AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ii
December 18, 2008 - January 02, 2009
successfully subscribed to a new list and then
successfully un-subscribed from the same list.
The system is working as advertised.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Andrew,
My two cents! I have personally seen more EMAG/PMAG failures then total
electrical failure in single bus electrical systems (Z-11). Add a
secondary battery (Z-19) and the statistics improve for a plasma system
vs. EMAG/PMAG. Remember during a major electrical failure (for what
ever reason) the Plasma systems only need, is a good battery for more
flying time then the airplane will hold fuel. The EMAG/PMAG product has
had more then it's fair share of field testing failures by the customer.
A customer that didn't realize they were test subjects. Just my opinion
viewed with actual 1st party data not 3rd!
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Andrew Butler
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Hi Jeff,
I also plan on dual electronic ignition and my original design was
practically identical to yours. This was when I was looking at Dual
Plasma III Ignitions. Then I switched to dual P-MAGS. Reason? Simplicity
and internal power. At this point I couldn't reason that the added
complexity of the dual battery split bus was justified, and ended up
removing the second battery from the design.
Both the designs are attached, the dual alt, dual batt dating from
April. The 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,
Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
MS -
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Glenn,
The reason for wiring the Lightspeed Plasma systems directly to the
battery is to prevent engine failure should you experience a bus failure
(a bus short, over voltage, or heavy drain buy a runaway device. The
object is that you could simply shut off all electric and continue to
fly (powering the Lightspeed system directly from a battery). If you
wire the Plasma system to the bus, you would become a glider in the
event of an electrical problem. In my opinion the Lightspeed dual
system requires two batters in the airplane period. Anything less will
only serve to help you glider logbook.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Page
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:45 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Mike,
How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion
is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual
ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21Xu2lJFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | LED Nav lights: recommendation? |
Bob--
Sorry to bother you with this but: do you have a vendor or vendors of LED
Navigation lights you can recommend or at least point out to me? Especially
ones that would sell their lights without driver so I can use yours. Having
a bit of trouble locating such a product.
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights: recommendation? |
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> Bob--
>
> Sorry to bother you with this but: do you have a vendor or vendors of LED
> Navigation lights you can recommend or at least point out to me? Especially
> ones that would sell their lights without driver so I can use yours. Having
> a bit of trouble locating such a product.
>
>
besthongkong.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
I have been using dual Lightspeed ign for about 300 hrs on my Glll with no
problems.
Jim Robinson
Glll- N79R
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, James H Nelson wrote:
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 12:23 PM
Mike,
How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion
is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual
ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21Xu2l
JFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
At 12:06 PM 12/18/2008, you wrote:
>
>Glenn,
>
>The reason for wiring the Lightspeed Plasma systems directly to the
>battery is to prevent engine failure should you experience a bus failure
>(a bus short, over voltage, or heavy drain buy a runaway device. The
>object is that you could simply shut off all electric and continue to
>fly (powering the Lightspeed system directly from a battery). If you
>wire the Plasma system to the bus, you would become a glider in the
>event of an electrical problem. In my opinion the Lightspeed dual
>system requires two batters in the airplane period. Anything less will
>only serve to help you glider logbook.
How do those feared risks occur?
How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
connection directly to the battery protect against
an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
open batteries, etc. etc.
It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure
but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get
any combination of implements you choose and MAKE
one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently,
then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly
difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns
for accidental events go away. The physics of events do
not change for random versus purposeful failures.
Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically
delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking
certain accessories directly to the battery with some
notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects
Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has
served aviation (and others) very well for 100+
years.
Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
controlled.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z29-30K.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf
There are well considered rationale for dual
accessories and power sources that do not concern
themselves with the statistically improbable or
physically impossible failure. These were the thought
processes that went into crafting Z-19 for certain
kinds of engines.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19m_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z19m_2.pdf
Let us not get bogged down with concerns about why
and how to tie multiple wires to the battery(+) post.
There are tried and well tested ways to architecture
and fabricate an electrical system that grow out
of confidence of understanding as opposed to nostrums
that arise out of fear.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights: recommendation? |
At 01:31 PM 12/18/2008, you wrote:
>
>Bob--
>
>Sorry to bother you with this but: do you have a vendor or vendors of LED
>Navigation lights you can recommend or at least point out to me? Especially
>ones that would sell their lights without driver so I can use yours. Having
>a bit of trouble locating such a product.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ralph Finch
>Davis, CA
No bother at all sir. I must confess that I'm ignorant of
the most attractive products to this task. My interest in
the power supplies arose from discussions that I think came
to this List from the RV folks. Seems the barefoot power
supplies were taking radios down. My only participation to
this point has been to make these devices more user
friendly for installation and system friendly with
respect to noise. The idea is catching on . . . I presume
based on availability of attractive lamps. I sent two
pairs of LED drivers out of the country last week!
If folks on the List are aware of suppliers for LED products
suited to the task of fabricating nav lights, I'd be pleased
to be made aware of them. I'll tie a list of recommendations
to the last page of the document that I crafted for
the power supplies.
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: | Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
I would agree..There have been a handful of failures, some of those were serious
where the E/Pmag lost its timing reference.
There were two reasons for this..One was where the firmware would see a false pressure
spike and would then revert to its factory default timing..This was fixed
a while ago and seems to have not re-occured.
The other reason was because the magnet was shifting on the end of the shaft. There
have been several fixes for this but I believe the lastest one has finally
got it. The magnet is now silver soldered on the holder and the holder is keyed
to the end of the shaft.
Now of course this latest revision does not have that many hours on it so by default
its unproven over the long term but it sure looks like a robust solution.
I have over 300 hours on an E/Pmag combo and did have some early teething troubles.
I know have the latest fixes and feel quite comfortable flying behind them.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
-->
Mike,
How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion is very
important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual ignitions is
for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21Xu2lJFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tried to unsub. can't. how do I? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
FWIW dept.
Marc Zeitlin documents the saga of his experiences, 2004 - 2008, with
the product line.
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Emagair_Warning/index.html
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 12
James H Nelson wrote:
>
> Mike,
> How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
> ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
> same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion
> is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual
> ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
>
> Jim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
David M wrote:
>
David,
Are you sending your messages as "attachments"? Either your mailer or
the matronics mailer seems to be stripping off your content. Try
setting up your mail handler to send "plain text" or "ASCII".
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Dale wrote
>FWIW dept.
>
> Marc Zeitlin documents the saga of his experiences, 2004 - 2008, with the
> product line.
And then there is the silent majority that are happy with their PMAG.
Yes some people have had problems, and there have been teething problems.I
have had to send mine back for an update.
But I haven't had any problems with mine. I only have 90 Hrs on them but
many others have 100's of hours on theirs.
Just to balance the argument.
Chris Byrne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
Bob:
I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions.
I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options -
Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few
differences:
Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded
wire
Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
The differences are:
ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the GRD
terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the shield
closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is NOT
grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
overkill...
So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding wire,
but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you?
Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
David - Do you have McAfee VirusScan on your computer? I've seen some
reports that virus scanning on the outgoing messages can somehow cause
the messages to appear to be blank. I have no idea why this would be
so, or if this is fact or fiction. But, it may be worthwhile turning
off any virus scanning for a test.
Kevin Horton
On 18-Dec-08, at 18:30 , David M wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
Still not working
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:08 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed now! |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Hi David,
Looking at the message source I can see your text, but there is also
some extra gunk in there that seems to be messing things up, and it
looks like it is being generated on your computer.
You might try disabling your AVG virus scanner, and then send another
e-mail to see if that corrects the issue. The message header has a
Content-Type "=======AVGMAIL-494ADD2F0000=======" info embedded in it,
along with three other lines that also have "Content-Type" header
information, including some embedded part way down the message, which
does not look right to me.
The only other idea is something is set incorrectly with the Microsoft
Outlook Express program that you are using. If hiiway.net offers a web
interface to your e-mail, you might try sending a message from that to
bypass Outlook Express. You might also try another e-mail program such
as Thunderbird.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
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: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | and my email is set to plain text! |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | test 6, avg outgoing turned off |
test #6
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed
now!
>
>
> David - Do you have McAfee VirusScan on your computer? I've seen some
> reports that virus scanning on the outgoing messages can somehow cause
> the messages to appear to be blank. I have no idea why this would be
> so, or if this is fact or fiction. But, it may be worthwhile turning
> off any virus scanning for a test.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> On 18-Dec-08, at 18:30 , David M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8:06 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: test 6, avg outgoing turned off |
Ta Da! That did it.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:55 PM, David M wrote:
>
> test #6
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: test 6, avg outgoing turned off |
Looks Good!!
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
In a message dated 12/18/2008 8:59:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ainut(at)hiwaay.net writes:
test #6
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: test 6, avg outgoing turned off |
Now that it's working what was the message? Better be good!
HA HA
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: test 6, avg outgoing turned off
Looks Good!!
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
In a message dated 12/18/2008 8:59:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ainut(at)hiwaay.net writes:
test #6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and
Yah&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025">Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: test 6, avg outgoing turned off |
Yay! It works now!!!
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test 6, avg outgoing turned off
>
> test #6
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: test #4 - I know I unsubbed and resubbed
> now!
>
>
>>
>>
>> David - Do you have McAfee VirusScan on your computer? I've seen some
>> reports that virus scanning on the outgoing messages can somehow cause
>> the messages to appear to be blank. I have no idea why this would be
>> so, or if this is fact or fiction. But, it may be worthwhile turning
>> off any virus scanning for a test.
>>
>> Kevin Horton
>>
>> On 18-Dec-08, at 18:30 , David M wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 8:06 PM
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8:06 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
I'm going to use these in my OBAM 12v home made EFIS:
Allegro ACS750xCA-100
Cheap, easy, and hopefully reliable. No moving parts. :)
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Hi Mike,
Thanks for this. All two are welcome, as they help build a big picture of all sides
of those coins.
I am aware of the issues with the P-Mags (magnets and the like) and this is why
I have decided to wire up for dual P-mags, but only install one. This will still
give me most of the benefits of the e-ignition, while allowing me to rest
easy with regards any gremlins that might exist. I'll let the Slick MAG do its
thing and see how things are in a couple of years with regards replacing it............
Cheers, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, 18 December, 2008 5:57:58 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Andrew,
My two cents! I have personally seen more EMAG/PMAG failures then total
electrical failure in single bus electrical systems (Z-11). Add a
secondary battery (Z-19) and the statistics improve for a plasma system
vs. EMAG/PMAG. Remember during a major electrical failure (for what
ever reason) the Plasma systems only need, is a good battery for more
flying time then the airplane will hold fuel. The EMAG/PMAG product has
had more then it's fair share of field testing failures by the customer.
A customer that didn't realize they were test subjects. Just my opinion
viewed with actual 1st party data not 3rd!
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Andrew Butler
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Hi Jeff,
I also plan on dual electronic ignition and my original design was
practically identical to yours. This was when I was looking at Dual
Plasma III Ignitions. Then I switched to dual P-MAGS. Reason? Simplicity
and internal power. At this point I couldn't reason that the added
complexity of the dual battery split bus was justified, and ended up
removing the second battery from the design.
Both the designs are attached, the dual alt, dual batt dating from
April. The 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,
Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
MS -
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
How do those feared risks occur?
How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
connection directly to the battery protect against
an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
open batteries, etc. etc.
Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
certified airplane.
It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure
but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get
any combination of implements you choose and MAKE
one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently,
then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly
difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns
for accidental events go away. The physics of events do
not change for random versus purposeful failures.
Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
deserves the same respect?
Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically
delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking
certain accessories directly to the battery with some
notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects
Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has
served aviation (and others) very well for 100+
years.
It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
failure of the total system.
Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
controlled.
Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
products and concepts haven't been either.
Mike
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
I have had direct interaction with four EMAG/PMAG airplanes where the
airplane was unflyable (loss of power in flight, or would not run on the
ground). I have seen many more mag failures but I have not seen both
fail at the same time making the airplane unflyable. I have also seen
one failure on the Lightspeed system but never a dual failure. Some of
the EMAG failures may have been isolatable in flight causing a single
failure on a dual system vs. the dual failures that caused landing out
or not running at all.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
H Nelson
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Mike,
How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion
is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual
ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21X
u2lJFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Mike wrote:
> Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
> left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
> over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
> of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
> controlled.
>
> Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
> products and concepts haven't been either.
>
>
That statement shows a lot of insight, Mike. As the technology we use
evolves, some things that were critical become secondary, and some
things that were minor become critical.
With respect to electrically dependent (ED) engines, I think we can boil
all the concerns down to three things that the engine must have to keep
running: air, fuel, and spark. A bulletproof system will have full
redundancy across all three.
Redundant air is generally provided by some sort of flapper valve or
some such thingy to get around a clogged air filter, but the biggest
problem with air is carb icing. This is one area where electronic
injection shines. A significant portions of accidents occur when a carb
ices up where the fuel is evaporated into the air. EI moves the
evaporation location closer to the combustion location, where there is
more heat to keep the ice from forming. Icing is still possible, just
less so. Either way, methods for avoiding cutting off the air supply
look the same for all types of engines.
Redundant fuel is harder for ED engines. Fuel pumps are hard working
devices that are reliable, but do not have infinite lifespan, and it
depends on a lot of upstream stuff to work. A backup pump only backs up
the pump. For it to be a true alternate system, you have to backup
everything, up to and including the power generation source. Even with
a second pump, I chose to go low tech and provide a gravity fed drip
line to the air intake with a needle valve control. I would never be
able to get the engine started with this on the ground...and I'd never
want to. Control is slow and unresponsive, but it will get me to the
nearest airport. It is meant as a backup to keep the fan turning in an
emergency. This would work for any engine. Low wing aircraft would
need a header tank higher than the engine. The vast majority of
aircraft being built in garages today could stay straight and level for
an hour with 5gal of fuel, and travel nearly 100 miles. At a time when
everything is going that badly the only place you should be trying to
get to is 'nearest'. High wing aircraft would be able to run the tanks
dry with this method.
The spark is also more difficult for ED. Airplane engines are designed
with two independent, self contained spark producers. Each mag has a
generator, a distributor and coil all in one tidy package. You just
have to bolt them on and plug them in. Moving to ED generally means
that you're breaking the generator and spark producer apart. Most
designs have two spark producers, but combine the generators into one,
and depend on the battery for backup. Again, this isn't really
redundancy. My design calls for using two EDIS modules (self-contained
electronic ignition controller used by Ford), and converting the old
distributor to a generator. One EDIS module runs off ship's power. The
other is powered by the tiny generator (less than 5 amps) that was once
the distributor. If I lose ship's power, the secondary ignition will
keep right on going. The two are completely independent.
So Mike is correct. New products call for new thinking...but the
thinking really goes back to the same basic principles. The engine must
have air, spark and fuel. Backup systems must be able to deliver
without depending on the primary system. It is best to assume that the
primary system doesn't exist AT ALL when designing the backup. There's
a lot of new under the sun....just it's not, really.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Mike and Bob,
Thank you both for your input. I have emailed with Jeff P. and I've
decided a second battery (even a small 4.5 ah job) would be a good idea
as an independent source for keeping at least one ignition going even if
I shut down the power completely and simply had to fly home with just
the engine.
Mike, as you indicated that is the reason Lightspeed likes it wired
directly to the battery. Depending on a bus which is behind a solenoid
is asking for trouble. Yes, I've replaced more than one solenoid on
aircraft in the field and fortunately with mags there was no dependency.
FYI, stealing a solenoid off the FBOs old pick-up truck works in
airplanes too. Parts do fail, but only when you're flying - funny that.
The Lightspeed draws little power and I only need 1-2 amps to find a
landing spot. It may be that I install it inside the cabin and keep it
charged just as a backup. A big part of the process is monitoring and
recognizing when the system is acting up and when (and how) to shut it
down - that's process. I have done enough flying in the dark to realize
the importance of a backup something.
Thanks to all for the diagrams and discussion.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
How do those feared risks occur?
How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
connection directly to the battery protect against
an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
open batteries, etc. etc.
Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
certified airplane.
It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure
but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get
any combination of implements you choose and MAKE
one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently,
then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly
difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns
for accidental events go away. The physics of events do
not change for random versus purposeful failures.
Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
deserves the same respect?
Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically
delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking
certain accessories directly to the battery with some
notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects
Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has
served aviation (and others) very well for 100+
years.
It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
failure of the total system.
Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
controlled.
Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
products and concepts haven't been either.
Mike
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
At 07:01 AM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> How do those feared risks occur?
>
> How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
> connection directly to the battery protect against
> an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
> device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
> to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
> imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
> open batteries, etc. etc.
>
>Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
>loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
. . . and are these all not manifestations of poor
craftsmanship or maintenance? If we're going to add
band-aids to any system that go to offsetting sub-standard
behavior by someone who has touched the airplane . . . where
does it end?
>I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
>started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
>Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
>CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
>got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
>problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
>out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
>system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
>would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
>battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
>certified airplane.
. . . and what did you learn from this or any other story
that would give you pause for evaluating your own project?
Are there things that could or should have been done in
the original design processes that would have prevented this
incident? Suppose your RV doesn't even HAVE a piece-of-@#$@#
air conditioner.What is the value of taking one incident where
the designers/fabricators/maintainers/operators stubbed there
collective toes and then levying new requirements on ALL
airplanes that work-around the SYMPTOMS of that one case?
>Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
>hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
>that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
>An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
>experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
>transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
>important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
>deserves the same respect?
My career in aviation began in 1955 when I helped
an uncle install an MANUAL direction finder loop in
his 170. He could put holes in the airplane but couldn't
read a diagram or solder. I was 12 years old.
I retired from Hawker-Beechcraft 18 months ago as the
subject matter expert leader in electronics/electrical
systems. I'm still contracting to that organization and
several others who specialize in aviation design and
production.
I'm an 1000 hour private pilot with about that many
additional hours as a test engineer on TC aircraft
and 50 times that time as a designer, qualifier and
troubleshooter of airborne systems. I'm now 66 years
old and still in the business.
>It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
>reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
>the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
>all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
>failure of the total system.
Agreed. But just as fuel flow under all anticipated
flight conditions was the big stumbling block for
many a designer 70 years ago, we have a new
challenge that isn't any different. Just as there's
no excuse for total failure of fuel flow, there is
NO EXCUSE for total failure of an electrical system.
Yeah, it has happened which means there's a REASON
but there is still no excuse.
>Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
>products and concepts haven't been either.
Just because it is new doesn't mean that the
thought processes and fabrication techniques
for airworthiness are any different than what
has worked well for decades.
Suppose we consider an RV with a piece of @#$@
air conditioner with a failure mode that sucks down
the entire system? Of what value is it to tie
one or both systems directly to the (+) battery
post? Which is better, refine the A/C design or
add weight, complexity, cost-of-ownership to offset
the possibility that the A/C causes an unhappy day
in the cockpit?
On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
this potential into an existing, highly refined system
in a way that does not increase risk?
There are people who worry a lot about things
they don't understand. There are people who are
paid to worry a lot about things they presumably
understand and use force of law to modify our
behavior such that THEIR worries are mitigated
. . . all in the name of 'safety'.
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/caffiene.htm
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Cowboy_after_OSHA.jpg
My point about your posting was that it tended to
reenforce the notion that there was a valid WORRY
to be address without adding understanding.
An understanding of design for failure-tolerance,
craftsmanship, maintenance and operation such that
worries go away.
There are few suppliers to aviation that have a
working knowledge of low-risk, light-weight, failure-
tolerant system design. If we attached every worry-wart's
product to the battery(+) post . . . it's easy
to see where that idea leads!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | LED Position Lights |
This isn't an exact answer to your question about LED wingtip position
lights, but it might be helpful.
I'm using these LED wingtip position lights on my airplane:
https://ssl.perfora.net/www.gs-air.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15494c3e0b2a
590/shopdata/index.shopscript
In addition to the red/green forward position light and the white aft
position light, that both use LEDs, they also use a conventional strobe
light.
I talked with GS-Air the other day and they are close to finalizing a
new wingtip position light that also uses LEDs for the "strobe" light.
Best,
Dennis
Lancair Legacy, 225 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch |
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Trzeciakowski
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
Bob:
I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions.
I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options -
Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few
differences:
Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded
wire
Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
The differences are:
ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the GRD
terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the shield
closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is NOT
grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
overkill...
So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding wire,
but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you?
Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Guys
I have a P+B pull able breaker I want to use as my E-Bus feed.
I ordered a small clip from Spruce used for that purpose, but I guess it
is for a Klixon breaker, it's too large in diameter and not wide enough
for a P+B pull able breaker.
Anyone have any suggestions?
I cut a blue translucent piece of polyurethane fuel line to length, then
slit it. It kinda works, but I have a suspicion someone has figured a
better way.
Thx. in advance
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
At 01:56 AM 12/20/2008, you wrote:
>
>Hi Guys
>
>I have a P+B pull able breaker I want to use as my E-Bus feed.
>
>I ordered a small clip from Spruce used for that purpose, but I guess it
>is for a Klixon breaker, it's too large in diameter and not wide enough
>for a P+B pull able breaker.
>
>Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>I cut a blue translucent piece of polyurethane fuel line to length, then
>slit it. It kinda works, but I have a suspicion someone has figured a
>better way.
I'm having trouble visualizing your design goal. Are you
talking about a "circuit breaker lock"?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmobreakerlocks.php
I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
protection on this path located right at the battery
bus? Does not a little piece of plastic become a problematic
cockpit accessory like loose fuses, AA batteries, pencils,
pistachio shells and Hershey's kisses?
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: Ignition Switch |
At 11:41 PM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:hammer408(at)comcast.net>Henry Trzeciakowski
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
>
>Bob:
>
>I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
>Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring
>instructions. I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition
>Switch Options - Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically
>identical with a few differences:
>
>Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded wire
>Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
>Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
>Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
>
>The differences are:
>
>ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the
>GRD terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
>
>whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the
>shield closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD
>is NOT grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
>
>ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
>overkill...
>
>So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding
>wire, but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you?
>
>Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Yes, there are differences. I hope
you will forgive me . . . I'm not trying
to be obtuse but I just don't have the
time at the moment to explain them. They've
been discussed here on the List and you can
probably find the exchanges in the matronics
archives.
It's a noise and ground loops issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
I am building a Europa monowheel with a electrical dependent Rotax 914.
Battery is aft. I have a Flaming River battery contactor on the passenger
headrest to be used as main battery contactor.
I have panel laid out to my liking, and besides the fact that there is
precious little panel space I do not like a cluttered panel with stuff
that could be situated elsewhere. :
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album211&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Thus it was my choice to make in and aft of passenger headrest an
electrical center. Space is precious and the aft section of headrest
mounted on the aluminium panel has 6 pullable circuit breakers and 3
circuit breaker/switches. :
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album261&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Wire run from Battery switch to aft Bus is inches. Buss run to Shotky
diode from battery switch is inches. Shotky Diode wire run to E-Buss
alternate feed P+B pullable Breaker/Switch is inches.
Aft buss, E-Buss and always hot buss are located on P+B
Breakers/Breaker/Switches fabricated from .025" copper ~ 3/8" wide. Yes
all wires are protected except for the short run from battery contactor.
My always hot buss consists of only two things, pitch trim on a 1 amp
pullable breaker and E-Buss alternate feed pullable breaker. It is the
E-Buss alternate feed pullable breaker I wish to keep "pulled". I am
afraid it could be accidental pushed in when flipping on and off 3
Breaker/Switches, which would kill my battery if I walked away from plane
with it closed. My E-Buss consists of fuel pump #2, Rotax 914 TCU and
Airmaster CS Propeller controller.
The link included in your E-Mail from ACS is the exact breaker clip I
have, but it is not designed for a P+B pullable breaker. The E-buss
alternate feed is not something that will get much use, but if I need it,
just smack the Flaming River main switch, push E-buss alternate feed and
turn on pump #2. I don't like having stuff floating around cockpit, thus
for this situation if I were to use my tube, would use a piece of Spectra
to teather it. BTW Spectra is incredibly strong fishing line.
Would be nice to have something like a sliding lock.
I could invent something if i need to, but am hoping someone else figured
out a reasonable solution.
It just so happens my basement computer is on the light switch near the
top of the steps. Got to be a pain when family would go upstairs and leave
me in the dark, but worst they turned off computer. I fabricated a gizmo
that lived on the switch plate attachment screw with just the right amount
of "wiggulation" and it was put under switch so you couldn't turn it off
without a bit of effort. Worked and still works great. Took me way over an
hour to fabricate and get it tweaked. A few weeks later I saw essential
the same thing in hardware store for under a buck.
Anyway any ideas?
Thx.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
> I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
> to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
> the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
> plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
> protection on this path located right at the battery
> bus? Does not a little piece of plastic become a problematic
> cockpit accessory like loose fuses, AA batteries, pencils,
> pistachio shells and Hershey's kisses?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
At 03:25 PM 12/20/2008, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob
>
>Thx. for the reply.
>
>I am building a Europa monowheel with a electrical dependent Rotax 914.
>Battery is aft. I have a Flaming River battery contactor on the passenger
>headrest to be used as main battery contactor.
>
>I have panel laid out to my liking, and besides the fact that there is
>precious little panel space I do not like a cluttered panel with stuff
>that could be situated elsewhere. :
>http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album211&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
>
>Thus it was my choice to make in and aft of passenger headrest an
>electrical center. Space is precious and the aft section of headrest
>mounted on the aluminium panel has 6 pullable circuit breakers and 3
>circuit breaker/switches. :
>http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album261&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
>
>Wire run from Battery switch to aft Bus is inches. Buss run to Shotky
>diode from battery switch is inches. Shotky Diode wire run to E-Buss
>alternate feed P+B pullable Breaker/Switch is inches.
>
>Aft buss, E-Buss and always hot buss are located on P+B
>Breakers/Breaker/Switches fabricated from .025" copper ~ 3/8" wide. Yes
>all wires are protected except for the short run from battery contactor.
>
>My always hot buss consists of only two things, pitch trim on a 1 amp
>pullable breaker and E-Buss alternate feed pullable breaker. It is the
>E-Buss alternate feed pullable breaker I wish to keep "pulled". I am
>afraid it could be accidental pushed in when flipping on and off 3
>Breaker/Switches, which would kill my battery if I walked away from plane
>with it closed. My E-Buss consists of fuel pump #2, Rotax 914 TCU and
>Airmaster CS Propeller controller.
>
>The link included in your E-Mail from ACS is the exact breaker clip I
>have, but it is not designed for a P+B pullable breaker. The E-buss
>alternate feed is not something that will get much use, but if I need it,
>just smack the Flaming River main switch, push E-buss alternate feed and
>turn on pump #2. I don't like having stuff floating around cockpit, thus
>for this situation if I were to use my tube, would use a piece of Spectra
>to teather it. BTW Spectra is incredibly strong fishing line.
>
>Would be nice to have something like a sliding lock.
>
>I could invent something if i need to, but am hoping someone else figured
>out a reasonable solution.
>
>It just so happens my basement computer is on the light switch near the
>top of the steps. Got to be a pain when family would go upstairs and leave
>me in the dark, but worst they turned off computer. I fabricated a gizmo
>that lived on the switch plate attachment screw with just the right amount
>of "wiggulation" and it was put under switch so you couldn't turn it off
>without a bit of effort. Worked and still works great. Took me way over an
>hour to fabricate and get it tweaked. A few weeks later I saw essential
>the same thing in hardware store for under a buck.
>
>Anyway any ideas?
What is the diameter of the cb button under the
head? What is the gap (thickness of the clip)?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Bob
>>Anyway any ideas?
>
> What is the diameter of the cb button under the
> head? What is the gap (thickness of the clip)?
I just looked up spec sheet on W31 and they only provide head diameter
which is .315".
I will measure the length of head, and diameter and length of shaft
(smaller diameter than head) and report back.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker |
opened
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>
> Hi Bob
>
>
>>> Anyway any ideas?
>>>
>> What is the diameter of the cb button under the
>> head? What is the gap (thickness of the clip)?
>>
>
> I just looked up spec sheet on W31 and they only provide head diameter
> which is .315".
>
> I will measure the length of head, and diameter and length of shaft
> (smaller diameter than head) and report back.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
Why not just bend up a U shaped guard like you'd use to protect a toggle
switch?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Bob
"> What is the diameter of the cb button under
the
> head? What is the gap (thickness of the clip)?>"
The shaft sticking out of P+B pullable breaker has three tiers.
Head is .312" diameter and .115" in length, and second
tier below head is .250" in diameter and .200" in length, and
third tier is .200" in diameter and .200"in length.
Thus total shaft length sticking out measured from metal threaded
portion to tipof head when pulled is .515" (.115" +
.200" + .200"), with their threerespective diameters (head
being the largest) .312", .250", .200".
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread |
This thread pretty much covers it all on the starter switch and ground.
Short story is that the GRD terminal on the 504 switch uses the shield on
the P-Lead to get to the aircraft ground. Read this, should cover it for
you.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=36272
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=36272&highlight=Star
ter+Switch> &highlight=Starter+Switch
Hope this helps.
Bill S
7a finishing
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
At 11:41 PM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry <mailto:hammer408(at)comcast.net> Trzeciakowski
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
Bob:
I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions. I
then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options - Magento.
Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few differences:
Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded
wire
Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
The differences are:
ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the GRD
terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the shield
closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is NOT
grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
overkill...
So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding wire, but
why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you?
Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Yes, there are differences. I hope
you will forgive me . . . I'm not trying
to be obtuse but I just don't have the
time at the moment to explain them. They've
been discussed here on the List and you can
probably find the exchanges in the matronics
archives.
It's a noise and ground loops issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread |
Thanks Bill:
This definitely answers my question.......I can now see the "light"
regarding grounding the sheilded wire at both ends per Bob's
Z-26......the link to the 2005 VAF Forum was excellent. The one thng I
noticed was that they are using 18awg shieded and Bob's Z-26 uses 20 awg
shielded....20 is what I have and plan on using unless 18 is better than
20 !!
Thanks again
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Schlatterer
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread
This thread pretty much covers it all on the starter switch and
ground. Short story is that the GRD terminal on the 504 switch uses the
shield on the P-Lead to get to the aircraft ground. Read this, should
cover it for you.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=36272&highlight=
Starter+Switch
Hope this helps.
Bill S
7a finishing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:00 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
At 11:41 PM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Trzeciakowski
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
Bob:
I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions.
I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options -
Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few
differences:
Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag -
shielded wire
Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
The differences are:
ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the
GRD terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the
shield closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is
NOT grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
overkill...
So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding
wire, but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted
by you?
Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Yes, there are differences. I hope
you will forgive me . . . I'm not trying
to be obtuse but I just don't have the
time at the moment to explain them. They've
been discussed here on the List and you can
probably find the exchanges in the matronics
archives.
It's a noise and ground loops issue.
Bob . . .
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread |
At 08:08 PM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
>Thanks Bill:
>
>This definitely answers my question.......I can now see the "light"
>regarding grounding the sheilded wire at both ends per Bob's
>Z-26......the link to the 2005 VAF Forum was excellent. The one
>thng I noticed was that they are using 18awg shieded and Bob's Z-26
>uses 20 awg shielded....20 is what I have and plan on using unless
>18 is better than 20 !!
>
>Thanks again
Some TC aircraft designs specify 20AWG or larger to
any accessories on the engine . . . it's some sort
of robustness thing. I suppose 18AWG is more robust
still. On canard pushers, there IS a voltage drop issue
for the long run from start switch to the tail mounted
starter contactor combined with low battery and cold
temperatures. 20AWG is fine but if you have some scraps
of 18 laying around waiting for useful duty on your
airplane it would be fine too. The only wires that benefit
from shielding are the p-leads and then only if wired
as depicted in the z-figures. There again 20 is adequate
but 18 is fine if you have it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Probably a bit OTT have you looked at fitting a 'missile switch' cover MS25224-1
looks close enough to accomadate .5" of breaker shaft if you drill out the
cover for clearance in the protected position.
Perhaps a nicer way would be to recess the breaker so when pulled the button is
level with the others.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220474#220474
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY LED fixture data |
A number of folks have sent me links to websites that either
offer led lighting products or suppliers of individual LEDs
that you may find suited to your task. Here's the list
I have cmplied to date:
http://www.firststarled.com/
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/columns/guest/james.htm
http://www.creativair.com/combo-navigation-light-kits-p-88.html
http://www.amtonline.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1585
http://jmhledaircraftlights.blogspot.com/
http://www.eaa724.org/TechnicalStuff%20.html
http://www.creativair.com/
http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
http://gsair.com/
http://www.luxeonstar.com/
http://www.periheliondesign.com/ledlights.htm
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24258
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-lights-redbeacon.php
http://stores.ebay.com/Light-of-Victory-Led-Store-lvehk
http://stores.ebay.com/Emili223-Store
http://stores.ebay.com.hk/auspiciouse
http://stores.ebay.com/led-hk
http://stores.ebay.com/cece718
http://stores.ebay.com.hk/electronicsdiy
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Langhout <dllang(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | AEC 9051 Filtered LED Driver Circuit Question |
This is probably a question for Bob . . . .
I am in the process of building an LED driver that has 4 of the
3021-D-E-1000 Buck Pucks on the same board. I am attempting to parrot
the filter design that Bob used for the AEC 9051 to quiet down the Buck
Pucks but I have a couple of questions:
1. This board will use PWM (100 Hz) from a PIC to control the
intensity of the LEDs attached to it. The Buck Pucks can be "flashed"
at up to 10 kHz by toggling the control pin between 0 and 5V. I have
tested this at 100 Hz and they work very well this way "bare". If I add
the the filter network a-la the AEC 9051 to the LED+ and LED- lines,
will it detrimentally affect the ability to toggle the output of the
Buck Puck on and off at 100 Hz? I suspect that it won't but I'd like a
second (more informed) opinion.
2. Each of the 4 Buck Pucks will have to have it's own filter network
on LED+ and LED-. But I would really like to avoid having to replicate
the filters 4 times for the VIN+ and VIN- lines. If I combined these
into a single filter, would I need to change the inductance and
capacitance values of the components? Inductance and capacitance values
aside, it would seem that I would now have to have an inductor rated
for at least 4A to feed the 4 Buck Pucks. Does that sound right? The
problem there is that a 100uH inductor rated for 4A is physically pretty
large and I'm really trying to keep the size of this thing down. Any
other suggested solutions?
Thanks!
Dan Langhout
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com" <eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | BOM for control cabinet for line #4 |
Sarah,
See attached a BOM for SMC items that Michael Stahl at Chewning and Wilmer requested.
This is for a Control Cabinet on Line #4.
Please let me know if there are any problems with part numbers or lead times.
Thanks and have a great Holiday,
Eddie
eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC 9051 Filtered LED Driver Circuit Question |
At 11:23 PM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
>
>This is probably a question for Bob . . . .
>
> I am in the process of building an LED driver that has 4 of
> the 3021-D-E-1000 Buck Pucks on the same board. I am attempting to
> parrot the filter design that Bob used for the AEC 9051 to quiet
> down the Buck Pucks but I have a couple of questions:
>
>1. This board will use PWM (100 Hz) from a PIC to control the
>intensity of the LEDs attached to it. The Buck Pucks can be
>"flashed" at up to 10 kHz by toggling the control pin between 0 and
>5V. I have tested this at 100 Hz and they work very well this way
>"bare". If I add the the filter network a-la the AEC 9051 to the
>LED+ and LED- lines, will it detrimentally affect the ability to
>toggle the output of the Buck Puck on and off at 100 Hz? I suspect
>that it won't but I'd like a second (more informed) opinion.
No problem . . .
>2. Each of the 4 Buck Pucks will have to have it's own filter
>network on LED+ and LED-. But I would really like to avoid having
>to replicate the filters 4 times for the VIN+ and VIN- lines. If I
>combined these into a single filter, would I need to change the
>inductance and capacitance values of the components? Inductance and
>capacitance values aside, it would seem that I would now have to
>have an inductor rated for at least 4A to feed the 4 Buck Pucks.
Yes . . .
> Does that sound right? The problem there is that a 100uH
> inductor rated for 4A is physically pretty large and I'm really
> trying to keep the size of this thing down. Any other suggested solutions?
The values were WAGGED . . . I didn't have access to
the DO160 lab at the time to refine the components. All
we know now is that the components cited reduced observed
interference to acceptable if not imperceptible levels.
The filter may be overkill, or even less than suggested
by DO160. There were no objective measurements made.
I have some other test programs coming up that may
give me an opportunity to check the AEC9051's real
noise numbers. In the mean time, the values cited
offer a good starting point for your own experiments.
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: | Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> ...
> I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
> to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
> the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
> plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
> protection on this path located right at the battery
> bus?
Bob,
There are apparently some elements of the concept that I
don't have a good handle on yet. Forgive me if it is already
covered in AEC; but that's a big volume and I'm actually
jumping a bit ahead in my build, so that I can do some of the
ground-work while it's still convenient to do them in an
early stage of the fuselage construction.
I'm building a glass pusher (COZY) with an "alternative"
engine. No mags.
To my understanding - so far - the "endurance" bus has only
the things on it that I ~must~ have to conclude my flight
safely - albeit possibly truncated - in the event that my
alternator fails. So, I'm having a problem understanding why
one would want to switch access to that bus. To connect to
a back-up supply of electrons?
I'm planning to connect the bus supporting my bare
essentials directly to the battery, then run a switched/fused
connection to my "everything else" bus from that. To
accomplish that, I'm running a "0" cable from the B+
terminal to my starter solenoid (about 18") and then a pair
of #6 welding cables (+ & -) to the front of the airplane, and
another #10 wire to the ECU which, at present, is only a few
inches from the battery.
Am I overlooking something important?
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Ah, good point Bob. I think as long as aircraft and human nature exist,
there is no end. One gets the impression that by introducing new
technology we somehow lesson our faith in its reliability.
I embrace new technology, but I don't want to have to build a
triple-redundant system on the chance it may take a bow. The goal of
simplicity with reliability should still be enforced.
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: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
At 07:01 AM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> How do those feared risks occur?
>
> How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
> connection directly to the battery protect against
> an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
> device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
> to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
> imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
> open batteries, etc. etc.
>
>Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire,
the
>loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
. . . and are these all not manifestations of poor
craftsmanship or maintenance? If we're going to add
band-aids to any system that go to offsetting sub-standard
behavior by someone who has touched the airplane . . . where
does it end?
>I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
>started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
>Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
>CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
>got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
>problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
>out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered
ignition
>system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
>would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
>battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
>certified airplane.
. . . and what did you learn from this or any other story
that would give you pause for evaluating your own project?
Are there things that could or should have been done in
the original design processes that would have prevented this
incident? Suppose your RV doesn't even HAVE a piece-of-@#$@#
air conditioner.What is the value of taking one incident where
the designers/fabricators/maintainers/operators stubbed there
collective toes and then levying new requirements on ALL
airplanes that work-around the SYMPTOMS of that one case?
>Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
>hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
>that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
>An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
>experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
>transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
>important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
>deserves the same respect?
My career in aviation began in 1955 when I helped
an uncle install an MANUAL direction finder loop in
his 170. He could put holes in the airplane but couldn't
read a diagram or solder. I was 12 years old.
I retired from Hawker-Beechcraft 18 months ago as the
subject matter expert leader in electronics/electrical
systems. I'm still contracting to that organization and
several others who specialize in aviation design and
production.
I'm an 1000 hour private pilot with about that many
additional hours as a test engineer on TC aircraft
and 50 times that time as a designer, qualifier and
troubleshooter of airborne systems. I'm now 66 years
old and still in the business.
>It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
>reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
>the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
>all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
>failure of the total system.
Agreed. But just as fuel flow under all anticipated
flight conditions was the big stumbling block for
many a designer 70 years ago, we have a new
challenge that isn't any different. Just as there's
no excuse for total failure of fuel flow, there is
NO EXCUSE for total failure of an electrical system.
Yeah, it has happened which means there's a REASON
but there is still no excuse.
>Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
>products and concepts haven't been either.
Just because it is new doesn't mean that the
thought processes and fabrication techniques
for airworthiness are any different than what
has worked well for decades.
Suppose we consider an RV with a piece of @#$@
air conditioner with a failure mode that sucks down
the entire system? Of what value is it to tie
one or both systems directly to the (+) battery
post? Which is better, refine the A/C design or
add weight, complexity, cost-of-ownership to offset
the possibility that the A/C causes an unhappy day
in the cockpit?
On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
this potential into an existing, highly refined system
in a way that does not increase risk?
There are people who worry a lot about things
they don't understand. There are people who are
paid to worry a lot about things they presumably
understand and use force of law to modify our
behavior such that THEIR worries are mitigated
. . . all in the name of 'safety'.
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/caffiene.htm
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Cowboy_after_OSHA.jpg
My point about your posting was that it tended to
reenforce the notion that there was a valid WORRY
to be address without adding understanding.
An understanding of design for failure-tolerance,
craftsmanship, maintenance and operation such that
worries go away.
There are few suppliers to aviation that have a
working knowledge of low-risk, light-weight, failure-
tolerant system design. If we attached every worry-wart's
product to the battery(+) post . . . it's easy
to see where that idea leads!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus |
At 10:56 AM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>...
>> I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
>> to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
>> the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
>> plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
>> protection on this path located right at the battery
>> bus?
>
>Bob,
>
> There are apparently some elements of the concept that I
>don't have a good handle on yet. Forgive me if it is already
>covered in AEC; but that's a big volume and I'm actually
>jumping a bit ahead in my build, so that I can do some of the
>ground-work while it's still convenient to do them in an
>early stage of the fuselage construction.
>
> I'm building a glass pusher (COZY) with an "alternative"
>engine. No mags.
>
> To my understanding - so far - the "endurance" bus has only
>the things on it that I ~must~ have to conclude my flight
>safely - albeit possibly truncated - in the event that my
>alternator fails. So, I'm having a problem understanding why
>one would want to switch access to that bus. To connect to
>a back-up supply of electrons?
Not necessarily. The original concept for an E-bus
was to support devices useful for en-route flight
ops for the purpose of (1) bypassing the battery contactor
and eliminating its parasitic (no value added) load and
(2) powering up goodies useful for confident continued flight
until airport of destination is in sight.
> I'm planning to connect the bus supporting my bare
>essentials directly to the battery, then run a switched/fused
>connection to my "everything else" bus from that. To
>accomplish that, I'm running a "0" cable from the B+
>terminal to my starter solenoid (about 18") and then a pair
>of #6 welding cables (+ & -) to the front of the airplane, and
>another #10 wire to the ECU which, at present, is only a few
>inches from the battery.
>
> Am I overlooking something important?
Dunno . . . the z-figures architectures are finely
sorted for the purpose of minimizing failure modes,
keeping transition from plan-a to plan-b. The grand
notion was that loss of an alternator should not
automatically turn into an emergency with an immediate
landing on foreign tarmac. The premise of the e-bus
stood on a 3-legged "stool" that says (a) equipment
needed for x-hours of en-route flight can be exceedingly
low energy, (b) it's easy to KNOW how long the ship's
battery will support this energy requirement and (c)
once you're cleared to land, the concrete ahead belongs
to you and turning the master switch back ON to support
more goodies adds no potential for hazard to the flight
even if the battery folds before you get the wheels on
the ground.
Adding the SD-8 allows one to increase endurance loads
up to and perhaps a bit over the ability of the SD-8
to deliver . . . while keeping the battery mostly (if
not totally) reserved for descent and approach to landing.
If shuffling the busses and re-sorting items feed by
those accommodates alternative design goals,
by all means. Just be aware not all changes are "golden"
and may introduce failure mode effects that demand
a new understanding on the part of the pilot.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EMAproducts(at)aol.com |
Gentlemen:
I am not an electronics man, however I have been using LED's in our AOA
systems for 14 years. Use caution and be aware just because the LED's come
from the same supplier, they may NOT have the same intensity. They also have
different dimming requirements for different colors. We have found that if
using the Ultra-Bright LED's they must be individually paired (same colors and
different) to insure they all dim the same. Not a big deal, but if you are
looking for professional results best to take the extra time and compare them
prior to soldering and saying darn I should have All except the Ultra
bright by the same mfg. seem pretty good, but a large variance even in same order
of 50 LED's ordered at same time.
Elbie Mendenhall
_www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com)
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread |
Thanks Bob:
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread
At 08:08 PM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
Thanks Bill:
This definitely answers my question.......I can now see the "light"
regarding grounding the sheilded wire at both ends per Bob's
Z-26......the link to the 2005 VAF Forum was excellent. The one thng I
noticed was that they are using 18awg shieded and Bob's Z-26 uses 20 awg
shielded....20 is what I have and plan on using unless 18 is better than
20 !!
Thanks again
Some TC aircraft designs specify 20AWG or larger to
any accessories on the engine . . . it's some sort
of robustness thing. I suppose 18AWG is more robust
still. On canard pushers, there IS a voltage drop issue
for the long run from start switch to the tail mounted
starter contactor combined with low battery and cold
temperatures. 20AWG is fine but if you have some scraps
of 18 laying around waiting for useful duty on your
airplane it would be fine too. The only wires that benefit
from shielding are the p-leads and then only if wired
as depicted in the z-figures. There again 20 is adequate
but 18 is fine if you have it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Pereira" <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
> On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
> out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
> aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
> radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
> out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
> What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
> this potential into an existing, highly refined system
> in a way that does not increase risk?
Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
fog).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
At 03:59 PM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> > On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
> > out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
> > aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
> > radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
> > out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
> > What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
> > this potential into an existing, highly refined system
> > in a way that does not increase risk?
>
>Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
>aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
>considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
>will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
>fog).
Everybody with a product has a dog in this hunt. I'm aware
of at least three serious efforts by folks who understand
batteries and their role in aviation . . . and perhaps
a dozen more wannabes.
A friend of mine made this anecdotal observation about
batteries in the numerous crashes he investigated: He
said that if the airplane didn't burn after impact, more
often than not, the battery was pitched out and could
be found in the weeds. If the airplane did burn, more
often than not, the battery was still in the airplane.
While an exceedingly unscientific observation, it plays
homage to the high energy density of these devices along
with their willingness to dump that energy to the outside
world without regard to the fondest desires of those
individuals close by.
Li-Ion batteries have the potential for being several
times worse than their lead-acid or ni-cad cousins when
it comes to undesirable energy spills!
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> |
At 02:16 PM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Gentlemen:
> I am not an electronics man, however I have been using LED's in
> our AOA systems for 14 years. Use caution and be aware just
> because the LED's come from the same supplier, they may NOT have
> the same intensity. They also have different dimming requirements
> for different colors. We have found that if using the Ultra-Bright
> LED's they must be individually paired (same colors and different)
> to insure they all dim the same. Not a big deal, but if you are
> looking for professional results best to take the extra time and
> compare them prior to soldering and saying darn I should have All
> except the Ultra bright by the same mfg. seem pretty good, but a
> large variance even in same order of 50 LED's ordered at same time.
>Elbie Mendenhall
I've heard this before. A number of folks who supply
sunlight viewable dead-front annunciators have mentioned
a need for matching sets of leds for output to achieve
uniform appearance across the panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Here is something from the archives. I think it followed a poll where Bill
Dube was asking how many of us would be interested in a really good aircraft
battery at a relatively high price:
Sep 07, 2007 From: Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> Subject: Re:
A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft
(was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
Whomever is designing the electronics doesn't have real experience with
A123 Systems cells. They think they are dealing with conventional Li-Ion
cells, and they are wrong.
A123 Systems nano-phosphate cells are quite different than other
Li-Ion cells. They will take a LOT of abuse. About the same amount as an
AGM. It is straightforward to make a drop-in replacement for a 12 volt
(or 24 volt) lead-acid battery using A123 Systems cells. The existing
charging system will work just fine. (It must have the voltage set
somewhere between 13.5 and 14.8 volts.)
In an airplane, you would want a warning that alerted the pilot that
the system was going over 14.8 volts and would make noise if the system
was going over 15 volts. It would also be useful to know if the battery
temperature was going over 80 Celsius. (You can go up to about 100 C
without damage, but no higher or you risk venting the cells and damaging
the plastic separator.)
>>> Case study <<<<
I have had a 3.5 lb A123 Systems battery running in my completely
unmodified GMC van for the past 7 months. It snaps the engine over much
better than the original 35 lb lead-acid battery.
Let's talk about abuse. My wife left my van door unlocked and
someone rifled my glove box and left it open with the light on. This
killed the battery and it sat at ZERO VOLTS for over a week. I thought,
"So much for THAT battery." I then decided to do what the typical
consumer would do and I connected up the 3.5 lb completely dead battery
to a fully-charged car battery with jumper cables. Hundreds of amps
flowed and slightly warmed the cables. I waited a couple of minutes for
the 3.5 lb battery voltage to come up, disconnected the jumper cables
(the worst thing you could do) and cranked up the van. It started
instantly. The alternator then gave the 3.5 lb battery ~100 amps until
it came up to 13.4 volts and then tapered off. The BMS showed that all
the cells were still in balance!
This was five months ago. I haven't capacity-tested the battery, but
I can't tell the difference in cranking performance. It was just as if
nothing had happened. I even left it parked for 5 weeks while I was out
of town and it cranked right up without a problem.
If you were to torture a conventional Li-Ion battery like this, it
would have burst into flames, or at least it would have just burst. I
tell this story to folks with years of experience with conventional
Li-Ion cells and they cringe when I get to the part about the jumper
cables. :-)
The A123 Systems cells will, indeed, "take the abuse". I have a very
simplistic charge-balancing electronics (BMS) on my GMC van battery.
Nothing fancy is needed.
If you overcharge them grossly, they will vent a small amount of
flammable vapor (like paint thinner.) If there is an ignition source,
this vapor could catch fire. The cells can also burst if overcharged
severely. That is the extent of the hazard this technology presents.
Bill Dube'
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Pereira
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
> On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
> out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
> aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
> radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
> out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
> What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
> this potential into an existing, highly refined system
> in a way that does not increase risk?
Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
fog).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> A friend of mine made this anecdotal observation about
> batteries in the numerous crashes he investigated: He
> said that if the airplane didn't burn after impact, more
> often than not, the battery was pitched out and could
> be found in the weeds. If the airplane did burn, more
> often than not, the battery was still in the airplane.
We're way off topic right now, but...huh?
Are you saying that retaining the battery increases the chances of a
fire? The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after
an accident?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you hold a pull able breaker opened |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Unless someone comes up with a better idea, I think I have a stone simple
and light solution for flagging and keeping my E-buss alternate breaker
opened.
See:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album261&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Picture #26 and #27
7-11 Slurpee straw!
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
Hello all,
After seeing a few units burn out unexpectedly (including one of mine), I've been
doing an analysis of the West Mountain Radio CBA II. I was wondering if anyone
here had done the MOSFET switch (from IRL2910 to IRFP2907) detailed in Bob
Nuckoll's 4/10/05 analysis of the CBA II? Thanks!
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220869#220869
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
I have used the West Mountain unit a few times. No worries. I didn't know
there was a mod. I bought mine about a year ago and have used it with an 11
ah battery and a few other smaller ones. I am getting ready to try it out
with my new Oddessy 625. Maybe in a week, after the holiday. I have loaded
the Ver 2 software, but have not tried it out.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:53 PM, CamLight wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> After seeing a few units burn out unexpectedly (including one of mine),
> I've been doing an analysis of the West Mountain Radio CBA II. I was
> wondering if anyone here had done the MOSFET switch (from IRL2910 to
> IRFP2907) detailed in Bob Nuckoll's 4/10/05 analysis of the CBA II? Thanks!
>
> --------
> John M.
> Owner
> CamLight Systems
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220869#220869
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
At 09:02 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> A friend of mine made this anecdotal observation about
>> batteries in the numerous crashes he investigated: He
>> said that if the airplane didn't burn after impact, more
>> often than not, the battery was pitched out and could
>> be found in the weeds. If the airplane did burn, more
>> often than not, the battery was still in the airplane.
>
>We're way off topic right now, but...huh?
How so? The discussion was about the extra-ordinary
capabilities of Li-Ion batteries that make their
acceptance into aircraft problematic. While their
energy/weight ratios and exceedingly low source
impedance make them electrically attractive, they're
also famous throughout the family of Li-Ion products
for spectacular and unpleasant failure modes from
within.
Even after these batteries are blessed by those who
know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do, there are still
considerations for system integration which includes
crash safety.
>Are you saying that retaining the battery increases the chances of a fire?
Doesn't that stand to reason? Fires need ignition sources
and aluminum is not hard-sparking material. Hot engines are
not even particularly strong ignition sources . . . but
a battery capable of thousands of amps of fault current
could probably be demonstrated to light off magnesium castings
under the right conditions. Lighting off fuel spills is
easy.
> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after
> an accident?
Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
the battery is not an unattractive idea.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after an
> accident?
>
> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>
Oh, I agree. It is just not something I've ever heard discussed, or
even considered. Now I'm wondering if there are any designs that
provide for an battery eject? Considering the logic behind your
statement, the the crash investigator you referred to earlier, why
aren't there more?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:02 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>
>>> A friend of mine made this anecdotal observation about
>>> batteries in the numerous crashes he investigated: He
>>> said that if the airplane didn't burn after impact, more
>>> often than not, the battery was pitched out and could
>>> be found in the weeds. If the airplane did burn, more
>>> often than not, the battery was still in the airplane.
>>
>> We're way off topic right now, but...huh?
>
> How so? The discussion was about the extra-ordinary
> capabilities of Li-Ion batteries that make their
> acceptance into aircraft problematic. While their
> energy/weight ratios and exceedingly low source
> impedance make them electrically attractive, they're
> also famous throughout the family of Li-Ion products
> for spectacular and unpleasant failure modes from
> within.
>
> Even after these batteries are blessed by those who
> know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do, there are still
> considerations for system integration which includes
> crash safety.
>
>> Are you saying that retaining the battery increases the chances of a
>> fire?
>
> Doesn't that stand to reason? Fires need ignition sources
> and aluminum is not hard-sparking material. Hot engines are
> not even particularly strong ignition sources . . . but
> a battery capable of thousands of amps of fault current
> could probably be demonstrated to light off magnesium castings
> under the right conditions. Lighting off fuel spills is
> easy.
>
>> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after
>> an accident?
>
> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>
>
> Bob . . .
The 1st thing I thought about when reading the 'pitched battery=no fire'
story is, wouldn't it be fairly simple to design a G-activated
disconnect mounted directly to the battery? Basically the inverse of an
ELT activator, to fail off instead of fail on. Something as simple as a
spring- or mechanical fuse-loaded pivoting base for the battery that
would allow the top to move forward, and bolt-on bullet or blade style
connectors for the battery terminals that would face aft. With spring
loaded insulators that would close if the connector halves separate, and
the wires behind the battery and locked to structure, most any crash
impact should try to move the battery forward, 'pulling the plugs' &
allowing the insulators to close.
This wouldn't be the simplest project for a homebuilder, but should be
relatively easy for an R&D department. Also, having been in a car wreck
where the battery moved against the frame & was burning through the
steel, there might even be an opportunity to make some money if it's
marketed to auto regulators (never get it adopted voluntarily, of course).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
At 10:35 PM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>I have used the West Mountain unit a few times. No worries. I
>didn't know there was a mod. I bought mine about a year ago and
>have used it with an 11 ah battery and a few other smaller ones. I
>am getting ready to try it out with my new Oddessy 625. Maybe in a
>week, after the holiday. I have loaded the Ver 2 software, but have
>not tried it out.
>
>Sam Hoskins
>Murphysboro, IL
><http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:53 PM, CamLight
><jmuchow(at)camlight.com> wrote:
><jmuchow(at)camlight.com>
>
>Hello all,
>After seeing a few units burn out unexpectedly (including one of
>mine), I've been doing an analysis of the West Mountain Radio CBA
>II. I was wondering if anyone here had done the MOSFET switch (from
>IRL2910 to IRFP2907) detailed in Bob Nuckoll's 4/10/05 analysis of
>the CBA II? Thanks!
I own 2 of these devices. The first was damaged
when I tried to do a 4a discharge on a 24v battery
(well within the rated 100W power handling capability
of the CBA II). After a determination that the
active power load transistor had shorted, I jury-rigged
a pair of FAT transistors onto an external heat
sink and secured enough functionality to complete the
task at hand. It was not intended to be a modification
to upgrade the device. I subsequently purchased a
second unit and I've been using both for a several
years.
I had some discussions with the head-shed at
West Mountain Radio about the marginal design
as demonstrated by my experience. The fellow seemed
to believe I was the only one who was having any
sort of problem and offered to repair mine under
warranty. I'd chopped and hacked it so didn't feel
like I was worthy of a warranty action. I ultimately
replace the jury-rigged "fix" with a slightly
more robust FET in the TO220 package. Both of my
cap-meters have performed as advertised since
on 12v or smaller batteries.
I'm having trouble recalling how my "mod" got
loose in the wild. I don't recall posting it to
my website but I may have shared a picture and
text with someone who has passed it along. Over
the years, I've had several inquiries about my
"mod" wherein I was unable to back-track the
information trail.
Suffice it to say that the CBA-II performs well
and as advertised on 12-volt and smaller batteries
and may well work on most batteries of higher voltage.
It's my opinion that the TO-200 case power FET used
as a load resistor is marginally applied to this
product. If I were building a similar product,
it would be more robust in this regard.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
This is an interesting idea. It should be pretty simple in concept to design
an on-impact disconnect for a rear-mounted battery in an RV. Just allow the
battery to slide forward a few inches on impact, out of the slotted terminal
connectors mounted rigid enough to not follow the battery. RV wings have an
optional slotted mount at the leading edge to fuselage connection to allow
the wings to shear off. Someone smarter than me could probably come up with
a scheme for a firewall mounted (forward of the firewall) battery too. The
battery would still be in the airplane, but not connected to any of the
wiring.
Terry
Stalled RV-8A project (too many bright ideas; not enough consistent effort)
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after an
> accident?
>
> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>
Oh, I agree. It is just not something I've ever heard discussed, or
even considered. Now I'm wondering if there are any designs that
provide for an battery eject? Considering the logic behind your
statement, the the crash investigator you referred to earlier, why
aren't there more?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
Ok, not a productive comment, however, this discussion has me playing with
the thought of hearing:
"Captain Picard, the matter/anti-matter containment is failing causing a
reaction ark, she is about to blow!"
"Geordie, eject the core....NOW!"
Yeah, I am more of a NexGen guy then TOS. To show what a geek I can be, the
"N" number on my Velocity is N17010. Other Trek geeks will understand
that.
Merry Christmas all.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft
>
>
> This is an interesting idea. It should be pretty simple in concept to
> design
> an on-impact disconnect for a rear-mounted battery in an RV. Just allow
> the
> battery to slide forward a few inches on impact, out of the slotted
> terminal
> connectors mounted rigid enough to not follow the battery. RV wings have
> an
> optional slotted mount at the leading edge to fuselage connection to allow
> the wings to shear off. Someone smarter than me could probably come up
> with
> a scheme for a firewall mounted (forward of the firewall) battery too. The
> battery would still be in the airplane, but not connected to any of the
> wiring.
>
> Terry
> Stalled RV-8A project (too many bright ideas; not enough consistent
> effort)
> Seattle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:56 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft
>
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after an
>> accident?
>>
>> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
>> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
>> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
>> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
>> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
>> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
>> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
>> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
>> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>>
> Oh, I agree. It is just not something I've ever heard discussed, or
> even considered. Now I'm wondering if there are any designs that
> provide for an battery eject? Considering the logic behind your
> statement, the the crash investigator you referred to earlier, why
> aren't there more?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
At 07:55 AM 12/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend
>> during/after an accident?
>>
>> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
>> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
>> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
>> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
>> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
>> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
>> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
>> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
>> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>Oh, I agree. It is just not something I've ever heard discussed, or
>even considered. Now I'm wondering if there are any designs that
>provide for an battery eject? Considering the logic behind your
>statement, the the crash investigator you referred to earlier, why
>aren't there more?
When I asked the scattered-pieces/smoking-hole crowd at RAC
to search their memories and archives for accidents where
an electrical failure figured into the chain of events leading
up to damage to aircraft/crew. They couldn't come up with
one.(*) At the same time, there were electrical issues that
caused tense moments and unplanned completions of flight.
Bottom line is that a well considered architecture, plan-A/
plan-B operating plan and reasonable training keeps even
severe electrical failures from becoming a bad day in the
cockpit. Given that OBAM aircraft are MUCH more forgiving
than Barons and Jets, electrical failures in flight are
even less risky.
I don't think there was much interest in reducing the
possibility of battery-induced, post-crash fire given that
circumstances surrounding the cases where fire did occur
were so severe that no useful difference in outcome would
have been gained if the airplane had not caught fire.
Bob . . .
(*) I've personally worked only two accidents in 30+ years
that probably started with an electrical failure. One involved
a King Air over the Swiss Alps that disappeared from radar
and radio contact . . . BEFORE traversing the peaks.
The airplane crashed into said peaks COMING THE OTHER WAY.
The prevailing theory was that the avionics master relay
failed and took down all the good stuff. The pilot decided
to return sometime after crossing the peaks and for some
reason, descended too early.
The other was loss of both alternators in a piston twin
flying in ice. Pilot made successful approach to landing
looking out the foul weather window. He lost directional
control on the runway resulting in loss of airframe and
all souls aboard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I own 2 of these devices. The first was damaged
> when I tried to do a 4a discharge on a 24v battery
> (well within the rated 100W power handling capability
> of the CBA II). After a determination that the
> active power load transistor had shorted, I jury-rigged
> a pair of FAT transistors onto an external heat
> sink and secured enough functionality to complete the
> task at hand. It was not intended to be a modification
> to upgrade the device. I subsequently purchased a
> second unit and I've been using both for a several
> years.
>
> I had some discussions with the head-shed at
> West Mountain Radio about the marginal design
> as demonstrated by my experience. The fellow seemed
> to believe I was the only one who was having any
> sort of problem and offered to repair mine under
> warranty. I'd chopped and hacked it so didn't feel
> like I was worthy of a warranty action. I ultimately
> replace the jury-rigged "fix" with a slightly
> more robust FET in the TO220 package. Both of my
> cap-meters have performed as advertised since
> on 12v or smaller batteries.
That's good news! I've heard of about 8 units that have blown their FETs and couple
that also took out the driving op-amp and some resistor/capacitors too.
I ended up using an Infineon IPP048N06L MOSFET for its great continuous rating
for use as a load (DC plot line in the SOA graph). Seems that it's both the
higher wattages and higher voltage batteries that can cause problems. Makes sense
though. The first is due to temperature and the second due to hotspotting
and thermal runaway.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble recalling how my "mod" got
> loose in the wild. I don't recall posting it to
> my website but I may have shared a picture and
> text with someone who has passed it along. Over
> the years, I've had several inquiries about my
> "mod" wherein I was unable to back-track the
> information trail.
Well, I can give you the trail I followed. :-)
A friend had told me about seeing an analysis of the CBA but forgot where. A Goodle
search led to an archive of a thread here on, IIRC, April 10, 2005. In that
thread you provided a link to your analysis in the Articles section of your
site. But the document was no longer there. This link though gave me the file
name and my search led to an individual who had the document available from
their site. I don't remember who.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Suffice it to say that the CBA-II performs well
> and as advertised on 12-volt and smaller batteries
> and may well work on most batteries of higher voltage.
> It's my opinion that the TO-200 case power FET used
> as a load resistor is marginally applied to this
> product. If I were building a similar product,
> it would be more robust in this regard.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I completely agree. My analysis of two CBA's was pretty extensive (43 page document)
and led me to conclude that it shouldn't be used at over 65W for long-term
reliability and 86W to prevent the MOSFET from exceeding its max rated operating
temperature. I also found out that the CBA's stock MOSFET isn't even rated
for use as a load and was susceptible to hotspotting and thermal runaway (resulting
in the MOSFET burning out) at well below the CBA's 100W rating when
discharging at higher voltages.
A MOSFET change, over to the IPP048N06L, and a fan change were the mods I made
to bring the CBA's continuous power rating up to 106W at up to 48V without worrying
about exceeding any of the MOSFET's specs. The extra fan also helped to
keep the fuse and fuseholders from dropping out of the circuit board too when
discharging at 30A or so. It happened more than once to me (and others) before
we finally found ways to cool the circuit board and fuse. Very frustrating.
:)
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221015#221015
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Leikam" <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
I would consider a dual wire high current plug similar to one used on my
snowplow main power lead. The plug supplies current to a motor similar to
an engine starting motor which drives hydraulics to operate the plow. The
plug is very robust and under very harsh operating conditions has never
unplugged itself during plowing operations. The plug hangs freely between
the front bumper of my truck and the plow. However, with a good tug the
plug separates to disconnect the wires to remove the plow unit from my
truck. This could be installed in the battery connection wires of the
airplane and supported so as to disconnect in the event of excessive forward
g forces. The contact pins are also recessed in plastic so after
disconnect, there would be no chance of contact with other metal if the
battery terminals were also covered. See 4b and 4c in the link below.
http://www.rustrepair.com/snow_plow_parts/onlinecat.htm?r=ds&p=sn-boss-bs.elec
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft
>
>
> This is an interesting idea. It should be pretty simple in concept to
> design
> an on-impact disconnect for a rear-mounted battery in an RV. Just allow
> the
> battery to slide forward a few inches on impact, out of the slotted
> terminal
> connectors mounted rigid enough to not follow the battery. RV wings have
> an
> optional slotted mount at the leading edge to fuselage connection to allow
> the wings to shear off. Someone smarter than me could probably come up
> with
> a scheme for a firewall mounted (forward of the firewall) battery too. The
> battery would still be in the airplane, but not connected to any of the
> wiring.
>
> Terry
> Stalled RV-8A project (too many bright ideas; not enough consistent
> effort)
> Seattle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:56 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft
>
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> The takeaway being that the battery isn't our friend during/after an
>> accident?
>>
>> Would you not share that conclusion with me? Except for
>> the chance that you might sit in the wreck and use the
>> battery to power your radios for the purpose of calling
>> for help, of what practical value is it? Once the airframe
>> is compromised to the extent that the battery is subject to
>> high current discharges, it's easy to assume that fuel
>> tanks are equally compromised. All things considered, if
>> I were on short-final to the rocks, being able to eject
>> the battery is not an unattractive idea.
>>
> Oh, I agree. It is just not something I've ever heard discussed, or
> even considered. Now I'm wondering if there are any designs that
> provide for an battery eject? Considering the logic behind your
> statement, the the crash investigator you referred to earlier, why
> aren't there more?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and reduce noise from fat wires?
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.
Have a mini break.
I have an aft battery on my Europa XS with Rotax 914. Wires run parallel
with radio antennas for ~ 5 or so feet. I have main battery switch in
passenger headrest.
Initial plan was to use #4 Tefzel wire with short pieces of #6 welding
cable at battery attachment (for flexability) and at battery switch
attachment (to more easily negotiate routing). I was going to turn butt
connectors out of 101 copper with precise holes for #4 and #6 wires with a
cross drilled hole slight outboard of each wire to allow me to add solder.
Just a note that #6 welding cable has a slight larger OD compared to #4
Tefzel. I don't have space for the diameter of #4 copper plated aluminium
wire.
I was happy with above plan >>>>>>>>> until got to thinking >>>>>>>>>>
Might be better off using two paralleled #8 Tefzel wires instead of one
#4????
Could twist 2 sets of #8 together (each twist pos + neg) which could help
out with potential noise on my paralleled run with RG400 antennas.
#8 would be flexable enough to negate need for welding cable.
Two paralleled wires in one respect add redundancy of connection.
Two paralleled #8 wires are lighter than one #4.
Cons:
Need more terminations, but even with more terminations still lighter than
#4 / #6 combo.
Twisting pos + neg perhaps could somehow create more of a hazard of them
shorting together compared to pos and neg #4 sitting side by side.
There is a slight amount more resistance of two #8s compared to one #4. I
don't think this will be too much of a problem with lower compression and
slight less displacement of Rotax 914 compared to Rotax 912S. I also have
heavy duty starter that in fact draws less amps compared to old style
starter??
OK
Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility and reduce noise from
fat wires?
Anyone know of a source to obtain #8 wire with silver plating (would help
out slightly with lower resistance)?
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
| From: | "hgerhardt" <hgerhardt(at)earthlink.net> |
[/quote]
The 1st thing I thought about when reading the 'pitched battery=no fire'
story is, wouldn't it be fairly simple to design a G-activated
disconnect mounted directly to the battery? Charlie[/quote]
Delphi has already done this... it's a pyrotechnically activated battery cutoff switch. See http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/ee/eec/bdsd/ In the cars they're installed in, the airbag module triggers it. However, since we don't typically have airbag triggers on board, we could use the standard Ford fuel pump cutoff switch that Ford's been using since the mid-80's (it's a g-activated switch).
Heinrich Gerhardt
RV-6, flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221100#221100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add |
flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
At 07:56 AM 12/25/2008, you wrote:
>
>Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.
>
>Have a mini break.
>
>I have an aft battery on my Europa XS with Rotax 914. Wires run parallel
>with radio antennas for ~ 5 or so feet. I have main battery switch in
>passenger headrest.
>
>Initial plan was to use #4 Tefzel wire with short pieces of #6 welding
>cable at battery attachment (for flexability) and at battery switch
>attachment (to more easily negotiate routing). I was going to turn butt
>connectors out of 101 copper with precise holes for #4 and #6 wires with a
>cross drilled hole slight outboard of each wire to allow me to add solder.
>Just a note that #6 welding cable has a slight larger OD compared to #4
>Tefzel. I don't have space for the diameter of #4 copper plated aluminium
>wire.
That would work but is pretty labor intensive. Lapped,
soldered and heat-shrink would work too and is quick.
>I was happy with above plan >>>>>>>>> until got to thinking >>>>>>>>>>
>
>Might be better off using two paralleled #8 Tefzel wires instead of one
>#4????
>
>Could twist 2 sets of #8 together (each twist pos + neg) which could help
>out with potential noise on my paralleled run with RG400 antennas.
>
>#8 would be flexable enough to negate need for welding cable.
"better off", "flexible enough", "potential noise"
are all non-quantified . . . and don't offer a lucid
image of your design goals.
>Two paralleled wires in one respect add redundancy of connection.
>
>Two paralleled #8 wires are lighter than one #4.
But smaller in cross-section than one #4.
>Cons:
>
>Need more terminations, but even with more terminations still lighter than
>#4 / #6 combo.
>
>Twisting pos + neg perhaps could somehow create more of a hazard of them
>shorting together compared to pos and neg #4 sitting side by side.
>
>There is a slight amount more resistance of two #8s compared to one #4. I
>don't think this will be too much of a problem with lower compression and
>slight less displacement of Rotax 914 compared to Rotax 912S. I also have
>heavy duty starter that in fact draws less amps compared to old style
>starter??
Exactly how much weight are you "saving" and how much
$time$ are you investing in the goal. You've added
joints to the system that wouldn't have to be there
with a contiguous run of 4awg welding cable.
Have you calculated the delta-weight for the proposed
architectures?
>OK
>Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility and reduce noise from
>fat wires?
Don't worry about noise from these wires into antenna
systems or feedlines. Twising is not necessary either.
Just run them tightly parallel with string ties every
6" or so.
>Anyone know of a source to obtain #8 wire with silver plating (would help
>out slightly with lower resistance)?
Silver plated wire comes on Teflon insulated conductors.
More expensive, less robust and so small an improvement
as to not be noticed.
I'd still like to see how much weight you expect to save
with any alternatives to single strands of 4AWG. How long
are these runs of wire?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | AGM Battery Charger |
Is a special charger needed for AGM batteries such as the Odyssey? At
www.odyessy.com <http://www.odyessy.com/> they recommend two types, but I'm
wondering why something like a Schumacher
http://store.schumachermart.com/se-1010-2.html won't work just as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AGM Battery Charger |
odysseybatteries.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Creek
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 3:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AGM Battery Charger
Is a special charger needed for AGM batteries such as the Odyssey? At
www.odyessy.com they recommend two types, but I'm wondering why
something like a Schumacher
http://store.schumachermart.com/se-1010-2.html won't work just as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Samuelian <psamuelian(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add |
flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
Ron:
If you need the capacity of #4 wire for the starter, 2 #8 wires have
much less capacity than 1 #4.
Two #7 wires are very close to the same capacity, but I'm not sure of
#7AWG availability.
I would recommend staying with the first plan, using #4 cable. Radio
interference would be from the alternator charging, but it's at a
much lower ampere rating and would produce much less EMI than when
starting the engine.
Also, invest in the highest quality cable for the antenna.
If interference even exists after that, then use filters to clean
that up.
Phil
On Dec 25, 2008, at 5:56 AM, rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>
> Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.
>
> Have a mini break.
>
> I have an aft battery on my Europa XS with Rotax 914. Wires run
> parallel
> with radio antennas for ~ 5 or so feet. I have main battery switch in
> passenger headrest.
>
> Initial plan was to use #4 Tefzel wire with short pieces of #6 welding
> cable at battery attachment (for flexability) and at battery switch
> attachment (to more easily negotiate routing). I was going to turn
> butt
> connectors out of 101 copper with precise holes for #4 and #6 wires
> with a
> cross drilled hole slight outboard of each wire to allow me to add
> solder.
> Just a note that #6 welding cable has a slight larger OD compared
> to #4
> Tefzel. I don't have space for the diameter of #4 copper plated
> aluminium
> wire.
>
> I was happy with above plan >>>>>>>>> until got to thinking >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Might be better off using two paralleled #8 Tefzel wires instead of
> one
> #4????
>
> Could twist 2 sets of #8 together (each twist pos + neg) which
> could help
> out with potential noise on my paralleled run with RG400 antennas.
>
> #8 would be flexable enough to negate need for welding cable.
>
> Two paralleled wires in one respect add redundancy of connection.
>
> Two paralleled #8 wires are lighter than one #4.
>
>
> Cons:
>
> Need more terminations, but even with more terminations still
> lighter than
> #4 / #6 combo.
>
> Twisting pos + neg perhaps could somehow create more of a hazard of
> them
> shorting together compared to pos and neg #4 sitting side by side.
>
> There is a slight amount more resistance of two #8s compared to one
> #4. I
> don't think this will be too much of a problem with lower
> compression and
> slight less displacement of Rotax 914 compared to Rotax 912S. I
> also have
> heavy duty starter that in fact draws less amps compared to old style
> starter??
>
> OK
> Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility and reduce
> noise from
> fat wires?
>
> Anyone know of a source to obtain #8 wire with silver plating
> (would help
> out slightly with lower resistance)?
>
> Ron P.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, |
add flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Bob Thx. for the reply
My mission is to electrically connect my aft battery to the upfront 914
supplying it sufficient amperage and voltage, while being able to fit
wires neatly under door sill/fuse seam and allow routing required to
connect to battery switch (tight bends).
Old style starter amp draw is stated at I think 60 amps, I have new style
that is a bit less.
If I can save some weight in the process that is a bonus.
Just a quick calculation of one #4 compared to two #8s for 5 meters of
wire would be a savings of a little over a half pound with two #8s.
The larger the diameter of wires, the harder it will be to route under
door sill and allow for door centering pin receptacle to help keep door
from bulging.
#4 Tefzel wire is .310" in diameter
#6 EPDM jacket 259 strand is .332" diameter (#4 406 strand .380")
#6 Chlorinated Polyethylene 660 strand is .370" diameter (#4 1045 strand
.420")
It's true I could lap solder #6 welding wire to #4 Tefzel, but my interior
cover/conduit for wires would need to be larger to accommodate, and the
laps would be in an already tight area. Butt soldering #4 Tefzel to #6
welding would approx. be the same diameter.
I am not sure of the weight of welding cable compared to Tefzel, but I
would think it heavier.
I have a Hobart TRT 250 TIG welder. The ground wire I suspect is EPDM
jacketed. It has cracks and splits and in general the jacketing is in bad
health. True it sees a lot of UV and for a TIG ground strap that is fine.
Are you be happy with using EPDM jacketed welding cable for the full run
to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it smokes, a dozen feet is in
the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How about only 1 foot?
Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
about only 1 foot?
Knowing I need flexibility for routing at battery switch, want the
smallest diameter that is feasible, be able to provide reasonable voltage
and cranking amps, not take unreasonable risks of breathing noxious fumes
if wires smoke, not have much risk that aging wire insulation will crack
and split and be the instigator of smoke and loss of electron flow and be
of a reasonable weight.
What would be your two favorite choices:
****#4 Tefzel with #6 EPDM jacketed butt soldered battery and battery
switch ends?
****#4 Tefzel with #6 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed butt soldered
battery and battery switch ends?
****All #4 EPDM jacketed wire?
****All #4 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed wire?
****Two paralleled #8 Tefzel wire that doesn't need twisting?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Z-14 extrapolation |
Pardon my sophmoric ignorance on this question (sophmore = wise fool) but I
have installed my Z-14 system in my Velocity with a Mazda Rotary. I am
using two standard/stock alternators for this engine rated at 80 amps each.
The Z drawing uses two 40 amp alternators and mostly 20 awg wire. Do I need
to increase the wire size to perhaps 10 awg for my larger alternators? This
is becoming an issue as after finally seeming to get my system to "work"
mostly properly after having my EE friend come out and figure out some basic
switch functioning that I missed I am having my two Bat circuit breakers
trip whenever the engine is running and the crossover toggle is in the NON
crossover mode.
My friend, Blain (who formed and owns the company who supplies air
conditioner units for smaller airplanes such as Cirus, Moody,
Columbia/Cessna and now developing for the EXP market, namely Velocity) is
very versed in electrics but was unable to stick around once this issue came
up. He had already spent the day helping me get things right and had a
family to tend to for the holidays. He did suggest that I may need to change
the 5 amp CB to 7.5 but cautioned to find out more before going too much
further by simply adding higer CB's ect.
Back to my problem. As mentioned, when in the "crossover mode", ie both
alternators acting together the CB's do NOT trip. However, when I put the
toggle in the center position (from down) having the systems act
indipendently, both trip. It happens only when the engine is running thus
the alternator, well, alternating...so to speak. I did change to the 7.5
amp CB's but when I tested it tonight, they both tripped as well. My
thought is since I used the 20 awg wire as in the Z drawing, but am using
higher output alternators that my system is not up to the task and that I
may need to beef things up with larger wire. Again, pardon my
ingonrance...even though the fog lifts a bit every day.
So, thoughts, concerns, insight???? All is appreciated.
Thank you.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and reduce noise from fat wires?
| From: | "Brian R. Wood" <brianrobertwood(at)gmail.com> |
Speaking of smokng wires, one time when I was working on a certificated
airplane, I inadvertantly shorted a #22 compass light wire. Almost
immediately the cabin was filled with black acrid smoke. I was almost
overcome. I ran out to the hangar door to get some fresh air. I still
marvel at how much nasty material just 6 inches of tiny wire can create.
I think the safest course is to avoid any smoking wires, either one foot
or twelve feet, I think either one would probably kill you.
Brian
> Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
> Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
> cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
> smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
> about only 1 foot?
>
--
Brian R. Wood
JH Manutencao
Anapolis. Goias, Brazil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 extrapolation |
At 03:45 AM 12/26/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Pardon my sophmoric ignorance on this question (sophmore = wise
>fool) but I have installed my Z-14 system in my Velocity with a
>Mazda Rotary. I am using two standard/stock alternators for this
>engine rated at 80 amps each. The Z drawing uses two 40 amp
>alternators and mostly 20 awg wire. Do I need to increase the wire
>size to perhaps 10 awg for my larger alternators? This is becoming
>an issue as after finally seeming to get my system to "work" mostly
>properly after having my EE friend come out and figure out some
>basic switch functioning that I missed I am having my two Bat
>circuit breakers trip whenever the engine is running and the
>crossover toggle is in the NON crossover mode.
The Z-figures are to illustrate architectures and
are not intended to drive alternator size, wire
sizes, fuse/breaker sizes. Nor are they intended
to drive the selection of what devices are fed
from which bus.
>My friend, Blain (who formed and owns the company who supplies air
>conditioner units for smaller airplanes such as Cirus, Moody,
>Columbia/Cessna and now developing for the EXP market, namely
>Velocity) is very versed in electrics but was unable to stick around
>once this issue came up. He had already spent the day helping me
>get things right and had a family to tend to for the holidays. He
>did suggest that I may need to change the 5 amp CB to 7.5 but
>cautioned to find out more before going too much further by simply
>adding higer CB's ect.
The very FIRST thing you do in crafting an
electrical system is make a list of every device
that needs DC power to function and you decide
what that device's position is in the hierarchy
of necessity. If it's functionality is highly
desirable for comfortable completion of flight,
then you have TWO of those devices fed from
separate power sources. Design goals for achieving
comfortable termination of flight after some
component failure are outlined in Chapter 17
of the 'Connection.
Next you select an architecture that mitigates
the effect on outcome of flight for having lost
one of the devices. Unless you plan on boring
long holes in the most marginal kinds of weather
AND you're planning on full-up capability of
flight in IMC on both sides of the panel, it's
not clear that the features offered by Z-14 is
really all that useful to you.
However, if you're already a long way down that
path, so be it.
Have you conducted a load analysis on your proposed
system and filled out forms like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf
Fill out one sheet for each bus in your proposed
design with the goal of deducing what your electrical
system load are for each flight condition AND insuring
separate power sources for systems that back each other
up.
Or you can take advantage of the load analysis exercises
conducted by a number of List members and offered in
Excel spread sheets. You can download those for study
or modification to your needs in this director from
my website:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis
After ALL the electrico-whizzies in your airplane
have been identified, quantified and assigned functionality,
then you pick fuse/breakers and wire sizes to accomModate
the needs of each system.
>Back to my problem. As mentioned, when in the "crossover mode", ie
>both alternators acting together the CB's do NOT trip. However,
>when I put the toggle in the center position (from down) having the
>systems act indipendently, both trip. It happens only when the
>engine is running thus the alternator, well, alternating...so to
>speak. I did change to the 7.5 amp CB's but when I tested it
>tonight, they both tripped as well. My thought is since I used the
>20 awg wire as in the Z drawing, but am using higher output
>alternators that my system is not up to the task and that I may need
>to beef things up with larger wire. Again, pardon my
>ingonrance...even though the fog lifts a bit every day.
>
>So, thoughts, concerns, insight???? All is appreciated.
There are no positions of switches in Z-14 or
any other Z-figure that would cause a breaker
to trip. The cross-feed contactor is there to
(1) PERMIT running both sides from one alternator
should one alternator become inoperable and (2)
using both batteries to crank the engine. But
if the crossfeed is closed during normal operations,
no untoward behaviors should be expected. One
alternator (with the higher voltage setting) will
hog the load but no breakers will pop.
I'm not sure of the 20AWG wire reference. Wires
this small are used in power distribution and
control downstream of the appropriately sized
fuse or breaker. The wire is selected to meet
requirements for carrying current in that particular
task and the PROTECTED by the appropriate size
fuse or breaker.
If you've strung a lot of 20AWG wire into your
airplane without having evaluated each of those
wires with respect to their current carrying
function, then you've not conducted the load
analysis exercise suggested above.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, |
add flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
At 11:16 PM 12/25/2008, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob Thx. for the reply
>
>My mission is to electrically connect my aft battery to the upfront 914
>supplying it sufficient amperage and voltage, while being able to fit
>wires neatly under door sill/fuse seam and allow routing required to
>connect to battery switch (tight bends).
>
>Old style starter amp draw is stated at I think 60 amps, I have new style
>that is a bit less.
>
>If I can save some weight in the process that is a bonus.
>
>Just a quick calculation of one #4 compared to two #8s for 5 meters of
>wire would be a savings of a little over a half pound with two #8s.
>
>The larger the diameter of wires, the harder it will be to route under
>door sill and allow for door centering pin receptacle to help keep door
>from bulging.
>
>#4 Tefzel wire is .310" in diameter
>
>#6 EPDM jacket 259 strand is .332" diameter (#4 406 strand .380")
>
>#6 Chlorinated Polyethylene 660 strand is .370" diameter (#4 1045 strand
>.420")
>
>It's true I could lap solder #6 welding wire to #4 Tefzel, but my interior
>cover/conduit for wires would need to be larger to accommodate, and the
>laps would be in an already tight area. Butt soldering #4 Tefzel to #6
>welding would approx. be the same diameter.
>
>I am not sure of the weight of welding cable compared to Tefzel, but I
>would think it heavier.
>
>I have a Hobart TRT 250 TIG welder. The ground wire I suspect is EPDM
>jacketed. It has cracks and splits and in general the jacketing is in bad
>health. True it sees a lot of UV and for a TIG ground strap that is fine.
>
>Are you be happy with using EPDM jacketed welding cable for the full run
>to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it smokes, a dozen feet is in
>the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How about only 1 foot?
>
>Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
>Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
>cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
>smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
>about only 1 foot?
>
>Knowing I need flexibility for routing at battery switch, want the
>smallest diameter that is feasible, be able to provide reasonable voltage
>and cranking amps, not take unreasonable risks of breathing noxious fumes
>if wires smoke, not have much risk that aging wire insulation will crack
>and split and be the instigator of smoke and loss of electron flow and be
>of a reasonable weight.
>
>What would be your two favorite choices:
>
>****#4 Tefzel with #6 EPDM jacketed butt soldered battery and battery
>switch ends?
>
>****#4 Tefzel with #6 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed butt soldered
>battery and battery switch ends?
>
>****All #4 EPDM jacketed wire?
>
>****All #4 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed wire?
>
>****Two paralleled #8 Tefzel wire that doesn't need twisting?
To use terms like "reasonable weight" and "this wire
is heavier than that wire" without quantifying the overall
weight savings.
I think I'd run 4AWG welding cable throughout. The
delta-weights are trivial and the effort to run multiple
twisted, spliced, variable gage wires has a poor return
on investment and looks pretty chopped and hacked when
you're done.
I've never understood the thought process that suggests
smoke from one kind of insulation is preferable to smoke
form another kind of insulation. When you get the first
whiff of ANY smoke, all switches are OFF ASAP.
I can't speak to your experience with cracked insulation
on welding cable. The stuff I've been buying around here
for years looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/4AWG_Welding_Cable_1.jpg
I'm not sure of the chemical makeup of the two layers
but it's a sure bet they're selected for robustness as
insulation on wires that lay on gravel roads and get
run over by dump-trucks. The fat wires in your airplane
are not subject to great abuse by liquids, mashing,
pulling, etc. They're easily observed during annual
inspection for degraded performance such as cracks.
The risks for using this stuff is exceedingly low, the
benefit for low cost, flexibility, and ease of installation
is significant. The idea that you're going to save a few
ounces at most on total installed weight may be
intellectually pleasing but probably won't produce
practical benefits later.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AGM Battery Charger |
At 04:16 PM 12/25/2008, you wrote:
>Is a special charger needed for AGM batteries such as the Odyssey?
>At <http://www.odyessy.com/>www.odyessy.com they recommend two
>types, but I'm wondering why something like a Schumacher
><http://store.schumachermart.com/se-1010-2.html>http://store.schumachermart.com/se-1010-2.html
>won't work just as well.
ALL battery technologies benefit from the use of
"smart" battery chargers that offer charge, top-off
and maintenance cycles. The charger you cited
doesn't cite this feature.
A really nice, low cost Schumacher product sold
at Wallmart is the 1562 series critters cited in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
and illustrated here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Schumacher_Chargers/1562.jpg
Schumacher makes a range of smart chargers identifiable
by the word "maintainer" in their descriptions. These
include the SC600, SC1000, SC1200, etc.
The idea that one should finely tune a plug-in-the-wall
battery charger to the brand/technology of the battery
is not supported by the way we charge batteries in our
vehicles and expect years of service life.
Consider also a variety of small battery charger/maintainers
like:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Battery_Minder/
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Battery_Tender_Jr/Battery_Tender-Junior.jpeg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and reduce noise from fat wires?
| From: | "Brian R. Wood" <brianrobertwood(at)gmail.com> |
Speaking of smokng wires, one time when I was working on a certificated
airplane, I inadvertantly shorted a #22 compass light wire. Almost
immediately the cabin was filled with black acrid smoke. I was almost
overcome. I ran out to the hangar door to get some fresh air. I still
marvel at how much nasty material just 6 inches of tiny wire can create.
I think the safest course is to avoid any smoking wires, either one foot
or twelve feet, I think either one would probably kill you.
Brian
> Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
> Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
> cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
> smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
> about only 1 foot?
>
--
Brian R. Wood
JH Manutencao
Anapolis. Goias, Brazil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
>Well, I can give you the trail I followed. :-)
>A friend had told me about seeing an analysis of the CBA but forgot
>where. A Goodle search led to an archive of a thread here on, IIRC,
>April 10, 2005. In that thread you provided a link to your analysis
>in the Articles section of your site. But the document was no longer
>there. This link though gave me the file name and my search led to
>an individual who had the document available from their site. I
>don't remember who.
Okay, I found it. I don't know why it was taken off the
website. It's still on the CDRom image of the website
as it existed some months ago. I've put the article back
up at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WestMountain_CBAII.pdf
>I completely agree. My analysis of two CBA's was pretty extensive
>(43 page document) and led me to conclude that it shouldn't be used
>at over 65W for long-term reliability and 86W to prevent the MOSFET
>from exceeding its max rated operating temperature. I also found out
>that the CBA's stock MOSFET isn't even rated for use as a load and
>was susceptible to hotspotting and thermal runaway (resulting in the
>MOSFET burning out) at well below the CBA's 100W rating when
>discharging at higher voltages.
>
>A MOSFET change, over to the IPP048N06L, and a fan change were the
>mods I made to bring the CBA's continuous power rating up to 106W at
>up to 48V without worrying about exceeding any of the MOSFET's
>specs. The extra fan also helped to keep the fuse and fuseholders
>from dropping out of the circuit board too when discharging at 30A
>or so. It happened more than once to me (and others) before we
>finally found ways to cool the circuit board and fuse. Very frustrating. :)
I had some extensive conversation with WMR. First
with regard to the FET failure and a second attempt to
discover the communication protocols on the USB
connection that controls the CBA-II and then gets
reported data back.
I offered to craft an engineer's version of battery
test software that would provide watt-seconds instead
of amp-hours displays, conduct battery impedance tests,
etc. I even told him I would share the software for
him to use as I saw fit. He said similar plans were
already in work in his facilities and he declined
to share any information.
The new software was 3 years in the making and still
falls short of what I would like to do with his product.
Further, the software reads the serial number of the
specific CBA II and you have to purchase separate
registered copies of the software to use each CBA II.
I have three computers and two CBA II that I would like
to use in interchangeable combinations but I'm not going
to buy a second software package when it still doesn't
do the things I would like to do and offered to him for
free.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and reduce noise from fat wires?
Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
about only 1 foot?
>Speaking of smokng wires, one time when I was working on a certificated
>airplane, I inadvertantly shorted a #22 compass light wire. Almost
>immediately the cabin was filled with black acrid smoke. I was almost
>overcome. I ran out to the hangar door to get some fresh air. I still
>marvel at how much nasty material just 6 inches of tiny wire can create.
>
>I think the safest course is to avoid any smoking wires, either one foot
>or twelve feet, I think either one would probably kill you.
Without a doubt, the smoking of wires with insulation
of any pedigree produces a most disagreeable atmosphere.
But at the same time, let's made a distinction between small
wires that are ROUTINELY protected and fat wires that are
not. Small wires are very likely to smoke when driven by
high current sources. FAT wires are generally few in number,
installed with special care and more likely to burn away the
faulting intrusion than to burn and become an emitter of smoke.
Small wire protection is generally takes the form of breakers or
fuses (I prefer fuses cause they're light, cheap, fast
and take up minimum panel space on airplane). Had the #22 wire
cite above been thoughtfully protected, the outcome of the
experience would have been much less exciting.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and reduce noise from fat wires?
| From: | "Brian R. Wood" <brianrobertwood(at)gmail.com> |
Yep, you are right about that. Small wire=high-resistance=heat which leads
to smoke. How hot would a run of #4 get if it were shorted out (batt+ to
ground)? Would it smoke the insulation?
Brian in Brazil
escreveu:
>> I think the safest course is to avoid any smoking wires, either one foot
>> or twelve feet, I think either one would probably kill you.
>
> Without a doubt, the smoking of wires with insulation
> of any pedigree produces a most disagreeable atmosphere.
> But at the same time, let's made a distinction between small
> wires that are ROUTINELY protected and fat wires that are
> not. Small wires are very likely to smoke when driven by
> high current sources. FAT wires are generally few in number,
> installed with special care and more likely to burn away the
> faulting intrusion than to burn and become an emitter of smoke.
> Small wire protection is generally takes the form of breakers or
> fuses (I prefer fuses cause they're light, cheap, fast
> and take up minimum panel space on airplane). Had the #22 wire
> cite above been thoughtfully protected, the outcome of the
> experience would have been much less exciting.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
--
Brian R. Wood
JH Manutencao
Anapolis. Goias, Brazil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add flexibility |
and
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
brianrobertwood(at)gmail. wrote:
> Yep, you are right about that. Small wire=high-resistance=heat which leads
> to smoke. How hot would a run of #4 get if it were shorted out (batt+ to
> ground)? Would it smoke the insulation?
>
> Brian in Brazil
>
> Brian R. Wood
> JH Manutencao
> Anapolis. Goias, Brazil
I've run 300A through #4 synthetic rubber insulated welding cable (105 degrees-C
rated) for several minutes without the insulation smoking or failing. It did
get VERY hot though. :)
A lot depends on the insulation. PVC is often rated at 85-degrees C. and will
smoke a lot sooner than 400 degree-C rated fiberglass insulation. The "fusing
current" level, at which the copper will melt and the wire acts like a fuse, is
around 800A.
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221284#221284
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Okay, I found it. I don't know why it was taken off the
> website. It's still on the CDRom image of the website
> as it existed some months ago. I've put the article back
> up at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WestMountain_CBAII.pdf
>
I had tried to contact you via e-mail last month regarding my analysis. Some of
my test results and recommendations differ from yours and I wanted to ask if
you might be interested in discussing them?
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I had some extensive conversation with WMR. First
> with regard to the FET failure and a second attempt to
> discover the communication protocols on the USB
> connection that controls the CBA-II and then gets
> reported data back.
>
> I offered to craft an engineer's version of battery
> test software that would provide watt-seconds instead
> of amp-hours displays, conduct battery impedance tests,
> etc. I even told him I would share the software for
> him to use as I saw fit. He said similar plans were
> already in work in his facilities and he declined
> to share any information.
>
> The new software was 3 years in the making and still
> falls short of what I would like to do with his product.
> Further, the software reads the serial number of the
> specific CBA II and you have to purchase separate
> registered copies of the software to use each CBA II.
> I have three computers and two CBA II that I would like
> to use in interchangeable combinations but I'm not going
> to buy a second software package when it still doesn't
> do the things I would like to do and offered to him for
> free.
>
> Bob . . .
Sigh...you're not the only one frustrated with WMR's policies! The requirement
to assign the software to a particular CBA II is maddening. And within a day
or two after its release, a couple of us over at the RC Group forums found several
obvious bugs in their version 2 software.
Our biggest frustrations now? They've had at least 6 releases of the beta and
"final" version 2 software since 10/28 and none of them have listed the changes
from the previous release. Arggghhh!
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221287#221287
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this scheme valid to save weight, |
add flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
Hi Ron,
I have been up and down this pole with my Europa.- I ended up running-
the + # 4 welding cable in the duct under the window sill and the - # 4 cab
le through the wheel tunnel.- The battery and contactor are in close prox
imity under the baggage bay.
With all that said, I can remember when I purchased the cable (25' if I rem
ember) thinking how much the darn stuff weighed.- I haven't done the comp
arisons, but it would be worth seeing if there was a worthwhile saving usin
g CCA cable that Eric sells.- For the sake of calculation, I think that I
ultimately used about 22' of welding cable.- The only downside is that i
t does have a larger diameter than # 4 welding cable.
Cheers,- Paul
--- On Thu, 12/25/08, rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is this scheme valid to save weight,
add flexibility and reduce noise from fat wires?
Date: Thursday, December 25, 2008, 11:16 PM
Hi Bob Thx. for the reply
My mission is to electrically connect my aft battery to the upfront 914
supplying it sufficient amperage and voltage, while being able to fit
wires neatly under door sill/fuse seam and allow routing required to
connect to battery switch (tight bends).
Old style starter amp draw is stated at I think 60 amps, I have new style
that is a bit less.
If I can save some weight in the process that is a bonus.
Just a quick calculation of one #4 compared to two #8s for 5 meters of
wire would be a savings of a little over a half pound with two #8s.
The larger the diameter of wires, the harder it will be to route under
door sill and allow for door centering pin receptacle to help keep door
from bulging.
#4 Tefzel wire is .310" in diameter
#6 EPDM jacket 259 strand is .332" diameter (#4 406 strand .380")
#6 Chlorinated Polyethylene 660 strand is .370" diameter (#4 1045 strand
.420")
It's true I could lap solder #6 welding wire to #4 Tefzel, but my interior
cover/conduit for wires would need to be larger to accommodate, and the
laps would be in an already tight area. Butt soldering #4 Tefzel to #6
welding would approx. be the same diameter.
I am not sure of the weight of welding cable compared to Tefzel, but I
would think it heavier.
I have a Hobart TRT 250 TIG welder. The ground wire I suspect is EPDM
jacketed. It has cracks and splits and in general the jacketing is in bad
health. True it sees a lot of UV and for a TIG ground strap that is fine.
Are you be happy with using EPDM jacketed welding cable for the full run
to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it smokes, a dozen feet is in
the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How about only 1 foot?
Same question with Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding cable:
Are you be happy with using Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed welding
cable for the full run to and from engine to aft battery knowing if it
smokes, a dozen feet is in the cockpit (aeroplane is fiberglass)? How
about only 1 foot?
Knowing I need flexibility for routing at battery switch, want the
smallest diameter that is feasible, be able to provide reasonable voltage
and cranking amps, not take unreasonable risks of breathing noxious fumes
if wires smoke, not have much risk that aging wire insulation will crack
and split and be the instigator of smoke and loss of electron flow and be
of a reasonable weight.
What would be your two favorite choices:
****#4 Tefzel with #6 EPDM jacketed butt soldered battery and battery
switch ends?
****#4 Tefzel with #6 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed butt soldered
battery and battery switch ends?
****All #4 EPDM jacketed wire?
****All #4 Chlorinated Polyethylene jacketed wire?
****Two paralleled #8 Tefzel wire that doesn't need twisting?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
At 07:40 PM 12/26/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I found it. I don't know why it was taken off the
> > website. It's still on the CDRom image of the website
> > as it existed some months ago. I've put the article back
> > up at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WestMountain_CBAII.pdf
> >
>
>I had tried to contact you via e-mail last month regarding my
>analysis. Some of my test results and recommendations differ from
>yours and I wanted to ask if you might be interested in discussing them?
Yes, I recall that. I must have been 'snowed' at the
time and the List comes first. We could discuss it here
on the List . . .
>Sigh...you're not the only one frustrated with WMR's policies! The
>requirement to assign the software to a particular CBA II is
>maddening. And within a day or two after its release, a couple of
>us over at the RC Group forums found several obvious bugs in their
>version 2 software.
>
>Our biggest frustrations now? They've had at least 6 releases of
>the beta and "final" version 2 software since 10/28 and none of them
>have listed the changes from the previous release. Arggghhh!
That's unfortunate. I know there are a lot of
folks out there with time, talent and resources
willing to help him refine the product. Push
comes to shove, we could do our own.
I've got PIC's with USB engines that I've integrated
into some proposed projects for TC aircraft. A
retired programmer from NCR/Symbios/LSI lives right
behind me (my father in law). He's been doing
some other projects for me and would be please
to have this one.
Our hammer-n-tongs version need not be pretty,
only utilitarian. I think I'd opt for a board
that could drive any practical number of power
FETS. The user could scale his/her version
to the desired task. The only variable in the
software would be to insert a shunt constant
for current interpretation.
The battery tester itself is stone simple.
The sexy part is the application that manages
it. John went out and bought VBasic.net a few
months ago but we've not had occasion to use
it yet.
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: Is this scheme valid to save weight, add |
flexibility and
At 07:23 PM 12/26/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>brianrobertwood(at)gmail. wrote:
> > Yep, you are right about that. Small wire=high-resistance=heat
> which leads
> > to smoke. How hot would a run of #4 get if it were shorted out (batt+ to
> > ground)? Would it smoke the insulation?
Wires are generally really hard to "smoke". This piece of
22AWG wire . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
. . . had been running at 20 AMPS until the temperature
stabilized at 112C. Tefzel is good to 150C. So we're
not even pushing the wire all that hard YET. Of course
we "derate" wires for effects of bundling, hi temperature
environments, and voltage drop. But the point is that
a 22AWG wire we normally limit to a 5 amp circuit feeder
is much more robust with respect to fault tolerance than
the 5A de-rating suggests.
>I've run 300A through #4 synthetic rubber insulated welding cable
>(105 degrees-C rated) for several minutes without the insulation
>smoking or failing. It did get VERY hot though. :)
>
>A lot depends on the insulation. PVC is often rated at 85-degrees
>C. and will smoke a lot sooner than 400 degree-C rated fiberglass
>insulation. The "fusing current" level, at which the copper will
>melt and the wire acts like a fuse, is around 800A.
Which supports the 22 AWG experiment described above.
Folks worry a lot about "smoking" wires but simple
attention to fuses and circuit breakers for small
wires and careful attention to routing and support
for fat wires is all it takes to drive the probability
of smoke down to the very small numbers.
With respect to relative weights, my data books say
4AWG Tefzel (22759/16) is 157 pounds per 1000/ft
or .16 pounds per foot. A 4" chunk of 4AWG welding
cable I have laying around comes in at 24gm or 72gm
per foot which is still .16 pounds. So if you substitute
the style cable I have here (one layer synthetic rubber)
for the 22759/16, there is no weight penalty.
Other brands/styles of welding cable may not be 1:1
but they're not going to be far off. Bottom line is
that any weight differences to be exploited with
exotic combinations of other sizes and subsequent
splices has a poor if not zero return on investment
for $time$ expended.
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> |
Bob:
Looking thru your archives, I see that one can use D-Sub's are wiring
connections: I.E. - joining 2 wires together, rather than use butt splices,
solder seal, etc....
So my question is:
1- Rather than soldering my Mic & Phone jack wires directly to my jack
outlets, can I solder leads, then use D-Sub pins to join to the leads to the
amin wires?
2- Can I also use these D-Subs for splicing shielded wire: 22 awg wire?
I can see al lot of uses for these D-subs, amazing !!!
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anyone done Bob Nuckoll's CBA modifications? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Yes, I recall that. I must have been 'snowed' at the
> time and the List comes first. We could discuss it here
> on the List . . .
No problem, I understand. :)
In another thread I'll post a link to the analysis and a couple of things I'd love
to discuss.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> That's unfortunate. I know there are a lot of
> folks out there with time, talent and resources
> willing to help him refine the product. Push
> comes to shove, we could do our own.
>
> I've got PIC's with USB engines that I've integrated
> into some proposed projects for TC aircraft. A
> retired programmer from NCR/Symbios/LSI lives right
> behind me (my father in law). He's been doing
> some other projects for me and would be please
> to have this one.
>
> Our hammer-n-tongs version need not be pretty,
> only utilitarian. I think I'd opt for a board
> that could drive any practical number of power
> FETS. The user could scale his/her version
> to the desired task. The only variable in the
> software would be to insert a shunt constant
> for current interpretation.
>
> The battery tester itself is stone simple.
> The sexy part is the application that manages
> it. John went out and bought VBasic.net a few
> months ago but we've not had occasion to use
> it yet.
>
> Bob . . .
I think that's an idea worth exploring!
I've developed a 500W (400W continuous) electronic load that can be used to extend the capabilities of any analyzer or discharger (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=938266) but there's a real need for "host" software and a load in the power range of the CBA, perhaps 100W-200W. This would be perfect for most DIY'ers and could easily be paralleled for higher power handling.
The software would have to be very graphics-capable as the plotting and graphing
features would be extremely important. I'd love to see it not require a huge
installation just to run. But, the options may be limited.
The CBA software has a nice light footprint though. An executable, help file,
settings file, three DLLs for USB comms and forms handling. It may have some
registry keys or other files in public directories but it doesn't seem to require
the NET framework. MileHighWings' eFlightWatt logger had a single executable
file that did everything, no installation needed. Something like this for
an open source tester would be terrific.
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221437#221437
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anything wrong with using a plier style crimper? |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
I rounded up some ratcheting style crimping tools from airport folk and
a homebuilderfor crimping Red crimp on connectors from Stein (fast
on and ring).
Got hold of a Paladin tool with several sets of
dies, and some no name non adjustable tool.
The die sets for
the Paladine:
****Part number said for insulated terminals and had 3
colored dots including red
****There was a set of dies with no part
number but fit tool (perhaps from Stein??) and looked like for insulated
terminals
And a few others, one for uninsulated terminals and
other
First off no matter what the adjustment, if using 22
gauge wire, even with the dies completely bottomed, could not get as much
a grip as i would like. I could semi make it better by splicing more wire
and doubling it over to better fill hole. Problem was it still did not
crimp wire terrific and the portion that was to crimp on the insulation
for strain relief was too far away (too wide a die?) where it was only
partially catching the metal in the terminals. All the terminals from
Stein and Terminal Town and Mcmaster (double metal) appeared to be too
short for tool. I tried all the dies I had and combinations. Not great
success with theno name tool with fixed dies and is non
adjustable.
I could get an OK crimp, probably will work and
with heat shrink support will probably be OK, but insulation was not
captured properly and if i sliced open the crimp on the wire, you could
see it is not as compact as would be nice.
Then I pulled out an
old and rusty Whitaker WC2850 tool, looks like a pair of pliers with
several dies on it.
After some practice I can make what I think
is a very nice crimp, far better than what I could do withthe other
tools.
*First I stripped twice what I need and double up tail
to go into terminal
*Then crimp with RARB dieabout 1/16"
from the edge of terminal
*Then use a part of tool called
"A" which is kind of a half cylinder (feel here is important)
and put a dimple on top of terminalwhere I just crimped. I tried to
over crimp this step and if I go crazy where terminal in stead of being
straight begins to bend, I can tear wire when pulled very hard because
wire is mashed too much. I am pretty confident can repeat this dimple
consistently.When I sliced practice terminals apart had a very
compacted crimp without strands being deformed/mashed. Without dimple,
crimp is acceptable in my mind for automobiles only, and places easy to
get at with no moisture present.
*Then use RARB to crimp wire
insulation about 1/16" from edge, no hurting of insulation at all and
wire is held pretty good.
Anyone see any problems crimping like
I describe? i could have stripped and crimped a dozen terminals in time it
took me to write this.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | CBA II Thermal Analysis - Does the CBA run too hot? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
Hello all,
After hearing of several of them burning out, I did an analysis of two West Mountain
Radio CBA II's and have written it up:
http://www.camlight.com/techinfo/CamLight_Systems_CBA_II_Thermal_Analysis.pdf
Bob wrote up a really great analysis back in 2005 (which is still being passed
around) but a couple of my conclusions differ from those Bob made so I wanted
to post here to discuss them. Those conclusions are:
- The MOSFETs in the CBA and the 10x Amplifier are not rated for use as a load
and are subject to failure at levels significantly below the CBA's 100W rating.
This includes the IRFP2907.
- Paralleling switching MOSFETs is very, very problematic and each should be driven
by its own local control loop.
- Due to overheating, the CBA should not be used at a level above 65W for long
term reliability. Never exceed 86W to prevent failure of the MOSFET.
- Discharging packs at above 20V (and perhaps even lower) significantly increases
the risk of the CBA burning out, at almost any power level.
A fun note...
After reading Bob's analysis a couple of times, I suddenly noticed that he uses
the exact same graphics to represent/model the thermal resistances of a MOSFET
that I've always used. Important? No. But it was fun to realize why it was
such easy reading for me. :-)
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221447#221447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anything wrong with using a plier style crimper? |
At 10:38 PM 12/27/2008, you wrote:
>I rounded up some ratcheting style crimping tools from airport folk
>and a homebuilder for crimping Red crimp on connectors from Stein
>(fast on and ring).
>
>Got hold of a Paladin tool with several sets of dies, and some no
>name non adjustable tool.
>
>The die sets for the Paladine:
>****Part number said for insulated terminals and had 3 colored dots
>including red
>****There was a set of dies with no part number but fit tool
>(perhaps from Stein??) and looked like for insulated terminals
>And a few others, one for uninsulated terminals and other
>
>First off no matter what the adjustment, if using 22 gauge wire,
>even with the dies completely bottomed, could not get as much a grip
>as i would like. I could semi make it better by splicing more wire
>and doubling it over to better fill hole. Problem was it still did
>not crimp wire terrific and the portion that was to crimp on the
>insulation for strain relief was too far away (too wide a die?)
>where it was only partially catching the metal in the terminals. All
>the terminals from Stein and Terminal Town and Mcmaster (double
>metal) appeared to be too short for tool. I tried all the dies I had
>and combinations. Not great success with the no name tool with fixed
>dies and is non adjustable.
>
>I could get an OK crimp, probably will work and with heat shrink
>support will probably be OK, but insulation was not captured
>properly and if i sliced open the crimp on the wire, you could see
>it is not as compact as would be nice.
>
>Then I pulled out an old and rusty Whitaker WC2850 tool, looks like
>a pair of pliers with several dies on it.
>
>After some practice I can make what I think is a very nice crimp,
>far better than what I could do with the other tools.
>
>*First I stripped twice what I need and double up tail to go into terminal
>*Then crimp with RARB die about 1/16" from the edge of terminal
>*Then use a part of tool called "A" which is kind of a half cylinder
>(feel here is important) and put a dimple on top of terminal where I
>just crimped. I tried to over crimp this step and if I go crazy
>where terminal in stead of being straight begins to bend, I can tear
>wire when pulled very hard because wire is mashed too much. I am
>pretty confident can repeat this dimple consistently. When I sliced
>practice terminals apart had a very compacted crimp without strands
>being deformed/mashed. Without dimple, crimp is acceptable in my
>mind for automobiles only, and places easy to get at with no moisture present.
>*Then use RARB to crimp wire insulation about 1/16" from edge, no
>hurting of insulation at all and wire is held pretty good.
>
>Anyone see any problems crimping like I describe? i could have
>stripped and crimped a dozen terminals in time it took me to write this.
>
>Ron Parigoris
The physics for making a gas-tight connection between wire
and terminal is process-sensitive. The "ideal" crimped
junction puts sufficient force on the terminal to close
the cross-section of terminal and wire copper just to the
point that the terminal and wire strands become one piece
of metal. Too little mash, and voids in the joint allow
oxygen laden moisture to enter raising risk of failure
due to corrosion. Too much mash and strength of the
strands is weakened by reduction of cross-section thus
raising risk of failure under tension/vibration. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
Dimple-crimps are for terminals going onto solid wire
only. See "Solistrand" terminals and tooling from AMP.
You will note that all crimp tools suggested and/or
evaluated in our writing are free of "dimple" punches.
The PIDG style terminal is best applied with uniform
pressure offered by smooth bore dies.
Of secondary concern is molding of the wire-grip to the
conductor just outside the joint. The terminal may have
too little volume in the closed condition for the amount
of plastic in the terminal's wire support insulation.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/JST_Samples_2.jpg
These terminals were electrically okay when installed with
our favorite tools . . . but did not become part of our
inventory because we had no tools that would do a professional
looking installation.
Ron, it's not possible to encourage or discourage use of the
tools you've cited without making a first-hand evaluation
of their performance under the guide-lines discussed in
the article above and these additional pieces found on
my website . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/faston3.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
Finally, on the subject of wire-joining, I'll remind
readers of this article published some years back
in Sport Aviation. The author didn't have a
clue about simple-ideas for the processes in
which he claimed considerable knowledged and skill.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:55 PM 12/27/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Looking thru your archives, I see that one can use D-Sub's are wiring
>connections: I.E. - joining 2 wires together, rather than use butt splices,
>solder seal, etc....
>So my question is:
>
>1- Rather than soldering my Mic & Phone jack wires directly to my jack
>outlets, can I solder leads, then use D-Sub pins to join to the leads to the
>amin wires?
If you wish. What is the advantage? You've increased parts
count and total numbers of joints. Are these jacks likely
to be removed and replaced as part of a maintenance activity?
If you need to break a wire bundle during routine maintenance
then it's best to use a complete mated pair of d-sub connectors
as opposed to individual pin-pairs under heatshrink.
>2- Can I also use these D-Subs for splicing shielded wire: 22 awg wire?
>
>I can see al lot of uses for these D-subs, amazing !!!
They ARE a legacy technology with features that
can address design-goals that are peripheral to
or sub-sets of the original ideas. But as a general
rule we try to MINIMIZE parts count and $time$ to
install wires for best reliability and lowest cost
of ownership. Splicing of wires is best made with
permanent joining technologies (crimp/solder) unless
there is an over-riding interest in future maintenance
activities made simple by the use of de-mateable
splices whether grouped as connectors or individual
pins.
Keep in mind too that the single pin-pairs under
heat-shrink are VERY vulnerable to de-mating under
tension. Use this technique with careful attention
to support of strands either side of the splice to
prevent tugging on the joint.
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: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
>
>I think that's an idea worth exploring!
>I've developed a 500W (400W continuous) electronic load that can be
>used to extend the capabilities of any analyzer or discharger
>(http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=938266) but there's
>a real need for "host" software and a load in the power range of the
>CBA, perhaps 100W-200W. This would be perfect for most DIY'ers and
>could easily be paralleled for higher power handling.
>
>The software would have to be very graphics-capable as the plotting
>and graphing features would be extremely important. I'd love to see
>it not require a huge installation just to run. But, the options
>may be limited.
I'm not so sure about the graphics. Yes, they do make for an
effective display of data . . . and comparison of similar
batteries . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
The data for this article was taken with a one-sample-per-second
data acquisition module that produces columnar data easily
imported into graphics applications like autocad and excel.
For the purpose of writing articles, the graphics offered by
WestMountainRadio are pretty . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/9vBatteryTests.jpg
but from an engineering perspective, a numerical value for
energy delivered under the prescribed test conditions is
quite sufficient. The results of dynamic tests for evaluating
battery source impedance could be offered out as numerical
values.
I did a flight test program for Raytheon a few years
back where the Weeder Technology modules proved quite
useful.
http://www.weedtech.com/
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Data_Acquisition/Weedtech_DAS_2.jpg
As a first pass for crafting a more robust version of
the CBA-II, a Weeder analog input module for $69 and
an analog output module for $99 would offer 95% of
the hardware to implement the task. Very simple programs
in any language of choice could be crafted to orchestrate
the testing, gathering of data values and presentation
of end-point results with no graphics capabilities
at all.
One could also store individual data points on the
hard drive in a format easily imported to Excel.
>The CBA software has a nice light footprint though. An executable,
>help file, settings file, three DLLs for USB comms and forms
>handling. It may have some registry keys or other files in public
>directories but it doesn't seem to require the NET
>framework. MileHighWings' eFlightWatt logger had a single
>executable file that did everything, no installation
>needed. Something like this for an open source tester would be terrific.
Sure. And I wouldn't discourage any interested parties
from turning their vision into really nifty applications
by exercising their programming skills. From the hands-on
engineering perspective, my personal needs for battery
testing can be easily addressed with more rudimentary
software.
In fact, I still keep 20 year old copies of
Turbo-Basic that outputs compiled .exe files
for talking/listening to the Weeder modules.
I have a supply of these guys on the shelf from
various programs over the years. They still
offer the hammer-n-nails approach to crafting
a quick and useful test-setup.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires
together to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their
voltage regulator even specified the number of twists per inch.
But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection, it
seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly together
would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is twisting the
wires together recommended because it is a convenient way to keep the
wires in close contact? Or is there something about the nature of the
electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
Thanks,
Dennis
Legacy, 220 hours, mostly twisted positive and negative wires
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
Twisting reduces the wiring's susceptibility to interference due to the way it
can cancel out certain external signals by reducing the wire's loop area (which
reduces its degree of coupling to the interference). It also reduces crosstalk
between nearby pairs of wire, but you need different twist rates for each pair
to minimize coupling between them.
What I'm not sure of is the difference in effectiveness between pairs carrying
single-ended signals (signal and ground) vs. differential signals (signal+ and
signal-. used in telecomm and computer equipment).
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221507#221507
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
>We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires
>together to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their
>voltage regulator even specified the number of twists per inch.
>
>But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection,
>it seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly
>together would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is
>twisting the wires together recommended because it is a convenient
>way to keep the wires in close contact? Or is there something about
>the nature of the electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
A single conductor in relatively "free" space has some
behaviors of an antenna. I.e, it can radiate as well
as gather some portion of any electro-magnetic energy
in the vicinity. When electrons move relative to some
local point one can measure both an electric (electro-static)
force as well as a magnetic (electro-magnetic) force
as a result of that motion.
For example, a beam of electrons shot from the rear
of a cathode ray tube toward a screen can be deflected
or pointed because we can exploit EITHER the electro-static
or electro-magnetic properties of a moving stream of electrons.
It matters not whether those electrons move through a
conductor or through a vacuum. In a CRT television display
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Electro-Magnetic_Deflection.jpg
electro-magnets on the neck of the tube were used to
control direction of the electron beam to produce spots
of light over the surface of the screen. In an oscilloscope,
electro-static deflection . . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Electro-Static_Deflection.jpg
. . . was preferred for its much higher frequency response.
Not only can electron streams be magnetically and
statically influenced as described above, they exert
their own, similar influences.
Suppose we start with a circular loop of wire say 10'
in diameter. This is an excellent example of a loop
antenna with an ability to efficiently radiate or
intercept energy at some frequency.
Now, let's squash the loop in one dimension. As
it moves toward an elliptical shape, the AREA of the
loop goes down and the radiation/reception efficiency
goes down. The obvious end point happens when the
area approaches zero and the circle becomes a parallel
pair of wires.
It's intuitively obvious that electrons flowing in one
wire are exactly balanced by opposite direction flow
in the opposite wire thus cancelling their individual
electro-magnetic and electro-static effects . . . mostly.
At higher frequencies it can be shown that parallel
lines do not exactly cancel mutual magnetic effects
because of the non-zero distance between their centers.
Here it becomes valuable to twist the two conductors
such that what ever leakage exists perpendicular
to the conductors tends to be washed out by the reverse
polarity of effects longitudinally displaced 1/2 twist
away.
Another very effective technique is to use shielded
wire. Use the center conductor for the outbound electron
flow and the shield for the inbound flow. Here the two
fields ARE centered on each other and cancel each other
exactly.
In the case of the compass light wire, the goal is to
null the magnetic field around a wire that MUST be
positioned in close proximity to the system most
vulnerable to interference from variable and stray
magnetic fields.
Some manufacturers twisted their outbound and return
wires. Others ran the wire up a small i.d. copper
tube to make inbound/outbound paths. Similarly,
shielded wire would be equally effective in this
regard.
Twisting the B&C Alternator wires was done at my
suggestion back when plastic and glass canard
pushers were king. The effects of poorly managed
inbound/outbound conductor pairs had some profound
effects on compass as well as audio systems. But
again, this practice IS NOT generally recommended
for ALL inbound/outbound pairs in an airplane.
Like my oft repeated admonition for "follow the
manufacturer's instructions" for shielding practices,
the same advice applies to things like twisting for
PM alternator installations in plastic airplanes
and compass lights. Twisting makes a wire bundle
more bulky and more $time$ consuming to fabricate
and install.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
At 04:41 PM 12/28/2008, you wrote:
>
>Twisting reduces the wiring's susceptibility to interference due to
>the way it can cancel out certain external signals by reducing the
>wire's loop area (which reduces its degree of coupling to the
>interference). It also reduces crosstalk between nearby pairs of
>wire, but you need different twist rates for each pair to minimize
>coupling between them.
>
>What I'm not sure of is the difference in effectiveness between
>pairs carrying single-ended signals (signal and ground) vs.
>differential signals (signal+ and signal-. used in telecomm and
>computer equipment).
Paralleled or twisted conductors get you benefit
only when they carry equal magnitude and opposite
polarity signals. This is why RS232 single-ended
data was quickly replaced by RS422 twisted pairs
under shields for the greatest noise immunity.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
Dennis,
There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept at the
same distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to stay
parallel. The reason they are twisted together is that it is the simplest
way to keep them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires,
shields, insulation, etc.) bends and distorts.
When an RS-422 transmitter generates a signal, it has two circuits that
drive the twisted wire pair. One circuit sources current, while the other
circuit sinks current. When a differential twist wire pair carries two
currents from the transmitter to the receiver, they travel from the source
driver to the load (a termination resistor next to the receiver), then back
to the current sink. Along each wire, the current generates an
electromagnetic field defined by the right hand rule, where the direction of
the field is per the direction of the hand's fingers when the thumb is
pointing toward the direction of current flow. Since the current in one
wire is traveling opposite the current in the other wire, the fields oppose
each other and ideally cancel each other out. They also ideally cause no
noise to be radiated.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of RS-422 and differential signaling is
immunity from external noise in the receiver. RS-422 receivers are built to
reject "common-mode noise, which is noise that is of the same amplitude on
both the + and - terminals of the receiver. This is where the twisted wire
pair comes in. It connects to the receiver's + and - terminals and brings
in both the real signal and common-mode noise. While the twisted-wire pair
is shielded, some noise will leak in, but the electromagnetic and
electrostatic fields will cut across wires at the same amplitude, because
the wires are so close together. Thus, the noise's amplitude will appear at
the receiver's + and - terminals equally and will be rejected by the
receiver, since it is designed to reject common-mode noise. As an example,
the AM26LV32 is a commonly used differential line 3.3V receiver. It has a
common mode input voltage range from -0.3 to 5.5V and will reject any
voltage that appears on both terminals in this range. The voltages on its
terminals must have a delta of greater than 0.2V for it to change its
outputs. You probably have to be involved in the measurement of real world
signals and problems to appreciate just how good the AM26LV32 works to
reject common-mode noise. One of the things that I haven't mentioned is
that the termination resistor not only serves to terminate the twisted wire
pair's characteristic impedance but also provides a low impedance to prevent
electrostatic and electromagnetic fields from developing high voltages in
twisted wire pairs.
So to reiterate, there is nothing magical about twisted wire pairs other
than they keep the wires in close proximity to each other and that's it.
Everything else I said above is just fluff! :)
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2008
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires together
to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their voltage regulator
even specified the number of twists per inch.
But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection, it
seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly together
would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is twisting the wires
together recommended because it is a convenient way to keep the wires in
close contact? Or is there something about the nature of the
electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
Thanks,
Dennis
Legacy, 220 hours, mostly twisted positive and negative wires
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Mackereth" <mac(at)incendio.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram |
Hi all.. been trawling through all the posting history on this list looking
for some help with what layout and equipment set make sense in the tight
engine compartment of a Pitts S1. Sorry if any of this is repeat/old stuff,
but it's all new to me. Thanks also to Bob who has given me many hours of
enjoyment trying to get to grips with his manual, and Z figures. I started
on Z13/8 and pulled out the 2nd big alternator in favor of a single small
SD-8 one, and have gone from there.
A Pitts should be rather simple, I would have thought. This is a VFR
short-hop plane 99% of the time, doing aerobatics I had a good look at the
aerobatic wiring diagram from B&C... so I had assumed I could get by on a
SD-8 alternator as only electrical generation source. I have a Icom A200,
Narco Xpdr, Encoder and the usual engine instruments (EGT, CHT, OILT, OILP,
FUELP) so thought I could get away it. Um, ok, also a Fuel boost pump (only
during starting) and smoke pump (couple of minutes a flight)... I also would
like to run a AV80R GPS as well, if possible. Now I'm wondering about the
SD-8... and if not, well, then the SD-20. I can add up all the Amp loads on
each thing, but I'm not sure how much under/over capacity I need to run
everything? Is there a general rule of thumb?
My other question is whether there is enough space behind the engine for the
vacuum mounted SD-8 - considering I'm planning dual PMAGS, and have an
inverted OIL kit right there in the same place. A friend building an S1 that
I talk to a lot as opted for the PlanePower 60Amp unit that is belt driven
up front to free up some space, as he reckoned it was too tight. Would love
a second opinion from someone with an S1.
Most S1's flying out there are 20, 30 years old, even older, and I'm hoping
someone can help me take advantage of the new technology advances to build a
simple, clean and lightweight electrical system.
Thanks to anyone who can help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cleary" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram |
Hello Stuart,
I have an S1 with an SD-8, standard slick mags and an inverted oil system.
It is tight but doable.
Cheers,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
Mackereth
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Hi all.. been trawling through all the posting history on this list looking
for some help with what layout and equipment set make sense in the tight
engine compartment of a Pitts S1. Sorry if any of this is repeat/old stuff,
but it's all new to me. Thanks also to Bob who has given me many hours of
enjoyment trying to get to grips with his manual, and Z figures. I started
on Z13/8 and pulled out the 2nd big alternator in favor of a single small
SD-8 one, and have gone from there.
A Pitts should be rather simple, I would have thought. This is a VFR
short-hop plane 99% of the time, doing aerobatics I had a good look at the
aerobatic wiring diagram from B&C... so I had assumed I could get by on a
SD-8 alternator as only electrical generation source. I have a Icom A200,
Narco Xpdr, Encoder and the usual engine instruments (EGT, CHT, OILT, OILP,
FUELP) so thought I could get away it. Um, ok, also a Fuel boost pump (only
during starting) and smoke pump (couple of minutes a flight)... I also would
like to run a AV80R GPS as well, if possible. Now I'm wondering about the
SD-8... and if not, well, then the SD-20. I can add up all the Amp loads on
each thing, but I'm not sure how much under/over capacity I need to run
everything? Is there a general rule of thumb?
My other question is whether there is enough space behind the engine for the
vacuum mounted SD-8 - considering I'm planning dual PMAGS, and have an
inverted OIL kit right there in the same place. A friend building an S1 that
I talk to a lot as opted for the PlanePower 60Amp unit that is belt driven
up front to free up some space, as he reckoned it was too tight. Would love
a second opinion from someone with an S1.
Most S1's flying out there are 20, 30 years old, even older, and I'm hoping
someone can help me take advantage of the new technology advances to build a
simple, clean and lightweight electrical system.
Thanks to anyone who can help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Mackereth" <mac(at)incendio.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram |
Great, thanks John. What line up do you run - VHF, XPDR, GPS, etc?
Don't suppose you have a picture of the back for me to have a look at?
Sorry, but now you got me started ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Cleary
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 7:40 p.m.
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Hello Stuart,
I have an S1 with an SD-8, standard slick mags and an inverted oil system.
It is tight but doable.
Cheers,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
Mackereth
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Hi all.. been trawling through all the posting history on this list looking
for some help with what layout and equipment set make sense in the tight
engine compartment of a Pitts S1. Sorry if any of this is repeat/old stuff,
but it's all new to me. Thanks also to Bob who has given me many hours of
enjoyment trying to get to grips with his manual, and Z figures. I started
on Z13/8 and pulled out the 2nd big alternator in favor of a single small
SD-8 one, and have gone from there.
A Pitts should be rather simple, I would have thought. This is a VFR
short-hop plane 99% of the time, doing aerobatics I had a good look at the
aerobatic wiring diagram from B&C... so I had assumed I could get by on a
SD-8 alternator as only electrical generation source. I have a Icom A200,
Narco Xpdr, Encoder and the usual engine instruments (EGT, CHT, OILT, OILP,
FUELP) so thought I could get away it. Um, ok, also a Fuel boost pump (only
during starting) and smoke pump (couple of minutes a flight)... I also would
like to run a AV80R GPS as well, if possible. Now I'm wondering about the
SD-8... and if not, well, then the SD-20. I can add up all the Amp loads on
each thing, but I'm not sure how much under/over capacity I need to run
everything? Is there a general rule of thumb?
My other question is whether there is enough space behind the engine for the
vacuum mounted SD-8 - considering I'm planning dual PMAGS, and have an
inverted OIL kit right there in the same place. A friend building an S1 that
I talk to a lot as opted for the PlanePower 60Amp unit that is belt driven
up front to free up some space, as he reckoned it was too tight. Would love
a second opinion from someone with an S1.
Most S1's flying out there are 20, 30 years old, even older, and I'm hoping
someone can help me take advantage of the new technology advances to build a
simple, clean and lightweight electrical system.
Thanks to anyone who can help.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
2:23 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> I'm not so sure about the graphics. Yes, they do make for an
> effective display of data . . . and comparison of similar
> batteries . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
>
> The data for this article was taken with a one-sample-per-second
> data acquisition module that produces columnar data easily
> imported into graphics applications like autocad and excel.
> For the purpose of writing articles, the graphics offered by
> WestMountainRadio are pretty . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/9vBatteryTests.jpg
>
> but from an engineering perspective, a numerical value for
> energy delivered under the prescribed test conditions is
> quite sufficient. The results of dynamic tests for evaluating
> battery source impedance could be offered out as numerical
> values.
As someone involved heavily in engineering, I agree.
But you'll find a lot of very strong opposition to devices that only output numerical
values for later importing and graphing or for use in creating a table.
These all take extra work to do and is considered a total PITA by those who
don't revel in the numbers the way we do.
In my opinion, the success of the CBA is in its software (and its price, of course).
It allows for very, very easy and no-work testing and comparison of different
cells. There are other devices out there that allow for exporting to Excel
or other saving of data, but they aren't nearly as popular.
As a first step, just storing the data for import into Excel is OK. Even for taking
and creating tables with. But, it would be nice to see a growth path possible
for the software to include on-screen graphing/plotting. There are many
constant-current load circuits out there but they're not being built and used
by very many people, I think the right software is what would make the difference.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I did a flight test program for Raytheon a few years
> back where the Weeder Technology modules proved quite
> useful.
>
> http://www.weedtech.com/
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Data_Acquisition/Weedtech_DAS_2.jpg
>
> As a first pass for crafting a more robust version of
> the CBA-II, a Weeder analog input module for $69 and
> an analog output module for $99 would offer 95% of
> the hardware to implement the task. Very simple programs
> in any language of choice could be crafted to orchestrate
> the testing, gathering of data values and presentation
> of end-point results with no graphics capabilities
> at all.
>
> One could also store individual data points on the
> hard drive in a format easily imported to Excel.
>
Those are nice units!
I've been using the USB-6008 DAQ unit from National Instruments (http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/14604) for various projects, which is competitively priced. It includes driver and basic logging software too. I'd have to check closer to make sure it can support what the project might need but it's worth checking out IMHO.
Another option is one you alluded to earlier, a PIC. That would result in a very
small and inexpensive unit to control the load with and acquire and upload
the data from. Someone would have to develop and test the firmware though.
There's still a decent amount of hardware left to work out though...PCB design
and selection of the MOSFETs, op-amps, resistor/capacitors, voltage regulators,
microprocessor, connectors, heat sink, fan, etc., for the load itself.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Sure. And I wouldn't discourage any interested parties
> from turning their vision into really nifty applications
> by exercising their programming skills. From the hands-on
> engineering perspective, my personal needs for battery
> testing can be easily addressed with more rudimentary
> software.
>
> In fact, I still keep 20 year old copies of
> Turbo-Basic that outputs compiled .exe files
> for talking/listening to the Weeder modules.
> I have a supply of these guys on the shelf from
> various programs over the years. They still
> offer the hammer-n-nails approach to crafting
>
> a quick and useful test-setup.
>
> Bob . . .
I remember Turbo-Basic. You're right, a very useful software package! :)
I think you bring up a very good point. There will be two groups of users for
this load. The ones who just need the raw data outputted in the simplest way
possible and those who want it displayed in graphical form to allow for the quickest
way to see what they need to see.
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221572#221572
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
simon(at)synchdes.com wrote:
> There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept at the same
distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to stay parallel.
The reason they are twisted together is that it is the simplest way to keep
them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires, shields, insulation,
etc.) bends and distorts.
But don't pairs in untwisted pair cabling suffer from more crosstalk and susceptibility
to interference than in twisted-pair cabling? And, IIRC, can't you do
a longer run with twisted-pair than with untwisted-pair cable?
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221573#221573
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
I think this paragraph from Bob N. earlier this week bears on this
discussion.
===============================================
At higher frequencies it can be shown that parallel
lines do not exactly cancel mutual magnetic effects
because of the non-zero distance between their centers.
Here it becomes valuable to twist the two conductors
such that what ever leakage exists perpendicular
to the conductors tends to be washed out by the reverse
polarity of effects longitudinally displaced 1/2 twist
away.
================================================
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
> Dennis,
>
>
> There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept at the
> same distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to stay
> parallel. The reason they are twisted together is that it is the simplest
> way to keep them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires,
> shields, insulation, etc.) bends and distorts.
>
>
> When an RS-422 transmitter generates a signal, it has two circuits that
> drive the twisted wire pair. One circuit sources current, while the other
> circuit sinks current. When a differential twist wire pair carries two
> currents from the transmitter to the receiver, they travel from the source
> driver to the load (a termination resistor next to the receiver), then
> back
> to the current sink. Along each wire, the current generates an
> electromagnetic field defined by the right hand rule, where the direction
> of
> the field is per the direction of the hand's fingers when the thumb is
> pointing toward the direction of current flow. Since the current in one
> wire is traveling opposite the current in the other wire, the fields
> oppose
> each other and ideally cancel each other out. They also ideally cause no
> noise to be radiated.
>
>
> Perhaps the greatest benefit of RS-422 and differential signaling is
> immunity from external noise in the receiver. RS-422 receivers are built
> to
> reject "common-mode noise, which is noise that is of the same amplitude on
> both the + and - terminals of the receiver. This is where the twisted
> wire
> pair comes in. It connects to the receiver's + and - terminals and brings
> in both the real signal and common-mode noise. While the twisted-wire
> pair
> is shielded, some noise will leak in, but the electromagnetic and
> electrostatic fields will cut across wires at the same amplitude, because
> the wires are so close together. Thus, the noise's amplitude will appear
> at
> the receiver's + and - terminals equally and will be rejected by the
> receiver, since it is designed to reject common-mode noise. As an
> example,
> the AM26LV32 is a commonly used differential line 3.3V receiver. It has a
> common mode input voltage range from -0.3 to 5.5V and will reject any
> voltage that appears on both terminals in this range. The voltages on its
> terminals must have a delta of greater than 0.2V for it to change its
> outputs. You probably have to be involved in the measurement of real
> world
> signals and problems to appreciate just how good the AM26LV32 works to
> reject common-mode noise. One of the things that I haven't mentioned is
> that the termination resistor not only serves to terminate the twisted
> wire
> pair's characteristic impedance but also provides a low impedance to
> prevent
> electrostatic and electromagnetic fields from developing high voltages in
> twisted wire pairs.
>
>
> So to reiterate, there is nothing magical about twisted wire pairs other
> than they keep the wires in close proximity to each other and that's it.
> Everything else I said above is just fluff! :)
>
>
> Simon Ramirez
>
> Copyright 2008
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
> Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
>
>
> We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires
> together
> to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their voltage
> regulator
> even specified the number of twists per inch.
>
>
> But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection, it
> seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly together
> would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is twisting the
> wires
> together recommended because it is a convenient way to keep the wires in
> close contact? Or is there something about the nature of the
> electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis
>
> Legacy, 220 hours, mostly twisted positive and negative wires
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
9:40 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cleary" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram |
Stuart,
I run a VHF, a smoke pump and a Garmin 296 plugged into a cigarette lighter
outlet for power if required. All the rest are steam gauges, and the fuel
pump is manual.
Since most my trips are short aerobatics trips, the biggest consumer is the
starter motor, and the SD-8 is more than adequate to keep the battery
charged even if I do a series of 10 to 12 minute sorties. On longer trips
the SD-8 has much longer to catch up, and it has never been an issue. This
system, apart from the 296, has been in satisfactory operation since the
early 80s.
Sorry, no photos of that area, but the next 100 hourly is due late January,
and if you still want photos then, I am more than happy to snap a few and
send them off line to you.
Cheers,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
Mackereth
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Great, thanks John. What line up do you run - VHF, XPDR, GPS, etc?
Don't suppose you have a picture of the back for me to have a look at?
Sorry, but now you got me started ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Cleary
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 7:40 p.m.
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Hello Stuart,
I have an S1 with an SD-8, standard slick mags and an inverted oil system.
It is tight but doable.
Cheers,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
Mackereth
Sent: Monday, 29 December 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitts S1 Wiring Diagram
-->
Hi all.. been trawling through all the posting history on this list looking
for some help with what layout and equipment set make sense in the tight
engine compartment of a Pitts S1. Sorry if any of this is repeat/old stuff,
but it's all new to me. Thanks also to Bob who has given me many hours of
enjoyment trying to get to grips with his manual, and Z figures. I started
on Z13/8 and pulled out the 2nd big alternator in favor of a single small
SD-8 one, and have gone from there.
A Pitts should be rather simple, I would have thought. This is a VFR
short-hop plane 99% of the time, doing aerobatics I had a good look at the
aerobatic wiring diagram from B&C... so I had assumed I could get by on a
SD-8 alternator as only electrical generation source. I have a Icom A200,
Narco Xpdr, Encoder and the usual engine instruments (EGT, CHT, OILT, OILP,
FUELP) so thought I could get away it. Um, ok, also a Fuel boost pump (only
during starting) and smoke pump (couple of minutes a flight)... I also would
like to run a AV80R GPS as well, if possible. Now I'm wondering about the
SD-8... and if not, well, then the SD-20. I can add up all the Amp loads on
each thing, but I'm not sure how much under/over capacity I need to run
everything? Is there a general rule of thumb?
My other question is whether there is enough space behind the engine for the
vacuum mounted SD-8 - considering I'm planning dual PMAGS, and have an
inverted OIL kit right there in the same place. A friend building an S1 that
I talk to a lot as opted for the PlanePower 60Amp unit that is belt driven
up front to free up some space, as he reckoned it was too tight. Would love
a second opinion from someone with an S1.
Most S1's flying out there are 20, 30 years old, even older, and I'm hoping
someone can help me take advantage of the new technology advances to build a
simple, clean and lightweight electrical system.
Thanks to anyone who can help.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
2:23 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" <j.e.tiethoff(at)hccnet.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
When wiring a tube amplifier it is common practice to twist the filament
lines to the tubes. Reason is that they are AC fed with a relative high
amperages (6,3 volt and 2 or 3 amp). The rest of the wiring is or signal or
DC. When the filament lines are NOT twisted they introduce humm (50 or 60
Hz) in the system. Since in an aircraftsystem there is no AC feed (except
the output of the alternator field tot the regulator) the only usance is to
keep the lines together.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
>
>
> I think this paragraph from Bob N. earlier this week bears on this
> discussion.
>
> ===============================================
> At higher frequencies it can be shown that parallel
> lines do not exactly cancel mutual magnetic effects
> because of the non-zero distance between their centers.
> Here it becomes valuable to twist the two conductors
> such that what ever leakage exists perpendicular
> to the conductors tends to be washed out by the reverse
> polarity of effects longitudinally displaced 1/2 twist
> away.
> ================================================
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> "Hope for the best,
> but prepare for the worst."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:16 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
>
>
>> Dennis,
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept at
>> the
>> same distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to stay
>> parallel. The reason they are twisted together is that it is the
>> simplest
>> way to keep them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires,
>> shields, insulation, etc.) bends and distorts.
>>
>>
>>
>> When an RS-422 transmitter generates a signal, it has two circuits that
>> drive the twisted wire pair. One circuit sources current, while the
>> other
>> circuit sinks current. When a differential twist wire pair carries two
>> currents from the transmitter to the receiver, they travel from the
>> source
>> driver to the load (a termination resistor next to the receiver), then
>> back
>> to the current sink. Along each wire, the current generates an
>> electromagnetic field defined by the right hand rule, where the direction
>> of
>> the field is per the direction of the hand's fingers when the thumb is
>> pointing toward the direction of current flow. Since the current in one
>> wire is traveling opposite the current in the other wire, the fields
>> oppose
>> each other and ideally cancel each other out. They also ideally cause no
>> noise to be radiated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the greatest benefit of RS-422 and differential signaling is
>> immunity from external noise in the receiver. RS-422 receivers are built
>> to
>> reject "common-mode noise, which is noise that is of the same amplitude
>> on
>> both the + and - terminals of the receiver. This is where the twisted
>> wire
>> pair comes in. It connects to the receiver's + and - terminals and
>> brings
>> in both the real signal and common-mode noise. While the twisted-wire
>> pair
>> is shielded, some noise will leak in, but the electromagnetic and
>> electrostatic fields will cut across wires at the same amplitude, because
>> the wires are so close together. Thus, the noise's amplitude will appear
>> at
>> the receiver's + and - terminals equally and will be rejected by the
>> receiver, since it is designed to reject common-mode noise. As an
>> example,
>> the AM26LV32 is a commonly used differential line 3.3V receiver. It has
>> a
>> common mode input voltage range from -0.3 to 5.5V and will reject any
>> voltage that appears on both terminals in this range. The voltages on
>> its
>> terminals must have a delta of greater than 0.2V for it to change its
>> outputs. You probably have to be involved in the measurement of real
>> world
>> signals and problems to appreciate just how good the AM26LV32 works to
>> reject common-mode noise. One of the things that I haven't mentioned is
>> that the termination resistor not only serves to terminate the twisted
>> wire
>> pair's characteristic impedance but also provides a low impedance to
>> prevent
>> electrostatic and electromagnetic fields from developing high voltages in
>> twisted wire pairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> So to reiterate, there is nothing magical about twisted wire pairs other
>> than they keep the wires in close proximity to each other and that's it.
>> Everything else I said above is just fluff! :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon Ramirez
>>
>> Copyright 2008
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
>> Johnson
>> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:29 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
>>
>>
>>
>> We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires
>> together
>> to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their voltage
>> regulator
>> even specified the number of twists per inch.
>>
>>
>>
>> But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection, it
>> seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly together
>> would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is twisting the
>> wires
>> together recommended because it is a convenient way to keep the wires in
>> close contact? Or is there something about the nature of the
>> electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> Legacy, 220 hours, mostly twisted positive and negative wires
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 9:40 AM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | SD-8 Relay Questions |
All,
I am in the process of making my drawings a reality and unpacked the SD-8 and its
accompanying S-704.
I have my S-704 wired up like in Z-13/8 and Z-32. From the diagrams it looks like
power is supplied to the relay coil using an external wire attached from one
end of the COIL to COM.
Am I reading the diagram correctly?
Does anyone have any pictures like those that show how S-704 DIODEs are inserted?
Also, does it matter which way round YEL/BLK leads of the OVM-14 module are connected
to the coil (the instructions that come with the SD-8 appear to show the
opposite way round to that depicted in SD-13).
Thanks for your help,
Andrew Butler,
Wiring
RV71700
Galway, Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
> > but from an engineering perspective, a numerical value for
> > energy delivered under the prescribed test conditions is
> > quite sufficient. The results of dynamic tests for evaluating
> > battery source impedance could be offered out as numerical
> > values.
>
>As someone involved heavily in engineering, I agree.
>But you'll find a lot of very strong opposition to devices that only
>output numerical values for later importing and graphing or for use
>in creating a table. These all take extra work to do and is
>considered a total PITA by those who don't revel in the numbers the way we do.
>
>In my opinion, the success of the CBA is in its software (and its
>price, of course). It allows for very, very easy and no-work
>testing and comparison of different cells. There are other devices
>out there that allow for exporting to Excel or other saving of data,
>but they aren't nearly as popular.
>
>As a first step, just storing the data for import into Excel is
>OK. Even for taking and creating tables with. But, it would be
>nice to see a growth path possible for the software to include
>on-screen graphing/plotting. There are many constant-current load
>circuits out there but they're not being built and used by very many
>people, I think the right software is what would make the difference.
I bought the devices when they offered a high
return on investment for answering some questions
about battery performance between brands and
battery condition for insuring performance in a
$high$ instrumentation job. Looking at all the
data files in my CBA output folder I see that I've
conducted perhaps 100 battery cap-checks on various
devices.
Even when I was doing cross brand comparisons,
graphical display of data was useful only for helping
my readers understand . . . it was of no value in
deducing the results of the tests, i.e. total energy
delivered under a particular test condition.
I guess I'm not clear as to your design and market
goals. If it's your desire to fabricate large
quantities of a product to compete with the CBA-II
then "window dressing" will be important. If you're
goal is to offer a sort of DIY work-around for
the CBA-II's shortcomings to be shared with some
cognizant individuals, then the super-graphics
features become problematic for return on investment.
>Another option is one you alluded to earlier, a PIC. That would
>result in a very small and inexpensive unit to control the load with
>and acquire and upload the data from. Someone would have to develop
>and test the firmware though.
>
>There's still a decent amount of hardware left to work out
>though...PCB design and selection of the MOSFETs, op-amps,
>resistor/capacitors, voltage regulators, microprocessor, connectors,
>heat sink, fan, etc., for the load itself.
Yes . . . if you're looking to optimize a
product and marketing effort. I would estimate
30-40 hrs to work up a documentation package
for hardware. Firmware in the PIC would take
10-20 hrs. The PC based application could take
as long or longer than the hardware and firmware
combined. So if your goals are to compete with
the CBA-II in their sandbox, you're looking at
a development program with a market value on
the order of $10K before you manufacture and
sell a single device.
>I think you bring up a very good point. There will be two groups of
>users for this load. The ones who just need the raw data outputted
>in the simplest way possible and those who want it displayed in
>graphical form to allow for the quickest way to see what they need to see.
I'm not sure what a graph tells me that a number
in an output box doesn't tell me. In fact, the way
the early CBA-II software outputs graphics, one has
to get out a pencil and straight edge to drop the cut-off
crossing to the baseline and then visually do a
linear interpolation to arrive at a number. The
upscale version of the software give you the "box
score" and the graph . . . what does the graph tell
anyone that the box score does not?
My disappointments with the CBA-II application is that
it offers only constant-current discharge testing
which doesn't emulate very many real life situations.
After all the work has been done to achieve their
present software package, it's a relatively simple
addition to offer constant-resistance and constant-
power discharge protocols with some dynamic internal
impedance measurements thrown in for "frosting on
the cake". Of course there's still the issue of
marginal thermal performance and selection of load
devices.
No doubt West Mountain Radio has made a significant
market penetration and their product offers a lot
of bang for the buck. I own two of them! If you're
considering development of a competing product, will
the features you and I find useful convince future
buyers of battery analyzers to pay more dollars for
the offerings of the new kid on the block? More
importantly, do potential sales for the super-whizzy
product bode well for return on investment?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Henry,
I too use them for various connection points, especially those that may
need to be separated at some point. They are indeed handy. Rather than
get into some fancy connector I butt the male/female pins together,
shrink wrap the whole mess - done. Make sure your shrink wrap is well
done so they don't pull apart. If you need to take them apart use a p
blade or other against the connector to remove the shrink wrap. Don't
touch the wire with the knife.
If you have a connection that needs to come apart regularly, just go to
RS and get two 9/15 pin connectors to join the two. You will need two
4/40 bolt/nuts to keep the DB connectors together. Use a bit of
lock-tite or epoxy on bolts to keep them from separating.
The only thing you need to obey are the amperage limits on the pins. The
rest is up to your imagination.
If you're always in a hurry like me, get your stuff from L-com. Great
prices, incredible service (get your own rep if you like) and very fast
shipping. I get most stuff within a day or two of ordering. They will
also make any custom cable you need.
http://www.l-com.com/
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry
Trzeciakowski
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:56 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: D-Sub Pins
Bob:
Looking thru your archives, I see that one can use D-Sub's are wiring
connections: I.E. - joining 2 wires together, rather than use butt
splices,
solder seal, etc....
So my question is:
1- Rather than soldering my Mic & Phone jack wires directly to my jack
outlets, can I solder leads, then use D-Sub pins to join to the leads to
the
amin wires?
2- Can I also use these D-Subs for splicing shielded wire: 22 awg wire?
I can see al lot of uses for these D-subs, amazing !!!
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
| From: | Steven G Lynn <sglynn(at)us.ibm.com> |
Please how do I remove this email from receiving informative notes like
the
ones below?
thanks
Steven Lynn
Global Business Services
IBM Americas
Cell: 425-280-4404
Fax: 360-851-2211
sglynn(at)us.ibm.com
"raymondj"
To
Sent by:
owner-aeroelectri
cc
c-list-server@mat
ronics.com Subj
ect
Re: AeroElectric-List: Twisted
Wires vs. Parallel
12/29/2008 12:09
AM
Please respond to
aeroelectric-list
@matronics.com
I think this paragraph from Bob N. earlier this week bears on this
discussion.
========================
========================
At higher frequencies it can be shown that parallel
lines do not exactly cancel mutual magnetic effects
because of the non-zero distance between their centers.
Here it becomes valuable to twist the two conductors
such that what ever leakage exists perpendicular
to the conductors tends to be washed out by the reverse
polarity of effects longitudinally displaced 1/2 twist
away.
========================
========================
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
> Dennis,
>
>
> There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept a
t
the
> same distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to
stay
> parallel. The reason they are twisted together is that it is the
simplest
> way to keep them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires,
> shields, insulation, etc.) bends and distorts.
>
>
> When an RS-422 transmitter generates a signal, it has two circuits th
at
> drive the twisted wire pair. One circuit sources current, while the
other
> circuit sinks current. When a differential twist wire pair carries t
wo
> currents from the transmitter to the receiver, they travel from the
source
> driver to the load (a termination resistor next to the receiver), the
n
> back
> to the current sink. Along each wire, the current generates an
> electromagnetic field defined by the right hand rule, where the direc
tion
> of
> the field is per the direction of the hand's fingers when the thumb i
s
> pointing toward the direction of current flow. Since the current in
one
> wire is traveling opposite the current in the other wire, the fields
> oppose
> each other and ideally cancel each other out. They also ideally caus
e no
> noise to be radiated.
>
>
> Perhaps the greatest benefit of RS-422 and differential signaling is
> immunity from external noise in the receiver. RS-422 receivers are b
uilt
> to
> reject "common-mode noise, which is noise that is of the same amplitu
de
on
> both the + and - terminals of the receiver. This is where the twiste
d
> wire
> pair comes in. It connects to the receiver's + and - terminals and
brings
> in both the real signal and common-mode noise. While the twisted-wir
e
> pair
> is shielded, some noise will leak in, but the electromagnetic and
> electrostatic fields will cut across wires at the same amplitude, bec
ause
> the wires are so close together. Thus, the noise's amplitude will ap
pear
> at
> the receiver's + and - terminals equally and will be rejected by the
> receiver, since it is designed to reject common-mode noise. As an
> example,
> the AM26LV32 is a commonly used differential line 3.3V receiver. It
has
a
> common mode input voltage range from -0.3 to 5.5V and will reject any
> voltage that appears on both terminals in this range. The voltages o
n
its
> terminals must have a delta of greater than 0.2V for it to change its
> outputs. You probably have to be involved in the measurement of real
> world
> signals and problems to appreciate just how good the AM26LV32 works t
o
> reject common-mode noise. One of the things that I haven't mentioned
is
> that the termination resistor not only serves to terminate the twiste
d
> wire
> pair's characteristic impedance but also provides a low impedance to
> prevent
> electrostatic and electromagnetic fields from developing high voltage
s in
> twisted wire pairs.
>
>
> So to reiterate, there is nothing magical about twisted wire pairs ot
her
> than they keep the wires in close proximity to each other and that's
it.
> Everything else I said above is just fluff! :)
>
>
> Simon Ramirez
>
> Copyright 2008
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of De
nnis
> Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
>
>
> We often see instructions to twist the positive and negative wires
> together
> to reduce noise problems. Instructions from B&C for their voltage
> regulator
> even specified the number of twists per inch.
>
>
> But I'm wondering about the physics. From studying the 'Connection,
it
> seems that paralleling the positive and negative wires tightly togeth
er
> would have the same effect as twisting them together. Is twisting th
e
> wires
> together recommended because it is a convenient way to keep the wires
in
> close contact? Or is there something about the nature of the
> electromagnetic fields that makes twisting more effective?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis
>
> Legacy, 220 hours, mostly twisted positive and negative wires
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
9:40 AM
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> I bought the devices when they offered a high
> return on investment for answering some questions
> about battery performance between brands and
> battery condition for insuring performance in a
> $high$ instrumentation job. Looking at all the
> data files in my CBA output folder I see that I've
> conducted perhaps 100 battery cap-checks on various
> devices.
>
> Even when I was doing cross brand comparisons,
> graphical display of data was useful only for helping
> my readers understand . . . it was of no value in
> deducing the results of the tests, i.e. total energy
> delivered under a particular test condition.
>
> I guess I'm not clear as to your design and market
> goals. If it's your desire to fabricate large
> quantities of a product to compete with the CBA-II
> then "window dressing" will be important. If you're
> goal is to offer a sort of DIY work-around for
> the CBA-II's shortcomings to be shared with some
> cognizant individuals, then the super-graphics
> features become problematic for return on investment.
>
You mention it three times in your post so I want to be clear, I'm not interested
in designing a product to compete with the CBA. I create high-power loads for
dischargers/cyclers/analyzers/testers. I don't want the ultra price-sensitive
"low" end of the market. But, if this project moved forward, I would offer
to lay out a PCB that others could use for building the load. If enough people
were interested, I'd have a batch of boards run and offer them at my cost.
Each person involved would contribute to the project where they can, and for me,
it's the hardware.
I'm just bringing up other thoughts about the possible feature set for a very good
DIY project. You want just raw data and feel it offers the most and that
graphics offer little, if nothing, compared to box-scored raw data. But many
users of battery analyzers disagree. I have to keep going back to the CBA and
its popularity. A lot of people don't care what the actual number is. They can
look at a graph of a test involving several cells or packs and see instantly
which lasted the longest, or had the highest voltage-under-load, for that test.
Whether the "best-performing" battery had a capacity of 10.02Ah or 10.10Ah,
they wouldn't care. Which battery that they can afford (or physically fit,
etc,) came out on "top". No need to check or compare actual numbers.
But, we should definitely have just a raw data-capture and store program. In fact,
it should be the first thing developed as it's the easiest to do. But I feel
strongly that we shouldn't design out the ability of someone to do a more
graphics-oriented package. It makes the project more desirable for more people
and that's important to help draw other designers and developers to the project.
This results in better, less expensive designs for those who want to DIY
the hardware, and easier to use and fuller-featured software. Hopefully not with
useless bloat but with great stuff like various discharge modes, IR measurement,
etc.
Never at the expense of a really good, very basic, data capture hardware design
and software program. Just as other options for an open-source project that
should encourage anyone to contribute to. Whether we'd ever use that hardware
or software or not.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Yes . . . if you're looking to optimize a
> product and marketing effort. I would estimate
> 30-40 hrs to work up a documentation package
> for hardware. Firmware in the PIC would take
> 10-20 hrs. The PC based application could take
> as long or longer than the hardware and firmware
> combined. So if your goals are to compete with
> the CBA-II in their sandbox, you're looking at
> a development program with a market value on
> the order of $10K before you manufacture and
> sell a single device.
>
No marketing effort, no product development. This is an open-source DIY project.
You mentioned the use of a PIC earlier and I was alluding to that. If that's
no longer an idea you're interested in seeing possibly be used for this DIY
project, then the Weeder modules (or other equivalent) are a quicker way to get
going. You also mentioned a friend who might possibly, maybe, be interested
in taking on the PC software development. No $10K to develop something great
that everyone could use.
As a open-source project, anyone who wants to contribute, can. Whether its integrating
existing I/O boards, creating an integrated PIC board, writing data storage
PC software or creating a full-blown graphics package (which will certainly
do the raw data storage), I think there's room for someone who wants to do
any of the above. We'd all just use the software/hardware that best matched
our needs and wants.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what a graph tells me that a number
> in an output box doesn't tell me. In fact, the way
> the early CBA-II software outputs graphics, one has
> to get out a pencil and straight edge to drop the cut-off
> crossing to the baseline and then visually do a
> linear interpolation to arrive at a number. The
> upscale version of the software give you the "box
> score" and the graph . . . what does the graph tell
> anyone that the box score does not?
>
> My disappointments with the CBA-II application is that
> it offers only constant-current discharge testing
> which doesn't emulate very many real life situations.
> After all the work has been done to achieve their
> present software package, it's a relatively simple
> addition to offer constant-resistance and constant-
> power discharge protocols with some dynamic internal
> impedance measurements thrown in for "frosting on
> the cake". Of course there's still the issue of
> marginal thermal performance and selection of load
> devices.
>
> No doubt West Mountain Radio has made a significant
> market penetration and their product offers a lot
> of bang for the buck. I own two of them! If you're
> considering development of a competing product, will
> the features you and I find useful convince future
> buyers of battery analyzers to pay more dollars for
> the offerings of the new kid on the block? More
> importantly, do potential sales for the super-whizzy
> product bode well for return on investment?
>
> Bob . . .
A graph doesn't tell you anything a number doesn't. But, the right graph can make
understanding various numbers, groups of numbers, and their relationships,
easier to understand. Edward Tufte's books so wonderfully illustrate that.
What's great about this project is that everyone can get exactly what they want.
One person can create a bare-bones, tiny-footprint, data uploading and storage
program. Another person can create a graphics-analysis package to show tons
of data in easy to read graphs. One person could develop hardware that integrated
existing products, another could create a custom PIC board.
I think a really important part of al of this would be to create a set of standards
for comms between the PC software and the boards, and for a data storage
format. This would allow for easy "black-box" development of both the hardware
and the software. Either could have any set of features but all would be compatible
with each other.
I agree with you on the lack of discharge profiles for the CBA. They do have a
constant-power discharge option in the Pro software now though. It would be nice
to see constant-current, constant-power, and constant-resistance "modes" in
the open-source hardware/software. Also nice would be allowing the user to
be able to create or select a "profile" for discharging. Whether it's just a
burst of current for a while every minute, or a complex profile to recreate a
"real world" usage scenario, I think it would offer a lot.
And the IR measurements feature is a great idea. There are so many "standards"
and methods for measuring IR that it would be great to see the hardware/software
eventually support a user-created IR test (timing, current, etc.).
We're starting to get into the meat of this...good stuff. :)
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221696#221696
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel |
Yes and yes, John. Untwisted pair cables suffer from more crosstalk and are
more susceptible to interference because during their run, they tend to be
farther apart in places than their twisted pair counterparts. Per my
earlier post, when an electromagnetic or electrostatic field crosses their
path and induces a current or voltage into them, it will be a different in
each wire because they are at different relative distances from the source
wire, which is probably running parallel but not necessarily. Then the
common-mode receiver will not be able to reject this noise as effectively as
if the noise at its two terminals were more "equal."
Also, if a differential transmitter is generating + and - currents through
the two non-twisted wires, they will not cancel each other out as
effectively as their twisted wire counterparts, because they will be farther
apart in places, and their electromagnetic fields will not be mutually
inductively coupled into each other as well along the wires' runs.
Furthermore, it is easier to maintain characteristic impedances more
accurately when the wires are twisted together and their distances apart are
more accurately maintained. By providing a termination resistor at the
receiving end of the twisted wire pair, reflections are more carefully
controlled, if not cancelled. For this reason and for the reasons cited
above, longer runs are possible with twisted wire pairs than with untwisted
wire pairs.
BTW, the same theory that applies to keeping the distances equal between
wires in twisted wire pairs also is used in printed circuit boards to
propagate signals along traces. There the traces are geometrically
controlled so that their widths and distances from each other and from other
traces, ground and power planes are maintained, as well as the separation
material, to do a much better job than wires in cables, especially in
Gigabit applications.
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2008
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of CamLight
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Twisted Wires vs. Parallel
simon(at)synchdes.com wrote:
> There is no difference electrically between two wires that are kept at the
same distance in parallel and two wires that are twisted together to stay
parallel. The reason they are twisted together is that it is the simplest
way to keep them in parallel while the cable (a combination of wires,
shields, insulation, etc.) bends and distorts.
But don't pairs in untwisted pair cabling suffer from more crosstalk and
susceptibility to interference than in twisted-pair cabling? And, IIRC,
can't you do a longer run with twisted-pair than with untwisted-pair cable?
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brass is not a very good conductor |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Figured would share with the group at just how poor a conductor brass is.
According to:
http://www.kp44.org/ftp/ElectricalConductivityOfMaterials.php
Brass only has ~ 28% the conductivity of copper. (They don't get as
specific as alloy types)
I need to somehow wire my port headrest (negative) to my starboard
headrest. Shortest distance is direct between headrests but using a
traditional wire will be unsightly and make for harder interior install.
It needs to carry enough current to allow an occasional jump start.
Since Ace hardware sells .032" thick brass 1" wide (alloy 260), I was
going to use that and trim it to .75" wide until I researched just how
poor a conductor brass is. Could double the thickness and double the
width, but that would make for more weight and harder interior install.
Anyway, going to use .75" wide by .032" thick copper alloy 110 and glass
it in place with one thin layer of 3/4 oz model aeroplane cloth.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | EI Altitude Clock Mod |
Ok all you electronics warriors out there, here's a good one:
Electronics
International designed and markets a pretty nifty-looking aircraft clock
called the ASC-5A. One of the nifty things about it is that it is more
than
just a clock - it's also an altitude alerter. Put in your MDA and your
speed-based approach time, and you'll get an LED indication on the face
of
the instrument telling you that you have arrived either at your altitude
or
your time. It even has an external-warning capability that, when paired
with a tone or voice generator, can send alerts to your headset. But
here's
the rub: it only has ONE external-warning wire, so regardless of whether
it
is a timer alert or an altitude alert, it goes out over this one wire
(and
in the same way, probably as a ground). As a result, when your headset
alert sounds on a VOR approach, you must obtain additional input (i.e.,
you
need to look at the face of the clock or your altimeter) to determine
whether it is because you have reached the MDA and you need to level off
or
because you have exhausted your time and need to execute a missed
approach.
So, internally the unit can differentiate between altitude events and
timer
events because it lights different LEDs on the face of the instrument
for
these different events, but EI didn't extend that basic capability to
the
external-warning feature sticking out the back of the instrument. What
were
they thinking? At this point, it seems like a simple matter to tap into
the
light circuits that activate the LEDs on the front of the instrument,
extend
some wires from those taps out the back, hook up a tone or voice
generator,
and receive separate signals in your headset for time and altitude
alerts.
But I don't want to open mine up without first getting some feedback.
Ok, I
soldered once and it didn't turn out well, so I'm reluctant to tear into
my
~$500 instrument without lots of encouragement (I've learned that things
that begin with, "Honey, watch this!" often don't turn out well. . .)!
Any
thoughts?
Thanks,
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | EI SC-5 clock doc error |
The previous post inspired me to share this recent discovery.
The EI SC-5 clock includes a non-resettable total engine time counter,
essentially a Hobbes function. The manual says that in a 12V system, the
ORANGE wire should be connected via an N.O. oil pressure switch to provide
+12V on closure, when oil pressure develops, which will start the engine
timer. This is a little tricky with the B&P oil presure switch, where the
N.O. contact is normally grounded -- I even set up a little relay to power
the wire that way -- but don't bother. Contrary to the manual, any time the
RED +12V main supply wire is hot, the engine timer runs, regardless of
what's is or isn't happening on the ORANGE wire. For example, if you're
running the panel on ground power, perhaps for training or maintenance, or
just entering a flight plan into the GPS before engine start, the engine
timer will be ticking up, even though the engine isn't running. (The clock
is supposed to be wired to a main bus or e-bus, so it's going to be ON when
most anything on the panel is on.) Incidentally, the manual also says that
in a 12V system, the BROWN wire should _not_ be connected to anything.
After considerable consultation with EI, it was confirmed that the ORANGE
wire is at best superfluous to the engine timer function (or any function as
far as I could determine) and the BROWN wire is what must be used to control
the engine timer. The BROWN wire should be grounded when the engine is OFF,
i.e., wired through a N.C. contact on a B&C pressure switch, in parallel
with the oil pressure warning light. When the BROWN wire's connection to
ground is broken, on engine start, the engine timer begins.
So, what the manual says to do doesn't work, and what the manual says not to
do is what you have to do to make it work. I suggested to EI that they
should at least fix the manual, but they did not indicate any eagerness to
do so. Hopefully, this work around will be useful others.
Otherwise, it's a nice clock.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EI Altitude Clock Mod |
In electronics all things are possible, Don (well, almost {:>)).
The feasibility of doing what you suggest is certainly conceptually simple;
however, it depends quite a bit on what format the electronics have taken.
If there are isolated wires running from a board to a couple of LED holders
then that would probably be fairly simply provided you take care not to
overload load the LED circuit. I would put in some sort of isolation
barrier - such as an Ops amp - perhaps an Ops amp circuit with a tone
generator designed in.
However, if the LED's are an integrated part of a printed circuit board -
then while still conceptually feasible, you need someone who knows how to
modify a board (probably with surface mount components) - a person with the
right skills and experience could do it - but, where do you find him? I
certainly would hesitate to let just anyone wearing a hat with a lightening
bolt through it tackle it.
If you can do it without damage to the unit, you might open it up and take a
peek. If it looks like wires to the LEDs, then you might consider
proceeding further - if it looks like the LED's are an integrated part of a
print circuit board, I think I would just button it back up.
I agree with you that one would have thought the designer/manufacture would
have considered the advantages of a dual audio alarm.
Good luck
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com/> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Curry
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EI Altitude Clock Mod
Ok all you electronics warriors out there, here's a good one: Electronics
International designed and markets a pretty nifty-looking aircraft clock
called the ASC-5A. One of the nifty things about it is that it is more than
just a clock - it's also an altitude alerter. Put in your MDA and your
speed-based approach time, and you'll get an LED indication on the face of
the instrument telling you that you have arrived either at your altitude or
your time. It even has an external-warning capability that, when paired
with a tone or voice generator, can send alerts to your headset. But here's
the rub: it only has ONE external-warning wire, so regardless of whether it
is a timer alert or an altitude alert, it goes out over this one wire (and
in the same way, probably as a ground). As a result, when your headset
alert sounds on a VOR approach, you must obtain additional input (i.e., you
need to look at the face of the clock or your altimeter) to determine
whether it is because you have reached the MDA and you need to level off or
because you have exhausted your time and need to execute a missed approach.
So, internally the unit can differentiate between altitude events and timer
events because it lights different LEDs on the face of the instrument for
these different events, but EI didn't extend that basic capability to the
external-warning feature sticking out the back of the instrument. What were
they thinking? At this point, it seems like a simple matter to tap into the
light circuits that activate the LEDs on the front of the instrument, extend
some wires from those taps out the back, hook up a tone or voice generator,
and receive separate signals in your headset for time and altitude alerts.
But I don't want to open mine up without first getting some feedback. Ok, I
soldered once and it didn't turn out well, so I'm reluctant to tear into my
~$500 instrument without lots of encouragement (I've learned that things
that begin with, "Honey, watch this!" often don't turn out well. . .)! Any
thoughts?
Thanks,
Don
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | currydon(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | EI Altitude Clock Mod |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass is not a very good conductor |
Ron, there has been some discussion on this in the past, and there were
questions about sourcing copper bus bar material.
Van's Aircraft sells bass strips for this purpose, or you can flatten a
copper pipe and use it.
I replaced the brass buss-bars on my RV-9A prior to completion after doing a
voltage drop analysis through the system.
Probably would not make a significant difference, but if you have a choice,
use copper.
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
www.vx-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Brass is not a very good conductor
Figured would share with the group at just how poor a conductor brass is.
According to:
http://www.kp44.org/ftp/ElectricalConductivityOfMaterials.php
Brass only has ~ 28% the conductivity of copper. (They don't get as
specific as alloy types)
I need to somehow wire my port headrest (negative) to my starboard
headrest. Shortest distance is direct between headrests but using a
traditional wire will be unsightly and make for harder interior install.
It needs to carry enough current to allow an occasional jump start.
Since Ace hardware sells .032" thick brass 1" wide (alloy 260), I was
going to use that and trim it to .75" wide until I researched just how
poor a conductor brass is. Could double the thickness and double the
width, but that would make for more weight and harder interior install.
Anyway, going to use .75" wide by .032" thick copper alloy 110 and glass
it in place with one thin layer of 3/4 oz model aeroplane cloth.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JAMES BOWEN <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | EI SC-5 clock doc error |
THANK YOU. I AM INSTALLING THAT SAME CLOCK AS WE SPEAK. MUCH APPRECIATED!
JIM BOWEN
Date: Tue=2C 30 Dec 2008 13:28:13 -0800From: rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COMTo: aeroel
ectric-list(at)matronics.comSubject: AeroElectric-List: EI SC-5 clock doc erro
rThe previous post inspired me to share this recent discovery.The EI SC-5 c
lock includes a non-resettable total engine time counter=2C essentially a H
obbes function. The manual says that in a 12V system=2C the ORANGE wire sho
uld be connected via an N.O. oil pressure switch to provide +12V on closure
=2C when oil pressure develops=2C which will start the engine timer. This i
s a little tricky with the B&P oil presure switch=2C where the N.O. contact
is normally grounded -- I even set up a little relay to power the wire tha
t way -- but don't bother. Contrary to the manual=2C any time the RED +12V
main supply wire is hot=2C the engine timer runs=2C regardless of what's is
or isn't happening on the ORANGE wire. For example=2C if you're running th
e panel on ground power=2C perhaps for training or maintenance=2C or just e
ntering a flight plan into the GPS before engine start=2C the engine timer
will be ticking up=2C even though the engine isn't running. (The clock is s
upposed to be wired to a main bus or e-bus=2C so it's going to be ON when m
ost anything on the panel is on.) Incidentally=2C the manual also says that
in a 12V system=2C the BROWN wire should _not_ be connected to anything.Af
ter considerable consultation with EI=2C it was confirmed that the ORANGE w
ire is at best superfluous to the engine timer function (or any function as
far as I could determine) and the BROWN wire is what must be used to contr
ol the engine timer. The BROWN wire should be grounded when the engine is O
FF=2C i.e.=2C wired through a N.C. contact on a B&C pressure switch=2C in p
arallel with the oil pressure warning light. When the BROWN wire's connecti
on to ground is broken=2C on engine start=2C the engine timer begins.So=2C
what the manual says to do doesn't work=2C and what the manual says not to
do is what you have to do to make it work. I suggested to EI that they shou
ld at least fix the manual=2C but they did not indicate any eagerness to do
so. Hopefully=2C this work around will be useful others.Otherwise=2C it's
a nice clock.Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | EI Altitude Clock Mod |
Don, I looked at the ASC-5A Operating Instructions and saw a picture of its
front panel. I am willing to bet that all of those LEDs, the LCD and the
switches are connected directly to a printed circuit board. You can verify
this for us by opening the unit and looking at it. Obviously, you do this
at your own risk.
Regardless of whether they are connected by wire or printed circuit board,
you can connect to these LEDs by wire. All you have to do is solder wires
to the solder points. I'd suggest that you have this done by a person known
as an "assembler" in the electronics world. I've seen too many engineers
who think they know how to solder, only to destroy a board by applying too
much heat, too little heat, too much solder, not cleaning flux off the
board, etc. A poor solder job usually results in a failure in our vibration
environment.
Typically, an LED will be turned on by a driver going low at its cathode.
This causes it to sink current through the LED. The LED's anode is
connected to the voltage source through a current limiting resistor. When
the LED is turned off, the driver will be in the tri-state mode, thus
causing only leakage current to flow through the LED. Therefore, when
turned on, the LED's cathode will be low, and when turned off, the LED's
cathode will be high. What "low" and "high" is depends on the driver and
voltage source used.
Since a low most likely is the active state (you can verify this), it is not
good enough by itself to generate a tone. This means that you will use it
as a gating signal to generate such a tone. Someone earlier suggested that
you will have to use op amps to isolate these two signals so that they don't
interfere with the LEDs' operation. I would suggest keeping it in the
digital world and using an appropriate driver that also has a high input
impedance. In either case, you are now faced with bringing out one or two
ground wire(s) with these two wires and running all wires to wherever you
are taking them to, because you will need a reference ground where you are
going. I will suggest that you write me directly after you find out what's
inside your ASC-5A if you are really serious about this project. There are
several details that need to be known to find the best course of action, and
only the owner can determine these details.
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2008
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Curry
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EI Altitude Clock Mod
Ok all you electronics warriors out there, here's a good one: Electronics
International designed and markets a pretty nifty-looking aircraft clock
called the ASC-5A. One of the nifty things about it is that it is more than
just a clock - it's also an altitude alerter. Put in your MDA and your
speed-based approach time, and you'll get an LED indication on the face of
the instrument telling you that you have arrived either at your altitude or
your time. It even has an external-warning capability that, when paired
with a tone or voice generator, can send alerts to your headset. But here's
the rub: it only has ONE external-warning wire, so regardless of whether it
is a timer alert or an altitude alert, it goes out over this one wire (and
in the same way, probably as a ground). As a result, when your headset
alert sounds on a VOR approach, you must obtain additional input (i.e., you
need to look at the face of the clock or your altimeter) to determine
whether it is because you have reached the MDA and you need to level off or
because you have exhausted your time and need to execute a missed approach.
So, internally the unit can differentiate between altitude events and timer
events because it lights different LEDs on the face of the instrument for
these different events, but EI didn't extend that basic capability to the
external-warning feature sticking out the back of the instrument. What were
they thinking? At this point, it seems like a simple matter to tap into the
light circuits that activate the LEDs on the front of the instrument, extend
some wires from those taps out the back, hook up a tone or voice generator,
and receive separate signals in your headset for time and altitude alerts.
But I don't want to open mine up without first getting some feedback. Ok, I
soldered once and it didn't turn out well, so I'm reluctant to tear into my
~$500 instrument without lots of encouragement (I've learned that things
that begin with, "Honey, watch this!" often don't turn out well. . .)! Any
thoughts?
Thanks,
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EI SC-5 clock doc error |
Same here. I've got one on the bench waiting on a convenient time to
install. Good and very timely info. Thanks.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAMES
BOWEN
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EI SC-5 clock doc error
THANK YOU. I AM INSTALLING THAT SAME CLOCK AS WE SPEAK. MUCH APPRECIATED!
JIM BOWEN
_____
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:28:13 -0800
From: rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EI SC-5 clock doc error
The previous post inspired me to share this recent discovery.
The EI SC-5 clock includes a non-resettable total engine time counter,
essentially a Hobbes function. The manual says that in a 12V system, the
ORANGE wire should be connected via an N.O. oil pressure switch to provide
+12V on closure, when oil pressure develops, which will start the engine
timer. This is a little tricky with the B&P oil presure switch, where the
N.O. contact is normally grounded -- I even set up a little relay to power
the wire that way -- but don't bother. Contrary to the manual, any time the
RED +12V main supply wire is hot, the engine timer runs, regardless of
what's is or isn't happening on the ORANGE wire. For example, if you're
running the panel on ground power, perhaps for training or maintenance, or
just entering a flight plan into the GPS before engine start, the engine
timer will be ticking up, even though the engine isn't running. (The clock
is supposed to be wired to a main bus or e-bus, so it's going to be ON when
most anything on the panel is on.) Incidentally, the manual also says that
in a 12V system, the BROWN wire should _not_ be connected to anything.
After considerable consultation with EI, it was confirmed that the ORANGE
wire is at best superfluous to the engine timer function (or any function as
far as I could determine) and the BROWN wire is what must be used to control
the engine timer. The BROWN wire should be grounded when the engine is OFF,
i.e., wired through a N.C. contact on a B&C pressure switch, in parallel
with the oil pressure warning light. When the BROWN wire's connection to
ground is broken, on engine start, the engine timer begins.
So, what the manual says to do doesn't work, and what the manual says not to
do is what you have to do to make it work. I suggested to EI that they
should at least fix the manual, but they did not indicate any eagerness to
do so. Hopefully, this work around will be useful others.
Otherwise, it's a nice clock.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Power Supply - Anode/Cathode |
Hello,
I have no clue how to determine which is which. Can someone help? I have an electronic
meter.
I bought a low rate power supply some time back to use to power non polarity sensitive
flap motors and the like. I cut off the attached 12V socket connector
and attached crocodile clips. I didn't take note which wire was anode or cathode.
Now I want to use it to power some of my avionics for testing etc. They are polarity
sensitive.
Thanks,
Andrew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode |
Andrew,
I hope I'm understanding what you are asking. To review: you
have a power supply that has unmarked terminals, and you have
a digital multi-meter or maybe just a DVM. You want to know
how to determine - with the meter - the polarity of your power
supply?
Your meter should have a black probe and a red probe. With
the red probe's lead plugged into the Volt/Ohm jack and the
black probe's lead plugged into the "COMmon" jack, and the
range set to, say, 50vDC, attach your power supply's alligator
clamps to your probes.
If the reading is negative, then your probes are cross-wired,
so the clip on the black probe is the B+. If the reading is not
negative, then the leads are connected correctly and the clip
on the red lead is the B+. Have some red electrical tape handy
to mark your power supply's B+ lead. Replace, when
convenient, with red heat shrink.
HTH,
Dale R
COZY MkIV #0497
Mesa, AZ
Andrew Butler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have no clue how to determine which is which. Can someone help? I
> have an electronic meter.
>
> I bought a low rate power supply some time back to use to power non
> polarity sensitive flap motors and the like. I cut off the attached
> 12V socket connector and attached crocodile clips. I didn't take note
> which wire was anode or cathode.
>
> Now I want to use it to power some of my avionics for testing etc.
> They are polarity sensitive.
>
> Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Andrew,
If I understand your question correctly, the answer is an easy one.? Use a mulitmeter.?
If you have the wrong polarity, it will peg negative.? If you have it
right, it will show 12V.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com>
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 4:49 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode
Hello,
I have no clue how to determine which is which. Can someone help? I have an electronic
meter.
I bought a low rate power supply some time back to use to power non polarity sensitive
flap motors and the like. I cut off the attached 12V socket connector
and attached crocodile clips. I didn't take note which wire was anode or cathode.
Now I want to use it to power some of my avionics for testing etc. They are polarity
sensitive.
Thanks,
Andrew.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Audio noise revisited |
To noise specialists
I just concluded the installation of my Intercom, and although I took all
the recommended measures to avoid ground loops and noise in general, I'm
still hearing 2 whines, which after some time (many hours . :-)) of
investigation, I think I identified the causes.
One is the Air/Fuel Ratio Monitor, because when I disconnect its ground
wire, the most high-frequency whine disappears.
Which kind of filter (resistor, capacitor, diode, any other) can I install
to eliminate this noise?
And should I put it in the power(+) red wire or the ground(-) black wire, or
is it indifferent?
The other whine is from the COMM Radio (Garmin SL-30), because when I switch
it off, the whine disappears.
How shall I eliminate this noise?
Thanks in advance
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass is not a very good conductor |
McMaster-Carr (http://www.mcmaster.com/) has copper bar that you can order
from them. I wanted a piece of 1/8" thick 1/2" wide bar, and found it as
part number 8964K291. The downside? It was 3 feet long and cost $13. *sigh*
As you might guess, I have quite a bit left if anyone wants to buy some off
of me. :) On the other hand, it made for a really nice/neat/attractive
set of connections between my master and starter contactors, as well as to
my ammeter shunt.
-- Dwight
On Tue Dec 30 20:28:49 2008, Vern Little wrote :
>
>Ron, there has been some discussion on this in the past, and there were
>questions about sourcing copper bus bar material.
>
>Van's Aircraft sells bass strips for this purpose, or you can flatten a
>copper pipe and use it.
>
>I replaced the brass buss-bars on my RV-9A prior to completion after doing a
>voltage drop analysis through the system.
>
>Probably would not make a significant difference, but if you have a choice,
>use copper.
>
>Vern Little
>Vx Aviation
>www.vx-aviation.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:09 PM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Brass is not a very good conductor
>
>
>Figured would share with the group at just how poor a conductor brass is.
>
>According to:
>http://www.kp44.org/ftp/ElectricalConductivityOfMaterials.php
>
>Brass only has ~ 28% the conductivity of copper. (They don't get as
>specific as alloy types)
>
>I need to somehow wire my port headrest (negative) to my starboard
>headrest. Shortest distance is direct between headrests but using a
>traditional wire will be unsightly and make for harder interior install.
>It needs to carry enough current to allow an occasional jump start.
>
>Since Ace hardware sells .032" thick brass 1" wide (alloy 260), I was
>going to use that and trim it to .75" wide until I researched just how
>poor a conductor brass is. Could double the thickness and double the
>width, but that would make for more weight and harder interior install.
>
>Anyway, going to use .75" wide by .032" thick copper alloy 110 and glass
>it in place with one thin layer of 3/4 oz model aeroplane cloth.
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode |
At 04:49 AM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have no clue how to determine which is which. Can someone help? I
>have an electronic meter.
>
>I bought a low rate power supply some time back to use to power non
>polarity sensitive flap motors and the like. I cut off the attached
>12V socket connector and attached crocodile clips. I didn't take
>note which wire was anode or cathode.
>
>Now I want to use it to power some of my avionics for testing etc.
>They are polarity sensitive.
Generally, the terms anode and cathode are used
when referring to vacuum tubes, and chemical systems
such as plating baths, batteries and dissimilar
metals on boats. The source connections from a
battery or power supply are more commonly referred
to as (+) and (-) source connections.
Most multi-meters don't identify their leads as
(+) or (-) connections. For example:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/tenma1.jpg
This instrument has a COMmmon jack with a black
ring around it suggesting the black lead be plugged
in here. There are two jacks for the red lead. One
dedicated to high current measurements (20A full scale)
and the other marked Volts-Ohms-mA for voltage,
resistance and low current measurements.
The instrument will indicate positive readings when
the red lead is positive. Conversely, when the red
lead is negative, the reading on the instrument will
be preceded by a (-) sign.
Not all instruments are set up exactly the same
way . . . it's useful to study the manual that comes
with it and then do some experimental measurements
on your car, with a battery and light bulbs on the
bench, etc. Become familiar with the instruments
unique characteristics.
Therefore, when set up as described above, probing
the output leads for your power supply will no doubt
produce a voltage reading . . . with polarity sign
indicating which of the two test leads is positive.
Your question suggests that you're just getting
your feet wet in this electronic stuff. May I suggest
a number of supplemental sources of information
on the simple-ideas from which this craft is built?
I recommend you acquire a copy of Electonics
Fundamentals by T. Floyd. Don't get a new one. In fact
get the cheapest one you can. The older editions are
VERY reasonable. See:
http://tinyurl.com/94g8gb
Also, take a look at the first five books of a Navy
electronics course that I've posted at my website.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Navy_Electroinics_Manuals/
Finally, keep talking with us here on the List.
You'll be hard pressed to find a more willing and
able bunch of folks to help you out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass is not a very good conductor |
As an alternative, you can order P/N 8964K5 (1/8 x 3/4 x 12 copper bar) from
McMaster for $7.33 + S&H.
If you're in the Austin, TX area, stop by or call Westbrook Metals (NE Austin)
as they sell copper bar. Price for 1/8 x 3/4 is a little less than $5/ft but
they get you with a $5 cutting fee (and no, you're not allowed to cut it - I
asked). ;( If you're lucky, you might find a scrap piece.
Just another choice, :)
/\/elson
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Dwight Frye wrote:
>
> McMaster-Carr (http://www.mcmaster.com/) has copper bar that you can order
> from them. I wanted a piece of 1/8" thick 1/2" wide bar, and found it as
> part number 8964K291. The downside? It was 3 feet long and cost $13. *sigh*
>
> As you might guess, I have quite a bit left if anyone wants to buy some off
> of me. :) On the other hand, it made for a really nice/neat/attractive
> set of connections between my master and starter contactors, as well as to
> my ammeter shunt.
>
> -- Dwight
>
> On Tue Dec 30 20:28:49 2008, Vern Little wrote :
>>
>> Ron, there has been some discussion on this in the past, and there were
>> questions about sourcing copper bus bar material.
>>
>> Van's Aircraft sells bass strips for this purpose, or you can flatten a
>> copper pipe and use it.
>>
>> I replaced the brass buss-bars on my RV-9A prior to completion after doing a
>> voltage drop analysis through the system.
>>
>> Probably would not make a significant difference, but if you have a choice,
>> use copper.
>>
>> Vern Little
>> Vx Aviation
>> www.vx-aviation.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:09 PM
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Brass is not a very good conductor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Figured would share with the group at just how poor a conductor brass is.
>>
>> According to:
>> http://www.kp44.org/ftp/ElectricalConductivityOfMaterials.php
>>
>> Brass only has ~ 28% the conductivity of copper. (They don't get as
>> specific as alloy types)
>>
>> I need to somehow wire my port headrest (negative) to my starboard
>> headrest. Shortest distance is direct between headrests but using a
>> traditional wire will be unsightly and make for harder interior install.
>> It needs to carry enough current to allow an occasional jump start.
>>
>> Since Ace hardware sells .032" thick brass 1" wide (alloy 260), I was
>> going to use that and trim it to .75" wide until I researched just how
>> poor a conductor brass is. Could double the thickness and double the
>> width, but that would make for more weight and harder interior install.
>>
>> Anyway, going to use .75" wide by .032" thick copper alloy 110 and glass
>> it in place with one thin layer of 3/4 oz model aeroplane cloth.
>>
>> Ron Parigoris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring |
Bob:
I'm in a bit of a quandry regarding wiring my Hobbs Meter, Oil Pressure
Switch and Low Oil Pressure Warning light !! I've printed out the
Drawings from B & C and found one of your drawings regarding this
wiring, however, before I went to order my transducer from B&C, I
checked with Advanced Flight Systems to make sure that B&C's Oil
Pressure transducer would work with the AFS 4500 EFIS / Engine
monitor.......the answer was NO....I had to purchase theirs.
They told me that their transducer had a single terminal (for their
signal wire) that connects to their wiring harness: NOT a 3 terminal
arrangement (S-I-P) configuration like B&C's....
SO, can you give me some suggestions on how I can wire my Hour Meter,
Oil Pressure Warning Light given that there is only 1 terminal ??
Any help or suggestions appreciated.
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring |
Henry,
I'm not Bob, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night - but here's what
I did...
I purchased a manifold that allows me to connect two senders and an oil pressure
hose all together....one of the senders was for the AFS 3400 EM, the other sender
is for the B&C dual-throw switch unit that allows for my Oil pressure idiot
light and my hobbs meter (through a relay that starts my engine timer and
the hobbs at the same time). I've had my engine running so I know it works correctly.
Ralph
RV6A N822AR @ N06 - getting refresher training next weekend - then first flight
-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Dec 31, 2008 4:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
>
>Bob:
>
>I'm in a bit of a quandry regarding wiring my Hobbs Meter, Oil Pressure Switch
and Low Oil Pressure Warning light !! I've printed out the Drawings from B &
C and found one of your drawings regarding this wiring, however, before I went
to order my transducer from B&C, I checked with Advanced Flight Systems to make
sure that B&C's Oil Pressure transducer would work with the AFS 4500 EFIS
/ Engine monitor.......the answer was NO....I had to purchase theirs.
>
>They told me that their transducer had a single terminal (for their signal wire)
that connects to their wiring harness: NOT a 3 terminal arrangement (S-I-P)
configuration like B&C's....
>
>SO, can you give me some suggestions on how I can wire my Hour Meter, Oil Pressure
Warning Light given that there is only 1 terminal ??
>
>Any help or suggestions appreciated.
>
>Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring |
Ralph:
What type of manifold and where did you purchase it.....Area you talking
about the Manifold, I think it's the VA-168 that Van's sells? I already
have this installed on my firewall.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
>
> Henry,
>
> I'm not Bob, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night - but
here's what I did...
>
> I purchased a manifold that allows me to connect two senders and an oil
pressure hose all together....one of the senders was for the AFS 3400 EM,
the other sender is for the B&C dual-throw switch unit that allows for my
Oil pressure idiot light and my hobbs meter (through a relay that starts my
engine timer and the hobbs at the same time). I've had my engine running so
I know it works correctly.
>
> Ralph
> RV6A N822AR @ N06 - getting refresher training next weekend - then first
flight
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
> >Sent: Dec 31, 2008 4:06 PM
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
> >
> >Bob:
> >
> >I'm in a bit of a quandry regarding wiring my Hobbs Meter, Oil Pressure
Switch and Low Oil Pressure Warning light !! I've printed out the Drawings
from B & C and found one of your drawings regarding this wiring, however,
before I went to order my transducer from B&C, I checked with Advanced
Flight Systems to make sure that B&C's Oil Pressure transducer would work
with the AFS 4500 EFIS / Engine monitor.......the answer was NO....I had to
purchase theirs.
> >
> >They told me that their transducer had a single terminal (for their
signal wire) that connects to their wiring harness: NOT a 3 terminal
arrangement (S-I-P) configuration like B&C's....
> >
> >SO, can you give me some suggestions on how I can wire my Hour Meter, Oil
Pressure Warning Light given that there is only 1 terminal ??
> >
> >Any help or suggestions appreciated.
> >
> >Henry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring |
That sounds like the item...has three stubs on it, each with holes drilled on three
sides.
I had to put a spacer between the firewall and the manifold in order for all of
the senders to fit.
I have some pictures I'll send you......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Dec 31, 2008 5:37 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
>
>
>Ralph:
>
>What type of manifold and where did you purchase it.....Area you talking
>about the Manifold, I think it's the VA-168 that Van's sells? I already
>have this installed on my firewall.....
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:33 AM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
>
>
>
>>
>> Henry,
>>
>> I'm not Bob, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night - but
>here's what I did...
>>
>> I purchased a manifold that allows me to connect two senders and an oil
>pressure hose all together....one of the senders was for the AFS 3400 EM,
>the other sender is for the B&C dual-throw switch unit that allows for my
>Oil pressure idiot light and my hobbs meter (through a relay that starts my
>engine timer and the hobbs at the same time). I've had my engine running so
>I know it works correctly.
>>
>> Ralph
>> RV6A N822AR @ N06 - getting refresher training next weekend - then first
>flight
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>> >Sent: Dec 31, 2008 4:06 PM
>> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hour Meter/Oil Pressure Wiring
>> >
>> >Bob:
>> >
>> >I'm in a bit of a quandry regarding wiring my Hobbs Meter, Oil Pressure
>Switch and Low Oil Pressure Warning light !! I've printed out the Drawings
>from B & C and found one of your drawings regarding this wiring, however,
>before I went to order my transducer from B&C, I checked with Advanced
>Flight Systems to make sure that B&C's Oil Pressure transducer would work
>with the AFS 4500 EFIS / Engine monitor.......the answer was NO....I had to
>purchase theirs.
>> >
>> >They told me that their transducer had a single terminal (for their
>signal wire) that connects to their wiring harness: NOT a 3 terminal
>arrangement (S-I-P) configuration like B&C's....
>> >
>> >SO, can you give me some suggestions on how I can wire my Hour Meter, Oil
>Pressure Warning Light given that there is only 1 terminal ??
>> >
>> >Any help or suggestions appreciated.
>> >
>> >Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio noise revisited |
At 09:03 AM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>To noise specialists
>
>I just concluded the installation of my
>Intercom, and although I took all the
>recommended measures to avoid ground loops and
>noise in general, I'm still hearing 2 whines,
>which after some time (many hours =85 J) of
>investigation, I think I identified the causes.
>
>One is the Air/Fuel Ratio Monitor, because when
>I disconnect its ground wire, the most high-frequency whine disappears.
>Which kind of filter (resistor, capacitor,
>diode, any other) can I install to eliminate this noise?
>And should I put it in the power(+) red wire or
>the ground(-) black wire, or is it indifferent?
>
>The other whine is from the COMM Radio (Garmin
>SL-30), because when I switch it off, the whine disappears.
>How shall I eliminate this noise?
Have you tried running the intercom from a separate battery?
Rather than attack two noise sources, perhaps it's easier
to attack the noise propagation path for one victim.
The fact that you're hearing noise from TWO sources is
a strong suggestion that the victim is the "sub standard"
appliance with respect to tolerating noises that are
known to exist on the bus.
See if the intercom cleans up with its own separate
power source . . .
What is the input voltage range for normal operation
of your intercom?
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Audio noise revisited |
Hi Bob
My Intercom is the Flightcom 403. Its power requirement (per the manual) is
12-28V 0,16Amp.
My next step would be exactly powering it from a separate battery, but I
still didn't do it, 'cause I had no battery available - will do it next year
:-)(tomorrow)
If it cleans up working from a separate power source, how should I proceed?
Thanks
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: quarta-feira, 31 de Dezembro de 2008 20:04
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio noise revisited
At 09:03 AM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
To noise specialists
I just concluded the installation of my Intercom, and although I took all
the recommended measures to avoid ground loops and noise in general, I'm
still hearing 2 whines, which after some time (many hours . :-)) of
investigation, I think I identified the causes.
One is the Air/Fuel Ratio Monitor, because when I disconnect its ground
wire, the most high-frequency whine disappears.
Which kind of filter (resistor, capacitor, diode, any other) can I install
to eliminate this noise?
And should I put it in the power(+) red wire or the ground(-) black wire, or
is it indifferent?
The other whine is from the COMM Radio (Garmin SL-30), because when I switch
it off, the whine disappears.
How shall I eliminate this noise?
Have you tried running the intercom from a separate battery?
Rather than attack two noise sources, perhaps it's easier
to attack the noise propagation path for one victim.
The fact that you're hearing noise from TWO sources is
a strong suggestion that the victim is the "sub standard"
appliance with respect to tolerating noises that are
known to exist on the bus.
See if the intercom cleans up with its own separate
power source . . .
What is the input voltage range for normal operation
of your intercom?
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: | Audio noise revisited |
At 02:36 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>
>My Intercom is the Flightcom 403. Its power requirement (per the
>manual) is 12-28V 0,16Amp.
>
>My next step would be exactly powering it from a separate battery,
>but I still didn't do it, 'cause I had no battery available - will
>do it next year J(tomorrow)
>If it cleans up working from a separate power source, how should I proceed?
Consider some form of filter for the +12V input
to the intercom. I have one I can send you to try.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9006/9006_1.jpg
You can choose from either a horizontal or vertical
connector position.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Always Hot Battery Bus |
| From: | "Timandmeli" <timandmeli(at)roadrunner.com> |
I'm wiring my rv-8 using bob nuckolls simple vfr day night wiring diagram. Provisions
are for a always hot battery bus. He indicates the length of wire should
be six inches or less. However I would like to mount this fuse block next
to the main bus which is one bulkhead forward of the instrument panel requiring
a 5 foot length of wire. Should I fuse protect this wire with in-line fuse
or maybe a current limiter. I'm planning on one electronic ignition and one
conventional magneto. Thanks Tim
--------
Tim Pethel
RV-8A
Wiring Fuse
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222041#222041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
At 03:44 PM 12/29/2008, you wrote:
>
> >
>
>You mention it three times in your post so I want to be clear, I'm
>not interested in designing a product to compete with the CBA. I
>create high-power loads for
>dischargers/cyclers/analyzers/testers. I don't want the ultra
>price-sensitive "low" end of the market. But, if this project moved
>forward, I would offer to lay out a PCB that others could use for
>building the load. If enough people were interested, I'd have a
>batch of boards run and offer them at my cost. Each person involved
>would contribute to the project where they can, and for me, it's the hardware.
Hmmm . . . understand.
>I'm just bringing up other thoughts about the possible feature set
>for a very good DIY project. You want just raw data and feel it
>offers the most and that graphics offer little, if nothing, compared
>to box-scored raw data. But many users of battery analyzers
>disagree. I have to keep going back to the CBA and its popularity.
>A lot of people don't care what the actual number is. They can look
>at a graph of a test involving several cells or packs and see
>instantly which lasted the longest, or had the highest
>voltage-under-load, for that test. Whether the "best-performing"
>battery had a capacity of 10.02Ah or 10.10Ah, they wouldn't
>care. Which battery that they can afford (or physically fit, etc,)
>came out on "top". No need to check or compare actual numbers.
agreed . . .
>No marketing effort, no product development. This is an open-source
>DIY project. You mentioned the use of a PIC earlier and I was
>alluding to that. If that's no longer an idea you're interested in
>seeing possibly be used for this DIY project, then the Weeder
>modules (or other equivalent) are a quicker way to get going. You
>also mentioned a friend who might possibly, maybe, be interested in
>taking on the PC software development. No $10K to develop something
>great that everyone could use.
I wasn't suggesting that anyone would have to
cough up $10K . . . just putting some perspective
on the market value potential for returns on the
effort. . . it helps sort priorities.
>A graph doesn't tell you anything a number doesn't. But, the right
>graph can make understanding various numbers, groups of numbers, and
>their relationships, easier to understand. Edward Tufte's books so
>wonderfully illustrate that.
>
>What's great about this project is that everyone can get exactly
>what they want. One person can create a bare-bones, tiny-footprint,
>data uploading and storage program. Another person can create a
>graphics-analysis package to show tons of data in easy to read
>graphs. One person could develop hardware that integrated existing
>products, another could create a custom PIC board.
The Weeder modules (or something similar) could be
used to implement a host of battery tests without
laying out a single board. An analog output board
could drive a load-FET array of any size. An analog
input board could watch battery voltage and the output
from some handy current sensor. Perhaps one of these
http://www.amploc.com/PRO%20Series.pdf
So with a few grafted on components to the two
Weeder modules, you'd be ready to tackle the
application software in any language of choice.
>I think a really important part of al of this would be to create a
>set of standards for comms between the PC software and the boards,
>and for a data storage format. This would allow for easy
>"black-box" development of both the hardware and the
>software. Either could have any set of features but all would be
>compatible with each other.
EVERYONE can read column or comma delimited data
files. I think I'd split the software task into two
areas. (a) test management and data storage with
box-score readouts and (b) data presentation package
with graphics abilities, perhaps some averaging of
multiple data on same batteries, graphics, etc.
>And the IR measurements feature is a great idea. There are so many
>"standards" and methods for measuring IR that it would be great to
>see the hardware/software eventually support a user-created IR test
>(timing, current, etc.).
Well, I've got the modules in a bin out in the
shop. I've also got the core software needed to
wake up and talk to the modules. I'm going to
be out of town all next week but I'll dig up
the hardware when I get back and see if it
can be stroked back to life. It's been a couple
of years since I had this stuff working.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Always Hot Battery Bus |
At 03:48 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm wiring my rv-8 using bob nuckolls simple vfr day night wiring
>diagram. Provisions are for a always hot battery bus. He indicates
>the length of wire should be six inches or less. However I would
>like to mount this fuse block next to the main bus which is one
>bulkhead forward of the instrument panel requiring a 5 foot length
>of wire. Should I fuse protect this wire with in-line fuse or maybe
>a current limiter. I'm planning on one electronic ignition and one
>conventional magneto. Thanks Tim
The 6" rule including the maximum size of fuse (7A)
for the hot-battery bus is a convention adopted for
post crash fire risk reduction. It's not possible
to offer advice based on any analysis of your
proposed changes. If you mount it that far away
from the battery, you've got an always hot feeder
rated for considerable current capability. This
is not done in the certified world. I would
recommend you leave the battery bus fuse block
co-located with the battery contactor and
run individual feeders from fuses of no more
than 7A from that location.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
So, bringing this down to earth for the rest of us...
If I want to do annual capacity checking of my $25 ah battery$, in an
aircraft that requires 15-20 amps to stay afloat, will the CBA II give me
the information I need? Say, if I run it at 65W to save the device?
Or would it be better to find an analyzer that ran at 200+ watts?
BTW, Happy New Year!
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
>> I think that's an idea worth exploring!
>> I've developed a 500W (400W continuous) electronic load that can be used
>> to extend the capabilities of any analyzer or discharger (
>> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=938266) but there's a
>> real need for "host" software and a load in the power range of the CBA,
>> perhaps 100W-200W. This would be perfect for most DIY'ers and could easily
>> be paralleled for higher power handling.
>>
>> The software would have to be very graphics-capable as the plotting and
>> graphing features would be extremely important. I'd love to see it not
>> require a huge installation just to run. But, the options may be limited.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure about the graphics. Yes, they do make for an
> effective display of data . . . and comparison of similar
> batteries . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
>
> The data for this article was taken with a one-sample-per-second
> data acquisition module that produces columnar data easily
> imported into graphics applications like autocad and excel.
> For the purpose of writing articles, the graphics offered by
> WestMountainRadio are pretty . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/9vBatteryTests.jpg
>
> but from an engineering perspective, a numerical value for
> energy delivered under the prescribed test conditions is
> quite sufficient. The results of dynamic tests for evaluating
> battery source impedance could be offered out as numerical
> values.
>
> I did a flight test program for Raytheon a few years
> back where the Weeder Technology modules proved quite
> useful.
>
> http://www.weedtech.com/
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Data_Acquisition/Weedtech_DAS_2.jpg
>
> As a first pass for crafting a more robust version of
> the CBA-II, a Weeder analog input module for $69 and
> an analog output module for $99 would offer 95% of
> the hardware to implement the task. Very simple programs
> in any language of choice could be crafted to orchestrate
> the testing, gathering of data values and presentation
> of end-point results with no graphics capabilities
> at all.
>
> One could also store individual data points on the
> hard drive in a format easily imported to Excel.
>
> The CBA software has a nice light footprint though. An executable, help
>> file, settings file, three DLLs for USB comms and forms handling. It may
>> have some registry keys or other files in public directories but it doesn't
>> seem to require the NET framework. MileHighWings' eFlightWatt logger had a
>> single executable file that did everything, no installation needed.
>> Something like this for an open source tester would be terrific.
>>
>
> Sure. And I wouldn't discourage any interested parties
> from turning their vision into really nifty applications
> by exercising their programming skills. From the hands-on
> engineering perspective, my personal needs for battery
> testing can be easily addressed with more rudimentary
> software.
>
> In fact, I still keep 20 year old copies of
> Turbo-Basic that outputs compiled .exe files
> for talking/listening to the Weeder modules.
> I have a supply of these guys on the shelf from
> various programs over the years. They still
> offer the hammer-n-nails approach to crafting
> a quick and useful test-setup.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Always Hot Battery Bus |
Long hot wires bother me as well.
However in the world of off road truck racing there is no room for a
battery located near the panel or engine. We frequently use 10'+ #2
always hot unprotected leads from 2 big AH batteries located in the
back where the weight does some good. Its very rare to have any
issues after a major crash that involves shorted battery leads. You
better believe the leads are carefully routed and protected.
Typically protected with the convoluted split plastic stuff. Sure it
burns but it is good for abrasion protection and cheap. The best lead
wire is welding wire with double elastomer insulation. Pretty
durable. I cannot source the stuff for you all but a day of shopping
at the weld & battery shops will turn up a good product. I use a
west marine source 4 position switch to turn the power off if need be
and for storage to reduce the drain from all the parasite
electronics. Yes the switch is where the driver can reach it and it
is a long ways from the batts.
The bottom line is there are many more high risk things in a plane or
a race truck to be concerned about than a long hot batt lead.
Regards, Paul
===============
At 03:39 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>At 03:48 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>I'm wiring my rv-8 using bob nuckolls simple vfr day night wiring
>>diagram. Provisions are for a always hot battery bus. He
>>indicates the length of wire should be six inches or less. However
>>I would like to mount this fuse block next to the main bus which is
>>one bulkhead forward of the instrument panel requiring a 5 foot
>>length of wire. Should I fuse protect this wire with in-line fuse
>>or maybe a current limiter. I'm planning on one electronic
>>ignition and one conventional magneto. Thanks Tim
>
> The 6" rule including the maximum size of fuse (7A)
> for the hot-battery bus is a convention adopted for
> post crash fire risk reduction. It's not possible
> to offer advice based on any analysis of your
> proposed changes. If you mount it that far away
> from the battery, you've got an always hot feeder
> rated for considerable current capability. This
> is not done in the certified world. I would
> recommend you leave the battery bus fuse block
> co-located with the battery contactor and
> run individual feeders from fuses of no more
> than 7A from that location.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II Battery Tester modifications/improvements? |
| From: | "CamLight" <jmuchow(at)camlight.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone would have to
> cough up $10K . . . just putting some perspective
> on the market value potential for returns on the
> effort. . . it helps sort priorities.
>
Ahh...agreed.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> The Weeder modules (or something similar) could be
> used to implement a host of battery tests without
> laying out a single board. An analog output board
> could drive a load-FET array of any size. An analog
> input board could watch battery voltage and the output
> from some handy current sensor. Perhaps one of these
>
> http://www.amploc.com/PRO%20Series.pdf
>
> So with a few grafted on components to the two
> Weeder modules, you'd be ready to tackle the
> application software in any language of choice.
>
I have some samples of the 25A version of that and the 100A versions of the Allegro sensors: http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Part_Numbers/0755/index.asp
I'd be happy to cobble up a small board to output to your Weeders.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> EVERYONE can read column or comma delimited data
> files. I think I'd split the software task into two
> areas. (a) test management and data storage with
> box-score readouts and (b) data presentation package
> with graphics abilities, perhaps some averaging of
> multiple data on same batteries, graphics, etc.
>
Agreed!
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Well, I've got the modules in a bin out in the
> shop. I've also got the core software needed to
> wake up and talk to the modules. I'm going to
> be out of town all next week but I'll dig up
> the hardware when I get back and see if it
> can be stroked back to life. It's been a couple
> of years since I had this stuff working.
>
> Bob . . .
Sounds terrific. In the mean time, I'll dig out the current sensors I have and
look into working up a simple interface to the Weeders. If you already have
something that will work well, no problem. I also have some assorted MOSFETs,
heat sinks and op-amps around to put together a basic load to use for testing
to concept.
We can talk more when you're back.
My best wishes for a Healthy & Happy New Year to everyone!
--------
John M.
Owner
CamLight Systems
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222088#222088
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode |
Very good. Thanks all.
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 31 December, 2008 3:58:05 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power Supply - Anode/Cathode
At 04:49 AM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
Hello,
I have no clue how to determine which is which. Can someone help? I have an electronic
meter.
I bought a low rate power supply some time back to use to power non polarity sensitive
flap motors and the like. I cut off the attached 12V socket connector
and attached crocodile clips. I didn't take note which wire was anode or cathode.
Now I want to use it to power some of my avionics for testing etc. They are polarity
sensitive.
Generally, the terms anode and cathode are used
when referring to vacuum tubes, and chemical systems
such as plating baths, batteries and dissimilar
metals on boats. The source connections from a
battery or power supply are more commonly referred
to as (+) and (-) source connections.
Most multi-meters don't identify their leads as
(+) or (-) connections. For example:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/tenma1.jpg
This instrument has a COMmmon jack with a black
ring around it suggesting the black lead be plugged
in here. There are two jacks for the red lead. One
dedicated to high current measurements (20A full scale)
and the other marked Volts-Ohms-mA for voltage,
resistance and low current measurements.
The instrument will indicate positive readings when
the red lead is positive. Conversely, when the red
lead is negative, the reading on the instrument will
be preceded by a (-) sign.
Not all instruments are set up exactly the same
way . . . it's useful to study the manual that comes
with it and then do some experimental measurements
on your car, with a battery and light bulbs on the
bench, etc. Become familiar with the instruments
unique characteristics.
Therefore, when set up as described above, probing
the output leads for your power supply will no doubt
produce a voltage reading . . . with polarity sign
indicating which of the two test leads is positive.
Your question suggests that you're just getting
your feet wet in this electronic stuff. May I suggest
a number of supplemental sources of information
on the simple-ideas from which this craft is built?
I recommend you acquire a copy of Electonics
Fundamentals by T. Floyd. Don't get a new one. In fact
get the cheapest one you can. The older editions are
VERY reasonable. See:
http://tinyurl.com/94g8gb
Also, take a look at the first five books of a Navy
electronics course that I've posted at my website.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Navy_Electroinics_Manuals/
Finally, keep talking with us here on the List.
You'll be hard pressed to find a more willing and
able bunch of folks to help you out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | updating electrical system |
| From: | "jetech" <av8tor(at)hughes.net> |
I posted this under the avionics list but I meant to post it here so I pasted it
below.
Hello
My business partner and I own an aircraft maintenance company. We are working towards
the restoration side of the trade and would like to feature updated avionics
and electrical systems as an option to original equipment.
We have our company 1956 Tripacer that we are using as a learning tool and advertisement.
The plane is down to the bare frame and I am starting the planning
process for the electrical system.
We are looking for ideas on updating the electrical system. we plan on all new
wiring, single point ground, and possibly EFIS or a variation. The generator is
coming off and an alternator is going on.
We would like to replace the original nav light/dimmer combination switch and possibly
re-design the aux fuel transfer system which is a pull cable with a switch
(pull the knob - the cable opens the fuel valve and the switch turns on the
pump).
Parts for these older planes are getting harder to find and are quite expensive,
this is our reason for wanting to update the systems plus technology has given
us better products to work with.
This isn't an experimental plane so we will have to do paperwork on everything
we do.
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments
Gary
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222223#222223
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: updating electrical system |
At 01:43 PM 1/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>I posted this under the avionics list but I meant to post it here so
>I pasted it below.
>
>Hello
>My business partner and I own an aircraft maintenance company. We
>are working towards the restoration side of the trade and would like
>to feature updated avionics and electrical systems as an option to
>original equipment.
>
>We have our company 1956 Tripacer that we are using as a learning
>tool and advertisement. The plane is down to the bare frame and I am
>starting the planning process for the electrical system.
>
>We are looking for ideas on updating the electrical system. we plan
>on all new wiring, single point ground, and possibly EFIS or a
>variation. The generator is coming off and an alternator is going on.
>
>We would like to replace the original nav light/dimmer combination
>switch and possibly re-design the aux fuel transfer system which is
>a pull cable with a switch (pull the knob - the cable opens the fuel
>valve and the switch turns on the pump).
>
>Parts for these older planes are getting harder to find and are
>quite expensive, this is our reason for wanting to update the
>systems plus technology has given us better products to work with.
>
>This isn't an experimental plane so we will have to do paperwork on
>everything we do.
>
>I would appreciate your thoughts and comments
>
>Gary
I was working with a gentleman a few years ago on
exactly the same project: Nice ol' Tripacer
pulled down to the bare structure and refurbished
for cover, flight controls, engine and cabin
appointments.
We planned a Figure Z-13/8 electrical system architectured
here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
The idea was to totally update the electrical/avionics
systems. Fuel transfer to be managed with check valves/
electrically controlled pumps. Virtually none of the
original equipment items were retained in favor of
present day, catalog items.
The goal was to craft the mother of all 337's to
describe and qualify the changes without resorting
to an STC.
After about 6 months work on the project he was transfered.
Never heard from him after he moved. I still think it's
a worthwhile project for breathing new life into a
very utilitarian machine. Successful completion would
offer FAA approved benchmarks for similar efforts on
other aircraft.
We can talk about this if you like.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: updating electrical system |
| From: | "jetech" <av8tor(at)hughes.net> |
Bob
That is kind of what I had in mind, I am just not sure how to get there quite yet.
I would be glad to talk with you and welcome your help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222289#222289
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Follow-up on Carling switch failures . . . |
A few weeks ago a discussion here on the List explored
a "rash" of failures in Carling switches sold by a number
of sources including B&C as their S700 series devices.
The earliest manifestations of failure produced obvious
effects of heating including discolored metal parts,
deformed metal parts, loose rivets, charred housings
etc.
The most convincing hypothesis generated from these
conditions centered on loss of conduction followed
by increased resistance, increased heating, etc., etc.
Sometime later in the discussions, we added the idea
that root cause for these failures might be a mechanical
loosening of the joints at locations (3) and (8) in
the following sketch . . .
http://tinyurl.com/8cm52v
This loosening would be the byproduct of bending
moments on the tabs by too-tight bundling of wires
behind the switches. If these tabs are not favored
with 'slack' leadwires, effects of weight and vibration
of the whole bundle can be impressed on these joints.
A postmortem on the first such failure was conducted
back in the spring of 2006 and produced this document.
http://tinyurl.com/2a2qqp
Over the past few months, I've received about a half
dozen failed switches. Most showed effects of heating
as shown in the article cited above. However, TWO of
the recently acquired failures showed NO effects of
heating. They did have loose rivets that caused the switch
to become intermittent . . . but circumstances did
not produce subsequent heating.
Based on this new information, I'm ready to hang my hat on
the hypothesis I offered some months ago namely:
The rash of failures experienced are most likely caused
by inappropriate wire dress behind the switch that
FIRST causes loosening of riveted joints. This condition
MAY be followed by overheating events so spectacular
as to divert attention away from the loose rivet.
I can now comfortably suggest that failures we've
seen (and perceived as a sudden up-tick in frequency)
have been happening in these products for years. Further,
the smoked switches were not a failure on the part of the
manufacturer to meet electrical specifications nor
upon users for failure to respect those ratings.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JAMES BOWEN <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | EI SC-5 clock doc error question |
Hi Ron. I was finishing the install on the SC-5 tonight. I ran the brown wi
re in parallel with the oil low pressure light through the NC side of the p
ressure switch. Just to clarify=2C what did you end up doing with the orang
e wire since you said it was superfluous to the engine timer? Just leave it
unconnected and tie it off? I appreciate your input=2C thanks in advance.
Jim B
Date: Tue=2C 30 Dec 2008 13:28:13 -0800From: rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COMTo: aeroel
ectric-list(at)matronics.comSubject: AeroElectric-List: EI SC-5 clock doc erro
rThe previous post inspired me to share this recent discovery.The EI SC-5 c
lock includes a non-resettable total engine time counter=2C essentially a H
obbes function. The manual says that in a 12V system=2C the ORANGE wire sho
uld be connected via an N.O. oil pressure switch to provide +12V on closure
=2C when oil pressure develops=2C which will start the engine timer. This i
s a little tricky with the B&P oil presure switch=2C where the N.O. contact
is normally grounded -- I even set up a little relay to power the wire tha
t way -- but don't bother. Contrary to the manual=2C any time the RED +12V
main supply wire is hot=2C the engine timer runs=2C regardless of what's is
or isn't happening on the ORANGE wire. For example=2C if you're running th
e panel on ground power=2C perhaps for training or maintenance=2C or just e
ntering a flight plan into the GPS before engine start=2C the engine timer
will be ticking up=2C even though the engine isn't running. (The clock is s
upposed to be wired to a main bus or e-bus=2C so it's going to be ON when m
ost anything on the panel is on.) Incidentally=2C the manual also says that
in a 12V system=2C the BROWN wire should _not_ be connected to anything.Af
ter considerable consultation with EI=2C it was confirmed that the ORANGE w
ire is at best superfluous to the engine timer function (or any function as
far as I could determine) and the BROWN wire is what must be used to contr
ol the engine timer. The BROWN wire should be grounded when the engine is O
FF=2C i.e.=2C wired through a N.C. contact on a B&C pressure switch=2C in p
arallel with the oil pressure warning light. When the BROWN wire's connecti
on to ground is broken=2C on engine start=2C the engine timer begins.So=2C
what the manual says to do doesn't work=2C and what the manual says not to
do is what you have to do to make it work. I suggested to EI that they shou
ld at least fix the manual=2C but they did not indicate any eagerness to do
so. Hopefully=2C this work around will be useful others.Otherwise=2C it's
a nice clock.Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group |
A couple of us have started a brand new, self-help, Yahoo! group, centered
around Real World Solutions' electronic
controllers<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>.
This would be specific to this brand only. If you have a RWS EC1, EC2, or
EC3 controller, or are planning on installing one in the future, please sig
n
up and get involved.
Tracy Crook has been invited, but has not yet signed up. We are hoping.
It's called
EC3_RWS =B7 Friends of RWS EFI Ignition Controllers.
Sign up here:
Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EC3_RWS
Group email address: EC3_RWS(at)yahoogroups.com
Best Wishes,
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Audio noise revisited |
Bob
Did you get my offline email?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: quarta-feira, 31 de Dezembro de 2008 21:43
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Audio noise revisited
At 02:36 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
Hi Bob
My Intercom is the Flightcom 403. Its power requirement (per the manual)
is
12-28V 0,16Amp.
My next step would be exactly powering it from a separate battery, but I
still didn=12t do it, =11cause I had no battery available - will do it
next year
:-) (tomorrow)
If it cleans up working from a separate power source, how should I
proceed?
Consider some form of filter for the +12V input
to the intercom. I have one I can send you to try.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9006/9006_1.jpg
You can choose from either a horizontal or vertical
connector position.
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: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group |
At 06:19 AM 1/2/2009, you wrote:
>A couple of us have started a brand new,
>self-help, Yahoo! group, centered around
><http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>Real
>World Solutions' electronic controllers. This
>would be specific to this brand only. If you
>have a RWS EC1, EC2, or EC3 controller, or are
>planning on installing one in the future, please sign up and get involved.
>
>Tracy Crook has been invited, but has not yet signed up. We are hoping.
>
>It's called
>
>EC3_RWS =B7 Friends of RWS EFI Ignition Controllers.
>
>Sign up here:
>
>Group home page:
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EC3_RWS>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EC3_RW
S
>Group email address:
EC3_RWS(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Sam Hoskins
>Murphysboro, IL
My congratulations and commentdations for your efforts
sir. Hava you considered asking Matt for a List-server
slot on Matronics?
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: | Audio noise revisited |
At 07:57 AM 1/1/2009, you wrote:
>Good morning Bob
>
>Thanks for your offer, I accept it and I prefer the vertical connector.
>
>Please ship it (Global Priority Mail) to
>
>CARLOS TRIGO
>Rua dos Cravos, 424
>2750-225 CASCAIS
>PORTUGAL
>
>Tell me if I have to pay you something and how.
>
>Regards
>Carlos
>
>
We need to do the stand-alone battery test to
make sure the offending noise is coming in through
the power supply. If the noise is coming in through
another path, then a power filter wont help.
You can use a couple of 6v volt lantern batteries
in series. Do your stores carry these?
Emacs!
It doesn't need to be alkaline. The venerable old
carbon-zinc versions (cheapest) would suffice for
this task.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 06:19 AM 1/2/2009, you wrote:
>> A couple of us have started a brand new, self-help, Yahoo! group,
>> centered around Real World Solutions' electronic controllers
>> <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>. This would be specific
>> to this brand only. If you have a RWS EC1, EC2, or EC3 controller,
>> or are planning on installing one in the future, please sign up and
>> get involved.
>>
>> Tracy Crook has been invited, but has not yet signed up. We are hoping.
>>
>> It's called
>>
>> EC3_RWS Friends of RWS EFI Ignition Controllers.
>>
>> Sign up here:
>>
>> Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EC3_RWS
>> Group email address: EC3_RWS(at)yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>> Sam Hoskins
>> Murphysboro, IL
>
> My congratulations and commentdations for your efforts
> sir. Hava you considered asking Matt for a List-server
> slot on Matronics?
>
> Bob . . .
>
I'd 2nd that idea; I find the yahoo groups a royal pain in the backside.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group |
thanks Bob.
I am most familiar with the administrative portions of the Yahoo groups, so
it was the easiest FOR ME to create it.
We're up to 7 members, so far.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:19 AM 1/2/2009, you wrote:
>
> A couple of us have started a brand new, self-help, Yahoo! group, centere
d
> around Real World Solutions' electronic controllers<http://www.rotaryavia
tion.com/eficont.html>.
> This would be specific to this brand only. If you have a RWS EC1, EC2, o
r
> EC3 controller, or are planning on installing one in the future, please s
ign
> up and get involved.
>
> Tracy Crook has been invited, but has not yet signed up. We are hoping.
>
> It's called
>
> EC3_RWS =B7 Friends of RWS EFI Ignition Controllers.
>
> Sign up here:
>
> Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EC3_RWS
> Group email address: EC3_RWS(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Murphysboro, IL
>
>
> My congratulations and commentdations for your efforts
> sir. Hava you considered asking Matt for a List-server
> slot on Matronics?
>
> 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: | GPS Serial Data to Garmin GTX-327 Transponder |
Listers,
I've tried sending two different sources of NMEA 0183 data at 4800/9600/19200/38400/57600
baud rates to my Garmin GTX-327 on both serial input ports 1 (db25
Pin 2) and port 2 (db25 pin 19), and configured for "GPS" input. But I don't
get anything on the GTX-327 serial input test display. I have been successful
at getting AirData Z-format from the GRT EFIS at 9600 baud into either of the
GTX-327 serial ports, so the ports are good. The NMEA 0183 data registers correctly
on other devices reading it so the GPS serial output seem fine. The GTX-327
just won't seem to see the GPS data for some reason.
Am I doing something wrong? Has anyone else tried this successfully?
Thanks!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group |
Bob, FWIW I have the LML, the Yahoo ES group and the AeroElectric list all
sent to my Google gmail account, where they are sent to their own folder
labels.
They then are all in the same place, in the same format and easy to search
in the same way.
Works great for me...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Z-14 v Z-14Fadec question |
Last week I asked about C/B's tripping in the NON crossover mode and
received a thoughtful answer. Thanks. Due to my growing but limited
knowledge in this area it took a EE buddy of mine to figure out I had
the crossover switch wired in a "mirrored" manner on my switch. Now, no
more C/B tripping AND my alternators are charging properly. So, my
initial calculations seemed to be ok as to wires etc....just not my
translation as to switch connections. Ahhhhhh, non-the-less, it now
feels nice.
Now, I have a general question regarding the Z-14 schemes. For the
crossover switch, up is to engage the starter with both batteries,
center is non-crossover, normal mode with batteries working to power
their bus independently and down is both batteries working together on
both busses......If I understand correctly. So, in the Z-14 Fadec
scheme, the start button engages the starter, then one position on the
switch is independent alt to each bus and the other switch to have the
systems work together? Or, is on position Off and the other switch
position engaging both alternators to work together? If it is the
second scenario, does that mean the two systems ALWAYS work together?
If so, is there any reason not to have both systems always working
together in the standard Z-14 scheme. I assume the FADEC label is since
it is always engaged there is no pilot intervention. Just looking for a
better understanding. Thanks.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston
Velocity SE with all electric Mazda 13b rotary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Audio noise revisited |
Ok, I sneaked out the 12V battery of my house alarm and did the test.
I powered the Intercom from that separate battery but the noises are still
there. I suppose, as you say, that a filter on the Intercom power wire won't
solve my problem.
Regarding the A/F Ratio Monitor, I am pretty sure it makes one of the
whines, so I have to put back the power filter that it used to have (the
filter has gone west some time ago, way before installing the Intercom, and
I took it away, to restore power to the Monitor, not knowing about the noise
it causes). I believe that will eliminate that noise.
The remaining problem now is coming from the COMM Radio. That other whine
comes on and off whenever I turn the radio on and off. I even tried powering
the radio from a separate battery and no joy.
Should I put the filter on the Radio's power line?
What do you suggest?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: sexta-feira, 2 de Janeiro de 2009 14:25
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Audio noise revisited
At 07:57 AM 1/1/2009, you wrote:
We need to do the stand-alone battery test to
make sure the offending noise is coming in through
the power supply. If the noise is coming in through
another path, then a power filter wont help.
You can use a couple of 6v volt lantern batteries
in series. Do your stores carry these?
It doesn't need to be alkaline. The venerable old
carbon-zinc versions (cheapest) would suffice for
this task.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . . |
Bob,
While I can't disagree with your findings, if I remember the
discussion correctly, most of the failed B&C S700 switches were on
strobe systems. I think I kicked off the recent discussion with a
failed switch on my strobe system. I have several other B&C S700
series switches, all are wired similar to the strobe switch, and none
of them have failed or showed signs of heat stress. Why should the
switches on a strobe system be more failure prone?
Charlie Brame
RV 6A N11CB
San Antonio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Follow-up on Carling switch failures . . .
>
> A few weeks ago a discussion here on the List explored
> a "rash" of failures in Carling switches sold by a number
> of sources including B&C as their S700 series devices.
--------------------------------snip------------------------------
>
>
> I can now comfortably suggest that failures we've
> seen (and perceived as a sudden up-tick in frequency)
> have been happening in these products for years. Further,
> the smoked switches were not a failure on the part of the
> manufacturer to meet electrical specifications nor
> upon users for failure to respect those ratings.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . . |
Bob's working hypothesis is that vibration is loosening the rivets on
the Carling switches. High current switches (strobe supplies, landing
lights) then exhibit overtemperature, increased resistance and thermal
runaway. Strobe supplies are probably the worst load in the aircraft
because they are effectively constant-power devices: as the input
voltage decreases, the current increases to compensate. This would be
bad news if the switch is resistive.
I've had two strobe switch failures, one landing light switch (actually
a wig-wag) failure, and one master switch failure (loose rivet but no
charred terminals). I have also received brand-new Carling switches
with loose terminals.
As an experiment, I replaced several Carling switches with Honeywell
switches and have been running them, monitoring for failures. I
proposed about 100 hours of testing before any conclusions could be
made. This will probably take several more months. I have check them
in the interim, with no problems.
If the experiment shows failure of the Honeywell switches, then the
problem may be attributed to my installation.
If the experiment does not show failure of the Honeywell switches, then
the problem may be attributed to the Carling switches sensitivity to
vibration.
Bob has concluded that the Carling switches are fine, but should have
vibration decoupling loops to minimize vibration stresses on the
terminals. Good advice no matter who's switches are installed.
Unfortunately, I don't agree that the problem is that my (our)
installations are incorrect. Rather, I believe that the problem is that
the Carling switches are unusually sensitive to vibration.
In my next project, I am planning to use different switches, plus
decoupling loops. In addition, strobe and landing light loads will be
isolated with automotive relays which are generally more robust.
Vern Little
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Brame
To: AeroElectric List
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
Bob,
While I can't disagree with your findings, if I remember the
discussion correctly, most of the failed B&C S700 switches were on
strobe systems. I think I kicked off the recent discussion with a failed
switch on my strobe system. I have several other B&C S700 series
switches, all are wired similar to the strobe switch, and none of them
have failed or showed signs of heat stress. Why should the switches on a
strobe system be more failure prone?
Charlie Brame
RV 6A N11CB
San Antonio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Follow-up on Carling switch failures . .
.
A few weeks ago a discussion here on the List explored
a "rash" of failures in Carling switches sold by a number
of sources including B&C as their S700 series devices.
December 18, 2008 - January 02, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ii