise filters. Given the heft
and obvious stiffness of a battery both as an energy
load and supply device, it's easy to assume that it
would behave sorta like a super-capacitor. I preached
that doctrine for years even when evidence to the contrary
was well known to me and others.
Batteries deliver energy below 12.5 volts or so and accept
energy at 13.5 and higher. As both sources and loads, the
dynamic impedance of the battery (read ability to play
super-cap) is pretty good. But once it's charged and floated
on a "happy bus" voltage, it's relative stiffness wanes
and in fact, it's a rather poor filter.
This is why Mil-Std-704 and similar documents advise
us that in a perfectly functioning system, the battery
has very little effect on the magnitude of ripple voltage
one can expect on the bus from a rectified 3-phase machine
(alternator). EXPECT about 1.5 volts pk-pk trash from
the alternator. It's even worse for a single phase machine.
>
>[3] I installed an automotive-type whine filter (Peripheral PNF-12)
>on the + lead to the radio. This is a classic coil-cap type filter
>that I got on-line from HiFi Sound Connection
>(<http://tinyurl.com/5ehsal>http://tinyurl.com/5ehsal) for $7.18
>with free shipping. The whine problem is now *gone*.
>
>Identify - Analyze - Hypothesize - Test - Confirm
> (Repeat as required)
>
>Thanks to group members who helped, and of course to Bob!
Pleased that it worked out. I'm going to order one
of those filters and deduce it's characteristics.
Radio Shack quite handling a line of filters that
builders used to find useful some years back. It would
be helpful to have an alternative to recommend. Thanks
for doing the trade search!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transformer (off subject) |
Considering this is to be used for a kid, circuit protection, grounding, ..
I would recommend that you get a switched power strip.
Otherwise do as others have recommended, make sure everything is secured,
the switch itself is properly grounded,
and that any box you use is sturdy enough to take the abuse of kids!
Make sure that you switch the "Hot" wire (typically the black wire) or the
narrow tabbed wire.
If this is a two wire circuit (i.e. no ground wire) I would NOT install a
switch, a failure in the switch can pose an electrical hazard.
r.t.s.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
At 06:38 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical question: I
have a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from building my panel.
My grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has
to be un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall outlet. The transformer is
120V, 80W. Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg
of the power line?
Absolutely.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 self excitation |
Any response?
Etienne Phillips wrote:
>
>
> Thanks...
>
> I've emailed Greg at B&C to see if the regulator has been updated, and
> will post his response for the archives and general knowledge.
>
> Etienne
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2008, at 11:38 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Unknown. The change to the regulator's internal are very
>> simple and I would hope that B&C would consider this
>> an upgrade worthy of consideration . . . but unless they're
>> advertising the ability to come on line without battery
>> support, it's fair to assume that no changes have been
>> made to their product.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
I hope this train has a junction box where this can all take place. The
hot wire will go through the toggle switch and the neutral wire will
just connect inline as is and the ground will do the same. If you make
a mistake it will not work but I'm sure you will get it right because
you have already built a panel for your airplane. Just my two cents.
Fun stuff.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Vern Little
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
Yes, if you turn off the power first!
Seriously, you want to switch the "Hot" wire. This is the one that
goes to the narrow tab on your wall plug-in. If you look at the plug
in, you'll notice that the two parallel tabs are different sizes (if you
home was built in the last few decades). The narrow tab is the wire
that you want to switch.
I don't know if Bob has a reference drawing for this, though. A
purist would also put an in-line fuse.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
Pleas pardon the diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical
question: I have a bunch of left-over Carling toggle switches from
building my panel. My grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have an
on-off switch so it has to be un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall
outlet. The transformer is 120V, 80W. Can I safely use a Carling 15A,
125VAC 3/4HP switch on one leg of the power line?
Jay in Dallas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
12/15/2008 9:01 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transformer (off subject) |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
I actually got a plastic "project box" at Radio Shack which made a real neat switch
box.? I only cut into the "hot" wire to connect to the switch with fastons.?
I labeled "off" and "on" just like on my panel.? Works just as planned.?
Same for the panel.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty <jfogarty(at)tds.net>
Sent: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transformer (off subject)
I hope this?train has a junction box where
this can all take place.? The hot wire will go through the toggle switch
and the neutral wire will just connect inline as is and the ground will do the
same.? If you make a mistake it will not work but I'm sure you will get it
right?because you have already built a panel for your airplane.? Just
my two cents.? Fun stuff.
?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From:
Vern
Little
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:29
PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Transformer (off subject)
Yes, if you turn off the power
first!
?
Seriously, you want to switch the "Hot"
wire.? This is the one that goes to the narrow tab on your wall
plug-in.? If you look at the plug in, you'll notice that the two parallel
tabs are different sizes (if you home was built in the last few
decades).? The narrow tab is the wire that you want to
switch.
?
I don't know if Bob has a reference drawing for
this, though.? A purist would also put an in-line fuse.
?
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From:
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:38
PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transformer
(off subject)
Pleas pardon the
diversion, but I have a Christmas electrical question: I have a bunch of
left-over Carling toggle switches from building my panel.? My
grandkid's toy train transformer doesn't have an on-off switch so it has to
be un-plugged at the (barely accessible) wall outlet.? The transformer
is 120V, 80W.? Can I safely use a Carling 15A, 125VAC 3/4HP switch on
one leg of the power line?
Jay in Dallas
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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
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
12/15/2008 9:01 AM
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 self excitation |
At 12:02 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>
>Any response?
Not that I've heard. I don't think B&C has a circuit
designer any more. If they were interested in the
upgrade I think they would have to farm it out.
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using as my
>master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do have a
>question:
>
>I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
>
>#2 - to battery contactor
>#5 - to 5 Amp CB
>#1 - to ground
>#4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
>
>Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
That's what the diagrams show. It should work.
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | To Z12 or not to Z12, that is the question. |
>Comments/Questions: Bob a couple of years ago I emailed you
>requesting information on the Z-14 for my RV-7. Your response was
>that it may be "overkill" for my airplane. The airplane has a 60
>amp main, belt driven alternator and a 20 amp standby alternator,
>both from B & C. It has one battery. It'll have back-up batteries
>for the EFIS, GPS and a TruTrak ADI. Now I'm trying to decide
>between Z-12 and Z-13/20. As I understand your wiring diagrams,
>Z-12 basically runs off the main alternator, with the standby ready
>in case voltage from the main drops below a certain level and then
>it (the standby) takes over. Whereas Z-13/20 utilizes the standby
>to power an endurance bus, which in turns runs a series of backup
>instruments and needed lights, flaps, etc. Am I correct?
No. ENDURANCE speaks to minimizing loads on a limited
power resource (battery and perhaps battery + 8A
alternator) for the purpose of having an electrical
endurance that is equal to or greater than flight
endurance as established by remaining fuel.
This means the E-bus is configured first with
those items most useful for HOURS of flight while
the airport of intended destination gets closer.
It's NOT an emergency bus . . . it's the bus that
keeps a maintenance item (crapped alternator) from
becoming an emergency. It has a secondary role of
keeping a contactor failure from becoming an
emergency also by offering dual power paths
to e-bus powered equipment.
Z-13/20 was a bad dream. I'm sorry I published
it. It was removed from the website and will be
removed from subsequent print documents. My
recommendation is that you go with Z-12 as
published. With this abundance of secondary
engine-driven power, you don't need much of
a plan-B . . .just start turning things off
until the SD-20 "overload" light goes out.
If you can't make it home on 20A of snort,
you've got too much stuff in your airplane.
The system you describe has back-ups to back-ups
to the extent that it makes a rational failure
mode effects analysis problematic . . . not
necessarily a bad thing . . . just something
of an exercise in feather-chasing. Don't put
flaps on the e-bus. Review the archives for
e-bus discussions. The real value of the e-bus
speaks to battery-only endurance . . . an
instance that is exceedingly unlikely in your
airplane.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
| From: | "TJPackard" <tjpackard(at)yahoo.com> |
GRT's EIS has a Hall Effect sensor that can be used to sense battery current or
Alternator output. Which is the preferred installation,and what are the pros/cons
of either one.
TJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219596#219596
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Shipley" <rveighta(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob, I have an Apollo SL-30 NavCom in my Rv-8 which has a rather unique
(to me, anyway) problem. On the ground, even with the engine running at
high RPM, the radio works flawlessly. In the air it's a different story
- as soon as I take off, a loud background noise begins which makes
receiving transmissions nearly impossible. Usually, sometime during the
flight, this noise goes away and the reception is crystal clear.
I have a belly mounted Comant bent whip antenna. Coax connections are
tight. Any ideas of what the problem might be?
Thanks, Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
At 09:45 AM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>
>GRT's EIS has a Hall Effect sensor that can be used to sense battery
>current or Alternator output. Which is the preferred
>installation,and what are the pros/cons of either one.
>TJ
Ammeters have virtually no useful purpose as a flight
systems management device. They're mostly useful for
diagnostics . . . something that should be accomplished
on the ground. The choice for architecture is not
a very critical consideration. It's only important that
you understand the significance of the readings offered
at the location you choose. Cessnas favored battery
ammeters for years, everyone else liked alternator
load meters. Either one performs a useful duty.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III hall
effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the
controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery
terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the other
hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but
connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping
the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off
the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to
turn them on/off as necessary.
Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use.
Glenn
-----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, December 16, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hall Effect Sensor Installation
At 09:45 AM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>
>GRT's EIS has a Hall Effect sensor that can be used to sense battery
>current or Alternator output. Which is the preferred
>installation,and what are the pros/cons of either one.
>TJ
Ammeters have virtually no useful purpose as a flight
systems management device. They're mostly useful for
diagnostics . . . something that should be accomplished
on the ground. The choice for architecture is not
a very critical consideration. It's only important that
you understand the significance of the readings offered
at the location you choose. Cessnas favored battery
ammeters for years, everyone else liked alternator
load meters. Either one performs a useful duty.
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual ignition power sourcing |
At 10:52 AM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>
>Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III hall
>effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the
>controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery
>terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the other
>hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but
>connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping
>the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off
>the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to
>turn them on/off as necessary.
>
>Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use.
Is this really a useful question? We can hypothesize a dozen
variations on a theme for wiring up these products. How do
you select valuable information from them? Throw darts?
Go with the guy who is most persuasive in describing
his particular selection of architectures?
On the TC side of the house, these kinds of questions
are fed to the Failure Mode Effects Analysis machine in
all combinations looking for the highest probability of
comfortable termination of flight. Connecting BOTH
systems to the same power source (no doubt under the
same bolt head!) does not speak well of the writer's
thought processes.
Loss of an always-hot battery bus wired as suggested
in the Z-figures is a very rare event. Even so, it's
not unreasonable to consider running one ignition from
the battery-bus and the other from the main bus. Of
course you need switches to control them . . . and fuses
are perfectly reasonable alternatives to breakers . . .
ESPECIALLY breakers on the panel that are wired to the
battery(+) terminal with a long, always-hot feeder
wire. This scenario also addresses the notion that
electrically dependent engines should get enough energy
from the battery bus to insure operations with the
battery-master and alternator turned off.
You have two of these things, either will run the engine
just fine by itself. There's no high-probability, single-
failure that leaves you without sparks. It's sad to
observe that so many fabricators of accessories for
aircraft are so ignorant of their function in the
constellation of flight system components.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
It's a bit of a stretch but in some circumstances a loadmeter can be
useful for discovering a problem:
-did the boost pump really start?
-are all the nav lights on or is a bulb burned out?
-I smell something odd, is something drawing excess current?
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:45 AM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> GRT's EIS has a Hall Effect sensor that can be used to sense battery
>> current or Alternator output. Which is the preferred installation,and
>> what are the pros/cons of either one.
>> TJ
>
> Ammeters have virtually no useful purpose as a flight
> systems management device. They're mostly useful for
> diagnostics . . . something that should be accomplished
> on the ground. The choice for architecture is not
> a very critical consideration. It's only important that
> you understand the significance of the readings offered
> at the location you choose. Cessnas favored battery
> ammeters for years, everyone else liked alternator
> load meters. Either one performs a useful duty.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
At 11:59 AM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>
>It's a bit of a stretch but in some circumstances a loadmeter can be
>useful for discovering a problem:
>-did the boost pump really start?
>-are all the nav lights on or is a bulb burned out?
>-I smell something odd, is something drawing excess current?
Point well taken . . . and I'll admit that my
earlier comments were made while visions of
what has passed for "electrical instrumentation"
in years gone by were foremost in my thoughts . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/bat_ammeter.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadmeter.jpg
You're quite right that if your current measuring device
has the necessary resolution, it COULD be used for
in-flight or pre-flight validations as suggested.
However, if one has LED position lights, detecting
one malfunctioning fixture out of three may still be
problematic. I think if I had an engine that needed
actively pumped source of fuel, a fuel pressure gage
would be part of the instrumentation too. If I smelled
smoke, this gray-haired ol' sniffer of many failures
could decide if it was petroleum fed or some tortured
electrical component.
If a builder understands what the instrument is
capable of showing and finds it's useful to build
it into checklists then by all means. The digital
displays offer the most promise for such utility.
I've never flown behind digital displays of current
so I'll beg some indulgence for the 20 year old
thought processes. Thanks for rattling the cage!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Nav Lights? Was: Filtered Buck-Puck LED Drivers |
I'm reviving this thread just to ask what LED Nav lights will work with this
driver? Specifically looking for an RV-9 wingtip. I guess there are
several companies making Nav lights, would like to know what people have
tried.
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
Bob:
I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it appears
to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would be
with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be BATTERY
ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and Regulator to
#6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off to flip
the switch to keyway down?
Sorry for my confusion ?
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
>
> At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bob:
> >
> >I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using as my
> >master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do
have a
> >question:
> >
> >I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
> >
> >#2 - to battery contactor
> >#5 - to 5 Amp CB
> >#1 - to ground
> >#4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
> >
> >Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
>
> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played
with was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the position of the
toggle. Try to visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes
through a pivot, so when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of
the switch down. Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except
possibly for a keyed label plate matched to the switch.
(Slide switches are different animals, obviously.)
Charlie
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:
> Bob:
>
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it appears
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would be
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be BATTERY
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
>
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and Regulator to
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off to flip
> the switch to keyway down?
>
> Sorry for my confusion ?
>
> Henry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob:
>>>
>>> I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using as my
>>> master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do
>>>
> have a
>
>>> question:
>>>
>>> I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
>>>
>>> #2 - to battery contactor
>>> #5 - to 5 Amp CB
>>> #1 - to ground
>>> #4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
>>>
>>> Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
>>>
>> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up.? When I completed
the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the switches were backward.?
I simply reversed the switches, placing the keyway down.? All worked correctly
after that.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
?
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played
with was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the position of the
toggle. Try to visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes
through a pivot, so when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of
the switch down. Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except
possibly for a keyed label plate matched to the switch.?
?
(Slide switches are different animals, obviously.)?
?
Charlie?
?
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:?
> Bob:?
>?
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it appears?
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would be?
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be BATTERY?
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.?
>?
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and Regulator to?
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off to flip?
> the switch to keyway down??
>?
> Sorry for my confusion ??
>?
> Henry?
>?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>?
> To: ?
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM?
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch?
>?
>?
>
>>
> ?
>
>> At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:?
>>
>>> ?
>>>?
>>> Bob:?
>>>?
>>> I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using as my?
>>> master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do?
>>>
> have a?
>
>>> question:?
>>>?
>>> I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:?
>>>?
>>> #2 - to battery contactor?
>>> #5 - to 5 Amp CB?
>>> #1 - to ground?
>>> #4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator?
>>>?
>>> Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...?
>>>
>> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.?
>>?
>>?
>> Bob . . .?
>>?
>> ----------------------------------------)?
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )?
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )?
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )?
>> ( )?
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )?
>> ----------------------------------------?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>?
>>
>>?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------?
>>?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------?
>>?
>>?
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>?
>> ?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
What is the =93keyway=94 of a switch?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 16 de Dezembro de 2008 22:07
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up. When I
completed the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the
switches
were backward. I simply reversed the switches, placing the keyway down.
All worked correctly after that.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played
with
was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the position of the
toggle.
Try to visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes through
a
pivot, so when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of the switch
down. Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except possibly
for a
keyed label plate matched to the switch.
(Slide switches are different animals, obviously.)
Charlie
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:
> Bob:
>
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it
appears
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would
be
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be
BATTERY
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
>
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and
Regulator
to
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off
to
flip
> the switch to keyway down?
>
> Sorry for my confusion ?
>
> Henry
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
>
>
>> >
> >> At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob:
>>>
>>> I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using
as my
>>> master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do
>>> > have a
> >>> question:
>>>
>>> I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
>>>
>>> #2 - to battery contactor
>>> #5 - to 5 Amp CB
>>> #1 - to ground
>>> #4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
>>>
>>> Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
>>> >> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>
>>
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
There is a groove in the threaded barrel of the switch.=C2- That groove i
s the keyway.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 4:23 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
What is the =9Ckeyway=9D
of a switch?
=C2-
Carlos
=C2-
=C2-
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jaybannis
t(at)cs.com
Sent: ter=C3=A7a-feira, 16 de
Dezembro de 2008 22:07
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Re: Master Switch
=C2-
I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up.=C2- When
I completed the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the switch
es
were backward.=C2- I simply reversed the switches, placing the keyway
down.=C2- All worked correctly after that.
Jay in Dallas
=C2-
=C2-
-----Original
Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
-->
AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England =C2-
=C2-
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played with w
as
to 'make' th
e contacts that were opposite the position of the toggle. Try to
visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes through a pivot, so
when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of the switch down. Keyway
isn't relevant to this particular issue, except possibly for a keyed label p
late
matched to the switch.=C2-
=C2-
(Slide switches are different animals, obviously.)=C2-
=C2-
Charlie=C2-
=C2-
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:=C2-
> Bob:=C2-
>=C2-
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it
appears=C2-
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would
be=C2-
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be
BATTERY=C2-
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY &
ALTERNATOR.=C2-
>=C2-
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and Regulator
to=C2-
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off to
flip=C2-
> the switch to keyway down?=C2-
>=C2-
> Sorry for my confusion ?=C2-
>=C2-
> Henry=C2-
>=C2-
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III" =C2-
> To: =C2-
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM=C2-
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch=C2-
>=C2-
>=C2-
Nuckolls, III"=C2-
>> > =C2-
> >> At 05:20 PM=2
012/14/2008, you wrote:=C2-
Trzeciakowski"=C2-
>>> =C2-
>>>=C2-
>>> Bob:=C2-
>>>=C2-
>>> I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using
as my=C2-
>>> master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I
do=C2-
>>> > have a=C2-
> >>> question:=C2-
>>>=C2-
>>> I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals
accordingly:=C2-
>>>=C2-
>>> #2 - to battery contactor=C2-
>>> #5 - to 5 Amp CB=C2-
>>> #1 - to ground=C2-
>>> #4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator=C2-
>>>=C2-
>>> Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be
"down"...=C2-
>>> >> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>> Bob . . .=C2-
>>=C2-
>> ----------------------------------------)=C2-
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )=C2-
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )=C2-
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )=C2-
>> ( )=C2-
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )=C2-
>> ----------------------------------------=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>> >>=C2-
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------=C2
-
>>=C2-
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2-
>>=C2-
>>=C2-
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>=C2-
>> =C2-
=C2-
=C2-
size=2
width="100%" align=center>
0A
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com
=C2-
=C2-
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | currydon(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
Thanks Jay
Non-native English speaker problem solved!
Carlos in Portugal
P.S. ' I normally install all my DT toggle switches with the keyway
facing
down
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 16 de Dezembro de 2008 22:34
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
There is a groove in the threaded barrel of the switch. That groove is
the
keyway.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 4:23 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
What is the =93keyway=94 of a switch?
Carlos
_____
From: <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [
mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 16 de Dezembro de 2008 22:07
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up. When I
completed the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the
switches
were backward. I simply reversed the switches, placing the keyway down.
All worked correctly after that.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England < <mailto:ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played
with
was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the position of the
toggle.
Try to visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes through
a
pivot, so when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of the switch
down. Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except possibly
for a
keyed label plate matched to the switch.
(Slide switches are different animals, obviously.)
Charlie
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:
> Bob:
>
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. W ith the keyway up, it
appears
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would
be
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be
BATTERY
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
>
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and
Regulator
to
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off
to
flip
> the switch to keyway down?
>
> Sorry for my confusion ?
>
> Henry
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
>
>
>> > <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> >> At 05:20 PM 12/14/2008, you wrote:
>>> < hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>>>
>>> Bob:
>>>&nb sp;
>>> I've just wired my DPDT switch - (2TL-1-10) switch which I'm using
as my
>>> master. It is a locking switch and wired as in you Z-diagrams. I do
>>> > have a
> >>> question:
>>>
>>> I mounted the switch keyway-up and wired the terminals accordingly:
>>>
>>> #2 - to battery contactor
>>> #5 - to 5 Amp CB
>>> #1 - to ground
>>> #4 - to #6 terminal on the regulator
>>>
>>> Is this correct, I want my OFF position to be "down"...
>>> >> That's what the diagrams show. It should work.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> http://www.avg.com >>
>>
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
<http://www.cs.com>
http://www.cs.com
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?AeroElectric-List
p://forums.matronics.com
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
<http://www.cs.com>
http://www.cs.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Hall Effect Sensor |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
At 04:06 PM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
>I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up. When I
>completed the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the
>switches were backward. I simply reversed the switches, placing the
>keyway down. All worked correctly after that.
>
>Jay in Dallas
I'm not aware of any industry-wide conventions for keyway
orientation on switches. The only time it makes a difference
is when you have special features in a switch that are
orientation dependent. For example, and on-off-(on) switch
is spring-loaded from one end of travel to center. If you
want the spring loaded-position to be lower-most in the
installation, then that drives how the switch is installed
irrespective of keyway orientation.
Similarly, if you have a switch with terminal numbers molded
into the rear housing, then wiring in accordance with a diagram
that cites terminal numbers will work correctly only if
keyway orientation for that particular switch is observed.
I have switches in my junkbox with no keyway.
And of course, this would include rocker switches. These
can generally be mounted either orientation but the
switch may not function as anticipated if there are
non-symmetrical features . . . typically terminal
numbering or special tabs like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Rear.jpg
The keyway is added to many switches to facilitate robust
mounting.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Miniature_Toggle_w-Full_Size_Handle.jpg
The keyway is engaged by the often supplied tab-washer
to prevent the switch body from rotating on the mounting
due to torque applied by wires to the back or operator
from the front.
><ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever
>played with was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the
>position of the toggle. Try to visualize the action inside the
>switch. The lever passes through a pivot, so when you move the lever
>up, it moves the 'guts' of the switch down.
Yes. Here's a couple of shots that illustrate Charlie's
explanation.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Cutaway.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Toggle_Switch_with_Mold-Captured_Terminals.jpg
> Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except possibly
> for a keyed label plate matched to the switch.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/On-Off_Plate.jpg
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:
> Bob:
>
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it appears
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would be
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be BATTERY
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
>
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and Regulator to
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better
off to flip
> the switch to keyway down?
>
> Sorry for my confusion ?
You originally cited a 2TL series switch which
I presume is a Honeywell-Microswitch product. I've
illustrated the Miocroswitch convention for terminal
numbering at . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Progressive-Xfr_Split-Rocker_Switches.pdf
Now, as it turns out, the folks at Carling seem to
have adopted the Honeywell-Microswitch convention
for terminal numbers a couple of years ago. Bottom
line is that you MIGHT need to deduce how YOUR
particular switch functions. Quite often, you can
glean operational information from the manufacturer's
catalogs. I have a sampling of such documents on
the website at . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data.html
So for individual who read this posting now or in
the future, be aware that not all switches with
interchangeable functionality are labeled or keyed
the same way. So if the thing doesn't work the way
you want it to, the simplest solution is to get out
the ohmmeter and figure it out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
The reason for the keyway being up is environmental. When the keyway is
up, the pins are above the key channel, so when dirt, grime and moisture
gets into the key slot, it lays in the channel instead of contaminating
the pin which have close clearances. If the pins were on the bottom,
all the crud getting into the key slot would fall into the pins and
cause fouling and poorly working pins.
Chuck Jensen
-----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, December 17, 2008 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Switch
At 04:06 PM 12/16/2008, you wrote:
I always thought that the keyway on any switch should go up. When I
completed the wiring of my panel, I found that about a third of the
switches were backward. I simply reversed the switches, placing the
keyway down. All worked correctly after that.
Jay in Dallas
I'm not aware of any industry-wide conventions for keyway
orientation on switches. The only time it makes a difference
is when you have special features in a switch that are
orientation dependent. For example, and on-off-(on) switch
is spring-loaded from one end of travel to center. If you
want the spring loaded-position to be lower-most in the
installation, then that drives how the switch is installed
irrespective of keyway orientation.
Similarly, if you have a switch with terminal numbers molded
into the rear housing, then wiring in accordance with a diagram
that cites terminal numbers will work correctly only if
keyway orientation for that particular switch is observed.
I have switches in my junkbox with no keyway.
And of course, this would include rocker switches. These
can generally be mounted either orientation but the
switch may not function as anticipated if there are
non-symmetrical features . . . typically terminal
numbering or special tabs like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Split_Rocker_Rear.jpg
The keyway is added to many switches to facilitate robust
mounting.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Miniature_Toggle_w-Full_Size_Ha
ndle.jpg
The keyway is engaged by the often supplied tab-washer
to prevent the switch body from rotating on the mounting
due to torque applied by wires to the back or operator
from the front.
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net >
I'm not Bob, but the behavior of every toggle switch I've ever played
with was to 'make' the contacts that were opposite the position of the
toggle. Try to visualize the action inside the switch. The lever passes
through a pivot, so when you move the lever up, it moves the 'guts' of
the switch down.
Yes. Here's a couple of shots that illustrate Charlie's
explanation.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Cutaway.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Toggle_Switch_with_Mold-Capture
d_Terminals.jpg
Keyway isn't relevant to this particular issue, except possibly for a
keyed label plate matched to the switch.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/On-Off_Plate.jpg
Henry Trzeciakowski wrote:
> Bob:
>
> I've attached a jpeg picture of the wiring. With the keyway up, it
appears
> to me that since terminal #3 & #6 are empty that theOFF position would
be
> with the toggle in the up position ---the middle position would be
BATTERY
> ONLY and with the toggle in the down position, BATTERY & ALTERNATOR.
>
> If that is correct, then could I move Ground to terminal 3 and
Regulator to
> #6, so that the OFF position would be down, or would I be better off
to flip
> the switch to keyway down?
>
> Sorry for my confusion ?
You originally cited a 2TL series switch which
I presume is a Honeywell-Microswitch product. I've
illustrated the Miocroswitch convention for terminal
numbering at . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Progressive-Xfr_Split-Rocker_Switches.pd
f
Now, as it turns out, the folks at Carling seem to
have adopted the Honeywell-Microswitch convention
for terminal numbers a couple of years ago. Bottom
line is that you MIGHT need to deduce how YOUR
particular switch functions. Quite often, you can
glean operational information from the manufacturer's
catalogs. I have a sampling of such documents on
the website at . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data.html
So for individual who read this posting now or in
the future, be aware that not all switches with
interchangeable functionality are labeled or keyed
the same way. So if the thing doesn't work the way
you want it to, the simplest solution is to get out
the ohmmeter and figure it out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
At 08:16 AM 12/17/2008, you wrote:
>The reason for the keyway being up is environmental. When the
>keyway is up, the pins are above the key channel, so when dirt,
>grime and moisture gets into the key slot, it lays in the channel
>instead of contaminating the pin which have close clearances. If
>the pins were on the bottom, all the crud getting into the key slot
>would fall into the pins and cause fouling and poorly working pins.
>
>Chuck Jensen
I think you're referring to the cylinders in locks. We're
discussing the keyway on the mounting bushing of a toggle
switch . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Miniature_Toggle_w-Full_Size_Handle.jpg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
I plan dual electronic ignitions for my aircraft. I started with
Z13/8. As much as I expect the designers have done significant things
to ensure the ignitions work, in spite of nasty power events, I
finally decided I wanted completely isolated electrical systems, so
any problem, no matter how unlikely or unpredictable, could not
prevent continued flight. So I added a few features from Z14. I
didn't go all the way. My aux battery is very small, and driven by an
SD-8 alternator. I did not join the batteries together for extra jolt
when starting. I do have a small cross-feed relay that will allow the
SD-8 to power the essential bus if the main alternator fails.
The biggest thing I wrestled with, was how was my wife to know what
switches to throw in the event of an alternator failure ? Together we
came up with coloured lines joining the warning light and switches
that are numbered. This low voltage light goes on, then flip these
switches in this order.
You can view my power diagram and the switch layout here:
http://www.curtispriest.com/tundra/Electrical
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III hall
> effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the
> controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery
> terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the other
> hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but
> connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping
> the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off
> the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to
> turn them on/off as necessary.
>
> Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use.
>
> Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Red start button and fuse. |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
I have a red start button form Steinair (with one heavy bezel):
http://www.steinair.com/switches.htm
I like the switch. The tag on it says 120V AC 3A res.
I want to use it on a Rotax 914. I didn't find any info in the Rotax
documentation I have as to recommended rating of switch that should be
used.
Europa does recommend having a 5 amp fuse. Rotax shows a 2 amp fuse being
used. And Z-16 shows a 7 amp fuse being used.
I measured the resistance of the relay coil and it is 4.7 ohms. So if
there was a full 14 volts going to it it would draw a tad under 3 amps.
Often I see switches with a lesser rating for DC and inductive loads.
Practical questions:
Is the red button switch OK to use?
What circuit breaker rating should I use?
Thx. in advance.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I have always been a proponent of the keyway-down school of thought. The reason
being, that a small splash of water or rain would stay in the keyway, or drain
inward perhaps, if the keyway were facing up. (I also presume toggle up is ON
and down is OFF.) There must be a patent on the keyway in the late 1800's or
some mil-spec but I can't find it.
NKK sells little ON/OFF switch plates for use with keyed bushings and they seem
to agree with my described system. I have seen many of these little plates and
they mostly seem to agree. But I am sure you can get the opposite kind, too.
On a related subject. The little "face" on US 120 VAC outlets: By NEC code, the
little "face" is oriented so that U-ground connection is the last to exit the
socket when a power cord is pulled out of it. This is judged by height usually
(but not always). The high sockets have the U-ground "nose" down whilst low
mounted sockets have the U-ground "nose" up.
--------
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=219791#219791
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Red start button and fuse. |
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US a crit :
> I measured the resistance of the relay coil and it is 4.7 ohms. So if
> there was a full 14 volts going to it it would draw a tad under 3 amps.
>
> Often I see switches with a lesser rating for DC and inductive loads.
>
> Practical questions:
> Is the red button switch OK to use?
> What circuit breaker rating should I use?
>
>
Ron,
I've been using a 5 amp fuse for the starter relay on our Rotax 914
project. Added a diode across the coil terminals.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Red start button and fuse. |
At 10:46 AM 12/17/2008, you wrote:
>
>I have a red start button form Steinair (with one heavy bezel):
>http://www.steinair.com/switches.htm
>
>I like the switch. The tag on it says 120V AC 3A res.
>
>I want to use it on a Rotax 914. I didn't find any info in the Rotax
>documentation I have as to recommended rating of switch that should be
>used.
>
>Europa does recommend having a 5 amp fuse. Rotax shows a 2 amp fuse being
>used. And Z-16 shows a 7 amp fuse being used.
Fuses or breakers in ANYBODY's diagrams should be
evaluated against realities of the accessories
being installed.
>I measured the resistance of the relay coil and it is 4.7 ohms. So if
>there was a full 14 volts going to it it would draw a tad under 3 amps.
Don't know of any batteries that put out 14 volts to crank
engines . . . but I suppose you could be jump starting
from your car with the engine running. But good for you.
Your deduction of current draw is the all importan first
step.
>Often I see switches with a lesser rating for DC and inductive loads.
Once you add the diode across the coil, it is no longer
inductive from the perspective of switch life issues.
>Practical questions:
>Is the red button switch OK to use?
Yes.
>What circuit breaker rating should I use?
What ever you like that is equal to or greater than
3 amps and commensurate with the size of wire used.
22AWG and 5A is fine. 20AWG and 5A is fine too.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
There is another option to consider that is offered by Vertical Power. The system
measures the current drawn by each individual electrical device. It then sums
each of the devices and presents the total aircraft current draw on the graphic
of the electrical system. So you can see the overall current draw, as well
as drill down and see individual device current draw.
IMO, such features are becoming more and more important as aircraft become more
and more electrically dependent.
As Bob stated, this is best used for troubleshooting, and during normal operations
is nice to see just to verify that everything is drawing the right amount
of current. The system (upcoming feature) can also generate a "current fault"
alert, which lets you know instantaneously when something is not drawing current
that should be drawing current (like landing light, nav lights, pitot heat,
etc.).
It also means you don't have to install shunts or hall effect sensors. It's all
built into the control unit.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219806#219806
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | test after unsub/sub (I think) |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | tried to unsub. can't. how do I? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Hi Jeff,
I also plan on dual electronic ignition and my original design was practica
lly identical to yours. This was when I was looking at Dual Plasma III Igni
tions. Then I switched to dual P-MAGS. Reason? Simplicity and internal powe
r. At this point I couldn't reason that the added complexity of the dual ba
ttery split bus was justified, and ended up removing the second battery fro
m the design.
Both the designs are attached, the dual alt, dual batt dating from April. T
he current design is more or less finished.
Any takers of critiquing it for me?
The originals are in Visio. If anyone wants a copy, let me know.
Cheers, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 3:44:53 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Irela
nd, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
I plan dual electronic ignitions for my aircraft. =C2-I started with =C2
-
Z13/8. =C2-As much as I expect the designers have done significant things
=C2-
to ensure the ignitions work, in spite of nasty power events, I =C2-
finally decided I wanted completely isolated electrical systems, so =C2-
any problem, no matter how unlikely or unpredictable, could not =C2-
prevent continued flight. =C2-So I added a few features from Z14. =C2-I
=C2-
didn't go all the way. =C2-My aux battery is very small, and driven by an
=C2-
SD-8 alternator. =C2-I did not join the batteries together for extra jolt
=C2-
when starting. =C2-I do have a small cross-feed relay that will allow the
=C2-
SD-8 to power the essential bus if the main alternator fails.
The biggest thing I wrestled with, was how was my wife to know what =C2-
switches to throw in the event of an alternator failure ? =C2-Together we
=C2-
came up with coloured lines joining the warning light and switches =C2-
that are numbered. =C2-This low voltage light goes on, then flip these
=C2-
switches in this order.
You can view my power diagram and the switch layout here:
http://www.curtispriest.com/tundra/Electrical
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III hall
> effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the
> controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery
> terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the other
> hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but
> connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping
> the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off
> the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to
> turn them on/off as necessary.
>
> Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use.
>
> Glenn
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
MS -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: test after unsub/sub (I think) |
Good Morning David,
It appears that you are still shooting blanks.
I wish I knew more about computers. I wonder if it would help to contact
Matt Dralle (_dralle(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com) ) directly?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 12/17/2008 11:59:50 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ainut(at)hiwaay.net writes:
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor Installation |
At 09:07 PM 12/17/2008, you wrote:
>Ken,
>Congratulations. You are the first to obtain a less than
>antagonistic response on this subject. Perhaps moderate aging mellows us.
>It is not a stretch at all to find amps a valuable bit of info while airborne.
>Stan
I don't take pleasure in poking sticks
at people. What have I said about ammeters
that you interpreted as antagonistic?
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)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tried to unsub. can't. how do I? |
At 12:02 AM 12/18/2008, you wrote:
I presume you've been to the feature on the
server that controls subscriptions:
http://matronics.com/subscribe
I checked your email address on this page
and find that you're subscribed to three
Lists. You un-check the boxes you want to
delete and "execute".
In a few minutes, you'll receive an e-mail
that says a request for changes to your subscriptions
has been received. There's a link on that
email you have to hit to CONFIRM your request.
This feature prevents folks from messing with
your subscription status without your knowledge/
permission.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
no text
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:34 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: test after unsub/sub (I think) |
no text
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test after unsub/sub (I think)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Russell <peteruss2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | test after unsub/sub (I think) |
I also can not unsub. ??? can any suggest a solution ?
Regards=2C Peteruss
EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me> From: ainut(at)hiwaay.net> To: aeroelec
tric-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: test after unsub/sub (
I think)> Date: Wed=2C 17 Dec 2008 23:49:25 -0600> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | test after unsub/sub (I think) |
At 09:46 AM 12/18/2008, you wrote:
>I also can not unsub. ??? can any suggest a solution ?
>
>Regards, Peteruss
>
I just went to the matronics subscription page and
December 05, 2008 - December 18, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ih