AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-io
March 28, 2009 - April 13, 2009
> *From:* Paul Eckenroth
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:33 PM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
>
> Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state contactor
> keep the voltage from sagging if the contactor is energized by the starter
> switch. The E Buss feed from the Main Buss is through a diode.
>
> I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
>
> Paul Eckenroth
> N509RV
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS brown out protection |
Bob, just curious, easy to see how it might handle a surge but how does it
handle a voltage sag from a single battery during starting ??
Thanks Bill S
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob-tcw
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag protection is
a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent Power Stabilizer,
IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics with battery voltages
ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was specifically developed to keep
EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and running during engine starting. It
weighs less than 1 lb and requires no maintenance. All the details are
avialable at www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul <mailto:N509RV(at)eckenroth.com> Eckenroth
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state contactor keep
the voltage from sagging if the contactor is energized by the starter
switch. The E Buss feed from the Main Buss is through a diode.
I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
Paul Eckenroth
N509RV
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
Bill, The IPS system is a true DC:DC power converter that takes input
power from the power bus, and if necessary boosts the voltage back up to
12 volts on its output. The output of the IPS is used to run equipment
that you want to remain up during engine cranking. For input bus
voltages from 5- 12 volts, the IPS system maintains a supply voltage to
EFIS, GPS or engine monitors at 12 volts. Unlike an auxilary
battery, the 4 amp IPS weighs 8 oz., requires no extra steering diodes,
and is maintenance free. Hope this helps, detailed drawings and
specifications are available at this direct link:
http://www.tcwtech.com/IPS-12v.htm
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Schlatterer
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Bob, just curious, easy to see how it might handle a surge but how
does it handle a voltage sag from a single battery during starting ??
Thanks Bill S
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bob-tcw
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:34 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag
protection is a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent
Power Stabilizer, IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics
with battery voltages ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was
specifically developed to keep EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and
running during engine starting. It weighs less than 1 lb and requires
no maintenance. All the details are avialable at www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Eckenroth
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state
contactor keep the voltage from sagging if the contactor is energized by
the starter switch. The E Buss feed from the Main Buss is through a
diode.
I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
Paul Eckenroth
N509RV
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS brown out protection |
Bob, just curious, easy to see how it might handle a surge but how does
it
handle a voltage sag from a single battery during starting ??
Thanks Bill S
My understanding of this device is that it will
boost up the voltage and maintain 12V even if the battery voltage drops
down
to near 5 volts, thus there will be no sag on it's output. This is
unlike
the simple linear regulator which will only regulate a higher voltage
down
to, say 12 volts, and if its input goes below the 12 volt threshold,
then
the output will also drop down.
Roger
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bob-tcw
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag
protection is
a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent Power
Stabilizer,
IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics with battery
voltages
ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was specifically developed to keep
EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and running during engine starting.
It
weighs less than 1 lb and requires no maintenance. All the details
are
avialable at www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
At 08:11 PM 3/28/2009, you wrote:
>Bob
>
>Thanks for the heads up concerning the solid state contactor. It
>does indeed reverse feed when not activated. Does a relay such as S
>704-1 act more like a mechanical switch. Would it be reasonable to
>activate this relay using the start switch.
Sure. That's the design philosophy illustrated in
Figure Z-10/8. A small brownout support battery
is paralleled to the battery bus through the contacts
of an S704-1 relay (or any similar device). The
relay is energized at the same time as the starter
contactor insuring that the brownout support
battery is not taxed during the first 50 milliseconds
or so that the battery is spinning up the starter
armature. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif
Of course, the e-bus loads are carried for the
duration of a cranking event (time the starter
button is depressed). This is longer than the
system is "vulnerable" to brown out. Once the
starter armature accelerates and is drawing
more normal currents, the battery voltage comes
back up to levels that probably supports
vulnerable equipment.
I think if it were my airplane, I'd simply
start the engine before expecting all the
electro-whizzies to be ready for flight.
All were talking about here is a tailoring
of the pre-flight checklist. I'm not suggesting
that sophisticated power conditioning devices
will not function as advertised. But it
seems an unnecessarily complex solution to
a 100 millisecond "problem" that occurs once
per flight cycle before you've even departed
the tie-down location. Rearrange the sequence
of events during preflight and the problem
goes away.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS brown out protection |
At 10:16 PM 3/28/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, just curious, easy to see how it might handle a surge but how
>does it handle a voltage sag from a single battery during starting ??
>
>Thanks Bill S
Not sure which Bob you're addressing . . .
There is a relatively new class of circuits developed
as high efficiency voltage regulators. Unlike their
linear ancestors, these circuits not only produce
conditioned output BELOW input voltage, they can
also STEP UP a too low voltage. Pretty smart gizmos.
Indeed, these circuits SHOULD have been part of the
original design goals for those "weak sisters" we're
struggling with now.
The technology is quite common in the TC aircraft
world where electro-whizzies are DESIGNED to function
as advertised with any input voltage over a wide
range . . . usually 9 to 32 volts.
I find it difficult to be benevolent toward my
contemporaries who bring products to the OBAM
aircraft community that ignore decades of lessons-
learned. We shouldn't be having this conversation
here on the List.
I have never produced a device that required an
system integrator, installer or a pilot to take special
notice of some insufficiency in performance. That's
what DO-160/Mil-STD-704 is all about. The guys who
play in the big sandbox have enjoyed the benefits
of this thoughtful design process for decades.
It's disappointing to see neat and useful
products come to the marketplace, crafted with
perhaps thousands of hours of electronics and
software development time crying out for perhaps
an additional 50 hours development time devoted
to power input conditioning.
We have some choices.
(1) Do their job for them and install external power
conditioning while driving up complexity, cost,
weight and adding single points of failure for multiple
equipment items.
(2) We can add minimalist brownout protection schemes
like Z-10/8.
(3) We can re-sequence preflight events to work around
vulnerabilities.
(4) Above all, we should put suppliers of performance
deficient devices on notice that they've fallen short
of the best-we-know-how-to-do . . . and we're NOT
happy about it.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SD-8 Components on Firewall? |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
The B&C drawing for the SD-8 regulator (BC219) contains note 3 that states:
"Max ambient temperature 120 degrees F"
and their wiring diagram (504-500) contains note 1 that states:
"Regulator and capacitor should be mounted in a cool place and should be mounted
on the cockpit side of the firewall".
This drawing also shows a 15 amp in-line fuse on one of the Dyno output legs, which
I assume is intended to protect the circuit extending into the cockpit.
>From the grounding locations of the SD-8 components on Z-13/8-Q (firewall) and
the absence of the fuse on the dyno output, I infer that the regulator, capacitor,
diode and relay are intended to be mounted on the engine side of the firewall
with the rest of the DC supply and fat wire switching components.
Are these changes from the manufacture's recommendations based on upgrades to the
components, providing blast tube cooling, bench testing, good empirical field
results or ?
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236662#236662
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MS25041 PTT Lamp |
Bob:
I'm installing a couple of these Lamps in my 9A - 1 for Oil Pressure and 1
for Low Voltage Protection. Now, I've researched these lamps and proper
circuit runs for a couple of months both on Aeroelectric and other homebuilt
sites. There is "some" info out there, some of which is confusing and some
that make sense.
What I've done is attach a drawing ( a jpeg & word doc)of what I determine
to be the circuit layout for Oil Pressure and Low Voltage. Can you please
take a look at these and let me know if they're correct and or make
corrections where needed.
Appreciate your input.
Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICom headset adapter |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
I only have an IC-A22, but if the IC-A5 is similar, and I believe it is exactly
the same, it would be easy to make up your own headset/mic patch cable. The toughest
part will be locating the mini phono-plugs and jacks, especially the mic
jack. You'll probably have to order the mic jack from B&C or Steinair. So,
new parts alone can easily cost about $20.
Here is what I think is done. Two mini phono-plugs go into the A5. The fatter plug
(.136" OD) is wired to a headset jack. Sleeve to ground and ring to audio.
The thinner plug (.098" OD) is wired to a mic jack. Sleeve to ground, ring to
mic audio, and tip is used for mic key (i.e., PTT switch). If you need to use
a remote PTT switch, just wire a SPST switch from the mic "tip" to the mic "sleeve".
However, be aware that if you don't wire-in a remote PTT switch, you can
still "key" the mic by pushing the transmit button on the A5.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236669#236669
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MS25041 PTT Lamp |
At 02:58 PM 3/29/2009, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>I'm installing a couple of these Lamps in my 9A - 1 for Oil Pressure and 1
>for Low Voltage Protection. Now, I've researched these lamps and proper
>circuit runs for a couple of months both on Aeroelectric and other homebuilt
>sites. There is "some" info out there, some of which is confusing and some
>that make sense.
>
>What I've done is attach a drawing ( a jpeg & word doc)of what I determine
>to be the circuit layout for Oil Pressure and Low Voltage. Can you please
>take a look at these and let me know if they're correct and or make
>corrections where needed.
>
>Appreciate your input.
>
>Henry
What you have illustrated will work fine.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MS25041 PTT Lamp |
Thanks Bob
Appreciate it...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MS25041 PTT Lamp
>
> At 02:58 PM 3/29/2009, you wrote:
> >Bob:
> >
> >I'm installing a couple of these Lamps in my 9A - 1 for Oil Pressure and
1
> >for Low Voltage Protection. Now, I've researched these lamps and proper
> >circuit runs for a couple of months both on Aeroelectric and other
homebuilt
> >sites. There is "some" info out there, some of which is confusing and
some
> >that make sense.
> >
> >What I've done is attach a drawing ( a jpeg & word doc)of what I
determine
> >to be the circuit layout for Oil Pressure and Low Voltage. Can you
please
> >take a look at these and let me know if they're correct and or make
> >corrections where needed.
> >
> >Appreciate your input.
> >
> >Henry
>
> What you have illustrated will work fine.
>
>
> 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: SD-8 Components on Firewall? |
At 10:35 AM 3/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>The B&C drawing for the SD-8 regulator (BC219) contains note 3 that states:
>
> "Max ambient temperature 120 degrees F"
>
>and their wiring diagram (504-500) contains note 1 that states:
>
>"Regulator and capacitor should be mounted in a cool place and
>should be mounted on the cockpit side of the firewall".
>
>This drawing also shows a 15 amp in-line fuse on one of the Dyno
>output legs, which I assume is intended to protect the circuit
>extending into the cockpit.
>
>
> >From the grounding locations of the SD-8 components on Z-13/8-Q
> (firewall) and the absence of the fuse on the dyno output, I infer
> that the regulator, capacitor, diode and relay are intended to be
> mounted on the engine side of the firewall with the rest of the DC
> supply and fat wire switching components.
>
>Are these changes from the manufacture's recommendations based on
>upgrades to the components, providing blast tube cooling, bench
>testing, good empirical field results or ?
Probably none of the above. There's been a lot of SD-8 hardware
installed on the engine side of the firewall. At the same time,
to my knowledge there has been no detailed thermal study of
SD-8 regulator/rectifier performance. If the 120F value is indeed a
"hard" limit, then I would be reluctant to install this device
in any aircraft. The LOWEST practical operating domain for
TC aircraft calls for continuous operation at 55C (131F) and
a short time operating temperature at 70C(158F). This is called
out for temperature controlled compartments and not exceeding
15,000' pressure altitude.
Out on the firewall of single engine airplanes we are advised
to go with DO-160 Category B3 where the manufacturer tailors
his design to meet airframe design goals. This is generally
70C continuous and 100C short time operating.
If one starts with a clean piece of paper to meet design
goals, it is a rigorous but not difficult task. I'm guessing
but it's a fair bet that B&C (like many other manufacturers)
is recommending the most benign environment possible for
the installation of their products. Unfortunately, the most
benign benign location in the aircraft is probably in the
pilot's lap. Lacking hard design data to offer comfort in
the most practical locations (firewall fwd or behind panel
where all the convection heat gathers), the next best bet
is not to ask for the pilot to hold it in his lap and WAG it.
Now, there are probably places on the forward side of
your firewall that are COOLER than places on the back
side. This is because once airborne, there's a lot of
air movement (which can make 100F air a better cooling
medium than 60F still air). If it were my airplane,
I'd ask B&C to give me a maximum allowable case temperature
for full load operations. Then thermocouple the case
on a firewall forward installation and see how it
goes. Add an offset for maximum anticipated hot day
operations.
The vast majority of the time, I believe you'll find
that you're okay on the firewall. Just for grins,
if anyone has their SD-8 rectifier/regulator installed
on the aft side of the firewall, it would be interesting
to get a thermocouple measurement of free air vs. case
temperature at THAT location too.
If this sounds like a long answer that says, "I don't
know" . . . you're correct. Without specific knowledge
of design goals for the device combined with real data
confirming as-installed temperature conditions, all else is
hot-air and/or wishful-thinking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Hello Garmin experts...
In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two 5
amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
Chris Stone
RV-8
Newberg, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob...
I see on some Z schematics you are suggesting a relay to switch the E-bus alt.
feed. My thought is that this adds another failure mode. I don't know what the
drop out voltage is for the 701 relay but might it drop out before the battery
goes completely dead when that last couple of minutes of battery life could
be crucial? Why wouldn't using a both poles of a two pole e-bus alt. feed toggle
switch be sufficient to carry 20 amps instead of the relay?
thanks...
Chris Stone
RV-8
Newberg, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Chris;
Not sure what you're looking at Chris. Rev M of the install manual Figure F-10 on page F-21 is the schematic for the typical installation of a GNS 430 and shows power through a 5A CB to pins 19, 20 on connector p4001 , power through a CB to pins 11, 12 of connector P4002(5A 28V or 10A 14V), and then pins 21, 22 of P4002, 77,78 of P4001, and 41 of P4006 all grounded. (no CB's) Where do you see CB's in the grounds? See page 108 of 132 at the following link. http://tinyurl.com/ccfsyq
Bob McC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
Stone
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
Hello Garmin experts...
In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two 5
amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
Chris Stone
RV-8
Newberg, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:46 PM 3/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob...
>
>I see on some Z schematics you are suggesting a relay to switch the
>E-bus alt. feed. My thought is that this adds another failure
>mode. I don't know what the drop out voltage is for the 701 relay
>but might it drop out before the battery goes completely dead when
>that last couple of minutes of battery life could be crucial? Why
>wouldn't using a both poles of a two pole e-bus alt. feed toggle
>switch be sufficient to carry 20 amps instead of the relay?
12v relays will stay engaged long after the battery
is gone. A 12v battery is 95+ percent used up at 10.5
volts. A typical 12v relay drops at under 4 volts.
Further the relay is used to provide REMOTE control
of a potentially, always-hot feeder to the e-bus
from the battery bus. It's like a mini-battery
contactor effecting LOCAL control of the alternate
feed path AT THE BATTERY BUS.
It becomes advisable when the e-bus alternate feed
fuse goes over 7A . . . which is 2A greater
than the "rule from dark places" suggesting: "long,
always-hot feeders should be protected at 5A or less."
The 5A suggestion is in consideration of the
response time for breakers. Fuses are so much
faster than breakers that I've suggested we
can go up to 7A . . . but if you want to go
higher . . . it's up to you and depending on
whence your own "rule" arises.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: PA-22 system |
Good Morning jetech,
Just out of curiosity, do you plan on getting a local FAA approval via the
337 route for that modification or do you think it meets the criteria for a
minor alteration?
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 3/26/2009 6:54:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
av8tor(at)hughes.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jetech"
After looking at the Z-13/8 schematic and trying to figure out the best
layout for the old tripacer I think I am close to having a initial plan.
For those not familiar with the PA-22, there is an electrical box mounted
under the pilots seat on the front side of the seat structure. This box houses
the original starter contactor, start button, regulator, and some fuses. The
battery is located under the co-pilots seat.
I would like to fit the batt bus (FH-6 block), Batt contactor, Starter
contactor, push to start, alternator current limiter, two shunts main/aux, and
the
relay for the HD E-buss circuit under the seat. The push to start circuit
will be hooked from the main bus side of the batt contactor to a CB then to the
starter contactor. The CB will also be with the under seat components.
We removed the original brake cylinder from under the pilots seat so I am
trying to figure out the best method to get these components under the seat. I
would like to find some avionics tray slides and fit everything on a slide
out tray, width would be limited but there would be some depth.
The starter and alternator cables will run forward 70" and 80" to their
units (Sky-tec and L-40). The
The behind the panel components will be the main buss, E-bus, and F1 test
receptacle.
On the cabin side of the firewall will be the main controller/regulator
(LR3C-14), Aux regulator (PMR1C and OV kit), and ground system (GB24).
The battery will have its original local ground.
I have a question:
Can the circuit that runs from the SD-8 shunt to the batt side of the batt
contactor instead be fused at the batt bus using an ATC fuse?
I welcome any suggestions to what I have planned so far.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236301#236301
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoc
lk/100126575x1220439616x1201372437/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PA-22 system |
At 06:50 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>After looking at the Z-13/8 schematic and trying to figure out the
>best layout for the old tripacer I think I am close to having a initial plan.
>
>For those not familiar with the PA-22, there is an electrical box
>mounted under the pilots seat on the front side of the seat
>structure. This box houses the original starter contactor, start
>button, regulator, and some fuses. The battery is located under the
>co-pilots seat.
>
>I would like to fit the batt bus (FH-6 block), Batt contactor,
>Starter contactor, push to start, alternator current limiter, two
>shunts main/aux, and the relay for the HD E-buss circuit under the
>seat. The push to start circuit will be hooked from the main bus
>side of the batt contactor to a CB then to the starter contactor.
>The CB will also be with the under seat components.
>
>We removed the original brake cylinder from under the pilots seat so
>I am trying to figure out the best method to get these components
>under the seat. I would like to find some avionics tray slides and
>fit everything on a slide out tray, width would be limited but there
>would be some depth.
>
>The starter and alternator cables will run forward 70" and 80" to
>their units (Sky-tec and L-40). The
>
>The behind the panel components will be the main buss, E-bus, and F1
>test receptacle.
>
>On the cabin side of the firewall will be the main
>controller/regulator (LR3C-14), Aux regulator (PMR1C and OV kit),
>and ground system (GB24).
>
>The battery will have its original local ground.
>
>I have a question:
>Can the circuit that runs from the SD-8 shunt to the batt side of
>the batt contactor instead be fused at the batt bus using an ATC fuse?
>
>I welcome any suggestions to what I have planned so far.
Before we launch into details of the implementation, have
you flown your proposal by the local FAA and enlisted
the assistance of an AI?
I had a customer some years ago with a very nice
Tri-Pacer but with a threadbare, arcane and
minimalist electrical system. He wanted to put
Z13/8 in the airplane. He might as well have wanted
to replace the engine with a turbofan. The
system was going to cost about $1200 in parts
to install . . . and $50K or so in paperwork
to get an STC.
He ended up putting an L40 on with a 337 and
rewired all the original hardware with 22759.
That only cost him $2000.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
Wow, what a difference a GPS makes! After looking at that ugly, black,
useless map page on the bench and then in the plane I'd been unimpressed
with GRT's map. Now I have color, airports, runways and functionality I
hadn't seen before. It just doesn't demo well without a working GPS.
Although I plan on using my GX-60 GPS it's not hooked up yet. So I ordered
the Byonics GPS2 to use while building and later as a backup. I got it
hooked up this weekend and it's wonderful. It's well worth the $75 (incl
shipping) just to have everything work on the bench. Thanks for the
reference.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael W
Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232
http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/gps.php
from their website.
===============
The GPS2 has a female DB-9 connector to connect directly to the
TinyTrak3Plus, is very sensitive, and is built with the SiRFstar III
chipset. It has the same DB-9 connector as the GPS1. It features Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) to provide unmatched accuracy and performance. It
has an on-board rechargeable battery for fast satellite acquisition during
power-up, and requires 5V to operate. Tracking up to 20 satellites, the
Byonics GPS2 can be used with almost every major mapping software (NMEA 0183
v2.2 data protocol).
The GPS2 unit comes with a 6 foot cable, an internal magnet for versatile
mounting options, and is water resistant.
It draws 65mA typically, and will work to an altitude of 18 km and speed of
515 m/s. Weight is 3.6oz. See below for more stats.
This is a 5 volt GPS. Do not connect this GPS to 12 volts or it will be
destroyed. If using with a TinyTrak3Plus, configure J7 for 5 volts (the
bottom two of three square pads soldered together). Do not use directly with
a TinyTrak3 (non-Plus). If you have a TinyTrak3, you need a GPAC or GPAP
power adapter below.
Byonics GPS2 - $69. The Byonics GPS2 employs the SiRF III chipset, sends
NMEA data at 4800 baud, and is directly compatible with the TinyTrak3Plus.
Requires 5 volts DC. Pinout: 2 - Serial Out, 3 - Serial In (not normally
used), 4 - 5V Power in, 5 - Ground. Sends NMEA sentences: $GPGSA, $GPRMC,
$GPGGA, $GPGSV.
=================
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Got my Byronics GPS unit and hooked it up yesterday - works great!
I was even able to pry the case apart so I could remove the magnet,
because I have it located on the glareshield in front of the Mag
Compass.
Another problem solved by the AeroElectric list.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Components on Firewall? |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Thanks Bob, interesting food for thought.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236910#236910
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PA-22 system |
| From: | "jetech" <av8tor(at)hughes.net> |
We plan to present an entire package to the FAA for the electrical upgrade including
removing the vacuum pump and installing the SD-8. I am still compiling the
information to make the best argument we can. We will take whatever route they
advise as far as paperwork is concerned.
Bob
I am going on your recommendation to present a detailed paperwork package that
will hopefully put put things in our favor.
This is our company airplane, we are an aircraft maintenance business, My partner
is an IA and DAR so the paperwork will be free as long as an STC isn't involved.
We hope it will all be done on 337.
Our desire is to update this plane and pave the way for others to do the same.
If approved we will post the paperwork on the short wing piper club site so others
can use it without cost just as Bob has.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236955#236955
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob...
Thanks for your well reasoned reply.
Chris
>>
>>Bob...
>>
>>I see on some Z schematics you are suggesting a relay to switch the
>>E-bus alt. feed. My thought is that this adds another failure
>>mode. I don't know what the drop out voltage is for the 701 relay
>>but might it drop out before the battery goes completely dead when
>>that last couple of minutes of battery life could be crucial? Why
>>wouldn't using a both poles of a two pole e-bus alt. feed toggle
>>switch be sufficient to carry 20 amps instead of the relay?
>
> 12v relays will stay engaged long after the battery
> is gone. A 12v battery is 95+ percent used up at 10.5
> volts. A typical 12v relay drops at under 4 volts.
>
> Further the relay is used to provide REMOTE control
> of a potentially, always-hot feeder to the e-bus
> from the battery bus. It's like a mini-battery
> contactor effecting LOCAL control of the alternate
> feed path AT THE BATTERY BUS.
>
> It becomes advisable when the e-bus alternate feed
> fuse goes over 7A . . . which is 2A greater
> than the "rule from dark places" suggesting: "long,
> always-hot feeders should be protected at 5A or less."
>
> The 5A suggestion is in consideration of the
> response time for breakers. Fuses are so much
> faster than breakers that I've suggested we
> can go up to 7A . . . but if you want to go
> higher . . . it's up to you and depending on
> whence your own "rule" arises.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
3/31/2009
Hello Robin Hou, You wrote: "I want to build a power cable so I can practice
using my Garmin GNC 420W at home."
I don't know what your practice will consist of, but wouldn't the free
Garmin trainer serve that purpose better? See this for (very large) down
load:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/downloadsUpdates.jsp?product=010-00412-01&cID=194&pID=301
I have this trainer on my computer and it works great -- probably better
than anything that you could set up.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
_________________________
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
I want to build a power cable so I can practice using my Garmin GNC 420W at
home. -I called Garmin and was told that I can order their $125 connecto
r kit to build my cable.
The GPS side uses a 78-pin connector that looks like a D-subminiature 78-pi
n connector. -Mouser has them for around $10. -But Garmin tech told me
that their connectors are not "computer connector" but "aviation connector"
; at $125, it sure feel like aviation grade and
price.
Would this work: http://www.mouser.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?qs=EP%2f
j%252b8r7ekpZ...
-
Thanks in advance.
-
Robin Hou
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Bob...
I have the 400 Series install manual 190-00356-02 Rev B dated November 2006. Page
H-10 figure H-5 Power, lighting and antenna interconnect sheet 1 of 3.
I have attached a PDF of the page.
Also I see that your IM and my IM have different part numbers. Hmmmm?
Chris Stone
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Mar 30, 2009 2:15 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Chris;
>
>Not sure what you're looking at Chris. Rev M of the install manual Figure F-10 on page F-21 is the schematic for the typical installation of a GNS 430 and shows power through a 5A CB to pins 19, 20 on connector p4001 , power through a CB to pins 11, 12 of connector P4002(5A 28V or 10A 14V), and then pins 21, 22 of P4002, 77,78 of P4001, and 41 of P4006 all grounded. (no CB's) Where do you see CB's in the grounds? See page 108 of 132 at the following link. http://tinyurl.com/ccfsyq
>
>Bob McC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
>Stone
>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Hello Garmin experts...
>
>In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two
5 amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
>
>Chris Stone
>RV-8
>Newberg, OR
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Bob...
This is the corect page from the Garmin IM 190-00356-02 Rev B November 2006
Chris
>
>
>Chris;
>
>Not sure what you're looking at Chris. Rev M of the install manual Figure F-10 on page F-21 is the schematic for the typical installation of a GNS 430 and shows power through a 5A CB to pins 19, 20 on connector p4001 , power through a CB to pins 11, 12 of connector P4002(5A 28V or 10A 14V), and then pins 21, 22 of P4002, 77,78 of P4001, and 41 of P4006 all grounded. (no CB's) Where do you see CB's in the grounds? See page 108 of 132 at the following link. http://tinyurl.com/ccfsyq
>
>Bob McC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
>Stone
>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Hello Garmin experts...
>
>In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two
5 amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
>
>Chris Stone
>RV-8
>Newberg, OR
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Morning OC,
I tend to agree with your suggestion and I do the same thing.
One fly in the ointment does irk me somewhat. Garmin has not updated the
database in the trainer for almost eighteen months. In the past, they have
updated it almost every year. I like to go through approaches at home before I
execute them for real.
I have considered getting a docking station for my 430W just so I could
practice while using a current database.
I do that with the GNC 300XL that I have in my Stearman. I wish Garmin had
been as kind to us with the 430W as they were with the GNC 300XL!
If anyone cares to enlighten we electronic amateurs as to how to wire a 4 or
500 series Garmin box for simulated use. I would sure appreciate having that
information.
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 3/31/2009 9:05:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Hello Robin Hou, You wrote: "I want to build a power cable so I can practice
using my Garmin GNC 420W at home."
I don't know what your practice will consist of, but wouldn't the free
Garmin trainer serve that purpose better? See this for (very large) down
load:
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PA-22 system |
At 07:54 PM 3/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>We plan to present an entire package to the FAA for the electrical
>upgrade including removing the vacuum pump and installing the SD-8.
>I am still compiling the information to make the best argument we
>can. We will take whatever route they advise as far as paperwork is concerned.
>
>Bob
>I am going on your recommendation to present a detailed paperwork
>package that will hopefully put put things in our favor.
>
>This is our company airplane, we are an aircraft maintenance
>business, My partner is an IA and DAR so the paperwork will be free
>as long as an STC isn't involved. We hope it will all be done on 337.
>
>Our desire is to update this plane and pave the way for others to do
>the same. If approved we will post the paperwork on the short wing
>piper club site so others can use it without cost just as Bob has.
Oh yeah, I remember talking with you about this
project. Tell you what. If you'll send me your
proposed wiring diagrams I'll see if I can put out
a wire-book that accurately describes your proposal.
I'd also be willing to review your arguments document
for elements of technical accuracy and bureaucratic
persuasion.
What we're dealing with here has nothing to do
with good engineering or flight-worthy design.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Impossible problem |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
HELP !!
I there anyone out there willing to dig in hand help me with an impossible p
roblem ?
I have a Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine.=C2- I have dual fuel pumps an
d dual ignition coils. The airplane has flown. I designed my electrical syst
em (Scheme 1) thinking that alternators and regulators were mostly bullet pr
oof.=C2- Since discovering that was a bad assumption, I decided to power t
he fuel pumps and coils from the battery bus (Scheme 2).=C2- That is the o
nly thing I changed.=C2- Now, fuel pump 2 won=99t run when I select
it with the switch.=C2- I tested the fuel pump with a portable battery and
it runs.=C2- I tested each tab of both switches (Switch analysis). I have
continuity between tab 3 of the fuel pump switch and the connector on the f
uel pump.=C2- I have zero volts on the fuel pump connector. How can that b
e? And why?=C2- Today I changed the wiring to place tabs 2 and 5 of the fu
el pump switch to the battery bus and tabs 2 and 5 of the coil switch to the
battery bus.=C2- Still no joy. I also found that selecting the fuel pump
switch either up or down lights the alternator warning light. That obviously
shouldn't happen. Surely I am overlooking something, Could I have a bad fue
l pump switch? Or what?
Stumped - Jay Bannister
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PA-22 system |
| From: | "jetech" <av8tor(at)hughes.net> |
Ok Bob
That sounds great. I will finish what I have and then send you a copy of the packet.
It may be a few weeks, I don't get much time to work on it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237104#237104
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
I'm curious... what is available for the 300XL to enable practice at home?
I have a 300XL in my Maule. I got the instrument ticket with it and
flew it IFR quite a bit but using it well is always a challenge if not
more than current.
Bill "building an RV10" Watson
Lakeridge Aeropark 8NC8
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning OC,
>
> I tend to agree with your suggestion and I do the same thing.
>
> One fly in the ointment does irk me somewhat. Garmin has not updated
> the database in the trainer for almost eighteen months. In the past,
> they have updated it almost every year. I like to go through
> approaches at home before I execute them for real.
>
> I have considered getting a docking station for my 430W just so I
> could practice while using a current database.
>
> I do that with the GNC 300XL that I have in my Stearman. I wish Garmin
> had been as kind to us with the 430W as they were with the GNC 300XL!
>
> If anyone cares to enlighten we electronic amateurs as to how to wire
> a 4 or 500 series Garmin box for simulated use. I would sure
> appreciate having that information.
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Evening Bill,
All it takes is power. There is one of those little quarter inch or so plugs
just for that purpose. I use a universal Radio Shack 12 volt DC power
source.
There is a simulator mode. It tells all about it in the operators manual. I
just sit it on my desk, plug in the power cord and shoot approaches as much as
I want. It isn't as nice as a good computer program, but it does allow me to
practice the steps needed for an approach. Since my Stearman is not legal
for IFR, it is just a toy, but If I ever got stuck, I just might use it to find
a place to land!
I have shot a few approaches under the hood with a safety pilot in the front
pit. Actually works quite well. However, as you say, if you don't use it
much, it is easy to forget the required steps.
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 3/31/2009 7:40:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
I'm curious... what is available for the 300XL to enable practice at home?
I have a 300XL in my Maule. I got the instrument ticket with it and
flew it IFR quite a bit but using it well is always a challenge if not
more than current.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Chris;
This is a case of misinterpretation of the information shown. First the diagram
you attached does NOT show a CB in the ground wire. The labeling specifying the
two ground wires shows an amperage for a CB because the wire gauge required
changes depending upon which CB is used in the wire connected to pins 11,12 immediately
above (based on 14 or 28 volt systems) but no CB is shown in the ground
wires. The ground wire label is simply guiding you as to correctly determine
the wire gauge required for these wires.
Bob McC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
Stone
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
Bob...
This is the corect page from the Garmin IM 190-00356-02 Rev B November 2006
Chris
>
>
>Chris;
>
>Not sure what you're looking at Chris. Rev M of the install manual Figure F-10 on page F-21 is the schematic for the typical installation of a GNS 430 and shows power through a 5A CB to pins 19, 20 on connector p4001 , power through a CB to pins 11, 12 of connector P4002(5A 28V or 10A 14V), and then pins 21, 22 of P4002, 77,78 of P4001, and 41 of P4006 all grounded. (no CB's) Where do you see CB's in the grounds? See page 108 of 132 at the following link. http://tinyurl.com/ccfsyq
>
>Bob McC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
>Stone
>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Hello Garmin experts...
>
>In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two
5 amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
>
>Chris Stone
>RV-8
>Newberg, OR
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Does anyone yet have any direct experience with the new NavWorx
ADSB-in system? Their web site is kind of scant on detail.
I'd like interface data like are they providing straight DO-282A out?
It's a great idea. Free broadcast traffic, weather, and airspace.
For a $1000. I'd rather buy their product than dink around with modifying
an old analog TV sat receiver and a demodulator.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237200#237200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
This may or may not be helpful, but problems like your are most
frequently due to the actual wiring in the airframe being different from
whats on paper. The most profitable thing to do is to voltage and
continuity test to assure conformance to your design.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237202#237202
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GNS 430 question |
Bob...
You are absolutely right. I now see what Garmin is communicating with their schematic.
Maybe a bit unconventional.
Thanks!
Chris
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Apr 1, 2009 12:59 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Chris;
>
>This is a case of misinterpretation of the information shown. First the diagram
you attached does NOT show a CB in the ground wire. The labeling specifying
the two ground wires shows an amperage for a CB because the wire gauge required
changes depending upon which CB is used in the wire connected to pins 11,12
immediately above (based on 14 or 28 volt systems) but no CB is shown in the ground
wires. The ground wire label is simply guiding you as to correctly determine
the wire gauge required for these wires.
>
>Bob McC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
>Stone
>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:04 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>
>
>Bob...
>
>This is the corect page from the Garmin IM 190-00356-02 Rev B November 2006
>
>Chris
>
>>
>>
>>Chris;
>>
>>Not sure what you're looking at Chris. Rev M of the install manual Figure F-10 on page F-21 is the schematic for the typical installation of a GNS 430 and shows power through a 5A CB to pins 19, 20 on connector p4001 , power through a CB to pins 11, 12 of connector P4002(5A 28V or 10A 14V), and then pins 21, 22 of P4002, 77,78 of P4001, and 41 of P4006 all grounded. (no CB's) Where do you see CB's in the grounds? See page 108 of 132 at the following link. http://tinyurl.com/ccfsyq
>>
>>Bob McC
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
>>Stone
>>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430 question
>>
>>
>>
>>Hello Garmin experts...
>>
>>In reviewing the Garmin 430 install manual the power wiring diagram shows two
5 amp CBs on the 2 of 3 grounds. This is in addition to CBs on all the positive
power supply lines. What does this accomplish? I can find nothing in the
text that provides an explanation.
>>
>>Chris Stone
>>RV-8
>>Newberg, OR
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
At 03:38 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote:
>HELP !!
>
>I there anyone out there willing to dig in hand
>help me with an impossible problem ?
>
>I have a Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine. I
>have dual fuel pumps and dual ignition coils.
>The airplane has flown. I designed my electrical
>system (Scheme 1) thinking that alternators and
>regulators were mostly bullet proof. Since
>discovering that was a bad assumption, I decided
>to power the fuel pumps and coils from the
>battery bus (Scheme 2). That is the only thing
>I changed. Now, fuel pump 2 won=99t run when I
>select it with the switch. I tested the fuel
>pump with a portable battery and it runs. I
>tested each tab of both switches (Switch
>analysis). I have continuity between tab 3 of
>the fuel pump switch and the connector on the
>fuel pump. I have zero volts on the fuel pump
>connector. How can that be? And why? Today I
>changed the wiring to place tabs 2 and 5 of the
>fuel pump switch to the battery bus and tabs 2
>and 5 of the coil switch to the battery
>bus. Still no joy. I also found that selecting
>the fuel pump switch either up or down lights
>the alternator warning light. That obviously
>shouldn't happen. Surely I am overlooking
>something, Could I have a bad fuel pump switch? Or what?
If it were my airplane, I'd have each of the 4 systems
control through it's own switch and battery bus fuss.
Using -10 switch for BOTH sets of pumps/coils puts a single
point of failure in both pairs of devices. Further,
each device should get it's own fuse at the battery bus.
The 25A fuse and downstream wiring becomes another single
point of failure for two devices. Those are really fat
feeders and fuses . . . how much current do each of these
systems draw?
I'm wondering about the PMR1C rectifier/regulator teamed
with the 20A John Deere PM alternator. The B&C website
speaks to use of the PMR1C with their line of 10A alternators.
Even so, their installation data speaks to a maximum operating
case temperature of 175F and cautions about paying attention
to heating with YOUR installation particulars. See:
http://bandc.biz/PMR1C_Install_DWG.pdf
If I extrapolate their measured temperature values up
to a 20A operating load, you'll be bumping the 175F
limit. Their measured values were probably on the bench
in still air at room temp. Your installation will
no doubt have more air movement but perhaps hotter
environment. It's worth investigating with a measurement
of temperature in flight and at full load.
A useful data point: I'm told that John Deere makes
a PM alternator rectifier-regulator that is compatible
with both their 20 and 35 amp machines. Part No is
AM101406. Pictures of the John Deere products are
seen in
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/dynamo.html
Should you discover that the PMR1C runs a bit too toasty
for comfort, the JD product may offer a plan-b solution.
You have too much "stuff" on your e-bus which prompts
a really fat feeder for the alternate feed path. This
suggests some rethinking on switching of the alternate
feed path feeder to a Z-32 configuration?
Are the position lights LED devices? 2A is light for
feeding incandescent lamps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
At 03:38 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote:
>HELP !!
>
>I there anyone out there willing to dig in hand
>help me with an impossible problem ?
>
>I have a Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine. I
>have dual fuel pumps and dual ignition coils.
>The airplane has flown. I designed my electrical
>system (Scheme 1) thinking that alternators and
>regulators were mostly bullet proof. Since
>discovering that was a bad assumption, I decided
>to power the fuel pumps and coils from the
>battery bus (Scheme 2). That is the only thing
>I changed. Now, fuel pump 2 won=99t run when I
>select it with the switch. I tested the fuel
>pump with a portable battery and it runs. I
>tested each tab of both switches (Switch
>analysis). I have continuity between tab 3 of
>the fuel pump switch and the connector on the
>fuel pump. I have zero volts on the fuel pump
>connector. How can that be? And why? Today I
>changed the wiring to place tabs 2 and 5 of the
>fuel pump switch to the battery bus and tabs 2
>and 5 of the coil switch to the battery
>bus. Still no joy. I also found that selecting
>the fuel pump switch either up or down lights
>the alternator warning light. That obviously
>shouldn't happen. Surely I am overlooking
>something, Could I have a bad fuel pump switch? Or what?
Okay, assuming no modifications to the architecture
are being considered, let's consider what you've obseved.
There is no connection on your drawing between the fuel pump
selection switch and the alternator warning light. This
suggests a wiring error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Ira,
I agree in terms of the trade-off for cobbling one together. Looks like
their best deal at $1500 is almost a no-brainer. I disagree on the
motive for this equipment as this is primarily aimed at big-brother
tactics. The government driven mentality is by default completely
un-American. Whether you realize it this year or in 5 years, they are
pinning the tail on your donkey. They'll do it anyway, I just refuse to
help them.
I'll keep the $1500 in my pocket and use if for fuel to get to a great
trout fishing stream where by-the-way ADSB has no coverage.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rampil
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:13 AM
Subject: [Probable SPAM] AeroElectric-List: NavWorx
Does anyone yet have any direct experience with the new NavWorx
ADSB-in system? Their web site is kind of scant on detail.
I'd like interface data like are they providing straight DO-282A out?
It's a great idea. Free broadcast traffic, weather, and airspace.
For a $1000. I'd rather buy their product than dink around with
modifying
an old analog TV sat receiver and a demodulator.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237200#237200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
A good write up by Tim Olson......
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: NavWorx
Does anyone yet have any direct experience with the new NavWorx
ADSB-in system? Their web site is kind of scant on detail.
I'd like interface data like are they providing straight DO-282A out?
It's a great idea. Free broadcast traffic, weather, and airspace.
For a $1000. I'd rather buy their product than dink around with modifying
an old analog TV sat receiver and a demodulator.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237200#237200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 9:38 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
At 03:38 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote:
HELP !!
I there anyone out there willing to dig in hand help me with an
impossible problem ?
I have a Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine.=C2- I have dual fuel pumps
and dual ignition coils. The airplane has flown. I designed my electrical
system (Scheme 1) thinking that alternators and regulators were mostly
bullet proof.=C2- Since discovering that was a bad assumption, I
decided to power the fuel pumps and coils from the battery bus (Scheme
2).=C2- That is the only thing I changed.=C2- Now, fuel pump 2
won=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t run when I select it with the switch.=C2- I t
ested the fuel
pump with a portable battery and it runs.=C2- I tested each tab of both
switches (Switch analysis). I have continuity between tab 3 of the fuel
pump switch and the connector on the fuel pump.=C2- I have zero volts
on the fuel pump connector. How can that be? And why?=C2- Today I
changed the wiring to place tabs 2 and 5 of the fuel pump switch to the
battery bus and tabs 2 and 5 of the coil switch to the battery bus.=C2-
Still no joy. I also found that selecting the fuel pump switch either up
or down lights the alternator warning light. That obviously shouldn't
happen. Surely I am overlooking something, Cou
ld I have a bad fuel pump
switch? Or what?
=C2-=C2- If it were my airplane, I'd have each of the 4 systems
=C2-=C2- control through it's own switch and battery bus fuss.
=C2-=C2- Using -10 switch for BOTH sets of pumps/coils puts a
single
=C2-=C2- point of failure in both pairs of devices. Further,
=C2-=C2- each device should get it's own fuse at the battery
bus.
=C2-=C2- The 25A fuse and downstream wiring becomes another
single
=C2-=C2- point of failure for two devices. Those are really fat
=C2-=C2- feeders and fuses . . . how much current do each of
these
=C2-=C2- systems draw?
The way it is currently wired, should one of the 25A fuses blow,
I should still have power to both switches.=C2- I do plan to install a
larger battery bus fuse block and run 4 wires to these switches.
I will use 10A fuses and run 16AWG wires to the switches.
I simply don't have room for two more switches, so I will have to
risk failure of the -10 switches.
=C2-=C2- I'm wondering about the PMR1C rectifier/regulator
teamed
=C2-=C2- with the 20A John Deere PM alternator. The B&C
website
=C2-=C2- speaks to use of the PMR1C with their line of 10A
alternators.
=C2-=C2- Even so, their installation data speaks to a maximum
operating
=C2-=C2- case temperature of 175F and cautions about paying
attention
=C2-=C2- to heating with YOUR installation particulars. See:
=C2-=C2-
http://bandc.biz/PMR1C_Install_DWG.pdf
=C2-=C2- If I ex
trapolate their measured temperature values
up
=C2-=C2- to a 20A operating load, you'll be bumping the 175F
=C2-=C2- limit. Their measured values were probably on the bench
=C2-=C2- in still air at room temp. Your installation will
=C2-=C2- no doubt have more air movement but perhaps hotter
=C2-=C2- environment. It's worth investigating with a
measurement
=C2-=C2- of temperature in flight and at full load.
I have that regulator mounted on the aft side of the firewall,
away from electronic heat loads.=C2- I will still be keeping an eye on it.
=C2-=C2- A useful data point: I'm told that John Deere makes
=C2-=C2- a PM alternator rectifier-regulator that is compatible
=C2-=C2- with both their 20 and 35 amp machines. Part No is
=C2-=C2- AM101406. Pictures of the John Deere products are
=C2-=C2- seen in
=C2-=C2-
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/dynamo.html
=C2-=C2- Should you discover that the PMR1C runs a bit too
toasty
=C2-=C2- for comfort, the JD product may offer a plan-b
solution.
=C2-=C2- You have too much "stuff" on your e-bus which
prompts
=C2-=C2- a really fat feeder for the alternate feed path. This
=C2-=C2- suggests some rethinking on switching of the alternate
=C2-=C2- feed path feeder to a Z-32 configuration?
The largest current draw on the e-bus is the flap motor.
In case I have to switch to the e-bus, I will have all comm
and nav available and will probably shut those down before
using flaps.
I wanted the fat wiring in case someone other than
me who didn't understand the system and used everything at once.
=C2-=C2- Are the position lights LED devices? 2A is light for
=C2-=C2- feeding incandescent lamps.
That is a typo.=C2- I actually have a 5A circuit breaker
on the nav light circuit.
My MAIN source of concern is that EVERYTHING
worked properly before I made this change; and the
ONLY thing I changed was the source of power to
the coil and fuel pump switches.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: [Probable SPAM] NavWorx |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Glenn,
I agree its about money, but you got it wrong, I myself heard the
FAA Administrator herself say that shutting down the ground based radar
facilities and using ADSB would save so much on labor costs that
she could give a UAT and display to every pilot in the country in the
first year and still save tens of billions of dollars in that year and more
later!
PS The FAA owns you whether they ping you with radar or with an ADSB
pulse
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237251#237251
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
At 12:37 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
>My MAIN source of concern is that EVERYTHING
>worked properly before I made this change; and the
>ONLY thing I changed was the source of power to
>the coil and fuel pump switches.
>
>Jay
Understand. Without being able to put my
hands on the problem, the most I (or anyone
else) can do is hypothesize about a lot
of things . . . the majority of which will
be irrelevant/wrong.
The laws of physics do not shift their
effects to confound us. There is a specific
reason why you are experiencing the problem
you cited. If you've ever played the board game
Clue, you'll understand that arriving at root
cause is a distillation of facts first to
eliminate those that do not fit into an
explanation of effects and finally identify the
order in which remaining facts explain the
cause for symptoms you've identified.
Snip off the tie wraps, check the wires, follow
the path from bus to appliance with a voltmeter
probe . . . nobody sez it's easy . . . but it
works every time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Bob,
Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been repealed, or that
I was losing my ever-lovin' mind !? Now that you have confirmed that those laws
are still intact;? I know that my next step is to take all the wiring off those
two switches.? Then I will positively identify each wire before I reinstall
it on the switch.? I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.
Thanks again - Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
At 12:37 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
My MAIN source of concern
is that EVERYTHING
worked properly before I made this change; and the
ONLY thing I changed was the source of power to
the coil and fuel pump switches.
Jay
??? Understand. Without being able to put my
? hands on the problem, the most I (or anyone
? else) can do is hypothesize about a lot
? of things . . . the majority of which will
? be irrelevant/wrong.
? The laws of physics do not shift their
? effects to confound us. There is a specific
? reason why you are experiencing the problem
? you cited. If you've ever played the board game
? Clue, you'll understand that arriving at root
? cause is a distillation of facts first to
? eliminate those that do not fit into an
? explanation of effects and finally identify the
? order in which remaining facts explain the
? cause for symptoms you've identified.
? Snip off the tie wraps, check the wires, follow
? the path from bus to appliance with a voltmeter
? probe . . . nobody sez it's easy . . . but it
? works every time.
? Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Afternoon Bill,
I did wire up a series of lights and switches so that I am able to use all
GPS Approach functions in the Stearman even though I do not have a classic C
DI
or annunciator panel. Consequently, just playing with it at my work table
does allow me to practice my approaches.
I think Garmin dropped the ball when they acquiesced to one stupid FED who
insisted that Garmin add the resolver and the annunciator. Fortunately for a
ll
of us, that FED was replaced with a more sensible inspector, but the damage
was already done and we are still stuck with a deal we don't need. Such is
life!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/1/2009 1:52:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
Thanks Bob. I forgot about that feature once the box was in the plane.
Given the critical role of the external annunciator panel and the
interaction with my single CDI head, the things I always need to review
require the whole panel.
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops =93 Starting at $399
ttp:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paula Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Bob, I thought the 430's had an anuciator built in. So an anuciator will be
required for IFR flight? Do any of the EFIS dispalys perform this function
?=0AThanks, Tim=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Bob
sV35B(at)aol.com" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0AS
ent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:55:55 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
400W/420W/430W Power cable=0A=0AGood Afternoon Bill,=0A=0AI did wire up a s
eries of lights and switches so that I am able to use all GPS Approach func
tions in the Stearman even though I do not have a classic CDI or annunciato
r panel. Consequently, just playing with it at my work table does allow me
to practice my approaches.- =0A=0AI think Garmin dropped the ball when th
ey acquiesced to one stupid FED who insisted that Garmin add the resolver a
nd the annunciator. Fortunately for all of us, that FED was replaced with a
more sensible inspector, but the damage was already done and we are still
stuck with a deal we don't need. Such is life!=0A=0AHappy Skies=0A=0AOld Bo
b=0A=0AIn a message dated 4/1/2009 1:52:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Maul
eDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:=0AThanks Bob.- I forgot about that feature once
the box was in the plane. =0A=0AGiven the critical role of the external an
nunciator panel and the =0Ainteraction with my single CDI head, the things
I always need to review =0Arequire the whole panel.=0A=0A=0A=0A____________
===============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Has anyone increased setpoint voltage on Rotax /Ducati |
regulator?
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Has anyone increased setpoint voltage on a Ducati regulator for Rotax 4
stroke?
13.7 or 13.8 volts is not ideal for an Odyssey battery.
14.7 is better.
Has anyone done something like install a diode
in series with the sense wire (C) ofthe Ducati regulator?
Information and experience welcomed.
Thx.
Ron
Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | currydon(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
No annunciator is needed if the 430 is mounted within 14 inches of the
centerline of the six pack (that number is from memory but it's spelled
out in the install manual).
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paula
Andres
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
Bob, I thought the 430's had an anuciator built in. So an anuciator will
be required for IFR flight? Do any of the EFIS dispalys perform this
function?
Thanks, Tim
_____
From: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:55:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
Good Afternoon Bill,
I did wire up a series of lights and switches so that I am able to use
all GPS Approach functions in the Stearman even though I do not have a
classic CDI or annunciator panel. Consequently, just playing with it at
my work table does allow me to practice my approaches.
I think Garmin dropped the ball when they acquiesced to one stupid FED
who insisted that Garmin add the resolver and the annunciator.
Fortunately for all of us, that FED was replaced with a more sensible
inspector, but the damage was already done and we are still stuck with a
deal we don't need. Such is life!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/1/2009 1:52:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
Thanks Bob. I forgot about that feature once the box was in the plane.
Given the critical role of the external annunciator panel and the
interaction with my single CDI head, the things I always need to review
require the whole panel.
http://wwtronics.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Evening Tim,
If the 400 or 500 series box is located in the pilot's primary viewing area
,
no annunciator is required. Not sure whether or not that applies to
homebuilt aircraft. For a certificated aircraft, the dimensions are quite s
pecific
and are based on the pilot's eye location. I am absolutely certain that if
a
homebuilt location meets the certificated specifications, no annunciator is
needed.
Not sure about the various EFIS units, but I wouldn't be at all surprised i
f
they did.
Does that help any?
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 4/1/2009 8:38:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
Bob, I thought the 430's had an annunciator built in. So an annunciator wil
l
be required for IFR flight? Do any of the EFIS displays perform this
function?
Thanks, Tim
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops =93 Starting at $399
ttp:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
At 03:08 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been
>repealed, or that I was losing my ever-lovin' mind ! Now that you
>have confirmed that those laws are still intact; I know that my
>next step is to take all the wiring off those two switches. Then I
>will positively identify each wire before I reinstall it on the
>switch. I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.
In particular, you need to identify the "mystery"
connection between pump switches and your alternator
warning light behavior.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Evening Once Again Tim,
My primary gripe with the stupid FED was his insistence on having a resolve
r
function for the standalone GPS units. For a combo GPS/VOR like the 400 or
500 series, the resolver is a non issue. It is needed for the VOR portion.
For
the other early GPS only sets, we could have a thousand bucks per
installation had the resolver not been required. Not only that, the set woul
d have been
easier to use, but that is all water over the dam now!
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 4/1/2009 8:38:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
Bob, I thought the 430's had an annunciator built in. So an annunciator wil
l
be required for IFR flight? Do any of the EFIS displays perform this
function?
Thanks, Tim
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops =93 Starting at $399
ttp:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Has anyone increased setpoint voltage on Rotax |
/Ducati regulator?
At 08:40 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
>Has anyone increased setpoint voltage on a Ducati regulator for
>Rotax 4 stroke?
>
>13.7 or 13.8 volts is not ideal for an Odyssey battery. 14.7 is better.
>
>Has anyone done something like install a diode in series with the
>sense wire (C) of the Ducati regulator?
From what we think we understand about how the Ducati
regulator works, your suggestion fits. Give it a try
and let us know how it works!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Darn!
I said: "we could have a thousand bucks per installation"
Meant to say: "we could have SAVED a thousand bucks per installation"
Sorry 'bout that!
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 4/1/2009 10:33:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
we could have a thousand bucks per installation
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops =93 Starting at $399
ttp:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paula Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Yes thanks. I thought it did but wasn't sure. =0ATim=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________
________________________=0AFrom: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>=0ATo
: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:23:52
PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable=0A=0AGood E
vening Tim,=0A=0AIf the 400 or 500 series box is located in the pilot's pri
mary viewing area, no annunciator is required. Not sure whether or not that
applies to homebuilt aircraft. For a certificated aircraft, the dimensions
are quite specific and are based on the pilot's eye location.- I am abso
lutely certain that if a homebuilt location meets the certificated specific
ations, no annunciator is needed.=0A=0ANot sure about the various EFIS unit
s, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did.=0A=0ADoes that help any?
=0A=0AHappy Skies=0A=0AOld Bob=0AAKA=0ABob Siegfried=0AAncient Aviator=0A62
8 West 86th Street=0ADowners Grove, IL 60516=0A630 985-8502 =0AStearman N39
77A=0ABrookeridge Air Park LL22 =0A=0AIn a message dated 4/1/2009 8:38:41 P
.M. Central Daylight Time, tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net writes:=0ABob, I thought t
he 430's had an annunciator built in. So an annunciator will be required fo
r IFR flight? Do any of the EFIS displays perform this function?=0AThanks,
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | a simulator mode |
4/2/2009
Hello Old Bob, Apparently the Garmin 400 and 500 series GPS units do not
include a simulator mode.
I found the term "demo mode" in my 430W manual, but no words at all on what
it was.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==================================================
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Bill,
>
> All it takes is power. There is one of those little quarter inch or so
> plugs just for that purpose. I use a universal Radio Shack 12 volt DC
> power source.
>
> There is a simulator mode. It tells all about it in the operators
> manual. I just sit it on my desk, plug in the power cord and shoot
> approaches as much as I want. It isn't as nice as a good computer
> program, but it does allow me to practice the steps needed for an
> approach. Since my Stearman is not legal for IFR, it is just a toy,
> but If I ever got stuck, I just might use it to find a place to land!
>
> I have shot a few approaches under the hood with a safety pilot in the
> front pit. Actually works quite well. However, as you say, if you
> don't use it much, it is easy to forget the required steps.
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
Bob,
There was a question that a few of us were debating and would be interested in
your input on.
Assuming you have a single battery installation and a good (regulated) alternator
doing its thing as expected (putting out 13.8ish volts), what would be the
effect on the system if the battery was disconnected (like if primary battery
cable came undone or was disconnected)? I know the battery acts like a capacitor
to dampen the bus voltage (and fluctuations from the alternator), but would
the alternator continue to output the right voltage in the quantity (current)
as dictated by the active loads on the bus? In other words, could you fly indefinitely
as long as the active load did not exceed the alternator capacity
(and assuming the regulator was working appropriately)?
Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237398#237398
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 04/02/2009 01:57 PM, tx_jayhawk wrote:
> but would the alternator continue to output the right voltage in the quantity
(current) as dictated by the active loads on the bus? In other words, could
you fly indefinitely as long as the active load did not exceed the alternator
capacity (and assuming the regulator was working appropriately)?
>
I had that exact thing happen in a Toyota Corolla (battery connector
broke off). The car ran fine until the headlights were turned on, then
it ran very rough, then fine again once I turned the lights off. I
drove it several miles to a place where I could replace the battery
terminal.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
4/3/2009
Hello Scott, You wrote: "....a few of us were debating.... "
This very subject was discussed between Bob Nuckolls and myself. See
archived messages #37408 and #37413 below for the actual incident involved.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
================================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good
Alternator?
From: "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com>
Bob,
There was a question that a few of us were debating and would be interested
in
your input on.
Assuming you have a single battery installation and a good (regulated)
alternator
doing its thing as expected (putting out 13.8ish volts), what would be the
effect on the system if the battery was disconnected (like if primary
battery
cable came undone or was disconnected)? I know the battery acts like a
capacitor
to dampen the bus voltage (and fluctuations from the alternator), but would
the alternator continue to output the right voltage in the quantity
(current)
as dictated by the active loads on the bus? In other words, could you fly
indefinitely
as long as the active load did not exceed the alternator capacity
(and assuming the regulator was working appropriately)?
Thanks,
Scott
================================================
Message: #37408
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Electrical Risk
Date: Jul 07, 2007
7/7/2007
Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, I recently became aware of an
aircraft electrical event that I'd like your opinions on:
1) Situation: Type certificated aircraft. Day VFR, shut down for refueling
at a field a short flying distance from home field (fuel is cheaper).
Maintenance with significant delay until following week (this was Friday
afternoon) was possible. Retrieval of pilots by third party driving
automobile very awkward.
2) Upon starting attempt starter gave a brief bump to prop and then all
electrical feed from the battery to the aircraft ceased.
3) Borrowed voltmeter and some poking around revealed that the battery had
24.8 volts available.
4) The main battery contactor ("Battery Relay" P/N 6041H189) would click
once each time when the master battery switch was turned on, but no
voltage
would appear on the output terminal of the contactor.
5) Conclusion was reached that the main battery contactor had failed
internally.
6) Solution applied was to use a battery jumper cable to bypass the main
battery contactor.
7) The aircraft was then started with the key switch in a normal fashion.
8) Once the alternator started functioning, after the engine started
running, electricity was available in a normal fashion.
9) The aircraft was flown to home base with normal electrical functioning,
but with no battery available to either buffer / cushion the alternator
output or provide electricity in case of alternator failure or opening of
the 50 amp alternator feed line circuit breaker.
10) Flight risk was considered acceptable because a no electrical supply
VFR
landing could be made at either of two non towered airports in the
vicinity.
Questions are:
A) Was any part of the electrical system put at risk of damage by
operating
the aircraft in this manner for the short flight to home field? If so,
why?
B) Where is the best source to buy this rather obsolete "Battery Relay"
P/N
6041H189; NSN 5945-00-588-8555, or a currently manufactured acceptable
substitute part?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: Could you please respond direct as well as to the list -- I only get
the
list digest so have a 24 hour delay.
PPS: This is the second main battery contactor failure that I am aware of
within the last year. Other failure was with a garden variety contactor
(P/N
111-226) when the very small coil wire fractured. I have rewired my
amateur
built experimental a bit with this failure in mind.
=====================================================
Message: #37413
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electrical Risk
Date: Jul 07, 2007
7/7/2007
Hello Bob, Thanks for your detailed and prompt response to my request
for
help. I'll follow up with a few comments put in [brackets].
Skipping most of OC's original email -- it is available in the archives
if
needed.
> Questions (from OC) are:
>
> A) Was any part of the electrical system put at risk of damage by
> operating the aircraft in this manner for the short flight to home
field?
> If so, why?
>
> Slightly. The alternator was running without benefit of a battery
on
> line. If I were
> going to ferry a similarly afflicted aircraft, I would make a solid
> connection of battery
> relay, fat wires to bypass the battery relay. Without the battery,
> there is slight risk
> that a large, transient event (lowering the gear) could trigger an
> overshoot in the
> alternator's output response or stall the alternator and cause it
to
> shut down. However,
> modern panel mounted electronics (DO-160 qualified) are 99+ percent
> okay with this . . . and
> the landing gear can be extended by hand. The totally risk-free
ferry
> philosophy would be
> to start the engine, leave the electrical system cold. Leave the
gear
> down and don't use
> flaps. It'a all a trade-off of options that should be left up to
the
> knowledgeable pilot
> tasked with planning and executing the mission.
[Unfortunately, reentering the Washington DC ADIZ required electrical
power
for VHF comm and transponder.]
> B) Where is the best source to buy this rather obsolete "Battery
Relay"
> P/N 6041H189; NSN 5945-00-588-8555, or a currently manufactured
acceptable
> substitute part?
>
> The 6041 series contactors are very much in production and still
used
> both for spares and for new design. Like all such devices, they
continue
> to fill a niche market where the designer realizes, "Sometimes the
best
> way to drive the nail is with a hammer."
> Having said that, it's also true that the niche for these devices is
> narrowed compared to breadth of the DC power controls market and
> they're not as easily acquired. I did a google search on "6041H"
> and "contactor" and got only 17 hits . . . a few of which were
> suppliers. The catalog of variations on the theme for this part can
> be downloaded from
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Eaton_CH/
[Yes, the current Eaton catalog has many 6041 series contactors, but
none of
them are the 6041H189. We attempted to obtain a 6041H189 for this very
same
Beech airplane a while back in order to replace the failed, but not
available, Starter Relay, P/N SBC 9401-1. The word from the Beech
community
was that the 6041H189 would be an acceptable starter relay subtitute so
we
attempted to obtain one. We never did get one, but that fact became
moot
when the A&P doing the install insisted on documentation from Beechcraft
saying that a 6041H189 would be acceptable. Beech said "no it would not"
and
a different starter relay (I don't have the P/N here) was obtained and
installed.]
[So now with the failure of the Battery Relay P/N 6041H189 we really
need
that exact part or one that Beech says is an acceptable substitute. I
can
find indications that there are some 6041H189 relays in existence on
shelves, but just not readily available.]
> But let's noodle through the simple-ideas behind the notion that
> the el-cheeso relay is worthy of relegation to the scrap heap
> in favor of its more expensive and much rarer cousin . . .
>
> The el-cheeso contactor (RPM Controls, White-Rogers, Stancore)
> has been flying aboard light aircraft for about 70 years and in
> proportionately huge volumes compared to the "mil quality"
> device. If you ask any FBO mechanic how often they need to replace
> one of these things, you'll get, "Oh yeah, I've replaced a boat-load
> of those things!" But ask too how often he/she has replaced tires,
> batteries, spark plugs, etc and you'll no doubt hear, "I've replaced
> a boat load of those too."
[In this instance of a type certificated airplane with the
manufacturer's
IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog) calling for a specific relay P/N and an
installing A&P mechanic insisting on documentation from the manufacturer
to
cover his ass before he will install a different part, the el-cheeso
contactor is not an option.]
>
> The point being that ALL things have a service life limit. Further,
> those limits are profoundly influenced by environment, operational
> stresses and out-of-the-ordinary abuse by technique and perhaps
> lack of preventative maintenance on the part of the owner/operator.
>
> Things like tires and plugs are replaced based on physical
> observation and/or periodic maintenance intervals. But somehow,
> things like batteries, contactors, switches and other components
> vulnerable to service-stresses are not so blessed with the
mechanic's
> attention.
>
> This happens because there is (1) a lack of understanding as
> to how life limit on these parts is influenced, (2) determination
> of condition that goes beyond ordinary visual inspection (read labor
> and thought-intensive) and (3) an insanely aggravated cost-of-
> ownership generated from over-regulation by individuals demonstrably
> short on understanding.
>
> Yet we are loath to treat these components like spark plugs and
> put service life limits on them. At the same time we get
> our shorts in a bunch worrying about some failure to perform
> that generates a maintenance inconvenience (as cited above)
> or becomes the opening bars of the prelude for one's personal
> dark-n-stormy-night story.
>
> What's the first practical increment for elevating the comfort
> levels of ownership of the aircraft cited above? The writer cites
> multiple replacements of the battery contactor. Is this hard
> evidence of and inability of the contactor to perform? Hmmmm . . .
> there are hundreds of thousands of these same devices flying.
> While replacement RATES (Failures per flight hour) are probably
> higher than that of the high-dollar cousin, there's nothing
> to that indicates these parts don't yield an acceptable
> cost-of-ownership value. Two short-coupled failures of the
> contactor? Hmmmm . . . is it possible that there's an underlying
> operating stress that's shortening the life of the contactor?
> Maybe . . . probably not. These parts have a calculable and probably
> demonstrable mean time between failure. But when considering
> some cited MTBF number reveals an average service life.
> A small number of parts will go twice that value, a small number
> of parts will crap 10 hours out of the box.
[The three contactor failures that I am aware of during the last year
are:
1) The Starter Relay, P/N SBC 9401-1 in the Beech aircraft; 2) A garden
variety master battery contactor (P/N 111-138D or similar) failure in a
fairly new RV-8; and 3) Now the master battery contactor failure P/N
6041H189, in the same Beech aircraft as failure 1.]
[My reaction to failure number 2 was to rewire my own amateur built
experimental aircraft so that I could supply electrical power to my
transponder from my essential bus if my master battery contactor failed.
A
transponder is required for operating in the Washington DC ADIZ where my
home field is located.]
> To make an upgrade decision without benefit of a detailed
> study of the physics and field experience is intellectually
> comforting . . . but the high-dollar part WILL also fail
> at some point in time. If all you seek is to push the
> inevitable out in time, then an upgrade is a perfectly
> rational thing to do. If you're REALLY more interested
> in reduced cost of ownership and/or canceling the show
> on your personal dark-n-stormy-night drama, then an alternate
> approach is indicated.
>
> First, how about treating this contactor like a spark plug?
> If you're willing to put $20 to $70 PER PLUG into an engine
> every so often, is it also reasonable to plan for $25 for
> a battery relay every so often as well?
>
> I had a conversation with a reader some years ago worried
> about getting stuck on a remote lake with his float plane.
> We decided it was a good thing to carry spare contactors
> and tools necessary for replacement.
>
> If it were my airplane, in addition to periodic preventative
> maintenance, the Avionics Master would become an e-bus
> alternate feed switch and a normal feed diode would be
> installed. Then I would be inoculated from both the
> in-flight failure scenario as well as the conundrum of
> "how to best ferry this airplane".
[Probably not a feasible course of action for the type certificated
Beech
aircraft. It may be possible to push such a 337 change through our local
FSDO, but I doubt the owner would pay the tab for it.]
> Yup. There is no single "solution" that best fits the needs
> for all owner/operators and a host of options.
> PPS: This is the second main battery contactor failure that I am aware
of
> within the last year. Other failure was with a garden variety
contactor
> (P/N 111-226) when the very small coil wire fractured. I have rewired
my
> amateur built experimental a bit with this failure in mind.
>
> Depending on how many hoops you're willing/forced to jump, there
> are other "upgrade" options. Consider:
>
>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Tyco_Kilovac/ev200.pdf
>
> There are a lot of opportunities (but widely spaced and
> take $time$ to locate) for purchases. Some options to
> explore are . . .
>
>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Tyco_Kilovac/ev200.pdf
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2usy58
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3847kw
>
> http://www.warbirdrelics.com/Electrical.htm
>
>
http://www.silindustries.com/_RefFiles/Capabilities%20List(19apr07).swf
>
> http://www.electrospec.com/electronic/components-parts/index599.html
>
> http://www.marineairsupply.com/index.html
>
> http://www.clarkreiss.com/Inventory/relays/rl-speci
>
> Of course, the one place guaranteed willing and able to supply
> such a part is the service-parts department of your local FBO.
> This presupposes that $time$ is no object. I think the lowest
> cost-of-ownership solution is to carry a spare contactor and
> tools necessary for replacement optionally combined with a
> shift of duties for the avionics master switch.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
At 12:57 PM 4/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>There was a question that a few of us were debating and would be
>interested in your input on.
>
>Assuming you have a single battery installation and a good
>(regulated) alternator doing its thing as expected (putting out
>13.8ish volts),
Actually, nominal setpoint for for the alternator
should be in the 14.2 to 14.6 range . . .
>what would be the effect on the system if the battery was
>disconnected (like if primary battery cable came undone or was
>disconnected)? I know the battery acts like a capacitor to dampen
>the bus voltage (and fluctuations from the alternator), but would
>the alternator continue to output the right voltage in the quantity
>(current) as dictated by the active loads on the bus? In other
>words, could you fly indefinitely as long as the active load did not
>exceed the alternator capacity (and assuming the regulator was
>working appropriately)?
The battery does offer a modicum of noise mitigation
but it's not really great . . . and alternator noises on
a battery-less system are not a whole lot greater
when the battery is off line. In fact, the Bonanza and
Barons of many years had separate and independent alternator
and battery switches. Further, although not by original
design, the alternators on these airplanes were capable
of coming on line without a battery. There are procedures
in the flight manual that speak to operations without
a battery.
It's not a real simple answer. It's easy to see how
system dynamics can be materially altered if the battery
were not present. The alternator's response to sudden
application or off-loading of demand is not real
fast. This means that high-inrush loads like pitot heaters,
landing gear pumps, etc. MAY cause the bus to sag below
the minimum operating points for some electro-whizzies.
The duration is but tens of milliseconds and the potential
for deleterious effects are similar to the starter brown-out
phenomenon that has been discussed extensively on these pages.
Assuming that your particular alternator is NOT capable
of coming on line without a battery assist, then sudden
application of load might cause it to "stall" . . . and
stay off line. Assuming your alternator is being loaded
to some high rate of delivery and the load is suddenly
removed, the upward transient in bus voltage during the
alternator/regulator's recovery time MAY be a bit much
for other electro-whizzies . . . including the alternator's
own regulator. The automotive world defines a
"load dump" event as loss of battery connection while
the battery is a significant total of the alternator's
present load.
Bottom line is that one should not plan on routine
operations with battery off line. Now, assume you
have any way to become AWARE that your battery contactor
has opened due to some failure (exceedingly rare).
The best modus operandi is to continue flight to
comfortable arrival without making big changes
to system loads. But without specific monitoring
facilities to detect loss of battery, your first
notice of malfunction just might be a stall of
the alternator when you turn on landing lights
or extend gear.
This is not even a moderate probability event . . .
or at least it's never been mentioned as something
"we needed to go fix" in my career of working on
airplanes. The turbine aircraft are another matter
in that the majority use starter/generators. Generator
only ops are not a big deal for a variety of
little details concerning voltage regulation
dynamics and the self-exciting nature of generators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom headset adapter |
Jose, Thanks for the reply. The Icom A-5 and 6 are basically the same. The 3.5mm
4-conductor plug that connects at the radio has gone bad. The large plugs that
you describe are OK. I have managed to locate the 3.5mm 4-conductor plug. It
is Calrad part no. 30-701. My next problem will be wiring it up. There are 4
wires that go into it. What is the order for wiring this plug?
Eric
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236669#236669
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | wire splicing techniques |
I've been using a wire splicing technique that I think works very well. As
part of doing a bunch more splicing recently, when I added my SDS ECU into
my STi engine wiring harness, I took pics & just created a new page that
shows the products and techniques used. Any feedback from it, please let
me know.
www.meyette.us/crimping.htm
hope it's helpful,
brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
these things really take a hit.
I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Glenn,
Which one on the site would be the replacement?
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>Sent: Apr 3, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
>Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
>reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
>and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
>these things really take a hit.
>
>
>
>I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
>voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
>off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
>
>
>
>Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
>value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
>expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
>their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
>
>
>
>http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
>
>
>
>Glenn
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Wire splicing technique |
I've been using a wire splicing technique that I think works very well. As
part of doing a bunch more splicing recently, when I added my SDS ECU into
my STi engine wiring harness, I took pics & just created a new page that
shows the products and techniques used. Any feedback from it, please let
me know.
www.meyette.us/crimping.htm
hope it's helpful,
brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Ralph,
B2015C provides the best bang for the buck. It is slightly wider than the 680 at
6.8" X 3.4 X 6.1 vs. 7 1/16 X 3 X 6 9/16 which may cause you to modify your
mounting or buy theirs.
What you get is 1067 vs. 680 cranking amps and 20 AH vs. 17 AH which is a big improvement.
The weight is the same.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Glenn,
Which one on the site would be the replacement?
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>Sent: Apr 3, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
>Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
>reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
>and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
>these things really take a hit.
>
>
>
>I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
>voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
>off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
>
>
>
>Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
>value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
>expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
>their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
>
>
>
>http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
>
>
>
>Glenn
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Good fine, Glenn. I notice that it would appear that unless you need the
reported superior features of the carbon fiber case (heat/vibration) that
the B2015 has the same electrical specifications at $159.99 vice $239.99 for
the B2015C.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Ralph,
B2015C provides the best bang for the buck. It is slightly wider than the
680 at 6.8" X 3.4 X 6.1 vs. 7 1/16 X 3 X 6 9/16 which may cause you to
modify your mounting or buy theirs.
What you get is 1067 vs. 680 cranking amps and 20 AH vs. 17 AH which is a
big improvement. The weight is the same.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E.
Capen
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Glenn,
Which one on the site would be the replacement?
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>Sent: Apr 3, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
>Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
>reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
>and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
>these things really take a hit.
>
>
>
>I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
>voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
>off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
>
>
>
>Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
>value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
>expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
>their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
>
>
>
>http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
>
>
>
>Glenn
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
In testing we've done in the lab and in the aircraft on a "standard" and basic
system, disconnecting the battery causes voltage fluctuations which very quickly
trip the OV circuit (>16v). YMMV.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237590#237590
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Assessing risk in my design |
I have a problem in assessing one element of risk in my electrical
design.
I have a permanent magnet alternator and my design borrows from Z-17
and some literature from B&C that came with the components I ordered
from them.
One of those components is a large Electrolytic capacitor - 47k f 16v
- that, along with a relay, mounts on the cabin side of the firewall.
My aircraft is a Sonex which has the fuel tank between the firewall
and the instrument panel. This would be similar to any other aircraft
with a header tank in the cabin.
Trying it assess the risks in my design, in this case the location of
the components, I realize that I have no knowledge of capacitor
failure modes. Would a large capacitor like this have an explosive
or flaming failure mode - assume the polarity is correct?
The alternator circuit does have crowbar over voltage protection but
the capacitor is wired in parallel before the relay. There is an
inline fuse between the alternator and the capacitor but is the
capacitor at risk here? And what is that risk?
Help in understanding the risks is appreciated.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
4/4/2009
Hello Robin, Please tell me more about this demo mode. How does one get into
it and use it? I can't find out anything about it in my 430W manual.
If you have the Garmin trainer on your computer how does the demo mode
compare to the trainer?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
============================================
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
Hi Listers,
-
I am happy to report back that my $10 D-Sub 78-pin male connector from Mous
er works fine for my at-home-power-cable.- I connected pin 19 & 20 to +12
v, and-75, 77 & 78 to negative.- The 420W powered up in demo mode just
fine.
-
Thanks to-all who replied.
-
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Morning OC and Robin,
I too would appreciate knowing how to use the 430W in demo mode!
Incidentally, I did not receive Robin's message concerning the pins to be
used. Fortunately, you (OC) copied the pertinent data in your message.
Thanks a bunch.
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 4/4/2009 6:37:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
4/4/2009
Hello Robin, Please tell me more about this demo mode. How does one get into
it and use it? I can't find out anything about it in my 430W manual.
If you have the Garmin trainer on your computer how does the demo mode
compare to the trainer?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
============================================
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
Hi Listers,
-
I am happy to report back that my $10 D-Sub 78-pin male connector from
Mouser works fine for my at-home-power-cable.- I connected pin 19 & 20 to +12v,
and-75, 77 & 78 to negative.- The 420W powered up in demo mode just fine.
-
Thanks to-all who replied.
-
Robin
**************Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE
with TaxACT.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Thanks,
Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time. My
680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten up
pretty hard during the construction process. The new one seems to do fine
at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so it's
always topped off.
Ralph
RV6A N822AR @ N06 8.3 hours - waiting for the wind gusts to die down so I
can fly off some more hours.....!
----- Original Message -----
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
> Ralph,
>
> B2015C provides the best bang for the buck. It is slightly wider than the
> 680 at 6.8" X 3.4 X 6.1 vs. 7 1/16 X 3 X 6 9/16 which may cause you to
> modify your mounting or buy theirs.
>
> What you get is 1067 vs. 680 cranking amps and 20 AH vs. 17 AH which is a
> big improvement. The weight is the same.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
> E. Capen
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> Which one on the site would be the replacement?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>>Sent: Apr 3, 2009 3:57 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>>
>>Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
>>reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
>>and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
>>these things really take a hit.
>>
>>
>>
>>I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
>>voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
>>off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
>>
>>
>>
>>Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
>>value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
>>expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
>>their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
>>
>>
>>
>>Glenn
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
At 06:47 PM 4/3/2009, you wrote:
>
>In testing we've done in the lab and in the aircraft on a "standard"
>and basic system, disconnecting the battery causes voltage
>fluctuations which very quickly trip the OV circuit (>16v). YMMV.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me.
When the individual responsible for setting voltage
regulator dynamics is fine tuning their creation
on the bench, they'll have to trade off regulation
response time with regulation stability. There
are some regulators in the wild wherein the author
went for fast response and lost some stability
that was mitigated by the presence of a battery.
I had to make the same choices on the B&C LR and
LS series regulators 20 years ago. As I recall,
I was more interested in stability . . . we
tuned the response dynamics for a slightly
under-damped response to moderate load dump
with battery connected. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/damping_ratio.gif
The top response curve represents an "under-damped"
response which can be fast/accurate but prone
to "jitter". The bottom curve is "over-damped"
which offers great stability in constant load
situations but poor response to changing loads.
The middle curve illustrates the idealized response
that overshoots slightly in response to a load
change but damps quickly after the single
overshoot. I don't recall exploring system performance
sans battery.
But Marc's observations are right on point. Virtually
nobody designs for alternator-only operations. This
is considered a failure mode that begs for correction.
Only the aircraft guys are inclined to do failure mode
effects analysis and consider loss of battery in crafting
Plan-A, Plan-B, Plan-C, etc.
I will suggest that a second E-bus feed directly from the
battery for combined with well considered preventative
maintenance is the best hedge against loss of battery
contactor. This takes the sans battery performance of
the alternator/regulator out of the equation.
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: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 07:28 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement
>time. My 680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I
>had beaten up pretty hard during the construction process. The new
>one seems to do fine at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on
>it between flights so it's always topped off.
Why did you replace it? Was it sent to recycle because
it's capacity had fallen below your e-bus run-time benchmark
or because it didn't crank the engine any more?
This thread started with the following statements:
"Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running
avionics and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve
power on these things really take a hit."
"I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on
reduced voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and
the taking off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve."
"Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better
A.H. value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking."
"Reserve power" speaks to watt-seconds of energy
contained when fully charged. This is closely
related to the battery's rated capacity in Ampere-
Hours although apparent capacity can vary widely
depending on loads due to the battery's internal
losses (conduction = 1/resistance). Double the
load on a battery and internal losses go up by
a factor of 4.
The terms "briefly" and "really takes a hit"
are not quantified. Nor were the pre-cranking loads
for operation of "running avionics and the like".
So we're not privy to the numbers that define
expected/desired battery performance. We also
don't know the numbers that drove perceptions
of "experiencing trouble".
My words are not intended to cause anyone discomfort
but it is helpful to understand the numbers behind
a proposed exchange of product. Then each of you
needs to decide how the exchange will improve on
your personal expectations for system performance
and the amount of $time$ you're willing to expend
as a cost of ownership.
The Braille batteries appear to have been fine
tuned for lower internal resistance. This is
suggested by the greater "cranking" or "pulse"
current ratings. But in terms of capacity, watt-seconds
of energy stored is pretty much set by how many
pounds of reactants (lead) is in the battery.
Indeed, their a.h. ratings/pound of product weight
are right in line with everybody else's products.
They speak to the "conductance" test and something
new . . . which it is not. The test is easily
performed with modern "battery analyzers". An
example of this instrument can be seen at:
http://www.midtronics.com/default.asp
where we find no less than 15 different models
of device selling for hundreds of dollars. What
your buying with these capable instruments is
convenience of light weight, compact size,
digital readout, and perhaps some predictions
of service-life. However, the data gathered
is the same as that which you would get from
this piece of arcane technology from Harbor
Freight for about $60.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Testers/HF91129_4.jpg
The later device requires some understanding
and skill but ultimately is a BETTER measure
of cranking performance because the test loads
are REAL and not extrapolated from short, pulsed
values in the digital instrument.
What does internal resistance (reciprocal of
conductance) have to do with capacity? Nothing.
Capacity is related to pounds of chemistry
available to store energy. The efficiency with
which that energy can be extracted for useful
purposes IS affected by internal resistance.
This is discussed in some detail in the battery
chapter update published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/02_Battery_12A2.pdf
Without knowing the nature and magnitude of
"experiencing trouble" which drives the decision
to seek a more robust battery, we're not able
to advance this deliberation based on physics
and comparative measurements. I can only hypothesize
as follows:
The perceptions of poor battery performance are
probably based on a pre-cranking battery load
that is unnecessarily large. Without an e-bus
and the ability to get your ATIS data and
a departure clearance, then flipping on the
battery master burdens the battery with loads
that far exceed present requirements.
Keep in mind too that the energy required to
get a well tuned engine started is but a few
percent of a battery's capacity. This battery
voltage/current curve . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
was taken from a Beechjet engine start. It
begins with over 800A and tapers to 300A
over a period of 27 seconds. After all that
abuse, the battery is tapped for perhaps 6%
of contained energy. I agree that we're
comparing apples and oranges with respect to
types of engines and design goals for two
vastly different airplanes. But I'll suggest
that if somebody is having trouble getting
and engine started -OR- has seriously depleted
a battery during pre-flight operations because
of loads imposed before the alternator comes
on line . . . a serious reevaluation of design
goals and operating procedures is called for.
Back to the Braille battery product.
They probably do conform to marketing hype
concerning a lower internal resistance. This
is easily demonstrated with and instrument not
unlike the Harbor Freight device cited above.
Now the question: What does the more expensive
battery buy you in terms of cost of ownership?
Now that you've installed the Lexus of batteries,
how are you going to modify your rules of
ownership and operation for the purpose of meeting
design goals for your airplane? Are you going to
do periodic capacity checks to make well
considered decisions as to when the battery
needs replacing? Is it a reasonable expectation
that $time$ to maintain plust $time$ to buy the
higher price battery will be SMALLER than $time$
to buy an el-cheepo battery and replace it
every year?
Finally, rushing off to buy this premium
battery product may not get you the same
return on investment expected by those who are
"experiencing trouble" with their current
battery choices. Without an analysis of how
their disappointment arises, there's no
guarantee that YOUR purchase of the more
robust battery will produce a good return
on your investment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good |
Alternator?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> I will suggest that a second E-bus feed directly from the
> battery for combined with well considered preventative
> maintenance is the best hedge against loss of battery
> contactor. This takes the sans battery performance of
> the alternator/regulator out of the equation.
>
Given a Z-13/8 architecture, what is the point in making the SD-8 self
exciting? The battery is always present even if the battery contactor fails.
John Morgensen
RV9A Wiring Z-13/8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Demo mode on the 430W is achieved by grounding pin 75 on connector P4001. From
the install manual page 4-10:
4.5.1.12 Demo Mode Select
This discrete input may be used to select Demo Mode on the 400W series unit. A
low on this pin at time of unit power-up invokes the demo mode. Demo mode allows
the 400W series unit to simulate reception of GPS satellite signals.
Caution: Do not connect DEMO MODE SELECT in an aircraft installation
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237664#237664
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
The built in demo mode simply simulates receiving GPS signals. You can load a
flight plan, select approaches, etc. Primary benefit of using the actual unit
is that you get used to the "buttonology" of the box. The computer version that
can downloaded from Garmin has the additional feature of a throttle control
but you're using the computer mouse/keyboard to drive things. Both have their
pros and cons.
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237667#237667
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Good Morning Bob,
I did see that in the Installation manual, but I have not found any guidance
in the Pilot's Guide or the installation manual as to how to use the Demo
Mode.
Is there a method to input speeds and such as we can do in the GNC 300XL?
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 4/4/2009 11:05:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bcondrey"
Demo mode on the 430W is achieved by grounding pin 75 on connector P4001.
>From the install manual page 4-10:
4.5.1.12 Demo Mode Select
This discrete input may be used to select Demo Mode on the 400W series unit.
A low on this pin at time of unit power-up invokes the demo mode. Demo
mode allows the 400W series unit to simulate reception of GPS satellite signals.
Caution: Do not connect DEMO MODE SELECT in an aircraft installation
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237664#237664
**************Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE
with TaxACT.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
I recall seeing a speed input in the setup menu someplace, but that's quite a bit
different from having a throttle control like you've got with the PC simulator.
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237680#237680
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
When you've got demo mode selected the 430W comes up and shows that it's receiving
data from all satellites (kind of a spiral pattern on the satellite view screen).
At that point you treat it just like it was in your plane - enter a flight
plan, select an approach, etc. There's a way to select present position
but I don't remember how off the top of my head. Once the flight plan is entered
the unit makes turns as necessary to track it and you can watch the screen
update, make changes, select approaches, etc. just like you are in the plane.
BTW, if you've seen the Commander units for panel mount GPSs, all they are is a
power supply and cable that plugs into the back of the GPS. On the 430/530 series
they ground the demo mode pin in addition to supplying power.
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237683#237683
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery AlternativeOdyssey Battery Alternative |
Has anyone used one of these batteries and have any info/user reports that
may be useful in determining whether it's suitable in an aircraft?- Their
site lists this as a "sealed valve regulated design," is this comparable t
o the AGM batteries Odyssey sells?
Thanks,
Dan
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Thanks Bob,
I guess the best bet is to plug it in and give bit a try?
If anyone knows of any documentation as to how to load an airspeed and
location like we do for the GNC 300XL. I would sure appreciate getting that
information.
I like to go over a strange approach before I actually fly it. When the
simulator was being updated regularly, that worked pretty well. Now that Garmin
has ceased updating their downloadable simulator, most of the approaches I want
to use are out of date in the simulator. If I use my aircraft set in Demo
mode, I can use my current database.
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 4/4/2009 11:52:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bcondrey"
When you've got demo mode selected the 430W comes up and shows that it's
receiving data from all satellites (kind of a spiral pattern on the satellite
view screen). At that point you treat it just like it was in your plane -
enter a flight plan, select an approach, etc. There's a way to select present
position but I don't remember how off the top of my head. Once the flight plan
is entered the unit makes turns as necessary to track it and you can watch
the screen update, make changes, select approaches, etc. just like you are in
the plane.
BTW, if you've seen the Commander units for panel mount GPSs, all they are
is a power supply and cable that plugs into the back of the GPS. On the
430/530 series they ground the demo mode pin in addition to supplying power.
Bob
RV-10 N442PM
**************Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE
with TaxACT.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 03:25 PM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
>Has anyone used one of these batteries and have any info/user
>reports that may be useful in determining whether it's suitable in
>an aircraft? Their site lists this as a "sealed valve regulated
>design," is this comparable to the AGM batteries Odyssey sells?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA
RG (recombinant gas), AGM (absorbed glass mat), VRSLA (valve
regulated sealed lead acid), and "starved electrolyte, glass
mat", and perhaps a dozen other variations on the theme are
all siblings. Specific products may claim a superior performance
in some regard like longer shelf life, higher cranking power,
greater ruggedness, virgin lead, etc. etc. Any of these features
may well have proven to add value in the laboratory comparison
with other technologies . . . but in real service aboard airplanes,
the day-to-day "abuses" that depart from the laboratory demonstrations
tend to be the true limiting factor in service life.
Take laboratory grade care of your battery and it will
probably deliver a good service life. Just keep in mind
that all other things being equal, price does not deliver
proportionate increases in ANY performance parameter.
Virtually every battery that does not audibly "slosh"
when you shake it is some form of "sealed" device
and therefore "comparable" to all other products of
the same class . . . lead-acid batteries not open to
atmosphere.
Finally, if the old "slosher" Rebat, Concorde and Gill
batteries of yesteryear were ever considered suitable
for use aboard airplanes, then ANY sealed device you can put
your hands today is MORE suited.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Talk about your bang for the buck!
I am using the BB Battery. The price is in the $30 range. The BP17-12 is
the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs. The BP20-12 is also the same
size and weighs 14.0 lbs.
See the specs here:
http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp
Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't make
sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Ralph,
B2015C provides the best bang for the buck. It is slightly wider than the
680 at 6.8" X 3.4 X 6.1 vs. 7 1/16 X 3 X 6 9/16 which may cause you to
modify your mounting or buy theirs.
What you get is 1067 vs. 680 cranking amps and 20 AH vs. 17 AH which is a
big improvement. The weight is the same.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E.
Capen
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
-->
Glenn,
Which one on the site would be the replacement?
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>Sent: Apr 3, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
>
>Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
>reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running
>avionics and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve
>power on these things really take a hit.
>
>
>
>I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
>voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
>off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.
>
>
>
>Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
>value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
>expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
>their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.
>
>
>
>http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/
>
>
>
>Glenn
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> Talk about your bang for the buck!
> I am using the BB Battery. The price is in the $30 range. The BP17-12 is
> the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs. The BP20-12 is also the same
> size and weighs 14.0 lbs.
>
> See the specs here:
>
> http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp
>
> Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't make
> sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.
>
Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Czygan <bczygan(at)yahoo.com> |
=C2-
=C2-
Hi Friend,
How are you doing recently? I would like to introduce you a very good compa
ny which I know. Their website is *www.myehomebuy*They can offer you all ki
nds of
Electronic products like laptops, gps,TV LCD,cell phones,ps3,MP3/4, etc....
....Please take some time to have a check, There must have something you'd
like to buy.
Their contact email: myehomebuy_service(at)188.com
MSN:=C2- myehomebuy-easylife(at)hotmail.com
Hope you have a good mood in shopping from their company!
Best Regards
=C2-
Julie!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> Bill Bradburry wrote:
>>
>>
>> Talk about your bang for the buck!
>> I am using the BB Battery. The price is in the $30 range. The
>> BP17-12 is
>> the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs. The BP20-12 is also
>> the same
>> size and weighs 14.0 lbs.
>> See the specs here:
>>
>> http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp
>>
>> Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't
>> make
>> sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.
>>
>
> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>
> Dale R.
If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have
you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or
virtually any other consumer product (China again)?
I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic
isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government,
economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it
isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its
people are certainly a bit better off economically.
I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must
come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best way
to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, with
better government.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Battery Disconnect with Good Alternator? |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Yes, interesting question.
If the battery is functional, no need for the self-excitation circuit. If the
battery is not functional, the alternator is likely to quickly trip out with overvoltage?
Perhaps a depleted battery (shame on me for having such thing) can serve as a damper?
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237807#237807
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Possible Hijacked eMail Account - Bill Czygan |
Hey List Monitor - It appears Bill Czygan's email account may have
been hijacked.
Reference message posted to aeroelectric-list by Bill Czygan with
date of: 4:42AM 4/5/2009 having topic of Hi Friend.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> Dale Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>>
>> Dale R.
>
> I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must
> come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best
> way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be,
> with better government.
>
> Charlie
Heh, Charlie, to drive home that point and bring it back around to
aviation, someone asked that Russian guy that defected to the US with
one of their MiGs about what made him do it. I can't remember his name,
but I remember that with all the propaganda the government showed him
depicting how terrible it was to live in American cities, he couldn't
get past the question of who owned all those cars.
The largest, strongest oak tree will always rot from the inside.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible Hijacked eMail Account - Bill Czygan |
At 09:45 AM 4/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hey List Monitor - It appears Bill Czygan's email account may have
>been hijacked.
anomaly noted.
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: SD-8 self-excitation in Z-13/8 |
At 09:35 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> I will suggest that a second E-bus feed directly from the
>> battery for combined with well considered preventative
>> maintenance is the best hedge against loss of battery
>> contactor. This takes the sans battery performance of
>> the alternator/regulator out of the equation.
>Given a Z-13/8 architecture, what is the point in making the SD-8
>self exciting? The battery is always present even if the battery
>contactor fails.
Yeah, in a 13/8 configuration the self-excitation
feature is redundant. I was just putting it into
all the drawings citing the SD-8. It would be a pretty
cool thing if B&C would make this feature a part of
their stock regulator.
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: Assessing risk in my design |
>The alternator circuit does have crowbar over voltage protection but
>the capacitor is wired in parallel before the relay. There is an
>inline fuse between the alternator and the capacitor but is the
>capacitor at risk here? And what is that risk?
>
>Help in understanding the risks is appreciated.
Catastrophic (read spectacular) failure in these
capacitors is rare. I had only one builder in
20 years contact me about the results of hooking
the critter in backwards and having it deposit
some corrosive goo on parts of his airplane.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICom headset adapter |
| From: | "special4" <sportsflyer(at)comcast.net> |
Eric,
A-5 connector (3.5 mm 4 pin): 1) speaker 2) MIC 3) PTT 4)GND
I hope this helps.
Peter
--------
Sportsflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237905#237905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 400W/420W/430W Power cable |
Hi Bakerocb,
-
Sorry for the late reply.- We took a trip from our home base in So. Cal.
to Carlsbad, NM.- We just got back tonight after 5 hours flighting turbul
ence and-50 knt headwind.- That is a story for another day.
-
The demo mode is activated by grounding pin 75 when power up.- Once up, y
ou can access "Demo Setup" screen by hitting "MENU" key until it shows up.
>From this "Demo Setup" screen, you can enter TRK, GS, POS, ALT, VS, and sel
ect to "MOVE" or "STOP".- Make your desired changes then "ENT" follow by
"MENU" for changes to take place.
-
The PC trainer is easy to use and you can leave your 400W in your plane.-
But I am new to the Garmin 400W world and I just want to play with my 420W
from the comfort of my home.- Your choice ;-)
-
Regards,
-
Robin Hou
64 S35 N7947K
KEMT
--- On Sat, 4/4/09, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
From: bakerocb(at)cox.net <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
oo.com
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 11:29 AM
4/4/2009
Hello Robin, Please tell me more about this demo mode. How does one get int
o it
and use it? I can't find out anything about it in my 430W manual.
If you have the Garmin trainer on your computer how does the demo mode comp
are
to the trainer?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
===================
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: 400W/420W/430W Power cable
Hi Listers,
-
I am happy to report back that my $10 D-Sub 78-pin male connector from Mous
er works fine for my at-home-power-cable.- I connected pin 19 & 20 to +12
v, and-75, 77 & 78 to negative.- The 420W powered up in demo mode just
fine.
-
Thanks to-all who replied.
-
Robin
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Charlie England wrote:
> Dale Rogers wrote:
>> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>
> If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have
> you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or
> virtually any other consumer product (China again)?
>
> I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic
> isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government,
> economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it
> isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its
> people are certainly a bit better off economically.
>
> I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must
> come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best
> way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be,
> with better government.
Charlie,
It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
from such an environment.
Best regards,
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bczygan(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Yahoo! Auto Response |
Hi Friend,
How are you doing recently? I would like to introduce you a very good company which I know. Their website is *www.myehomebuy*They can offer you all kinds of
Electronic products like laptops, gps,TV LCD,cell phones,ps3,MP3/4, etc........Please
take some time to have a check, There must have something you'd like to
buy.
Their contact email: myehomebuy_service(at)188.com
MSN: myehomebuy-easylife(at)hotmail.com
Hope you have a good mood in shopping from their company!
Best Regards
Julie!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | incandescent light question |
Hi Bob and all,
The topic has already been adressed, but I was not able to retrieve the
messages or Bob's recommendations on preheating.
The question recently arose on a French pilot list : when and why is a
landing light filament most fragile ?
- When hot ?
- When cold ?
- When heating up ?
- When cooling down ?
-Why ?
Etc...
Thanks in advance for any input,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: incandescent light question |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Gilles,
The common wisdom is that most lamp failures occur on start due to
three factors:
cold filament stiffness
heat shock/expansion
and 3) flexion of the stiff filament due induction of the magnetic field
in the helical filament
Ira
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237963#237963
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 10:28 PM 4/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>Charlie England wrote:
>>Dale Rogers wrote:
>>>Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>>
>>If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another.
>>Have you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)?
>>Or virtually any other consumer product (China again)?
>>
>>I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic
>>isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's
>>government, economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade
>>with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30
>>years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off economically.
>>
>>I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change
>>must come from within, & if you want to have external influence,
>>the best way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it
>>*could* be, with better government.
>Charlie,
>
>It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
>There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
>PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
>equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
>my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
>from such an environment.
Point taken. However, recall there was a time
when "Made in Japan" labels gave one pause. We
had some discussions here on the List about Harbor
Fright's quality. Bottom line is that for any emerging
technology, process or manufacturing culture, there
will ALWAYS be those who's ambitions exceed their
capabilities or willingness to accomplish the best-we-
know-how-to-do. Shucks we see this today with "Made in
USA" products. Why should we be having startup brownout
discussions on otherwise perfectly wonderful appliances?
Folks who rely on ANY words on any label to do a trade
study are at risk for being disappointed. At the same
time, those who automatically reject any product based
on perceptions of a class of manufacturers are at
risk of expending $time$ with poor return on investment.
Folks who promulgate product avoidance based on
culture are doing a disservice to those within that
culture who are honestly striving to be competitive.
Competition: the free market principal that brought us
monster ram for pennies, gigaflop processors for
dollars and $100 hand-helds that will find your
driveway in zero-zero fog.
I've seen stuff at H.F. that I wouldn't buy. I have
a number of H.F. machine tools in my shop that service
my needs nicely. A $350 lathe paid for itself in the
first job! That was 7 years ago and it's still doing
what I need done within limits of its design.
Discussions here on the List can add the most value
for its members by evaluating specific products from
ANY source based on demonstrated price/performance
benchmarks. Advice that paints a product with a brush
dipped into cultural perceptions is demonstrably lacking
in foundation and places top performers in that culture
at a capriciously invented disadvantage.
Further, while we may have disagreements with and
even have reason to be fearful of governments (our
own not withstanding!) recall that there are folks
who design, build and sell products from all parts
of the world who would probably like to be building an
airplane in THEIR garage too.
Finally, if it's a part with failure implications for an
uncomfortable arrival with the earth . . . isn't
that why failure tolerance is among our design goals?
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: incandescent light question |
At 04:12 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>The topic has already been adressed, but I was not able to retrieve
>the messages or Bob's recommendations on preheating.
>
>The question recently arose on a French pilot list : when and why is
>a landing light filament most fragile ?
>- When hot ?
>- When cold ?
Tungsten passed from a brittle to ductile state
as it rises in temperature. The legacy automotive
lamp filaments were most vulnerable to vibration
stresses while cold.
>- When heating up ?
Thermal stresses are highest during heat-up
transition.
>- When cooling down ?
>-Why ?
Modern halogen lamps are MUCH more robust than
their ancestors. So much so that concerns about
inrush limiting are almost insignificant in
terms of adding to the service life of a lamp.
Even when the halogen lamps are used in a wig-wag
system, they do not cool enough between flashes
to suffer a deleterious inrush current with each
flash. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Exemplar_Incandescent_Lamp_Inrush.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
For new design, I'm certain that the builder
will experience very good service life using
modern automotive halogen lamps operating without
benefit of inrush limiting.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Bob,
Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very
helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same old
technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a complete
waste of money, yes?
I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings etc.,
but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I do not
have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an interesting read.
My main interest is their lower weight and smaller size. That takes more
than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB battery at < $50 would
not provide the same performance albeit without the lower internal
resistance. I may be confused, but isn't cranking power what we want in
batteries? When it's 10 degrees outside and I've had my ship plugged in
for 30 minutes, I don't want to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If
they can boost cranking power by 30 percent, why wouldn't you want that?
If I lived in Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn't care. A mission specific
thing.
The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the
avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey's ability to
the point where it will not provide enough cranking power to turn over
the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru 6-cylinder engine. I
have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but I did learn that he has
two GRT displays installed which require a heartbeat be maintained from
the battery at all times. As you may know the GRT does not support
internal battery backup directly.
I already own an Odyssey and I'm not going to toss it in the trash but I
will meter it and report on its performance later. Nevertheless, I will
add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and the dual Lightspeed
ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails to co-operate while
flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.
Glenn
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, April 04, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
At 07:28 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
Thanks,
Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time.
My 680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten
up pretty hard during the construction process. The new one seems to do
fine at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so
it's always topped off.
Why did you replace it? Was it sent to recycle because
it's capacity had fallen below your e-bus run-time benchmark
or because it didn't crank the engine any more?
This thread started with the following statements:
"Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
these things really take a hit."
"I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve."
"Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking."
"Reserve power" speaks to watt-seconds of energy
contained when fully charged. This is closely
related to the battery's rated capacity in Ampere-
Hours although apparent capacity can vary widely
depending on loads due to the battery's internal
losses (conduction = 1/resistance). Double the
load on a battery and internal losses go up by
a factor of 4.
The terms "briefly" and "really takes a hit"
are not quantified. Nor were the pre-cranking loads
for operation of "running avionics and the like".
So we're not privy to the numbers that define
expected/desired battery performance. We also
don't know the numbers that drove perceptions
of "experiencing trouble".
My words are not intended to cause anyone discomfort
but it is helpful to understand the numbers behind
a proposed exchange of product. Then each of you
needs to decide how the exchange will improve on
your personal expectations for system performance
and the amount of $time$ you're willing to expend
as a cost of ownership.
The Braille batteries appear to have been fine
tuned for lower internal resistance. This is
suggested by the greater "cranking" or "pulse"
current ratings. But in terms of capacity, watt-seconds
of energy stored is pretty much set by how many
pounds of reactants (lead) is in the battery.
Indeed, their a.h. ratings/pound of product weight
are right in line with everybody else's products.
They speak to the "conductance" test and something
new . . . which it is not. The test is easily
performed with modern "battery analyzers". An
example of this instrument can be seen at:
http://www.midtronics.com/default.asp
where we find no less than 15 different models
of device selling for hundreds of dollars. What
your buying with these capable instruments is
convenience of light weight, compact size,
digital readout, and perhaps some predictions
of service-life. However, the data gathered
is the same as that which you would get from
this piece of arcane technology from Harbor
Freight for about $60.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Testers/HF91129_4.jpg
The later device requires some understanding
and skill but ultimately is a BETTER measure
of cranking performance because the test loads
are REAL and not extrapolated from short, pulsed
values in the digital instrument.
What does internal resistance (reciprocal of
conductance) have to do with capacity? Nothing.
Capacity is related to pounds of chemistry
available to store energy. The efficiency with
which that energy can be extracted for useful
purposes IS affected by internal resistance.
This is discussed in some detail in the battery
chapter update published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/02_Battery_12A2.pdf
Without knowing the nature and magnitude of
"experiencing trouble" which drives the decision
to seek a more robust battery, we're not able
to advance this deliberation based on physics
and comparative measurements. I can only hypothesize
as follows:
The perceptions of poor battery performance are
probably based on a pre-cranking battery load
that is unnecessarily large. Without an e-bus
and the ability to get your ATIS data and
a departure clearance, then flipping on the
battery master burdens the battery with loads
that far exceed present requirements.
Keep in mind too that the energy required to
get a well tuned engine started is but a few
percent of a battery's capacity. This battery
voltage/current curve . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
was taken from a Beechjet engine start. It
begins with over 800A and tapers to 300A
over a period of 27 seconds. After all that
abuse, the battery is tapped for perhaps 6%
of contained energy. I agree that we're
comparing apples and oranges with respect to
types of engines and design goals for two
vastly different airplanes. But I'll suggest
that if somebody is having trouble getting
and engine started -OR- has seriously depleted
a battery during pre-flight operations because
of loads imposed before the alternator comes
on line . . . a serious reevaluation of design
goals and operating procedures is called for.
Back to the Braille battery product.
They probably do conform to marketing hype
concerning a lower internal resistance. This
is easily demonstrated with and instrument not
unlike the Harbor Freight device cited above.
Now the question: What does the more expensive
battery buy you in terms of cost of ownership?
Now that you've installed the Lexus of batteries,
how are you going to modify your rules of
ownership and operation for the purpose of meeting
design goals for your airplane? Are you going to
do periodic capacity checks to make well
considered decisions as to when the battery
needs replacing? Is it a reasonable expectation
that $time$ to maintain plust $time$ to buy the
higher price battery will be SMALLER than $time$
to buy an el-cheepo battery and replace it
every year?
Finally, rushing off to buy this premium
battery product may not get you the same
return on investment expected by those who are
"experiencing trouble" with their current
battery choices. Without an analysis of how
their disappointment arises, there's no
guarantee that YOUR purchase of the more
robust battery will produce a good return
on your investment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Mueller <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
Jay,
Any luck with the problem? You might consider that maybe the original
wiring isn't correct, only appeared to be. Years ago, I wired a
project (not airplane related) and it worked fine. Couple years later
made a minor alteration and all sorts of strange things started
happening. Turned out the original wiring was incorrect.
Ed
On Apr 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been
> repealed, or that I was losing my ever-lovin' mind ! Now that you
> have confirmed that those laws are still intact; I know that my next
> step is to take all the wiring off those two switches. Then I will
> positively identify each wire before I reinstall it on the switch.
> I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.
>
> Thanks again - Jay
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 1:53 pm
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
>
> At 12:37 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>> My MAIN source of concern is that EVERYTHING
>> worked properly before I made this change; and the
>> ONLY thing I changed was the source of power to
>> the coil and fuel pump switches.
>>
>> Jay
> Understand. Without being able to put my
> hands on the problem, the most I (or anyone
> else) can do is hypothesize about a lot
> of things . . . the majority of which will
> be irrelevant/wrong.
>
> The laws of physics do not shift their
> effects to confound us. There is a specific
> reason why you are experiencing the problem
> you cited. If you've ever played the board game
> Clue, you'll understand that arriving at root
> cause is a distillation of facts first to
> eliminate those that do not fit into an
> explanation of effects and finally identify the
> order in which remaining facts explain the
> cause for symptoms you've identified.
>
> Snip off the tie wraps, check the wires, follow
> the path from bus to appliance with a voltmeter
> probe . . . nobody sez it's easy . . . but it
> works every time.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
> http://www.cs.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Ed,
I think you are right. It did work before the change, but that might have just
been dumb luck.
My airplane is hangered 40 miles and an hour's drive from my home, right through
the middle of Dallas. The upshot is that I don't work on it as often as I want
to, or should.? My next trip (this week) will be to do a BUNCH of re-wiring.?
Stay tuned.
Jay? ??
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Mueller <ed(at)muellerartcover.com>
Sent: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
?
Jay,?
?
? Any luck with the problem? You might consider that maybe the original
wiring isn't correct, only appeared to be. Years ago, I wired a
project (not airplane related) and it worked fine. Couple years later
made a minor alteration and all sorts of strange things started
happening. Turned out the original wiring was incorrect.?
?
Ed?
?
On Apr 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:?
?
> Bob,?
>?
> Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been
> repealed, or that I was losing my ever-lovin' mind !? Now that you
> have confirmed that those laws are still intact;? I know that my next
> step is to take all the wiring off those two switches.? Then I will
> positively identify each wire before I reinstall it on the switch.?
> I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.?
>?
> Thanks again - Jay?
>?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
________________________________
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:28:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Charlie England wrote:
> Dale Rogers wrote:
>> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>
> If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have you bought
any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or virtually any other consumer
product (China again)?
>
> I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic isolation of
Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government, economy or human rights.
While after 30 years of trade with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot
closer than it was 30 years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off
economically.
>
> I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must come from
within, & if you want to have external influence, the best way to drive it is
to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, with better government.
Charlie,
It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
from such an environment.
Best regards,
Dale R.
Ahh, yes, that makes sense; sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder where the
higher priced ones are made.
One thing I did notice is that the internal resistance is rather high; from something
like 11 to 16 mOhms. IIRC, the Odessey is closer to 6 mOhms. I'm using
a similarly rated battery in my RV-4 (Lyc O-320) & it cranks 'ok' but I doubt
it would be up to the task on a hi compression IO360.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impossible problem |
At 10:52 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I think you are right. It did work before the change, but that might
>have just been dumb luck.
>
>My airplane is hangered 40 miles and an hour's drive from my home,
>right through the middle of Dallas. The upshot is that I don't work
>on it as often as I want to, or should. My next trip (this week)
>will be to do a BUNCH of re-wiring. Stay tuned.
Ed beat me to it. I was about to ask too. We're
all interested in what you find out!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 09:48 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very
>helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same
>old technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a
>complete waste of money, yes?
No. All lead-acid batteries use lead, lead dioxide, lead sulfate,
sulfuric acid and water to craft a reversible electrical energy
storage system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery
Fabrication methods that exploit this reaction have seen
huge evolutionary steps since the time that Plante'
first described the phenomenon in 1859 (before the
civil war!)
Even during my short experience with lead-acid
technology (my first car was a 6v, '41 Pontiac
acquired in 1961) we've see amazing improvements
in robusness, volumetric efficiency, electrical
efficiency, ease of integration and cost of
ownership for this venerable process.
>I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings
>etc., but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I
>do not have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an
>interesting read. My main interest is their lower weight and smaller
>size. That takes more than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB
>battery at < $50 would not provide the same performance albeit
>without the lower internal resistance. I may be confused, but isn't
>cranking power what we want in batteries? When it's 10 degrees
>outside and I've had my ship plugged in for 30 minutes, I don't want
>to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If they can boost cranking
>power by 30 percent, why wouldn't you want that? If I lived in
>Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn't care. A mission specific thing.
You're speaking in non-quantified concerns, conditions
and design goals. Yes, it's probably a given that a
$200 battery has features justifying its increases
in cost over a $50 battery of the same capacity. Do
you need and/or can you exploit a 30% increase in cranking
power? If you arbitrarily say "yes" . . . then perhaps
an upgrade to Braille products is selling your design
goals short. How about a ni-cad? Those are super cranking
batteries . . . but they have trade-offs.
>
>The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the
>avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey's
>ability to the point where it will not provide enough cranking power
>to turn over the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru
>6-cylinder engine. I have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but
>I did learn that he has two GRT displays installed which require a
>heartbeat be maintained from the battery at all times. As you may
>know the GRT does not support internal battery backup directly.
Okay. What is the capacity of the battery he's using?
How large are his avionics loads? Is he just running
the necessary electro-whizzies for pre-flight . . .
or is the whole panel lit up? 5 minutes is a long
time to set there with the panel all lit up. This battery
is supposed to carry e-bus loads for how long? Minutes,
an hour? THREE hours?
Your narrative doesn't inform us sufficiently to offer
considered advice. If a 5-minute panel load is degrading
cranking performance, the FIRST question can be answered
only by capacity and load testing the battery. There's
a high probability that his battery is trashed. But if
his panel loads are say, 50 amps . . . AND assuming that
the 5-minute pre-flight ops are part of his design
goals, then let's see . . .
The PC680 is rated for 7 milliohms internal resistance
and a 20 hour capacity of 17 a.h. We don't have performance
curves for the PC680 but the ratings are similar to this
battery . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
Gee, 50A of panel load is going whack the battery pretty
hard in 5 minutes. Okay how about a 17A panel load. Hmmm . . .
5 minutes of operation should leave plenty of snort to
crank the engine. Lighter loads are still more attractive.
>
>I already own an Odyssey and I'm not going to toss it in the trash
>but I will meter it and report on its performance later.
>Nevertheless, I will add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and
>the dual Lightspeed ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails
>to co-operate while flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.
If that design philosophy assuages your concerns, by
all means. My point is that these systems operate
based on easily deduced and interpreted numbers.
Just for grins, if you do have a capacity meter,
fully charge your battery, do a standard preflight,
crank the engine . . . say twice without turning
the alternator on. Shut everything down and THEN
do a capacity test at the discharge level appropriate
to your endurance loads.
If you find that the system falls short on design
goals, perhaps you DO need a different battery . . .
but the upgrade may have more to do with CAPACITY
than it does with getting the engine started. Given
that were comparing TWO 17 a.h. batteries, perhaps
the upgrade you're anticipating would have an
exceedingly poor return on investment.
It concerns me that with two engine-driven power
sources, a battery with an exemplar reputation,
and some form of metering for battery condition
that you're still not comfortable with the as-installed
system. This suggests that you've not created, tested
and are maintaining a plan-a, plan-b, plan-c approach
to failures. This leaves you in the unhappy position
of (1) constantly worrying; a lack of confidence
based on lack of knowledge and (2) being ready to buy some
new electro-whizzy because of some perceived incremental
increase in performance described in their 4-color
marketing brochures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: incandescent light question |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
> Tungsten passed from a brittle to ductile state
> as it rises in temperature. The legacy automotive
> lamp filaments were most vulnerable to vibration
> stresses while cold.
Bob, Ira and all,
Thanks for your response.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Basic wiring questions |
I have landing/taxi lights, LED nav lights, a Bob Archer VOR antenna, and an
APRS tx/rx antenna in the ends of the wings of an RV-9A (one antenna in each
tip).
1. For the powered items, can I run a single positive wire of adequate size
to a terminal block, then feed the devices from the block?
2. For the antennas, yes they will be using coax, but should I nevertheless
try to run the coax physically separate from the power wires? In addition
to the above power wire I have a 3-wire bundle run from the strobe power
supply in the fuselage to the wing-tip strobe lights. I installed a conduit
about 18 inches away from the Vans wire holes for this purpose.
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil France" <nfrance(at)avnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Noise in headset when pressing to talk |
Hello listers, I hope you can help me figure out a small problem I have
please.
I have a mk IV Kitfox fitted with a Bendix King KY97A radio coupled to a
Flightcom 403mc intercom, which has been in service without trouble for
a number of years.
The aircraft has not flown for around seven months, and I am putting it
back into service.
When the pilots side ptt is pressed, there is a loud constant noise
through both headsets, when the copilots ptt is pressed, there is no
noise.
I replaced the wiring and earths to the pilots stick, but it made no
difference
I then removed the wire from pin no. 7( pilots ptt switch), on the rear
of the unit to eliminate the ptt switch and wiring, and substituted a
long length of wire which I touched directly to the battery negative,
and the noise was still there.
I checked the pins and sockets which all look in perfect condition, but
cleaned them anyway.
If I use the long length of wire from the battery to pin no. 6 (copilot
ptt switch ) it works perfectly with no noise.
The noise I hear in my headset, is not transmitted , I have checked the
radio reception from a hand held radio using different headsets plugged
into the pilot and copilot sockets, and reception is perfect with no
background noise.
Has anyone any ideas what it could be please?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance,
Neil.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the type
supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has reported any
similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs with the need for a
keep alive clock current. Can't find a specification on the GRT web site
for this current but most circuits of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose
the current is 10 ma. In this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load
could significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3 weeks.
At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part of the problem.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Noise in headset when pressing to talk |
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
I had a similar problem and it turned out to be a problem with my
lightspeed headset. I send them back to lightspeed and they fixed them
at no charge.
Allan
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
France
Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Noise in headset when pressing to talk
Hello listers, I hope you can help me figure out a small problem I have
please.
I have a mk IV Kitfox fitted with a Bendix King KY97A radio coupled to a
Flightcom 403mc intercom, which has been in service without trouble for
a number of years.
The aircraft has not flown for around seven months, and I am putting it
back into service.
When the pilots side ptt is pressed, there is a loud constant noise
through both headsets, when the copilots ptt is pressed, there is no
noise.
I replaced the wiring and earths to the pilots stick, but it made no
difference
I then removed the wire from pin no. 7( pilots ptt switch), on the rear
of the unit to eliminate the ptt switch and wiring, and substituted a
long length of wire which I touched directly to the battery negative,
and the noise was still there.
I checked the pins and sockets which all look in perfect condition, but
cleaned them anyway.
If I use the long length of wire from the battery to pin no. 6 (copilot
ptt switch ) it works perfectly with no noise.
The noise I hear in my headset, is not transmitted , I have checked the
radio reception from a hand held radio using different headsets plugged
into the pilot and copilot sockets, and reception is perfect with no
background noise.
Has anyone any ideas what it could be please?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance,
Neil.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sheldon Olesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> |
| Subject: | VDC Electronics battery charger offer |
Bob,
VDC Electronics is offering aviation specific battery chargers at a
reduced price if you trade in an a non-aviation charger. Their
aviation chargers are temperature compensated so there is no over or
undercharging. They claim that the new chargers will increase the
battery life. Are regular battery chargers inadequate for the task,
especially if the batteries are being replace every year or so? Is
this a marketing gimmick or something worthwhile?
Sheldon Olesen
http://www.batteryminders.com/batterycharger/home.php
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 04:29 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the
>type supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has
>reported any similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs
>with the need for a keep alive clock current. Can't find a
>specification on the GRT web site for this current but most circuits
>of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose the current is 10 ma. In
>this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load could
>significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3
>weeks. At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part
>of the problem.
>
>Tom Kuffel
The thread started with an observation that one or more
folks where having trouble getting their engine started
after a 5 minute pre-starting load of unknown magnitude.
An idea was proposed that a particular brand of
battery might be a good replacement. It was advertised
to have greater cranking capability.
This isn't about the goodness of one battery or the
badness of another. It's about KNOWING what the
design goals are and then deducing why they're
not being met. The original problem may be no more
profound than the fact that PC680 was shot. Without
getting the numbers, all the rest is conversation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gregory Clawson <aeroclaw(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields |
Bob-
I recently bought an IVOPROP magnum inflight adjustable propeller; the adjustment
is done with an electric motor. The power and ground leads are both approximately
12 feet long, as are the two leads that go from the switch to the carbon
brushes. The installation directions explicitly state "Do not cut the wires";
I called IVOPROP and asked if that applied to all four wires, or only the
ones going out to the prop. They stated that all the wires should be left alone,
as the resistance of the wires was part of the calculation for circuit breaker
selection, and shorter wires would result in the breaker tripping more easily.
So, I have two pair of 12 fort wires to stow in behind the panel of an
RV-7.
I don't want simply to coil the wires out of concern for the EM field the coil
would produce whenever I'm changing the pitch of the prop. Can I take the power/ground
pair and twist them, take the two leads out to the prop and twist them,
then twist the two twisted pairs together, and finally stow them in a loose
but well-secured coil? Memories from college physics lead me to think the electrons
flowing in opposite directions should cancel each others' fields, but
those memories are a little hazy.
Thank you,
Gregory Clawson
RV-7, E-6/200, N687LC (res)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RScott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: Huuuuuhhhh?] |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Forgive me for adding more "conversation", but 680's have performed well for
me.
I use a PC-680 on an O-540 installation. I'm on the second 680 and both
have performed well. I trashed the first one during the building process by
hitting it with 15 or so full discharges after leaving the master on. Then
I overcharged it numerous times with a non-maintaining car charger. It still
started the 540 but was getting weak after two months of flying. I put in
the second one and it just goes and goes even on cold morning starts. I have
to say it has plenty of reserve, but I haven't measured how much.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
At 04:29 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the
>type supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has
>reported any similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs
>with the need for a keep alive clock current. Can't find a
>specification on the GRT web site for this current but most circuits
>of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose the current is 10 ma. In
>this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load could
>significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3
>weeks. At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part
>of the problem.
>
>Tom Kuffel
The thread started with an observation that one or more
folks where having trouble getting their engine started
after a 5 minute pre-starting load of unknown magnitude.
An idea was proposed that a particular brand of
battery might be a good replacement. It was advertised
to have greater cranking capability.
This isn't about the goodness of one battery or the
badness of another. It's about KNOWING what the
design goals are and then deducing why they're
not being met. The original problem may be no more
profound than the fact that PC680 was shot. Without
getting the numbers, all the rest is conversation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Huuuuuhhhh?] |
Obviously a product of the public school system.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 13
RScott wrote:
>
< newspaper clipping >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields |
At 09:58 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Bob-
>I recently bought an IVOPROP magnum inflight adjustable propeller;
>the adjustment is done with an electric motor. The power and ground
>leads are both approximately 12 feet long, as are the two leads that
>go from the switch to the carbon brushes. The installation
>directions explicitly state "Do not cut the wires"; I called IVOPROP
>and asked if that applied to all four wires, or only the ones going
>out to the prop. They stated that all the wires should be left
>alone, as the resistance of the wires was part of the calculation
>for circuit breaker selection, and shorter wires would result in the
>breaker tripping more easily. So, I have two pair of 12 fort wires
>to stow in behind the panel of an RV-7.
This borders on bizarre. I cannot imagine anbody
figuring wire length into the sizing of a circuit
breaker.
>I don't want simply to coil the wires out of concern for the EM
>field the coil would produce whenever I'm changing the pitch of the
>prop. Can I take the power/ground pair and twist them, take the two
>leads out to the prop and twist them, then twist the two twisted
>pairs together, and finally stow them in a loose but well-secured
>coil? Memories from college physics lead me to think the electrons
>flowing in opposite directions should cancel each others' fields,
>but those memories are a little hazy.
I'm pretty sure just running them in parallel
bundles is fine. I've written the company to
inquire as to the physics behind any determination
of criticality for bundle length.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Affixing an Engine Ground |
On closer inspection of my Lycoming I found there are two pre-determined
grounding locations on the IO-360 engine. Those bearing the Dynafocal
mount setup have a purpose built hole on the ear of lower mounting tabs.
I've attached a few pics.
Thanks,
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: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
At 09:49 AM 2/13/2009, you wrote:
>I have a new IO-360 and I am at a loss as to the best place to bolt
>the ground wire. Do any of you have a suggestion? A picture may be
>valuable here.
>
>Along the same lines, my craft is fiberglass and I am wondering if
>it's smart to have two such ground running from the firewall to the
engine.
One is sufficient. Assemblies on airplanes held together
with big bolts are generally considered failure free if
assembled per instructions.
Even if the airplane is metal, the engine sits on
non-conductive shock mounts. Some designers have
called for conductive bonding straps around the
shock mounts for the purpose of electrically
connecting the engine to the engine mount and
ultimately to the airframe at the firewall.
But if you plot out all the series and paralleled
connections in such an array of conductors, it
becomes apparent that the most effective and
simple process is the fat-wire or braided
ground jumper from the crankcase to a high-quality
ground on the firewall, i.e. forest-of-tabs
or equal.
I'd be pleased to have photos of good connections
to the crankcase on various engines. I'll publish
them on the website.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Affixing an Engine Ground |
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> On closer inspection of my Lycoming I found there are two pre-determined
> grounding locations on the IO-360 engine. Those bearing the Dynafocal
> mount setup have a purpose built hole on the ear of lower mounting tabs.
> I've attached a few pics.
>
Glenn,
The folks who still access their mail via a dial-up connection
are probably uttering deprecations right now. 2 Meg is nearly
an hour's download, just for this one message.
For the future, you might want to avail yourself of one of the
many graphic tools (e.g. irfanview is free) to crop and/or
resample to shrink your photos to a manageable < 200KB.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 13
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Affixing an Engine Ground |
Glenn,
I would grind the paint off where you have attached the ground in order to
ensure a good connection...
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Finishing"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
On closer inspection of my Lycoming I found there are two pre-determined
grounding locations on the IO-360 engine. Those bearing the Dynafocal
mount setup have a purpose built hole on the ear of lower mounting tabs.
I've attached a few pics.
Thanks,
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: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
At 09:49 AM 2/13/2009, you wrote:
>I have a new IO-360 and I am at a loss as to the best place to bolt
>the ground wire. Do any of you have a suggestion? A picture may be
>valuable here.
>
>Along the same lines, my craft is fiberglass and I am wondering if
>it's smart to have two such ground running from the firewall to the
engine.
One is sufficient. Assemblies on airplanes held together
with big bolts are generally considered failure free if
assembled per instructions.
Even if the airplane is metal, the engine sits on
non-conductive shock mounts. Some designers have
called for conductive bonding straps around the
shock mounts for the purpose of electrically
connecting the engine to the engine mount and
ultimately to the airframe at the firewall.
But if you plot out all the series and paralleled
connections in such an array of conductors, it
becomes apparent that the most effective and
simple process is the fat-wire or braided
ground jumper from the crankcase to a high-quality
ground on the firewall, i.e. forest-of-tabs
or equal.
I'd be pleased to have photos of good connections
to the crankcase on various engines. I'll publish
them on the website.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Affixing an Engine Ground |
Does anyone know equivalent locations on an IO-540?
---- longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> On closer inspection of my Lycoming I found there are two pre-determined
> grounding locations on the IO-360 engine. Those bearing the Dynafocal
> mount setup have a purpose built hole on the ear of lower mounting tabs.
> I've attached a few pics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:53 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
>
>
>
> At 09:49 AM 2/13/2009, you wrote:
> >I have a new IO-360 and I am at a loss as to the best place to bolt
> >the ground wire. Do any of you have a suggestion? A picture may be
> >valuable here.
> >
> >Along the same lines, my craft is fiberglass and I am wondering if
> >it's smart to have two such ground running from the firewall to the
> engine.
>
> One is sufficient. Assemblies on airplanes held together
> with big bolts are generally considered failure free if
> assembled per instructions.
>
> Even if the airplane is metal, the engine sits on
> non-conductive shock mounts. Some designers have
> called for conductive bonding straps around the
> shock mounts for the purpose of electrically
> connecting the engine to the engine mount and
> ultimately to the airframe at the firewall.
> But if you plot out all the series and paralleled
> connections in such an array of conductors, it
> becomes apparent that the most effective and
> simple process is the fat-wire or braided
> ground jumper from the crankcase to a high-quality
> ground on the firewall, i.e. forest-of-tabs
> or equal.
>
> I'd be pleased to have photos of good connections
> to the crankcase on various engines. I'll publish
> them on the website.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trio altitude hold system |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi all,
Maybe one of you has come across the same problem that I have encountered. I
have purchased a Trio Altitude hold and can not get it to hold the altitude
at all. Upon engaging the systems starts initiating a ever increasing
proposing of the airplane with variations in altitude over 500 feet on
either side. We have tied different approaches wit the help of the technical
experts at Trio but have not come up with a solution. I have reset the
system on numerous occasions, have shut down everything electrical in flight
except the mags, have removed the strobe lights, have taken the adjuster and
LED indicator out of the panel to eliminate interference and have replaced
the electronic controller and the servo with new ones, without success.
Maybe somebody can help
Franz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: IVOPROP Magnum installation instructions |
Subject: IVOPROP Magnum installation instructions
By way of introduction, I'm a retired electrical engineer
with 40+ years in aviation and other venues. I write and
publish the AeroElectric Connection, a guide for the
crafting of modern electrical systems in owner built and
maintained aircraft. I support a website at
Http://aeroelectric.com
and moderate an aviation electrical systems discussion
group with over 1800 subscribers on Matronics. com
One of my readers tells me that instructions for
one of your products calls for installing a wire
harness in its as-supplied length. When he asked about
cutting it to length, he tells me that your service
folks told him that the wiring resistance was part of
a critical calculation for the sizing of circuit breakers
. . . or some such.
I'm mystified by his understanding of the assertion. I
offered to write to your directly and inquire as to the
elements of physics that control your wire sizing and
why he is advised to install so much extra wire that
is not useful to his project.
I hope you can clear this up for me. Thanks!
>Dear Robert, The elements of physics are not available.
>The wire harness is used as a resistor. If shortened, too much
>current goes into the unit causing the carrier, gears, leadscrew,
>etc. to break. Once the spool reaches the stop, if the switch is continued
>to be held the circuit breaker should pop within 5-7 seconds. It
>would be possible to shorten the wire
>and put in its place a resistor that would cause the circuit
>breaker to pop in the same amount of time. We do not encourage this
>because if there is a mistake,
>parts will break and the factory sealed unit will need to be
>returned to our factory for repair. If the wire is too long it is
>best to just coil it up. Regards, Ron
>
Ron,
Hmmmm . . . I'm sorry to hear this. I would
have wished that design goals and demonstrable
robustness for this product were in closer
agreement with commercial aviation practices.
A motor driven gear train at risk for
damage by hitting mechanical stops could
not be qualified for use on a type certificated
aircraft. If limit switches and/or mechanical
torque limiters were not part of the basic
design, then some form of electrical torque
limiting is called for by tailoring the speed/
torque curve of the motor -AND- limiting energy
stored on the motor's armature when mechanical
limits are reached.
Is there a brake on the motor? What happens if the
prop mechanism becomes disconnected from the motor?
Will the mechanism back-drive? What pitch state does
the prop go if the drive train becomes disconnected?
It is stable in that state?
What is the maximum expected operating current for
the motor? What is it's expected stall current at
14.5V with the lead lengths as-supplied? What is
the as-supplied wire size? What is the size and
manufacturer's part number for the supplied breaker?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Misc electrical items for sale |
Since my airplane is now finished I have some various finishing and
electrical parts available for sale. Email me for a list of what I have
available.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Flying 16 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trio altitude hold system |
On 08 Apr 2009, at 12:57 AM, Franz Fux
wrote:
> Hi all,
> Maybe one of you has come across the same problem that I have
> encountered.
Hi Franz
Have you checked for play in the linkage between the servo arm and the
control mechanism, or more generally, any play between the servo and
elevator?
Control systems usually exhibit the symptom you describe if there's
backlash or play...
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Trio altitude hold system |
Or if the servo is not fast enough to stop the natural plungoid pitch
cycle and makes it divergent. We have the same issue in Glasairs with
STEC AP's the servo is too slow and the aircraft just keeps pitching
up/down in ever increasing cycles. The cure is to increase the servo
response time. In an STEC it means changing out a resistor, I don't know
how it's done on the Trio.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trio altitude hold system
On 08 Apr 2009, at 12:57 AM, Franz Fux
wrote:
> Hi all,
> Maybe one of you has come across the same problem that I have
> encountered.
Hi Franz
Have you checked for play in the linkage between the servo arm and the
control mechanism, or more generally, any play between the servo and
elevator?
Control systems usually exhibit the symptom you describe if there's
backlash or play...
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals |
Hi all,
A buddy bought a Garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and a Garmin GTX 328 transponder
and asked me to install them, but to date I am unable to locate the
installation manuals.
Does anyone happen to have them or know a convenient location ?
Any input appreciated,
Thanks in advance,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
Whem building bus bars and ground points, are there any significant reasons to
use one over the other?
Thanks,
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals |
Gilles,
I just saw an SL30 installation manual on Ebay. The present bid is $5.00.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gilles
Thesee
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
A buddy bought a Garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and a Garmin GTX 328 transponder
and asked me to install them, but to date I am unable to locate the
installation manuals.
Does anyone happen to have them or know a convenient location ?
Any input appreciated,
Thanks in advance,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals |
The are here for free
http://www.bomar.biz/
Floyd Wilkes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi all,
>
> A buddy bought a Garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and a Garmin GTX 328 transponder and
> asked me to install them, but to date I am unable to locate the
> installation manuals.
> Does anyone happen to have them or know a convenient location ?
>
> Any input appreciated,
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Gilles
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
At 06:46 AM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>Whem building bus bars and ground points, are there any significant
>reasons to use one over the other?
Brass comes in a variety of alloys and can have an
electrical conductivity of perhaps 20% that of
pure copper. But brass is generally easier to work
with in terms of drilling clean holes. It's also
a bit less reactive and subject to corrosion than
copper.
That relatively low conduction value is significant
if you were making wire . . . and needing to efficiently
carry energy long distances. But for compact parts like
bus bars, either material can be considered. While
making the same part from copper might offer 1/5th
the electrical losses, losses in a copper bus bar
are very small . . . and 5x very small is still small.
How are you intending to build ground blocks?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Affixing an Engine Ground |
Ah yes, thought of that. I ground off just under the bolt, so as to keep
up with appearances.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
Glenn,
I would grind the paint off where you have attached the ground in order
to
ensure a good connection...
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Finishing"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
On closer inspection of my Lycoming I found there are two pre-determined
grounding locations on the IO-360 engine. Those bearing the Dynafocal
mount setup have a purpose built hole on the ear of lower mounting tabs.
I've attached a few pics.
Thanks,
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: Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Affixing an Engine Ground
At 09:49 AM 2/13/2009, you wrote:
>I have a new IO-360 and I am at a loss as to the best place to bolt
>the ground wire. Do any of you have a suggestion? A picture may be
>valuable here.
>
>Along the same lines, my craft is fiberglass and I am wondering if
>it's smart to have two such ground running from the firewall to the
engine.
One is sufficient. Assemblies on airplanes held together
with big bolts are generally considered failure free if
assembled per instructions.
Even if the airplane is metal, the engine sits on
non-conductive shock mounts. Some designers have
called for conductive bonding straps around the
shock mounts for the purpose of electrically
connecting the engine to the engine mount and
ultimately to the airframe at the firewall.
But if you plot out all the series and paralleled
connections in such an array of conductors, it
becomes apparent that the most effective and
simple process is the fat-wire or braided
ground jumper from the crankcase to a high-quality
ground on the firewall, i.e. forest-of-tabs
or equal.
I'd be pleased to have photos of good connections
to the crankcase on various engines. I'll publish
them on the website.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
I've all but completed the installation of the dual Lightspeed and I'm
attach a few pics for those still on the road. I used Bob's idea of
backing up the main leads to the 5 amp Potter breaker-switches with 30
amp in line fuses. I won't advocate one approach over another so, this
is how I did it and I'm sticking to it. I bring a lead in from the hot
side of the battery contactor and secure it to a terminal block I picked
up at Stein. This makes the distribution a breeze and leaves me a spare
hot terminal for the next gadget. On the panel view the two green switch
covered items are the breakers. Their lines come directly off the power
feeders and the loads to the plasma boxes.
>From my point of view attaching the wire to the hot side of the battery
contactor is just as good as going directly to the battery. If the
battery lead falls off my lead will also, so what's the point. If the
contactor lead falls off, I'll use my backup battery to feed the
terminal bar. If any of that happens and I'm still around I'm going to
torque the bolts onto the battery and the contactor and then epoxy the
threads so they never come off again. I expect no issues.
I talked to an Plasma III owner last night who had one of the ignition
boxes fail in flight. He did not say if the internal OVP kicked off or
what the problem was but they continued the flight safely. LS replaced
the box, but not before trying a new coil, wires and so on. The main
problem was getting a replacement module at the off-site location and
ferrying back and forth to install the parts. One caveat of these things
is that Pep Boys doesn't carry them. If you are lucky enough to live in
SO Cal, you will have better access to their source.
One note on the in-line fuses. Don't buy them from B & C - they are
poorly made. The terminals inside are not strait and the plastic is rock
hard. I damaged more than one fuse trying to get them in. Threw them
away and went to Napa. TG for Napa.
The ignition system will have a backup battery at some point - I'm still
pondering how best to work it into Z-13/8.
Some pictures here...
http://n661gl.blogspot.com/
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses
-->
At 11:01 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Jose,
>
>Would you bet your life on a floppy adaptation on your Lightspeed
>ignition? Perhaps yours is just cursory interest. I'm sure you can jam
>pennies in there if you like. There's no reason that would not work.
>
>Right now I am using Bob's proposed schematic which adds two in-line 30
>amp fuses in front of two 5 amp breakers. He also considered two relays
>in place of the 30 amp ATC's.
>
>I guess my deal is how am I going to get at those 30 amp in-line fuses
>and still keep my eye on flying the airplane. I suppose if you blow two
>30 amp fuses behind the two five amp breakers suggested by LSA, you're
>already in deep doo-doo.
>
>I wanted to ask Bob why the 30 amp fuse? Couldn't we get-a-way with
>something lighter, say 20 amp?
No . . . well . . . depends. When you compare the various
time-to-trip curves for over-current protection, there's
a often overlooked consideration - response time.
Magnetic breakers and electronic breakers can be exceedingly
fast. Most thermal devices are tailored to a design goal.
For example, you can get 5A fast blow fuses and 5A slow blow
fuses. Thermal breakers as a class of circuit protector
are generally VERY slow compared to a fuse of the same ratings.
So, hook a 5A breaker in series with a 5A fuse and hit
the feeder with a short. The fuse opens every time. Keep
increasing the fuse size and you'll find that it probably
takes a 20A fuse to out-muscle a 5A breaker. So for good
headroom in the design, we make the upstream protection MUCH
more robust than the downstream protection.
This is why ANL limiters are exceedingly robust. They are
intended to be part of a distribution system wherein
no single downstream feeder protection can trip an
upstream feeder protection . . . even if the upstream
feeder is running say 100% of system average. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL
_Specs.pdf
Note that the "rating" for a current limiter
includes enough headroom that it can be loaded to
100% of rating and still stand off a downstream
breaker or fuse trip.
I'm working and accident right now wherein redundant
feeders to a common bus were protected with fuses
and not current limiters with an unfortunate outcome.
This is IMPORTANT. This is why my 5A crowbar breaker
feed is protected upstream with a fusible link.
The breaker will always open before the fusible link.
Bob . . .
>What I would like to see is a polyfuse mounted into an ATC fuse shell,
>preferably one of those ATC types that have the LED already built in to
>indicate a fault. By so doing, you could use the readily available ATC
>fuse blocks, thereby retaining the option to simply pull the Polyfuse
>out when you need to. For my first attempt, I was going to try a little
>surgery on an ATC fuse package and epoxy a Polyfuse to it..., but I
>have not yet taken the chance to play with this. My guess is that it
>may be only a matter of time before some Taiwanese manufacturer starts
>putting polyfuses in the ATC fuse format.
Read the discussions on my website about the downside for
having self resetting circuit protection. The Polyfuse is
not a drop-in replacement for fuses or breakers. The
design task I'm working right now goes to a very specific
application of the Polyfuse. Similarly, fusible links
are not to be used in place of breakers or fuses without
sifting all the simple ideas and making sure design
goals are being met.
Polyfuses ARE used in automobiles. Seat adjuster motors
and widow riser motors are commonly protected with Polyfuses.
But you can be sure that if there were good value in
using them everywhere, the car guys would have ditched
the fuse block a long time ago. They ARE NOT directly
interchangeable technologies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Gene,
Both B & C and Stein sell brass buss bar stock (what do they know?). The thought
is that copper is softer and may give under torque loads. Personally I find
copper to be a solid alternative. If you look at the buss on the electrical panel
in your house (and everyone else's), you find mostly aluminum, albeit rather
thick aluminum. The panel in your house doesn't normally move or vibrate, so
that is a primary reason for using brass in airplanes which has good torque
ratings.
If we took a class in metallurgy, we would likely find there are not yet tried
superior metals. You would also find that the service life of one over the other
will extend long after we're gone. I took calculus and we applied it to metal
failure in widgets (makes you feel like it's really useful in life). The difference
between copper and brass used on a tool over their life were something
like 10 log -> 2 power as applied to charted figures. This basically meant you
would never outlive the life of either if you rubbed it 100 times a day for
the rest of your life. Interesting stuff.
Silver is a great conductor, but too soft to torque bolts too. Aluminum is also
thought to be too soft. Back in the sixties the old guys tried aluminum in house
wire, but later found the mice had screwdrivers and were always loosening
the connections.
One nice thing about brass is that if your really worried the mounting bolts can
be brazed (lightly) such that they will never come loose.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gdaub(at)cox.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Brass vs copper
Whem building bus bars and ground points, are there any significant reasons to
use one over the other?
Thanks,
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals |
If you're installing into a non-certified A/C, contact GarminAT
support and they will supply current manuals.
Ron Q.
At 03:55 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>A buddy bought a Garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and a Garmin GTX 328
>transponder and asked me to install them, but to date I am unable to
>locate the installation manuals.
>Does anyone happen to have them or know a convenient location ?
>
>Any input appreciated,
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Best regards,
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: IVOPROP Magnum installation instructions |
| From: | Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Gosh Bob, you haven't even begun to bed in the prop blades, yet. The fun is
just beginning.
Rick
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> To: ivoprop(at)pacbell.net
> Subject: IVOPROP Magnum installation instructions
>
> By way of introduction, I'm a retired electrical engineer
> with 40+ years in aviation and other venues. I write and
> publish the AeroElectric Connection, a guide for the
> crafting of modern electrical systems in owner built and
> maintained aircraft. I support a website at
>
> Http://aeroelectric.com
>
> and moderate an aviation electrical systems discussion
> group with over 1800 subscribers on Matronics. com
>
> One of my readers tells me that instructions for
> one of your products calls for installing a wire
> harness in its as-supplied length. When he asked about
> cutting it to length, he tells me that your service
> folks told him that the wiring resistance was part of
> a critical calculation for the sizing of circuit breakers
> . . . or some such.
>
> I'm mystified by his understanding of the assertion. I
> offered to write to your directly and inquire as to the
> elements of physics that control your wire sizing and
> why he is advised to install so much extra wire that
> is not useful to his project.
>
> I hope you can clear this up for me. Thanks!
>
>
> Dear Robert, The elements of physics are not available.
>> The wire harness is used as a resistor. If shortened, too much current
>> goes into the unit causing the carrier, gears, leadscrew, etc. to break.
>> Once the spool reaches the stop, if the switch is continued
>> to be held the circuit breaker should pop within 5-7 seconds. It would be
>> possible to shorten the wire
>> and put in its place a resistor that would cause the circuit
>> breaker to pop in the same amount of time. We do not encourage this
>> because if there is a mistake,
>> parts will break and the factory sealed unit will need to be returned to
>> our factory for repair. If the wire is too long it is best to just coil it
>> up. Regards, Ron
>>
>>
> Ron,
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm sorry to hear this. I would
> have wished that design goals and demonstrable
> robustness for this product were in closer
> agreement with commercial aviation practices.
>
> A motor driven gear train at risk for
> damage by hitting mechanical stops could
> not be qualified for use on a type certificated
> aircraft. If limit switches and/or mechanical
> torque limiters were not part of the basic
> design, then some form of electrical torque
> limiting is called for by tailoring the speed/
> torque curve of the motor -AND- limiting energy
> stored on the motor's armature when mechanical
> limits are reached.
>
> Is there a brake on the motor? What happens if the
> prop mechanism becomes disconnected from the motor?
> Will the mechanism back-drive? What pitch state does
> the prop go if the drive train becomes disconnected?
> It is stable in that state?
>
> What is the maximum expected operating current for
> the motor? What is it's expected stall current at
> 14.5V with the lead lengths as-supplied? What is
> the as-supplied wire size? What is the size and
> manufacturer's part number for the supplied breaker?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin radio & transpnder installation manuals |
Thank you to everyone who responded on-list as well as off-list.
I now have everything I need.
Thanks again,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Affixing an Engine Ground |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Van's method for grounding the IO-540 in the RV10 is to use the accessory case
bolts just below the upper Lord mounts.
Jim Berry
40482
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238342#238342
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
At 09:48 AM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>Gosh Bob, you haven't even begun to bed in the prop blades, yet. The
>fun is just beginning.
>
>Rick
"bed in"??? You'll have to help me out here.
I herd electrons for a living.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | My SD-8 Experience |
| From: | "Ken Harrill" <kharrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
This is empirical data with a sample of one. It is not a statement of what is
true or fact. The experience of others may be entirely different.
A little over a year ago my airplane, an RV-6, was grounded for a month while I
tried to make the self-excitation circuit work with my installed SD-8 standby
alternator. I was not successful. The self excitation circuit, wired according
to Z-25, would trip its overvoltage circuit. I experimented with different
size capacitors and resistors to no avail. I was tired of not flying so I gave
up and went back to my previous setup (see the attached circuit diagram).
Except for this period of experimentation, the standby alternator circuit on
my plane (configured per the attachment) has worked reliably for six years and
800 hours. It is a modification of Z-13 that allows the standby system to be
completely independent of the main bus and battery system (in order to avoid
a single point of failure). If the engine is running the standby system will
provide power. The only negative to this configuration is that it requires a
small (0.8 AH) battery. The battery is the size of a deck of cards, weighs less
than a pound, costs about $25 and is commonly available at the local battery
store (Power Patrol SLA 1000; Power Sonic PS-1208WL; or Universal Power Group
UB 1208). I change the battery at three year intervals. I hope someone will
find this helpful.
--------
Ken Harrill
RV-6
Columiba, SC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238364#238364
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/standby_alternator_circuit_150.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, The IVO prop mounts composite blades between knurled plates bolted
together. The bedding process is done bringing the bolts up to torque as the
knurling bites into the base of the blade. It's an interesting idea in
theory, but becomes very labor intensive, very quickly, in practice.
Rick
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:48 AM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>> Gosh Bob, you haven't even begun to bed in the prop blades, yet. The fun
>> is just beginning.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
>
> "bed in"??? You'll have to help me out here.
> I herd electrons for a living.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trio altitude hold system |
| From: | franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com |
This was my first area of checking, all is very solid, probably over build, I also
tried out the system without connecting the static line, no change as well
Franz
------Original Message------
From: Etienne Phillips
Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trio altitude hold system
Sent: Apr 7, 2009 21:26
On 08 Apr 2009, at 12:57 AM, Franz Fux
wrote:
> Hi all,
> Maybe one of you has come across the same problem that I have
> encountered.
Hi Franz
Have you checked for play in the linkage between the servo arm and the
control mechanism, or more generally, any play between the servo and
elevator?
Control systems usually exhibit the symptom you describe if there's
backlash or play...
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
As Bob stated brass does not conduct very good.
Copper 101
or 110 does not machine very good.
Now that is not the case for
copper 1451 It machines terrific.
Go to www.mcmaster.com
search:
"about copper"
"copper
145"
Here is technical info:
http://www.mcmaster.com/#8964kac/=1czbjr
Although not quite as conductive as 101, not bad.
Ron
Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <n4zq(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric Connection Fig. 17.6 Dual Battery Installation |
Hello,
I am finalizing a single alt dual battery installation in my Lancair
360 and generally following the diagram in figure 17.6. According to
this diagram, with both the aux bat and main bat contactors open, the
aux battery is isolated from the endurance bus and essentially reduces
total endurance by half. Why not tie both batteries together to feed
the endurance bus through the E-Bus Alt Feed Switch? Not only do you
have both batteries working for you, but the current drain from the
aux bat contactor is eliminated.
I'm definitely electrically challenged so what am I missing here?
Thanks
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trio altitude hold system |
I must have missed the beginning of the thread...but whoever started it -
stop typing, pick up the phone and call Trio.
Their support is top-shelf and I'm sure there is a quick and simple fix for
your application (dead-band and gain settings). In my opinion, you are
simply wasting time on the forums for this kind of issue...go to the source.
James Redmon
Berkut #013/Race 13
www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:05 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Trio altitude hold system
>
> Or if the servo is not fast enough to stop the natural plungoid pitch
> cycle and makes it divergent. We have the same issue in Glasairs with
> STEC AP's the servo is too slow and the aircraft just keeps pitching
> up/down in ever increasing cycles. The cure is to increase the servo
> response time. In an STEC it means changing out a resistor, I don't know
> how it's done on the Trio.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trio altitude hold system |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Good advice, but useless. I have been talking to them for the last three
months, they can not figure it out,
Franz
On 08/04/09 9:26 PM, "berkut13(at)berkut13.com" wrote:
>
> I must have missed the beginning of the thread...but whoever started it -
> stop typing, pick up the phone and call Trio.
>
> Their support is top-shelf and I'm sure there is a quick and simple fix for
> your application (dead-band and gain settings). In my opinion, you are
> simply wasting time on the forums for this kind of issue...go to the source.
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013/Race 13
> www.berkut13.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:05 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Trio altitude hold system
>
>
>>
>> Or if the servo is not fast enough to stop the natural plungoid pitch
>> cycle and makes it divergent. We have the same issue in Glasairs with
>> STEC AP's the servo is too slow and the aircraft just keeps pitching
>> up/down in ever increasing cycles. The cure is to increase the servo
>> response time. In an STEC it means changing out a resistor, I don't know
>> how it's done on the Trio.
>>
>> Bruce
>> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
You guys do know that you are discussing resistivity differences
in milliohms or tenths of a milliohm between copper and brass on buss
strips, right?
Aluminum is a particularly bad choice because of rapid AlO2 corrosion forming a
tough skin almost immediately, and consequent resistive
losses and heating
Use unprotected copper in the engine compartment and with the heat
and reactive Nitrogen combustion species floating around, you can watch
it corrode before your eyes. Lets not even mention work hardening
from vibration loads on the connection tabs.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238469#238469
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
Typically Brass is 88% plus copper with tin/silicon and other elements to
alter the grain boundaries' and molecular structure so Ira is right you are
splitting hairs when discussing resistivity. You pick up strength corrosion
resistance and modulus with Brass with the exception of leaded brass which
was used for bearing materials. If you add nickel and aluminum to the tin
and silicon you change brass into bronze. Still all maintaining around 88%
plus copper. Brass and cost are the two considerations. Take care.
Jim Wickert
Vision #159
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass vs copper
You guys do know that you are discussing resistivity differences
in milliohms or tenths of a milliohm between copper and brass on buss
strips, right?
Aluminum is a particularly bad choice because of rapid AlO2 corrosion
forming a tough skin almost immediately, and consequent resistive
losses and heating
Use unprotected copper in the engine compartment and with the heat
and reactive Nitrogen combustion species floating around, you can watch
it corrode before your eyes. Lets not even mention work hardening
from vibration loads on the connection tabs.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238469#238469
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Alexander" <dalexan48(at)dslextreme.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
Boy, you said a mouthfull there! Back when Velocity builders were putting
these things on real aircraft engines, there was a large amount of failures
due to prop hub torque maintenance. Now to be fair, builders were putting
IVO props on IO-360 Lycomings against the stated recommendations of IVO. He
made this recommendation as the big four cylinder has huge torque pulses
that really beat the heck out of the aluminum components. That's
understandable. BUT, the torque procedure for the prop blade mounting is a
multi-step task that requires re-torqueing and checking the metal "safety
tape" for movement.
In my opinion, any procedure that requires as many staps as the IVO prop
mounting is begging to be shortcomed owing to human nature. You know, the
"I'll do it later" or " it's probably OK by now" type of thinking. And sure
enough, we lost a couple of Velocites due to blade seperation from the hub
and had many owners stating that the blades moved around quite a bit AFTER
the procedure. As a result, IVO's don't get used on the 360 engine. But the
overall design does not look robust enough for service in any appilcation
other than air boats and ultra-lights for which they were originally
intended.
Please be careful with IVO props.
Dale Alexander
> ________________________________ Message 15
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IVOPROP Magnum
> From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
>
> Bob, The IVO prop mounts composite blades between knurled plates bolted
> together. The bedding process is done bringing the bolts up to torque as
> the
> knurling bites into the base of the blade. It's an interesting idea in
> theory, but becomes very labor intensive, very quickly, in practice.
> Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric Connection Fig. 17.6 Dual Battery |
Installation
At 10:18 PM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>I am finalizing a single alt dual battery installation in my Lancair
>360 and generally following the diagram in figure 17.6. According to
>this diagram, with both the aux bat and main bat contactors open, the
>aux battery is isolated from the endurance bus and essentially reduces
>total endurance by half. Why not tie both batteries together to feed
>the endurance bus through the E-Bus Alt Feed Switch? Not only do you
>have both batteries working for you, but the current drain from the
>aux bat contactor is eliminated.
>
>I'm definitely electrically challenged so what am I missing here?
The idea behind Figure 17-6 is to provide separate energy
sources for running (1) and electrically dependent engine
and (2) running endurance loads during alternator-out
operations. This architecture is described in more detail
in Figure Z-19 and was conceived to support engines that
had no practical way to run two alternators. This generally
means certain automotive conversions.
During alternator out operations, it was a DESIGN GOAL
to assign separate tasks to the two batteries as described
in the chapter 17 and Appendix Z texts for these figures.
Your engine is very capable of supporting two alternators.
Further, you don't say whether or not your engine is
electrically dependent (other than pumping of fuel).
There are architectures much more suited to your project
namely Z-13/8, Z-12 or (if you're going all out for
full up IFR flight capability from either pilot's
position) Z-14.
I'll suggest you consider Z-13/8 and figure out how
' (or if) it fails to meet your operational design goals.
This configuration is the lightest, least expensive
and most user friendly to have system reliability
that exceeds the vast majority of type certificated
piston engine airplanes flying.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
Just to be sure we understand the science correctly..
Contrary to the direct relationship between composition and conductivity
implied in your message, the effect on electrical conductivity of trace
elements and alloying elements is significant for any of the usual metals
used as conductors (Ag, Al, and Cu), and in the case of brass here's how
conductivity changes with the addition of zinc.
Figure 2. Effect of Zinc Content on the Electrical Conductivity of Brass
A mere 1% of tin (in the absence of any other elements besides Cu) will
reduce conductivity by about 50%.
Your conclusion is of course correct. In this case brass is as good as pure
copper.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS Tri-Gear
A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Wickert
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass vs copper
Typically Brass is 88% plus copper with tin/silicon and other elements to
alter the grain boundaries' and molecular structure so Ira is right you are
splitting hairs when discussing resistivity. You pick up strength corrosion
resistance and modulus with Brass with the exception of leaded brass which
was used for bearing materials. If you add nickel and aluminum to the tin
and silicon you change brass into bronze. Still all maintaining around 88%
plus copper. Brass and cost are the two considerations. Take care.
Jim Wickert
Vision #159
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass vs copper
You guys do know that you are discussing resistivity differences
in milliohms or tenths of a milliohm between copper and brass on buss
strips, right?
Aluminum is a particularly bad choice because of rapid AlO2 corrosion
forming a tough skin almost immediately, and consequent resistive
losses and heating
Use unprotected copper in the engine compartment and with the heat
and reactive Nitrogen combustion species floating around, you can watch
it corrode before your eyes. Lets not even mention work hardening
from vibration loads on the connection tabs.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238469#238469
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
>You guys do know that you are discussing resistivity differences
>in milliohms or tenths of a milliohm between copper and brass on buss
>strips, right?
>
>Aluminum is a particularly bad choice because of rapid AlO2 corrosion
>forming a tough skin almost immediately, and consequent resistive
>losses and heating
Gentlemen,
We're getting our ties wrapped around the axles of
insignificant fact . . .
The FIRST job of any conductor is to take part in
getting the effects of electron motion piped from one
place to another. One consideration is conductivity of
the material. This speaks to efficiency . . . every
Joule of energy waste in raising the conductor
temperature doesn't help run your electro-whizzies.
The second consideration is an evaluation of processes
necessary to secure gas-tight connection between various
pieces. No matter how badly a conductor SURFACE corrodes,
the INTERFACE BETWEEN PIECES of the conduction path are
still capable of carrying energy relatively unimpeded.
The third consideration goes to issues of mechanical
robustness - a study of S/N ratios: How many times
can this material experience a predicted level of
operating stress and not develop stress-cracks?
The last consideration goes to cost of manufacturing
that looks at material cost, $time$ and processes
needed to do the best we know how to do in fabricating
the parts.
Consider these examples of bus structures:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Grd%20Bus%20Sys1.JPG
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Forest_of_Tabs_Ground_Kit.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
These are SYSTEMS that blend the functional capabilities
(and limits) of raw materials, fabrication techniques,
off-the-shelf components, and the skill of both designer
and installer to meet design goals.
Bar copper bus bars will look butt-ugly 10 years
from now . . . but where they're mashed against
terminals on wires can still be performing as-
new.
Brass bus bars might need to be thicker/wider
to accommodate the higher resistance of the
material but they'll LOOK nicer and they're easier
to build due to machineability of brass versus copper.
Nonetheless, it's where the terminals grab the bus
structure that controls future performance.
Aluminum can be considered too as long as you don't
need to solder to the bus and you've taken measures
to control voltage drop to tolerable levels. Further,
you need to insure integrity of the joints that
are gas-tight today, tomorrow, and ten years from
now.
I'm aware of no bus structure on a TC aircraft where
the weakest links in the chain had anything to do with
mechanical stress of the bus bar material or its resistance
to surface corrosion. Lack of gas-tightness and structural
integrity of individual connections account for the vast
majority of ALL conductor failures whether or not they're
trying to keep a grip on a bus or any other component
of the system.
This product:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg
Combines PLATED BRASS tabs, SOLDERED to BRASS bus
and assembled with alloy BRASS BOLTS, and intended
to accept BRONZE terminals crimped onto COPPER wires.
Irrespective of choice of materials, there are
a variety of conditions that could precipitate
a failure of one or more conductors attached to
this bus.
Inattention to a host of potential toe-stubbers can
contribute a failure factor that has little
if anything to do with selection of copper, versus
brass or even aluminum as ONE OF MANY elements of the
system. Successful and enduring bus structures have been
fabricated from all of these materials. Each was
the preferred material for the designer for reasons
that are now known only to him.
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: IVOPROP Magnum |
At 02:41 PM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, The IVO prop mounts composite blades between knurled plates
>bolted together. The bedding process is done bringing the bolts up
>to torque as the knurling bites into the base of the blade. It's an
>interesting idea in theory, but becomes very labor intensive, very
>quickly, in practice.
Hmmmm . . . this seems like an exceedingly process-
sensitive design . . . and gives pause for wondering
if this is the best we know how to do. A blade retained
in tension with a grooved or headed shank and immobilized
in torsion with a spline seems a more robust alternative
for keeping a grip on components highly stressed,
modulated load . . .
I presume the technique you describe applies to ground
adjustable props. The ones with gear-boxes and flight-
adjustable features are very different?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Basic wiring questions Try Again |
Basic questions again! 2nd try, hello Bob N. or somebody, hope you can
answer these:
I have landing/taxi lights, LED nav lights, a Bob Archer VOR antenna, and an
APRS tx/rx antenna in the ends of the wings of an RV-9A (one antenna in each
tip).
1. For the powered items, can I run a single positive wire of adequate size
to a terminal block, then feed the devices from the block?
2. For the antennas, yes they will be using coax, but should I nevertheless
try to run the coax physically separate from the power wires? In addition
to the above power wire I have a 3-wire bundle run from the strobe power
supply in the fuselage to the wing-tip strobe lights. I installed a conduit
about 18 inches away from the Vans wire holes for the purpose of separating
power wires from very weak signals.
3. The Bob Archer antenna has two lugs; instructions say to strip the coax
cable and attach the stranded core to one lug, the shield to another lug. I
would like that coax to be just a couple feet long, ending in a BNC or
similar connector, so I can easily remove the fiberglass wingtip from the
wing. Will the coax connector introduce too much impedance?
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brass vs copper |
At 04:44 PM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>As Bob stated brass does not conduct very good.
>
>Copper 101 or 110 does not machine very good.
"very good" is non-quantified. if you're doing
a ground bus like:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg
. . . just how large are anticipated voltage drops
for any accessory's ground point with respect to
the rest if the conductivity of the base material
is say 1/20th or even 1/50th that of copper?
When we're talking about hundreds of amps in
the cranking circuit, short lengths of poor
conductivity can produce significant voltage
drops . . . say in excess of 100 millivolts.
However, at the current levels comprised of the
sum total of panel mounted hardware spread over
the sheet resistance of a brass base, I'll suggest
that the voltage drops are insignificant.
>Now that is not the case for copper 1451 It machines terrific.
So should we recommend that everybody endeavor
to acquire this material for the fabrication
of their bus bars? More importantly, are products
offered by B&C for this purpose to be avoided
as falling short of compliance with design goals?
Keep in mind that all the overhead wires that
carry power across the countryside are aluminum
and steel. Would we wish they were "better" conductors?
Sure. Are all copper conductors even possible much
less practical? Probably not. Has the recipe
for success been "tuned" for the best we know
how to do? Don't know . . . but in honorable,
competitive, free-market endeavors, you can
bet the most successful players have paid due
diligence to fine tuning.
The recipes for success should take consider
capabilities and limits for ALL ingredients
against the design goals. But the recipe may
NOT get better because we've sliced and diced
the comparison between competing materials.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
The variable pitch Ivo is a different animal from a normal (Hartzell,
McCauley, etc). The pitch adjustment on the Ivo comes from twisting the
mid-tip of the blade different from the root via a torsion rod that runs
from the hub through the center of the (hollow) blade. There aren't any
pitch bearings per-se. The flat root end of each blade is clamped to the
hub by a back plate into which is mounted the pitch adjustment motor.
http://www.ivoprop.com/inflightmagnumodel.htm
It's a fairly ingenious design, being relatively simple and light weight.
But arguably its current incarnation doesn't well support the large
torsional loads imposed by a direct drive four cylinder engine. I find it
interesting that the design hasn't be revised to make it more robust. It
doesn't seem to me that it would be terribly difficult to make the blade
mounting method quite a bit more robust without incurring any significant
tradeoffs.
In Ivo's defense, there are Hartzell props which also have problems with
the large four cylinder Lycomings - careful study is required for the
engine/airframe installation, and many times there are RPM ranges wherein
the engine/prop shouldn't be operated continuously.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> At 02:41 PM 4/8/2009, you wrote:
>>Bob, The IVO prop mounts composite blades between knurled plates
>>bolted together. The bedding process is done bringing the bolts up
>>to torque as the knurling bites into the base of the blade. It's an
>>interesting idea in theory, but becomes very labor intensive, very
>>quickly, in practice.
>
> Hmmmm . . . this seems like an exceedingly process-
> sensitive design . . . and gives pause for wondering
> if this is the best we know how to do. A blade retained
> in tension with a grooved or headed shank and immobilized
> in torsion with a spline seems a more robust alternative
> for keeping a grip on components highly stressed,
> modulated load . . .
>
> I presume the technique you describe applies to ground
> adjustable props. The ones with gear-boxes and flight-
> adjustable features are very different?
>
>
> 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: | Basic wiring questions Try Again |
1) Sure..But ti depends if you need to switch said devices independantly..For example,
with LED Nav lights you might want to combine those with the LED NAV lights..LED's
consume almost no power and last forever. When running the APRS you
can have the NAV lights on.
But you wouldn't want to run the landing lights with the Nav lights due to the
significant power draw of the landing lights.
2) I never had the sligthest noise interference with coax near power wires or sheilded
strobe wires for that matter.
3) Yup that's how I did it on the 7..Simply use a bulkhead BNC on the outer wing
rib and plug in your antenna coax..Works great.
Frank IO360 7a electrically dependant..including the fuel pumps!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Basic wiring questions Try Again
-->
Basic questions again! 2nd try, hello Bob N. or somebody, hope you can answer
these:
I have landing/taxi lights, LED nav lights, a Bob Archer VOR antenna, and an APRS
tx/rx antenna in the ends of the wings of an RV-9A (one antenna in each tip).
1. For the powered items, can I run a single positive wire of adequate size to
a terminal block, then feed the devices from the block?
2. For the antennas, yes they will be using coax, but should I nevertheless try
to run the coax physically separate from the power wires? In addition to the
above power wire I have a 3-wire bundle run from the strobe power supply in the
fuselage to the wing-tip strobe lights. I installed a conduit about 18 inches
away from the Vans wire holes for the purpose of separating power wires from
very weak signals.
3. The Bob Archer antenna has two lugs; instructions say to strip the coax cable
and attach the stranded core to one lug, the shield to another lug. I would
like that coax to be just a couple feet long, ending in a BNC or similar connector,
so I can easily remove the fiberglass wingtip from the wing. Will the
coax connector introduce too much impedance?
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic wiring questions Try Again |
At 11:48 AM 4/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>Basic questions again! 2nd try, hello Bob N. or somebody, hope you can
>answer these:
Sorry Ralph.
>I have landing/taxi lights, LED nav lights, a Bob Archer VOR antenna, and an
>APRS tx/rx antenna in the ends of the wings of an RV-9A (one antenna in each
>tip).
>
>1. For the powered items, can I run a single positive wire of adequate size
>to a terminal block, then feed the devices from the block?
How would you control these devices? All ON/OFF at
the same time with a single switch? Recommend you
stay with
>2. For the antennas, yes they will be using coax, but should I nevertheless
>try to run the coax physically separate from the power wires? In addition
>to the above power wire I have a 3-wire bundle run from the strobe power
>supply in the fuselage to the wing-tip strobe lights. I installed a conduit
>about 18 inches away from the Vans wire holes for the purpose of separating
>power wires from very weak signals.
Don't worry about it. A rudimentary feature of coax cable
provides isolation between what goes on INSIDE the cable
from what goes on OUTSIDE the cable. In the big airplanes, coax
cables and all manner of airframe systems wires share common
wire bundles.
>3. The Bob Archer antenna has two lugs; instructions say to strip the coax
>cable and attach the stranded core to one lug, the shield to another lug. I
>would like that coax to be just a couple feet long, ending in a BNC or
>similar connector, so I can easily remove the fiberglass wingtip from the
>wing. Will the coax connector introduce too much impedance?
No. Connectors to address your needs are commonly
available and install with the same tools as your
cable-male BNC connectors. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Cable_Female_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Cable_Female_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Bulkhead_Female.jpg
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: IVOPROP Magnum |
At 12:40 PM 4/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>The variable pitch Ivo is a different animal from a normal (Hartzell,
>McCauley, etc). The pitch adjustment on the Ivo comes from twisting the
>mid-tip of the blade different from the root via a torsion rod that runs
>from the hub through the center of the (hollow) blade.
>In Ivo's defense, there are Hartzell props which also have problems with
>the large four cylinder Lycomings - careful study is required for the
>engine/airframe installation, and many times there are RPM ranges wherein
>the engine/prop shouldn't be operated continuously.
Interesting. I'm still in conversation with IVOPROP
trying to understand their electrical dynamics. This
fixed length feeder combined with a special breaker
chosen for it's response to overload is not the
best we know how to do. Perhaps I can help out.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
I had the blades move in a knurled hub on an O-320. The sad thing about it is that
the fix would have been easy; just use lugs in the hub like a normal prop.
If the blades were made with proper twist for high speed planes, it would be
a great concept. I missed what plane it's on, but for faster homebuilts (over
~150kts) I've never seen anyone report equal or faster speeds than a wood prop
on the same airframe, even with the higher twist blades.
Charlie
________________________________
From: Dale Alexander <dalexan48(at)dslextreme.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:23:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IVOPROP Magnum
Boy, you said a mouthfull there! Back when Velocity builders were putting these
things on real aircraft engines, there was a large amount of failures due to
prop hub torque maintenance. Now to be fair, builders were putting IVO props on
IO-360 Lycomings against the stated recommendations of IVO. He made this recommendation
as the big four cylinder has huge torque pulses that really beat the
heck out of the aluminum components. That's understandable. BUT, the torque
procedure for the prop blade mounting is a multi-step task that requires re-torqueing
and checking the metal "safety tape" for movement.
In my opinion, any procedure that requires as many staps as the IVO prop mounting
is begging to be shortcomed owing to human nature. You know, the "I'll do it
later" or " it's probably OK by now" type of thinking. And sure enough, we lost
a couple of Velocites due to blade seperation from the hub and had many owners
stating that the blades moved around quite a bit AFTER the procedure. As
a result, IVO's don't get used on the 360 engine. But the overall design does
not look robust enough for service in any appilcation other than air boats and
ultra-lights for which they were originally intended.
Please be careful with IVO props.
Dale Alexander
> ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IVOPROP Magnum
> From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
>
> Bob, The IVO prop mounts composite blades between knurled plates bolted
> together. The bedding process is done bringing the bolts up to torque as the
> knurling bites into the base of the blade. It's an interesting idea in
> theory, but becomes very labor intensive, very quickly, in practice.
> Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IVOPROP Magnum |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Relay vs Continuous Duty Contactor |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
All,
In comparing the continuous contactor (S701-1) to the relay (S704-1), I assume
that the reason people choose the relay is due to the lower coil current draw?
Drawback is obviously that it is limited to 20 amp. Should the 20 amp limitation
be based on the max continuous or max intermittent current draw of items
connected to the relay? Also, in looking at some other 12V coil units, they
listed the max continuous voltage at 13.2 volts. I assume that is not a concern
with the S704-1?
Any local sources for equivalent relays / contactors?
THanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238585#238585
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Misc electrical items for sale |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
I'd like to have a look at the list...
Thanks
Ron Q.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:12 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
>
> Since my airplane is now finished I have some various finishing and
> electrical parts available for sale. Email me for a list of what I have
> available.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Flying 16 hours
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay vs Continuous Duty Contactor |
At 12:19 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>All,
>
>In comparing the continuous contactor (S701-1) to the relay
>(S704-1), I assume that the reason people choose the relay is due to
>the lower coil current draw? Drawback is obviously that it is
>limited to 20 amp. Should the 20 amp limitation be based on the max
>continuous or max intermittent current draw of items connected to
>the relay? Also, in looking at some other 12V coil units, they
>listed the max continuous voltage at 13.2 volts. I assume that is
>not a concern with the S704-1?
You don't say how you intend to use the relay
or contactor you're searching for.
Your 'comparison' of the two devices cited reveals
that they are entirely different breeds of cat. One
can buy relays/contactors rated at milliamps to tens of
thousands of amps. Further, they'll be offered in
a constellation of coil or control voltages and
currents. Finally, they may be tailored to specific
tasks that present unusual problems for meeting
design goals.
Ratings for contactors, switches and relays are
driven mostly by SWITCHING loads. This is a dynamic
thing that can be all over the map depending on
voltage level, AC vs. DC, and how the load's
characteristics affect what's going on during
contact closure and opening events.
But comparing published ratings of the various
devices is fraught with intellectual potholes.
One manufacturer's ratings may cite some level
of pass-fail, post-test performance after
10,000 cycles while others shoot for the moon
. . . say 500,000 cycles.
In your OBAM aircraft, you are unlikely to put
1,000 pilot-operated cycles on any power relay or
contactor over the time you own the airplane.
If you're designing with failure tolerance in
mind, then $time$ expended pouring over spec
sheets with some notion of improving on the
service life of the device is probably not
going yield a positive return on your expenditure.
So now that we've expanded the universe of
parts from which you might select a suitable
device, what is the application for which you're
seeking a relay or contactor?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Relay vs Continuous Duty Contactor |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
It is for various reasons...possibly an essential bus alternate feed (14 amp continuous,
23 max intermittent) or for a separate dedicated avionics bus that powers
redundant avionics equipment with similar bus loads (no worries..."essential"
avionics are not switched). I know my essential load and architecture may
differ from other people's objective, but I'm good with it.
Question is this...for that type of rating (14 amp continuous, 24 max intermittent)
for something that is going to be switched on and left on the the flight,
what is the preferred contactor/relay?
1) S701 (don't like the hefty current draw).
2) S704
3) A similar automotive relay. Any reason why something like the below wouldn't
work just fine?
http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=171460&
Oreilly's has these for $5.
Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238616#238616
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Ron: When the system is not being used it is 3 amp.
BN: What is drawing current when the prop pitch motor
is not running?
Ron: This is a good questions but I do not have an answer for it.
3 x 8 = 24 amp when the circuit breaks. Reaches the stop at 15 amp.
BN: I'm still trying to understand the amount of
energy required to satisfy in-flight operating
requirements. It would stand to reason that
normal running currents (motor in motion and
free of the mechanical stops) are a small
fraction of stall current (motor energized
but prevented of motion because it is
jammed).
Hmmmm . . . I take it you are not the designer
for this product's electrics. Can I have some
conversation with the designer or at least someone
who has understanding of the physics of this
system?
I'm thinking there are easy things you can do
electronically to improve on the system's
integrity and eliminate installation variability/
error to achieve advertised performance.
Ron: I found the system is using 3 amps when there is no load on the spool.
This is when it goes through neutral transition between positive pitch
and negative pitch from neutral. When the switch is not used there is no
current.
The designer has moved to a remote secluded location where he can
work on other inventions without any distractions. That is why I
am doing my best to answer your questions without bothering him.
There are no plans to change or modify our propeller design at this time.
-----------------------------------
Okay, based on this limited exchange I have to deduce
that the gentleman has but a rudimentary knowledge
of how the product works. He is unable to discuss
the physics of the motor's performance at or near
stall with any notions of improving on user-
friendliness. One noteworthy design goal would be
to eliminate the requirement for fine tuning the
resistance in hookup wire and/or sizing a specific
style of breaker. This feature alone would get
him tossed out of a design review meeting at
any of the places I've worked.
My best guess is that the motor draws 3A at
the "no-load" point roughly centered on min-
max prop pitch. Departures either direction
from neutral winds up the springs causing motor
current to rise. Peak current happens at
some point just before the system hits the
mechanical stops. There is no current draw
when the motor is not running.
This all makes sense. What does not make sense
is the tailoring of total loop resistance
by selection of wire and tailoring of a specific
circuit breaker to achieve a "safe" reaction
to an overload.
Of course, none of this speaks to mechanical
issues in this product's design. It does give one
pause to consider the effectiveness of product
support when difficulties are identified in
the field. It's also alarming that the designer
finds it necessary to become secluded from the
customers that need a better understanding of
product characteristics than can be offered by
the present spokesperson.
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: Relay vs Continuous Duty Contactor |
At 10:04 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>It is for various reasons...possibly an essential bus alternate feed
>(14 amp continuous, 23 max intermittent) or for a separate dedicated
>avionics bus that powers redundant avionics equipment with similar
>bus loads (no worries..."essential" avionics are not switched). I
>know my essential load and architecture may differ from other
>people's objective, but I'm good with it.
The S704-1 would work fine
>Question is this...for that type of rating (14 amp continuous, 24
>max intermittent) for something that is going to be switched on and
>left on the the flight, what is the preferred contactor/relay?
>1) S701 (don't like the hefty current draw).
>2) S704
>3) A similar automotive relay. Any reason why something like the
>below wouldn't work just fine?
>
>http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=171460&
The S701-1 contactor is not suite to the tasks
you've cited. Relays of the class that includes
the S704-1 are sold by a host of sources including
those you've noted. Given the once-per-flight-cycle
operating duty, you're not going to loose one of
these relays to contact damage induced by 'overload'.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Corner <jcorner(at)shaw.ca> |
Bob
I have used all three models of IVO Props over the years, and I like
the design because of the simplicity and cost.
The attached PDF shows the construction of the prop hub and the wiring
that controls it.
I have found that if the toggle switch is held after the prop hits the
mechanical stops the circuit breaker will pop regardless of the
length of wire.
The best method of setting prop pitch in the air or on the ground is
to use an ammeter in series rather than just watching RPM's. This
also can prevent breaker tripping. The problem here is finding a
suitably scaled ammeter, in a compact size. Anyone?
I have trimmed the wire length to what is required in two out of three
installations without any apparent adverse effect.
Jim
On 10-Apr-09, at 9:06 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
>
> Ron: When the system is not being used it is 3 amp.
>
> BN: What is drawing current when the prop pitch motor
> is not running?
>
> Ron: This is a good questions but I do not have an answer for it.
> 3 x 8 = 24 amp when the circuit breaks. Reaches the stop at 15
> amp.
>
> BN: I'm still trying to understand the amount of
> energy required to satisfy in-flight operating
> requirements. It would stand to reason that
> normal running currents (motor in motion and
> free of the mechanical stops) are a small
> fraction of stall current (motor energized
> but prevented of motion because it is
> jammed).
>
> Hmmmm . . . I take it you are not the designer
> for this product's electrics. Can I have some
> conversation with the designer or at least someone
> who has understanding of the physics of this
> system?
>
> I'm thinking there are easy things you can do
> electronically to improve on the system's
> integrity and eliminate installation variability/
> error to achieve advertised performance.
>
> Ron: I found the system is using 3 amps when there is no load on the
> spool.
> This is when it goes through neutral transition between positive pitch
> and negative pitch from neutral. When the switch is not used there
> is no
> current.
>
> The designer has moved to a remote secluded location where he can
> work on other inventions without any distractions. That is why I
> am doing my best to answer your questions without bothering him.
> There are no plans to change or modify our propeller design at this
> time.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Okay, based on this limited exchange I have to deduce
> that the gentleman has but a rudimentary knowledge
> of how the product works. He is unable to discuss
> the physics of the motor's performance at or near
> stall with any notions of improving on user-
> friendliness. One noteworthy design goal would be
> to eliminate the requirement for fine tuning the
> resistance in hookup wire and/or sizing a specific
> style of breaker. This feature alone would get
> him tossed out of a design review meeting at
> any of the places I've worked.
>
> My best guess is that the motor draws 3A at
> the "no-load" point roughly centered on min-
> max prop pitch. Departures either direction
> from neutral winds up the springs causing motor
> current to rise. Peak current happens at
> some point just before the system hits the
> mechanical stops. There is no current draw
> when the motor is not running.
>
> This all makes sense. What does not make sense
> is the tailoring of total loop resistance
> by selection of wire and tailoring of a specific
> circuit breaker to achieve a "safe" reaction
> to an overload.
>
> Of course, none of this speaks to mechanical
> issues in this product's design. It does give one
> pause to consider the effectiveness of product
> support when difficulties are identified in
> the field. It's also alarming that the designer
> finds it necessary to become secluded from the
> customers that need a better understanding of
> product characteristics than can be offered by
> the present spokesperson.
>
>
> 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 11:40 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
>Bob
>
>I have used all three models of IVO Props over the years, and I like
>the design because of the simplicity and cost.
>
>The attached PDF shows the construction of the prop hub and the wiring
>that controls it.
>I have found that if the toggle switch is held after the prop hits the
>mechanical stops the circuit breaker will pop regardless of the
>length of wire.
>
>The best method of setting prop pitch in the air or on the ground is
>to use an ammeter in series rather than just watching RPM's. This
>also can prevent breaker tripping. The problem here is finding a
>suitably scaled ammeter, in a compact size. Anyone?
Perhaps one of these paired with the appropriate shunt
sized for max load?
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/9007.html
>I have trimmed the wire length to what is required in two out of three
>installations without any apparent adverse effect.
I would have guessed that . . .
I've designed actuator control systems designed to
limit travel with hard stops as opposed to limit
switches. One technique involves a small constant
current limit module that allows one a few percent
more than max operating current to flow. This value
is generally well under the value of the protective
circuit breaker. Further, performance in both normal
and fault modes is independent of breaker or wire
selection.
If you'd like to experiment with such a system, I'd
be pleased to support the effort with a proof
of concept limiter.
Another option would be to evaluate the polyswitch.
It's successful incorporation would emulate the
electric window risers on most cars. Those systems
don't have limit switches either. They depend on
operator response to release the switch in some
reasonable time after window limits are reached.
But if the operator is slow, the mechanism jams
or the switch sticks, the polyswitch keeps all
the smoke inside the wires.
This product's relative success in the field shows
a lot of promise. It's too bad that the business
model for its production is not more conducive
to the fine tuning of a recipe for success.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | E-Bus Alt Feed wire size |
| From: | "dbuds2" <dbuds2(at)comcast.net> |
RV8 with aft mounted battery and Z11 design. How much larger should the wire be
from battery to "Always on Buss" and from "Always on Buss" to "E Bus Alternate
Feed"? I estimate 20amp draw max from the E Bus.
I've read about the Z32 Heavy Duty E bus Feed and would prefer to not have to do
this. Even considering placing the battery on the firewall if I have to.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238646#238646
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger Cole <rcole927(at)earthlink.net> |
Does a Ford-type alternator self excite? If not, how much battery
voltage is needed to excite it?
-----
Roger Cole
rcole927(at)earthlink.net
N76426
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Crimping lugs onto CCA Cable |
HI All,
I am moving the battery in my Europa further aft and I have decided to remo
ve the welding cable and use the copper clad aluminum cable that Eric sells
.-
I noticed a thread a while back discussing the issue of soldering wicking i
ts way up the cable so I decided to crimp my lugs instead, however I was wo
ndering if there is any issue with the aluminum "creeping" over time.-
The reason I ask is that there was a trend about 30 years ago to use alumin
um cable in heavy industry, but they found the cost of ongoing maintenance
out weighed the costs savings of the cheaper cable.
Anyhow,- any input or best practices would be appreciated.
Thanks,- Paul
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | re: Odyssey Battery Alternative - ANOTHER DATA |
POINT
A note on Odyssey technology. They tell me this applies to the smaller
batteries as well but this specific comparison is on their fleet battery.
Odyssey designs what they term a "initial pulse discharge" ability into the
battery so that you get significantly improved CCA for the first few seconds
which they claim is one of the reasons that their batteries start better.
Discharge over time is also significantly improved. Not all batteries are
designed this way.
If you look at the attached charts, you can see the comparison of initial
discharge rates compared to other competitive batteries. In particular, the
OPTIMA series which is a true "gel" cell "shoot it with a rifle and still
crank the car" battery. OPTIMA is a great battery, just too heavy for our
purposes but the Odyssey is better. No comparison at all to the lead acid
group.
Not sure if this applies to all AGM class batteries but Odyssey made a
believer out of me with regard to their technology.
I also think their data is accurate.
Just another "something to think about"?
Bill S
7a finishing.
-----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: Saturday, April 04, 2009 9:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: Odyssey Battery Alternative
-->
At 03:25 PM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
>Has anyone used one of these batteries and have any info/user reports
>that may be useful in determining whether it's suitable in an aircraft?
>Their site lists this as a "sealed valve regulated design," is this
>comparable to the AGM batteries Odyssey sells?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA
RG (recombinant gas), AGM (absorbed glass mat), VRSLA (valve
regulated sealed lead acid), and "starved electrolyte, glass
mat", and perhaps a dozen other variations on the theme are
all siblings. Specific products may claim a superior performance
in some regard like longer shelf life, higher cranking power,
greater ruggedness, virgin lead, etc. etc. Any of these features
may well have proven to add value in the laboratory comparison
with other technologies . . . but in real service aboard airplanes,
the day-to-day "abuses" that depart from the laboratory demonstrations
tend to be the true limiting factor in service life.
Take laboratory grade care of your battery and it will
probably deliver a good service life. Just keep in mind
that all other things being equal, price does not deliver
proportionate increases in ANY performance parameter.
Virtually every battery that does not audibly "slosh"
when you shake it is some form of "sealed" device
and therefore "comparable" to all other products of
the same class . . . lead-acid batteries not open to
atmosphere.
Finally, if the old "slosher" Rebat, Concorde and Gill
batteries of yesteryear were ever considered suitable
for use aboard airplanes, then ANY sealed device you can put
your hands today is MORE suited.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Com Antenna Install |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Hi All
Attached is a picture of my COM antenna. To be mounted in the reinforced portion
of the turtledeck on the upper rear of the Baggage area on my Zenith 601XL
Question is How do I hook it up?? Crimp a ring terminal on to the center conductor
of the RG-400 and attach that with the nut to the bottom of the antenna,
and attach another ring terminal to the shield and connect it to WHERE???
Help me or gurus of the RF
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238744#238744
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0111_137.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon Ammeter Shunt |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Ok one more question
I have a Jab 3300 on my 601 XL i'm using a DYNON EMS-D120
Where should I connect the shunt to be the most useful
Ive seen a diagram floating around showing the various connection options and what
you wind up measuring but I can't seen to find it now and I'm hot and heavy
into pulling wire.
Thanks in advance
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238745#238745
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincent Himsl <vshimsl(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Dynon Ammeter Shunt |
Your Dynon D180 Manual has a section that gives you three options and expla
ins what each option will show you. I chose option A in my manual. This opt
ion shows charge going into the battery as plus amps and charge leaving the
battery as negative.
If yours doesn't show you this=2C then you can download the D180 manual fro
m Dynon.
Regards=2C
Vince H.
RV8 - Taxi Tests
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Ammeter Shunt
> From: ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net
> Date: Sat=2C 11 Apr 2009 20:40:09 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
t>
>
> Ok one more question
>
> I have a Jab 3300 on my 601 XL i'm using a DYNON EMS-D120
>
> Where should I connect the shunt to be the most useful
>
> Ive seen a diagram floating around showing the various connection options
and what you wind up measuring but I can't seen to find it now and I'm hot
and heavy into pulling wire.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238745#238745
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Com Antenna Install |
Larry -
It's not the best we know how to do, but if you're dead-set on this
device...
Strip the outer jacket off the RG-400 and un-braid the shield. Pull the
shield wire to one side, twist and crimp on a terminal. Attach the shield
to a screw thru the aircraft skin near the antenna base.
Antennas similar to the COMANT CI-122 are much more user-friendly.
neal
====================
Hi All
Attached is a picture of my COM antenna. To be mounted in the reinforced
portion of the turtledeck on the upper rear of the Baggage area on my Zenith
601XL
Question is How do I hook it up?? Crimp a ring terminal on to the center
conductor of the RG-400 and attach that with the nut to the bottom of the
antenna, and attach another ring terminal to the shield and connect it to
WHERE???
Help me or gurus of the RF
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping lugs onto CCA Cable |
Paul,
Solder wicking into the cable is only an issue if the cable is subject
to vibration. If the cable is supported about 3 inches from the
soldered terminal, then it will not vibrate or break, located far from
the engine. The cable could be clamped to the battery hold-down bracket
or adjacent structure.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crimping lugs onto CCA Cable |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Paul,
My website has instructions for crimp+solder being the preferred method, but certainly
there are people who only crimp the CCA cable.
By the way, if you search Ebay for "hammer crimper" you will find an amazing deal:
Hammer On Welding Cable Lug Crimper - NEW! LENCO # 840. You can have one of
these for about $20 delivered! They are the perfect tool for this application.
As I have mentioned before, plain aluminum cable has a vast and complex problem
history. Engineers spend their lives on the problem, but CCA has had NO PROBLEM
HISTORY at all.
I have sold more of this to military aircraft builders than I have ever sold to
the Experimental community. I also have sold this to NASCAR, Indy, and dragster
builders. The Tesla Electric car uses it, as does Airbus and Boeing.
Please read my technical notes on the subject:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Copper%20cables.pdf
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- Eolake Stobblehouse
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238774#238774
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Install |
Larry,
The RG-400 has an insulated solid core wire that uses a particular connector
as explained in the AeroElectric manual. The antenna that you show uses a
ring terminal for attachment. Better ask Bob on this one.
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Com Antenna Install
>
>
> Hi All
>
> Attached is a picture of my COM antenna. To be mounted in the reinforced
> portion of the turtledeck on the upper rear of the Baggage area on my
> Zenith 601XL
>
> Question is How do I hook it up?? Crimp a ring terminal on to the center
> conductor of the RG-400 and attach that with the nut to the bottom of the
> antenna, and attach another ring terminal to the shield and connect it to
> WHERE???
>
> Help me or gurus of the RF
> Larry
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238744#238744
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0111_137.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping lugs onto CCA Cable |
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your reply.- In particular I was looking for assurance that "c
reeping" or "flowing" of the aluminum over time was not an issue.- It see
ms like there is enough in service history that tells us it isn't a problem
.
I understand the I could also solder them and although it is possible with
the correct technique to stop the solder wicking down the cable it isn't pa
rticularly easy to prevent it from happening.
Thanks again,- Paul
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crimping lugs onto CCA Cable |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I was the person that had the problem with the solder wicking. After
I followed Bob's advice, the problem disappeared.
The main thing was to ensure that I had plenty of copper nails stuffed
into the opening, to make it as tight as possible.
Sam
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for your reply. In particular I was looking for assurance that
> "creeping" or "flowing" of the aluminum over time was not an issue. It
> seems like there is enough in service history that tells us it isn't a
> problem.
>
> I understand the I could also solder them and although it is possible with
> the correct technique to stop the solder wicking down the cable it isn't
> particularly easy to prevent it from happening.
>
> Thanks again, Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Install |
The shield wire should connect to the skin (that will serve as your ground plane)
somewhere close & convenient to the antenna. You could make your reinforcement
plate big enough to bend a tab on one edge, or add a tab under one of the
rivets, to bolt the shield eyelet to. Just be sure that you have good electrical
contact from shield-eyelet-bolt-tab-doubler-skin. If you don't mind an extra
connector showing, use a screw through the skin-ring terminal to reduce odds
of ground loss.
Charlie
________________________________
From: lwhitlow <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:36:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Com Antenna Install
Hi All
Attached is a picture of my COM antenna. To be mounted in the reinforced portion
of the turtledeck on the upper rear of the Baggage area on my Zenith 601XL
Question is How do I hook it up?? Crimp a ring terminal on to the center conductor
of the RG-400 and attach that with the nut to the bottom of the antenna,
and attach another ring terminal to the shield and connect it to WHERE???
Help me or gurus of the RF
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238744#238744
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0111_137.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Install |
At 10:36 PM 4/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi All
>
>Attached is a picture of my COM antenna. To be mounted in the
>reinforced portion of the turtledeck on the upper rear of the
>Baggage area on my Zenith 601XL
>
>Question is How do I hook it up?? Crimp a ring terminal on to the
>center conductor of the RG-400 and attach that with the nut to the
>bottom of the antenna, and attach another ring terminal to the
>shield and connect it to WHERE???
>
>Help me or gurus of the RF
This style of antenna was used in QUANTITY at Cessna and
other single engine aircraft way back when. By "way back"
I mean the times when these radios were the best we knew
how to do.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012765.JPG
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012780.JPG
The antennas fell in disfavor mostly because they were
difficult to keep stationary. They would "spin" in the
insulator and often break the center conductor connection.
Secondly, they were labor intensive to install compared
to their factory built descendants. About the time
these radios . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012763.JPG
were the best we knew how to do, the single whisker
mounted on a ceramic feed-thru was pretty much
history. You can still buy this style antenna. Several
versions offer a large ring terminal to install under
the skin and over the hole that mounts the antenna
insulator. Definitely NOT gas-tight to the skin.
If your kit came with this terminal, pitch the
terminal.
I've been fiddling with a DIY comm antenna fabrication
technique that ends up with a base that looks like this.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/DIY_Comm_Antenna.jpg
The materials are common hardware and CB radio accessory
store items. This design offers a coax connector to
attache the feed line, good anti-rotation features by
virtue of the two screws through grounding tabs and
the opportunity to get a gas-tight ground connection
(#8 screws tightened down really good).
For your application, consider the technique shown
here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Figure_13-8.pdf
Prepare your coax connections thusly:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
Make the shortest practical connection between
the antenna and coax . . . i.e. minimize length
of exposed center conductor and braid pigtail.
SWR of antenna installed thusly? Adequate. Performance?
Also adequate. Cost of ownership? Remains to be seen.
These have the potential for being more problematic
than their modern factory built counterparts.
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: Com Antenna Install |
At 02:45 PM 4/12/2009, you wrote:
>The shield wire should connect to the skin (that will serve as your
>ground plane) somewhere close & convenient to the antenna.
>If you don't mind an extra connector showing, use a screw through
>the skin-ring terminal to reduce odds of ground loss.
>
>Charlie
Right on!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Install |
At 10:12 AM 4/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Larry,
>The RG-400 has an insulated solid core wire that uses a particular
>connector as explained in the AeroElectric manual. The antenna that
>you show uses a ring terminal for attachment. Better ask Bob on this one.
>Mike H
Oh yeah. Larry, be sure to use RG400 for this
install, it has a stranded center conductor.
RG142 is identical in performance but has a
solid center conductor.
Thank's for reminding me Mike!
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: Ford alternator |
At 03:34 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
>Does a Ford-type alternator self excite? If not, how much battery
>voltage is needed to excite it?
Don't know what a "ford-type" alternator is. There
are hundreds of part numbers for alternators have
have been used on Ford products most of which
behave like the majority of alternators since
day-one. They do not self-excite at normal engine
operating speeds.
However, at speeds typical of a belted Lycoming
installation I'm thinking that most alternators
will come on line without a battery. They only
need to see about 1 to 1.5 volts at the b-lead
terminal to come alive. This is a function of
residual magnetism in the field core, speed
of rotation and loads on the system.
Best advice I can offer is don't depend on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Bus Alt Feed wire size |
At 02:00 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>RV8 with aft mounted battery and Z11 design. How much larger should
>the wire be from battery to "Always on Buss" and from "Always on
>Buss" to "E Bus Alternate Feed"? I estimate 20amp draw max from the E Bus.
You need to size it for 20A then. That would be a 12AWG
wire.
>I've read about the Z32 Heavy Duty E bus Feed and would prefer to
>not have to do this. Even considering placing the battery on the
>firewall if I have to.
The recommendations for locating components,
putting limits on lengths of always hot wire
and limiting the energy that the wire can
dump during a crash event are based on no
particular science (i.e. no repeatable
experiment). Therefore, the recommendations
can be said to come from where the sun don't
shine . . . but based on decades of anecdotal
observation.
If you wish to depart from those recommendations,
it's your choice entirely.
What's wrong with the e-bus alternate feed
relay? It's backed up by the normal feed path.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CRAIG LAPORTE <claporte75(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Comm will not transmit with audio panel installed |
Hello=2C
I have recently completed the installation of an avionics wiring harness (c
ompleted at an avionics shop)=2C and I have a perplexing problem of trying
to get comm 1 to transmit...here are the details:
Microair 760 as comm1 on KMA 24 audio panel with Sigtronics sport 200 inter
com...SL-30 as comm 2.
The ptt switch activates the SL-30 to TX every time as expected (the only i
ssue is a squeal during transmit...another issue all together...the squeal
is nil at 118.0 and loud at 134.95)=2C and my swr meter shows power and swr
coming from this radio during TX.
The ptt will only activate the red TX indication on the Microair 760 about
half of the time=2C (with the audio panel installed)=2C and at no time (eve
n with the red TX light on) does the swr meter show power or swr coming fro
m this radio.
Now=2C to get creative=2C I removed the audio panel and located the Comm 1
mic key position on the KMA 24 connector=2C (pin R) and when I connect this
pin to ground=2C the red TX indicator shows every time....and the swr mete
r shows power and swr.
So=2C I thought that maybe comm 1 mic key and comm 1 mic audio might be in
the wrong positions...I switched them=2C and the radio went to transmit mod
e (continuous..until the audio panel was removed). So=2C with the pins bac
k in there original spots=2C I am thinking that the Microair 760 wiring mig
ht have something preventing it from being told to transmit through an audi
o panel? This is also the second audio panel I have tried to no avail. Al
so=2C I checked to continuity of the inner conductor and outer shield of bo
th coax cables going to the antennas (both belly mounted...I have tried rem
oving one of the antennas on the non-transmitting radio of course). I have
also changed out the pin located at position R in the audio panel connecto
r (Com 1 mic key). I don't know what to try next...any ideas would be grea
tly appreciated!
Thanks=2C
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincent Himsl <vshimsl(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Comm will not transmit with audio panel installed |
Hello=2C
I had a squeal and no transmit on my King Radio. I had installed fiber wash
ers on both jacks thinking I would prevent ground loops. When I used a jump
er to ground the jacks to the panel=2C the squeal stopped and the radio wor
ked. I removed the fiber washers effectively grounding the jack (sleeve I b
elieve). Though you mention other issues (PTT for one) I think the key symp
tom is the squeal.
I would suggest you divide and conquer. Pretend you have one radio. Make a
temporary jack panel and connect directly to each radio with your headset.
If it has a built in push to talk switch=2C all the better. Make sure the
temporary panel and by default the headset jacks are properly grounded. If
both radios work then you need to focus on the wiring to the audio panel. T
he fact you have replaced the audio panel leads me to believe it is ok.
If both radios have problems=2C then again I suggest you inspect the jack w
iring as the odds on both radios having the same problem at the same time a
re a bit remote.
I would suspect least the coax / antennae.
There is an excellent drawing with colored pictures of the jacks at Bob's a
eroelectric site.
The above will at least help you isolate it to a single device.
I submit my reply as your problem sounded suspiciously similar to mine. The
more I think about it=2C it sounds like the headset connection is not grou
nded properly causing the keying voltage to be fed through the transmit cir
cuitry.
But then again=2C I could be really full of it.
Good Luck
Vince H.
RV8 N8432 - Taxi Tests and oh so close!
From: claporte75(at)msn.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm will not transmit with audio panel install
ed
Date: Mon=2C 13 Apr 2009 03:30:18 +0000
Hello=2C
I have recently completed the installation of an avionics wiring harness (c
ompleted at an avionics shop)=2C and I have a perplexing problem of trying
to get comm 1 to transmit...here are the details.....
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincent Himsl <vshimsl(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Cross reference site for alternator parts |
Hello=2C
If you want to find parts for your alternator I recommend the following sit
e:
http://www.wai-wetherill.com/products/crossref.cfm
For an example=2C enter in this part number: 126000-1160. This is the Inter
nal Regulator for my Denso alternator 40amp that came with my aerosport eng
ine by Canadianaeromanufacturing.
This site gave me different numbers for the Denso Internal Regulator=2C for
my Denso alternator=3B also for lester numbers=2C toyota part numbers=2C a
nd the models of alternators this regulator is used in.
>From there I was able to Google using the Toyota number and order from Holc
ombe Armature the regulator for $30.00 including shipping.
And why did I need a replacement internal regulator? Well...
I wired up a blinking RED LED from Walmart (yes Walmart) to my alternator a
s it would help remind me to turn off the key/master. However=2C I managed
to incorrectly wire the LED to the regulator power (IG) lead and full batt
ery to the light (L) lead. Result? The transistor that controls the proble
m light inside the regulator shorted out.
My first clue occured on first engine start when my Dynon started giving me
really bizare information=2C then nothing. except for the blinking LED.
I reversed the connection and hoping for the best=2C fired up the engine. Y
es one of those hope against hope moments.
To my surprise=2C especially after hours going through the internal versus
external regulator debate in the archives=2C the regulator/alternator worke
d fine=3B Rock solid 14.5 volts=2C but the LED kept blinking. Hence my shor
ted transistor theory.
Probably would not have happened if I had resisted the problem light option
.
Regards=2C
Vince H.
RV8 N8432 Taxi Tests (and alternator repair)
_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail=AE: Get e-mail storage that grows with you.
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_
Storage1_042009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Comm will not transmit with audio panel installed |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Sounds like you have two issues, the microair PTT function and the squeel. I'm
not talking from experience, but apparently the MicroAir radio is known for having
peculiar "ground level" requirements for the PTT switch to work. Look into
the RST (Jim Weir's) website and in one of his past articles he talks about
the issues he found re: Microair and the PTT switch. This may help one of your
issues, but I can't be sure.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238888#238888
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Proximity of ALT breaker on panel |
1. I am working with the Z-13/8 schematic and would like to find
out if there is any justification for positioning the alternator breaker
next to the alternator switch for any reason other than convenience of
the diagram. I would like to use those slots for switches and move the
breakers over to the right side of the panel.
2. Also, is there any issue with painting/powder coating the cover
on the SD-8?
3. Has there been any resolve to the claim of the crowbar OVM
kicking out the SD-8 when using the self-excite feature from Z-25?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Comm will not transmit with audio panel installed |
| From: | "claporte" <claporte75(at)msn.com> |
OK
1. I have installed the fiber washers on all headset jacks...I will check that
they are properly grounded.
2. The RST article states "the little rascal wants no
more than 0.4 volts to fully transmit. So, two days before Oshkosh I'm inside the
audio panel cutting and
pasting an extra relay onto the board to do a "hard" ground on the PTT line. Just
be aware of this requirement
for very low voltage on the key line when you install your Microair." I am almost
certain this is the problem. However, digging around inside of the audio
panel is beyond my capabilities...any ideas on how to do this with the wiring
(possibly a variable resistor in the com 1 key wire)?
Thanks for the help!
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=238911#238911
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proximity of ALT breaker on panel |
At 08:41 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
>1. I am working with the Z-13/8 schematic and would like to
>find out if there is any justification for positioning the
>alternator breaker next to the alternator switch for any reason
>other than convenience of the diagram. I would like to use those
>slots for switches and move the breakers over to the right side of the panel.
Breaker(s) . . . you have more than one breaker. If
you are using breakers as opposed to fuse blocks, then
yes, all the breakers go together and the fusible link
that feeds the alternator breaker is not useful.
>
>2. Also, is there any issue with painting/powder coating the
>cover on the SD-8?
Issue? What kind of issue? These have been produced
by at least hundreds of thousands for the production
of engine driven power on all manner of vehicles for
decades.
>
>3. Has there been any resolve to the claim of the crowbar OVM
>kicking out the SD-8 when using the self-excite feature from Z-25?
Not that I'm aware of. Leave it off if you're
worried about it. Put the self-excitation mod
on if you're interested in resolving it. But as
someone pointed out here on the list a few days
ago, Z-13/8 doesn't allow stand-alone operation
of the SD-8 . . . so the self-excitation feature
adds no value. I plan to eliminate it in future
revisions of Z-13/8.
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: Cross reference site for alternator parts |
At 02:39 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>If you want to find parts for your alternator I recommend the following site:
>
>http://www.wai-wetherill.com/products/crossref.cfm
Interesting 'net resource sir. Thank you!
>I wired up a blinking RED LED from Walmart (yes Walmart) to my
>alternator as it would help remind me to turn off the
>key/master. However, I managed to incorrectly wire the LED to the
>regulator power (IG) lead and full battery to the light (L) lead.
>Result? The transistor that controls the problem light inside the
>regulator shorted out.
Don't you have a flashing light that warns of
under-voltage? The warning light output from
an internal regulator is problematic as to
meaning. It's certainly good notification of
the alternator not turning but it doesn't
annunciate all failure contingencies.
>To my surprise, especially after hours going through the internal
>versus external regulator debate in the archives, the
>regulator/alternator worked fine; Rock solid 14.5 volts, but the LED
>kept blinking. Hence my shorted transistor theory.
>
>Probably would not have happened if I had resisted the problem light option.
I've read that certain "L" connections are current
limited and not subject to the failure you've
hypothesized . . . but without having detailed
design information on specific products, current
limiting cannot be deduced and your hypothesis
is a good one.
Some internally regulated alternators won't come
on line without some sense of continuity through
the warning light to the bus. I had a builder some
years ago successfully fool his alternator into
March 28, 2009 - April 13, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-io