AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ir
May 13, 2009 - May 30, 2009
>dropped the voltage.
> bob noffs
>
>On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David L.
><skywagon(at)charter.net> wrote:
><skywagon(at)charter.net>
>
>The little, cheap Harbor Freight "maintainers" work quite well. I
>have used several. One key point however, ...many of them come set
>a tad too high in their fixed "float" voltage, to my thinking. I
>have seen them as high as 13.9 v.
>
>The good news, is they can be adjusted to the float voltage that you
>want. The little controller box should have a back lid that is
>lightly glued in place. Carefully work a very narrow blade screw
>driver or other tough, but thin device into the glued seam and work
>it until the back pops off. Inside is a small circuit board and
>potentiometer. It may have a spot of RTV on it. Work this
>loose. Turning the pot CW lowers to float voltage. I like about
>13.2 v. Others may want a slightly different setting. I usually
>locate where the pot slotted screw adjust hole is located next to
>the little case and drill a 3/16 hole. That way, it can be adjusted
>from the outside. The little unit is quite stable after you get the
>setting where you want it. David
David's suggestions are worthy of consideration but
he doesn't mention specific model numbers from
H.F. I've tested several battery charger products
from H.F. and found some that were not suited to our tasks.
What we're looking for are devices that first
"top off" a battery and then "drop to maintenance".
This kind of behavior is illustrated in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
This curve is from the Schumacher 1562 series chargers available
from WalMart for about $20. There are dozens of other
products that produce similar charge/maintenance profiles.
This one . . .
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=42292
. . . does not.
I found a pot inside to adjust the output voltage . . .
but only ONE pot. It's a device suitable for maintaining
an already charged battery (adjust it for 13.1 volts) but
will not charge a battery.
Based on its description and price, this device
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=99857
shows more promise. Haven't had time to go get one and
check it out but in the mean time, the Schumacher
1562 is a sure bet
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Schumacher_Chargers/1562.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting a battery charger to a 2 battery |
system
Good Afternoon Deems.
Bob Nuckolls Suggested:
"Active notification of low voltage (nice flashing
light on panel) for each system is a good hedge against
leaving the master switch on. Also, oil pressure
switches can be used to control both an hour-meter
(oil pressure up) and a low pressure light (engine
stopped). Wiring a small buzzer in parallel with the
light helps too once the engine is stopped."
We have such an arrangement on our Piper Pawnee glider tow plane.
Works great.
I have also seen a strobe light hooked up in the same manner. Most of us
tend to make a loving last glance at our pride and joy before we abandon the
scene. It is hard to walk away with the strobes firing!
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
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
**************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
instant savings!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying the Piper plug |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Thanks Bob,
That is exactly what I needed.
The link you posted in the "24 V system crowbar needed" thread had the diagram,
but not the text.
Thanks again.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=243897#243897
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modifying the Piper plug |
At 12:48 PM 5/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>That is exactly what I needed.
>
>The link you posted in the "24 V system crowbar needed" thread had
>the diagram, but not the text.
>
>Thanks again.
Okay, very good. Be advised that AEC is offering
stand-alone crowbar ov modules. We've sorted through
some fabrication enhancements and will put them
in the catalog soon. In the mean time, you can
order them by emailing me directly.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modifying the Piper plug |
Okay, very good. Be advised that AEC is offering
stand-alone crowbar ov modules. We've sorted through
some fabrication enhancements and will put them
in the catalog soon. In the mean time, you can
order them by emailing me directly.
Bob . . .
Bob,
I will be needing 2 OV modules, one for my alternator circuit and one for
ground power. Do you have pricing for your modules? Are they available
both in kit and assembled form?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about the
mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter connection
is required?
Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I thought
I'd post here and get a definitive answer.
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
It will work for a while, though I could imagine it might get hot, and
then maybe intermittent. It doesn't sound like it's a "gas tight"
connection, so it's not the best we know how to do.. A machine screw and
nut would be better I think. I'm sure someone with more direct experience
will chime in.
Matt-
>
>
> I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
> with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
> then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
> around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about
> the
> mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter
> connection
> is required?
>
> Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I
> thought
> I'd post here and get a definitive answer.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA
> RV-9A QB-SA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ" <rairey(at)cogeco.ca> |
| Subject: | RV-9 Wing Wire Routing |
I am wrapping up my RV-9 wings and am ready to route the wiring with
the following components (right wing). Anyone have any advice on
routing "pairing"? I have three wire runs available two adjacent to
each other just rear of the wing spar and then a third in the wing
trailing edge.
1- Dynon autopilot roll servo wiring set
2- Archer VOR/ILS co-ax cable (2 cables)
Whiskey Victor
3 - strobe light
4 - LED position light
5 - HID landing light (wig-wag)
thanks
Russ Airey
RV-9A
Wrapping up Fuselage and Wing Construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-9 Wing Wire Routing |
At 07:54 PM 5/13/2009, you wrote:
> I am wrapping up my RV-9 wings and am ready to route the wiring
> with the following components (right wing). Anyone have any advice
> on routing "pairing"? I have three wire runs available two
> adjacent to each other just rear of the wing spar and then a third
> in the wing trailing edge.
>
>1- Dynon autopilot roll servo wiring set
>2- Archer VOR/ILS co-ax cable (2 cables)
>Whiskey Victor
> 3 - strobe light
> 4 - LED position light
> 5 - HID landing light (wig-wag)
Run them all together if you wish.
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: | Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
At 06:18 PM 5/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
>with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
>then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
>around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about the
>mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter connection
>is required?
>
>Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I thought
>I'd post here and get a definitive answer.\
What you're looking for in bringing terminal and airplane
together is a GAS TIGHT joint. This is between the terminal
face that comes into contact with the aircraft's metallic
surface.
This usually means that you've applied enough force
to DEFORM irregularities in the two surfaces and literally
squash the materials together. This is the same
process described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
If you want a local grounding joint that outlasts
the rest of the airplane use 10-32 hardware to bring
terminal and airplane together. Brighten up the terminal
surface that touches the airplane. Brighten up
the airplane that touches the terminal. SMOOTH! and
SHINY! don't scuff it up with coarse abrasives.
Make up the joint with the a washer between
screw head (or nut) and the opposite side of
the terminal. Use metal locknut (MS21042-L3)
on the screw.
"Icing on the cake" is to coat one of the mating
electrical conduction surfaces with thin layer
of silicone grease before mating. Torque to
20 in-lbs.
THAT joint will not spin on the screw . . in
fact, you should tear the wire grip off the
terminal before the rest of it moves. If you
pop-riveted a nav light ground, it would probably
be okay but the higher you go in current through
the joint the more important it is to get it
gas tight. Short of soldering/welding the joint,
what I've described is the best we know how to
do.
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: | Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
Thanks Matt and Bob. Once again you guys confirmed my suspicions that I
have much to learn.
RF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
I looked at the contactors made by Eaton that are 337 approved for Cessna Aircraft.
Eaton P/N PW6041H215. rated for 28 volts continuous which is good for my
24 volt experimental aircraft. My question is about the crowbar circuit for
overvoltage protection of the ground relay. The ones I see B&C and aeroelectric
carry are rated at 12 VDC and 24 VDC. Shouldn't they be 15 VDC and 28 VDC
to allow for battery charging thru the ground power port? If so, can the ones
you sell be modified for this?
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=243982#243982
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Of pop rivets and lock nuts . . . |
Yesterday I offered a short list of simple ideas that
went to the task of getting life-of-the-airplane
joints between a wire and the airframe. Specifically,
how to get a wire "grounded" in a way that it stays
grounded.
Discussions here on the List have considered the goals
of achieving low resistance, high-longevity connection
between two conductors in a variety contexts. Some
tasks call for temporary or "service" connections
between two wires. In this case, we look to the products
offered by skilled designers and manufacturers of
connectors. They spend a LOT of time figuring out
the simple ideas that keep two mechanically independent
pins in low resistance contact with each other in
spite of moisture, vibration, temperature cycles,
electron flow, etc., etc.
These same designers have reasonable expectations
that users of their products will understand that
while we purchased their product for it's 'temporary'
connection features, the user still has to make the
'permanent' connections between pins and wires.
There are further considerations for supporting the
joint adjacent to the transition between 'permanent'
and 'flexible' segments of the assembly.
When we purchase crimp tools appropriate to the
well considered-components (like PIDG terminals)
then much of the process sensitive actions are
taken care of . . . as long as we follow instructions.
We have a further interest in being able to evaluate
the end-product of our labors. Did we use the right
components/tools? Was the wire properly inserted?
Was the crimp fully seated? etc. etc.
Understanding and acknowledging the skill of folks
who supply us with terminals, crimp tools, and
connectors illuminates a need for the OBAM aircraft
builder to consider his/her part in maintaining the
overall strength of the chain . . .
Emacs!
No matter how 'good' the rest of the chain's links
might be, inattention to detail at any point negates
the integrity of the whole.
Yesterday I offered a means by which a properly installed
terminal can be electrically and mechanically attached
to the airframe for the purpose of effecting a good
ground connection. I suggested that a combination of
10-32 screw, washer and lock nut would apply mate-up
forces would produce a very satisfactory joint in
terms of performance and longevity. I suggested that
a little silicone grease in the interface would be
a further hedge against ingress of moisture.
This was a best-we-know-how-to-do alternative to
the use of the pop-rivet joint that raised a list
member's curiosity as to potential loss of joint
integrity. There is some value in expanding this
discussion
The driven rivet can be both electrically and
mechanically robust. A #4 (.125) rivet set in a
#30 (.128) hole swells up during the driving process
to apply great pressure (tons per square inch)
against the walls of the hole. Further, sheets of
aluminum assembled with aluminum rivets offer no
risk for effects of dissimilar metals in presence
of moisture/oxygen for electrolytic corrosion. It's
fair to say that an aluminum grounding tab for a
rear mounted battery installed with 4-6 properly
driven rivets has a life-of-the-airplane shot for
performing as intended.
The pop-rivet is a hollow fastener that also
swells in the hole . . . and like it's driven cousin,
applies some forces in tension that holds the
parts together. But unless you use un-plated,
aluminum pop-rivets, there are dissimilar metal
issues (Yeah, you can get monel rivets too).
Further, since the device is hollow, it
cannot generate and maintain the mate-up forces
offered by it's driven cousins. In the case that
prompted this thread, the finished joint was loose
enough to allow the mated up parts to move under
ordinary manipulation with the fingers.
One might deduce from this observation that attaching
the battery ground tab with pop-rivets is
problematic . . . even if the mounted bracket can't
spin on the fastener.
Yesterday, I suggested a 10-32 screw for the works-
good-lasts-a-long-time joint. How much smaller can
we go without serious degradation of the joint?
For grounding of medium wires, say 14AWG or lighter,
an 8-32 is probably fine. Grounding small wires
(20-22AWG) can be tied down with 6-32 hardware.
In all cases, bringing clean surfaces together
with forces equal to the capabilities of the fastener
is required. The use of all-metal lock washers makes
the screw look more like a rivet. The addition of
moisture ingress protection is also a useful ingredient
in this recipe for success.
This little dissertation is not intended to demean
the lowly pop-rivet. Keep in mind that John Thorpe's
very successful T-18 was assembled with "pulled" or
"pop" rivets. See:
http://tinyurl.com/pdhszb
When use within their performance limits, the pop-rivet
has a role to perform in many plays. However, making
up lasts-a-long-time, gas-tight joints for airframe
grounds just isn't one of them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
At 09:06 AM 5/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>I looked at the contactors made by Eaton that are 337 approved for
>Cessna Aircraft. Eaton P/N PW6041H215.
When you can find these, get a grip on your
wallet. While these are the cream of the crop
for DC contactors, they're quite pricey.
> . . . rated for 28 volts continuous which is good for my 24 volt
> experimental aircraft. My question is about the crowbar circuit
> for overvoltage protection of the ground relay. The ones I see B&C
> and aeroelectric carry are rated at 12 VDC and 24 VDC. Shouldn't
> they be 15 VDC and 28 VDC to allow for battery charging thru the
> ground power port? If so, can the ones you sell be modified for this?
No, generally speaking 12/14 and 24/28 are
interchangeable with respect to functionality.
The low-cost 12/24v RBM/Stancore/W-R and Cole-Hersee
battery contactors offered by B&C and others
are quite suited to our task.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
Ralph,
I used an A5 pop for securing a ring lug to ground my tanks and there
are a few hundred providing
ground from the firewall back to the batteries without any problems.
Perhaps a A5 would be better
than an A4, but that's it.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
> with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
> then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
> around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about the
> mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter connection
> is required?
>
> Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I thought
> I'd post here and get a definitive answer.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA
> RV-9A QB-SA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
I have a question about wiring my alternator. My question is primarily about the
excitation/ignition-on connection. I've found lots of articles about alternators,
and info on this list. But most other articles talk about internally regulated
versions. So far I can't quite get my head about the excitation question.
I can surely experiment with the connections, and plan to do so this weekend.
I'm just hoping to get a better understanding before diving in too deep with
a running engine and spinning prop.
My alternator has three connections, one for field, one for 12v excitation, and
the B lead. I have the B&C LR3C regulator, overall electrical is a Z19. The alternator
was built by a local high performance shop, after talking through the
needs of my aircraft. Good bearings and grease, precise tolerances, etc. All
those things Bob talks about in his book. The instructions that came with it
say:
"Alternator has isolated field wires. Either one can be the IGNITION ON 12 volt
supply wire. The other to the FIELD CONNECTION on the regulator. The regulator
case must be grounded. "
So what I was planning to do is run a small wire from the B lead on the alternator
to one of the alternator's connections, making it the IGNITION ON connection.
Then connect the other tab to the Field connection on the regulator. That
way when I turn on the Master Switch to middle position (batt) it sends 12 volts
to the IGNITION ON connection. The hope being that is supplies the alternator
with that 12 volt IGNITION ON voltage.
I already know that turning the Master Switch to BATT position (or Alt) sends power
all the way to the B lead.
What I am not sure about is: do I need to keep that excitation/Ignition on voltage
running all the time the engine is running (would it hurt anything if I did)?
Or should it be shut off after the engine is started and alternator is producing
power?
My Master Switch is exactly as in the Z19, so it controls the on/off of the regulator
already.
It is this question of excitation that I am unclear about. Lots of articles talked
about the need for an ignition on light as a mandatory component in making
some alternators actually operate.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244022#244022
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
Spoke with Bill at B&C. Their 24 volt crowbar trips at 32 VDC. That is OK.
However, I am having difficulty finding a contactor for a 24 VDC application.
The Stancor ones have a coil voltage of 24 VDC or 36 VDC. However, 28 VDC exceeds
the coil voltage of the 24 VDC unit so it can't work. Also, their 36 VDC
contactors will not work because of the coil voltage being too high to activate
it. Bottom line is I need a contactor with a coil voltage rating of 28 VDC.
Other than the Eaton unit (which you are correct is costly) I am running out
of luck. Any ideas?
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244076#244076
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
>My alternator has three connections, one for field, one for 12v
>excitation, and the B lead. I have the B&C LR3C regulator, overall
>electrical is a Z19. The alternator was built by a local high
>performance shop, after talking through the needs of my aircraft.
>Good bearings and grease, precise tolerances, etc. All those things
>Bob talks about in his book. The instructions that came with it say:
>
>"Alternator has isolated field wires. Either one can be the IGNITION
>ON 12 volt supply wire. The other to the FIELD CONNECTION on the
>regulator. The regulator case must be grounded. "
>
> Okay, the connections described are for
> a "pull-down" regulator . . . typical of
> the built in regulators. The LR3 is
> a "pull-up" style device. This means
> that one of your free field leads goes
> to GROUND instead of 12v excitation. The
> other field terminal connect to the FIELD
> lead of the LR3.
>
>So what I was planning to do is run a small wire from the B lead on
>the alternator to one of the alternator's connections, making it the
>IGNITION ON connection.
>
> No, that's what you do for the "pull down"
> regulator architecture. Take one field lead
> to ground.
>
>Then connect the other tab to the Field connection on the regulator.
>
> Yes.
>
>That way when I turn on the Master Switch to middle position (batt)
>it sends 12 volts to the IGNITION ON connection. The hope being
>that is supplies the alternator with that 12 volt IGNITION ON voltage.
>
> Technically, once modified for legacy
> functionality as an externally regulated
> alternator, there is no more "IGN" terminal.
> Just F1, F2, B and GND (case).
>
>
>I already know that turning the Master Switch to BATT position (or
>Alt) sends power all the way to the B lead.
>
> Yes . . . through your b-lead protection
> device. ANL, MANL or other fat fuse.
>
>What I am not sure about is: do I need to keep that
>excitation/Ignition on voltage running all the time the engine is
>running (would it hurt anything if I did)? Or should it be shut off
>after the engine is started and alternator is producing power?
>
> If wired per Z-19 (or any other Z-figure, the
> DC PWR MASTER switch has control over the
> alternator.
>
>My Master Switch is exactly as in the Z19, so it controls the on/off
>of the regulator already.
>
> Then it controls the alternator too. If the
> regulator is unpowered, the altenrator is OFF.
>
>It is this question of excitation that I am unclear about. Lots of
>articles talked about the need for an ignition on light as a
>mandatory component in making some alternators actually operate.
>
> This is only for some (in fact a few) alternators
> with built in regulators. This feature no longer
> applies to your situation.
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: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
At 08:53 PM 5/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Spoke with Bill at B&C. Their 24 volt crowbar trips at 32 VDC. That is OK.
Yes . . . the nominal trip range for 14v ov protection
is 16.2 to 16.5 volts. 28v aircraft it's 32.4 to 33 volts.
>However, I am having difficulty finding a contactor for a 24 VDC
>application. The Stancor ones have a coil voltage of 24 VDC or 36
>VDC. However, 28 VDC exceeds the coil voltage of the 24 VDC unit so
>it can't work. Also, their 36 VDC contactors will not work because
>of the coil voltage being too high to activate it. Bottom line is I
>need a contactor with a coil voltage rating of 28 VDC. Other than
>the Eaton unit (which you are correct is costly) I am running out of
>luck. Any ideas?
I can tell you that the 70 series, continuous duty contactors
have been used in 14 and 28 volt aircraft with good
service histories. Yes, they run warm. But in airplanes,
the ambient temperatures for most operating conditions
are lower that max rated for 12v operation which tends
to offset the effects of the extra heating.
The 70-903 contactor has a resistance of 60 ohms
operating at room temperature. If you're worried
about it, you could put a 6 ohm, 1W resistor in
series with the coil to "cool" it off by about
10% of applied voltage . . . but I think you're
okay without it. These contactors have been around
since about WWII. While they're not "Space Rated"
contactors, they've proven to be of good value
in a failure tolerant airplane.
Even the $high$ contactors have bad days
http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm
If you're loosing sleep over it, consider the
these EV200 series contactors. They feature
automatic coil current reduction after pull-in
to reduce continuous power to keep the contactor
energized. However, they're about 6X the price
of the 70 series device and do generate some
noise that has been a problem for a few builders.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/qazl8t
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: | Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
My alternator has three connections, one for
field, one for 12v excitation, and the B lead.
I have the B&C LR3C regulator, overall electrical
is a Z19. The alternator was built by a local
high performance shop, after talking through the
needs of my aircraft. Good bearings and grease,
precise tolerances, etc. All those things Bob talks
about in his book. The instructions that came with it say:
"Alternator has isolated field wires. Either one
can be the IGNITION ON 12 volt supply wire. The other
to the FIELD CONNECTION on the regulator. The regulator
case must be grounded. "
Okay, the connections described are for
a "pull-down" regulator . . . typical of
the built in regulators. The LR3 is
a "pull-up" style device. This means
that one of your free field leads goes
to GROUND instead of 12v excitation. The
other field terminal connect to the FIELD
lead of the LR3.
So what I was planning to do is run a small wire
from the B lead on the alternator to one of the
alternator's connections, making it the IGNITION ON
connection.
No, that's what you do for the "pull down"
regulator architecture. Take one field lead
to ground.
Then connect the other tab to the Field connection on
the regulator.
Yes.
That way when I turn on the Master Switch to middle position
(batt) it sends 12 volts to the IGNITION ON connection.
No, just the B-lead terminal. The field supply
delivered through the regulator is still cold until
you take the DC PWR MASTER all the way up.
The hope being that is supplies the alternator with that
12 volt IGNITION ON voltage.
Technically, once modified for legacy
functionality as an externally regulated
alternator, there is no more "IGN" terminal.
Just F1, F2, B and GND (case).
I already know that turning the Master Switch to
BATT position (or Alt) sends power all the way to the B lead.
Yes . . . through your b-lead protection
device. ANL, MANL or other fat fuse.
What I am not sure about is: do I need to keep that excitation
/Ignition on voltage running all the time the engine is running
(would it hurt anything if I did)? Or should it be shut off after
the engine is started and alternator is producing power?
If wired per Z-19 (or any other Z-figure, the
DC PWR MASTER switch has control over the
alternator. Start BATT only, once engine is
running, bring alternator on line. Reverse
process at ramp idle before parking the airplane.
My Master Switch is exactly as in the Z19, so it controls
the on/off of the regulator already.
Then it controls the alternator too. If the
regulator is unpowered, the alternator is OFF.
It is this question of excitation that I am unclear about. Lots
of articles talked about the need for an ignition on light as
a mandatory component in making some alternators actually operate.
This is only for some (in fact very few) alternators
with built in regulators. This feature no longer
applies to your situation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
As Bob N stated in his earlier reply 24 and 28 volt components are
interchangeable. (They are the same thing from a practical/functional point
of view) just as 12 and 14 volt components are. Items such as contactors,
relays, motors, light bulbs etc are just not that voltage sensitive that
they are affected by the normal swing of system voltages. Your 24 volt
(nominal) system may experience actual measured voltages from a low of say
20 (maybe less) to a high of 28, 29 (maybe more) but all of the nominally
rated 24 volt components will function just fine. It's like your house
current at home. It may be 110,112, 115,120,125, 130 Volts or thereabouts if
you actually measure it, but you don't use different toasters, washing
machines, light switches etc for these different values. Standard 120 volt
rated devices are close enough. Similarly 24 volt devices are fine for any
voltage likely to be present in a 24 /28 volt aircraft.
Another Bob
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Winkelmann
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings
>
>
> Bob:
>
> Spoke with Bill at B&C. Their 24 volt crowbar trips at 32 VDC. That is
OK.
>
> However, I am having difficulty finding a contactor for a 24 VDC
application. The
> Stancor ones have a coil voltage of 24 VDC or 36 VDC. However, 28 VDC
exceeds the coil
> voltage of the 24 VDC unit so it can't work. Also, their 36 VDC
contactors will not work
> because of the coil voltage being too high to activate it. Bottom line is
I need a
> contactor with a coil voltage rating of 28 VDC. Other than the Eaton unit
(which you are
> correct is costly) I am running out of luck. Any ideas?
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244076#244076
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
I replaced two ground wires using pop rivets with solid driven rivets. Much
tighter connection and it makes me feel better anyway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Of pop rivets and locknuts . . . |
I replaced two ground wires using pop rivets with solid driven rivets. Much
tighter connection and it makes me feel better anyway.
Given that the new joints are 'tighter' is an
obvious good thing. But be aware that a rivet
is a fastener designed for shear loads. I.e.,
the shank swells in the hole thus capturing the
two sheets radially. But the axial clamping
forces are spread over a much smaller area
than the nut, screw and washer process described
earlier. Thus we have lower retention forces
in torque. Further, aluminum rivets are softer
than steel fasteners and more likely to loosen
under temperature cycles and vibration over
time. The gas-tightness of this joint over time
is doubtful. We would never use a rivet (of
any kind) for making up a life-of-the-airplane
electrical connection to airframe in a TC aircraft.
I'll refer the readers to Section 15 of AC43-13
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/AC43.13-1B_Change1.pdf
where one can become deeply immersed in the art
of attaching electrical conductors to airframes.
I hesitate to offer this reference because it
tends to take something simple and make it
complicated. But there is value in understanding
the design goals along with some processes and
materials to achieve them.
In addition to the noise reduction benefits for
the single-point ground system proposed in Z-15,
the processes by which wires get attached to
ground are already taken care of by using the
fast-on terminals. But once you venture out of
the forest-of-tabs ground block, then a rudimentary
understanding of the design goals is useful.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
Thanks very much for that detailed explanation. That will help me plan this weekends
activities.
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244135#244135
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the reply. When looking at the Stancor 70-903 data sheet it states
the Max Safe Operating Range is 110% of nominal rated voltage. That gives me
26.4 volts. In a 24 volt system, the bus voltage often runs near 28 volts for
the alternator to charge the battery. That is over the rating.
Additionally, in the Stancor documentation for sizing a contactor, they specifically
state a warning about using contactors rated at battery voltage when there
is charging taking place. For 12 VDC systems, they make a 15 VDC contactor
but have no such beast for a 24 vdc system.
Also, Bob, take a look at the URLs in your last post. Some malware or something
has changed the url to some odd url.
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244138#244138
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
| From: | "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
I didn't see anything about pop rivet grounds in AC43.13-1B-Change1 doc... See
Section 15 Grounding and Bonding. I used several plate nut grounds similar to
that shown in Tables 11-15 and 11-16 (see attached).
Regards,
Jay
rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us wrote:
> I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
> with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
> then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
> around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about the
> mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter connection
> is required?
>
> Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I thought
> I'd post here and get a definitive answer.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA
> RV-9A QB-SA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244147#244147
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/grounds_756.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
OK, after much research, the Gigavac GX11CA it is. I spoke with one of their engineers
and it is designed for 28 VDC continuous use. In addition, it is hermetically
sealed as an added plus and it has built in spike suppression so it
needs no external diodes. There are also models that have an extra contact for
switching on an indicator light if wanted. Price is $113 each. So, more that
Stancor, less than Kilovac and much less than CH.
Thanks for all your help and direction!
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244164#244164
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I have no
idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
I received my Crowbar OV-14 module along with other parts for my external power
project.
Perhaps because of the importance of the task, or maybe because of the macho name
"Crowbar" I kind of expected a big meaty device with attitude and tatoos.
Something that would belong on a De Havilland that McGyver could use to save the
world and then cook his dinner.
Needless to say I was surprised at the scrawny little twirp that looked like it
belonged in a Chinese model airplane.
(just funnin' with ya Bob).
Nevertheless, my whole life has been doing more with less, so I have 100% confidence
in this dohicky, I just have a couple of questions.
Is this thingy a one time protector? Does it give its life to an overvoltage and
you snip it off like a foreskin and replace it? Or does it reset itself and
endure forever?
What is the best way to install it? Just wire it in and tie wrap it somewhere?
Does anyone have a picture of a proper installation?
Thanks in advance.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244172#244172
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Don,
I used a laser printer with Arial 7 point type, all caps to make labels.? I would
have 4 lines, aligned one below the other.? I cut these labels out, rolled
them around the wire, slipped clear tubing over the paper and heat shrunk it.
I labeled both ends of each wire. I labeled the first end at the first terminal
at my shop bench.? The other end would wait until I knew the wire length to
the second terminal.? That was usually in the airplane, just before I installed
the final terminal connector.? Experience tells me that adequate labeling is
an absolute necessity.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: mosquito56 <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:54 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I have no
idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Bowman" <davidbowman1(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
you can use a Kroy TubeMarker. It will print on shrink tubing. Look at
alliedelec.com
Dave-Westlake Village, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
>
>
> I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
> finishing up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
>
> Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I
> have no idea what one would be called.
> I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way
> also.
>
> Any other ideas would be welcome.
>
> Don
>
> --------
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals
> for assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
Hi Don,
If you wanted a whole lot of labels with the same marking, I've used
Merithian Products Corp. http://www.merithian.com/
For small quantities, printing on white heat shrink tubing with a fine
point Sharpie a good job.
Bob W.
"mosquito56" wrote:
>
> I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
>
> Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I have
no idea what one would be called.
> I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way also.
>
> Any other ideas would be welcome.
>
> Don
>
> --------
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
Hi Don,
After much frustrated wrapping and securing laser printed name tabs, I
found wrapping the wire 180-degrees with packaging tape
and placing the name tab between the extended adhesive ends, the loose
protected name tab is easier to read than one coaxial with
the wire. It's also much easier to do. Just don't go overboard on the
marking if it's obvious what the wire's for.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
mosquito56 wrote:
>
> I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
>
> Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I have
no idea what one would be called.
> I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way also.
>
> Any other ideas would be welcome.
>
> Don
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Myron
Very well described, I mean the sensation you had. It was exactly the same I
had when I received that CROWBAR OV-14 little black critter.
Well, perhaps I couldn't have remembered what McGiver could do with it . :-)
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of woxofswa
> Sent: sexta-feira, 15 de Maio de 2009 18:22
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crowbar
>
>
> I received my Crowbar OV-14 module along with other parts for my external
power
> project.
>
> Perhaps because of the importance of the task, or maybe because of the
macho
> name "Crowbar" I kind of expected a big meaty device with attitude and
tatoos.
> Something that would belong on a De Havilland that McGyver could use to
save
> the world and then cook his dinner.
>
> Needless to say I was surprised at the scrawny little twirp that looked
like it
> belonged in a Chinese model airplane.
>
> (just funnin' with ya Bob).
>
> Nevertheless, my whole life has been doing more with less, so I have 100%
> confidence in this dohicky, I just have a couple of questions.
>
> Is this thingy a one time protector? Does it give its life to an
overvoltage and you
> snip it off like a foreskin and replace it? Or does it reset itself and
endure forever?
>
> What is the best way to install it? Just wire it in and tie wrap it
somewhere?
> Does anyone have a picture of a proper installation?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --------
> Myron Nelson
> Mesa, AZ
> Emp completed, legacy build fuse in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
The little pipsqueak should last a long time.. All it has to do is fault
the 5A breaker and drag the field pin down (if it has an external
regulator). I believe the SCR selected is up to repeated trips without
any trauma. If I'm reading the specs correctly, it will handle 16A
without problem (with proper cooling).
Regards,
Matt-
>
> I received my Crowbar OV-14 module along with other parts for my external
> power project.
>
> Perhaps because of the importance of the task, or maybe because of the
> macho name "Crowbar" I kind of expected a big meaty device with attitude
> and tatoos. Something that would belong on a De Havilland that McGyver
> could use to save the world and then cook his dinner.
>
> Needless to say I was surprised at the scrawny little twirp that looked
> like it belonged in a Chinese model airplane.
>
> (just funnin' with ya Bob).
>
> Nevertheless, my whole life has been doing more with less, so I have 100%
> confidence in this dohicky, I just have a couple of questions.
>
> Is this thingy a one time protector? Does it give its life to an
> overvoltage and you snip it off like a foreskin and replace it? Or does
> it reset itself and endure forever?
>
> What is the best way to install it? Just wire it in and tie wrap it
> somewhere?
> Does anyone have a picture of a proper installation?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --------
> Myron Nelson
> Mesa, AZ
> Emp completed, legacy build fuse in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244172#244172
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Check Ebay for Kroy first.
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 Dave
Bowman
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
you can use a Kroy TubeMarker. It will print on shrink tubing. Look at
alliedelec.com
Dave-Westlake Village, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
>
>
> I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
> finishing up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
>
> Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible?
I
> have no idea what one would be called.
> I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some
way
> also.
>
> Any other ideas would be welcome.
>
> Don
>
> --------
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between
individuals
> for assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
Thanks for the reply. When looking at the Stancor 70-903 data
sheet it states the Max Safe Operating Range is 110% of
nominal rated voltage. That gives me 26.4 volts. In a 24 volt
system, the bus voltage often runs near 28 volts for the alternator
to charge the battery.
Actually 28.5 volts nominal . . .
That is over the rating.
Additionally, in the Stancor documentation for sizing a contactor,
they specifically state a warning about using contactors rated at
battery voltage when there is charging taking place. For 12 VDC
systems, they make a 15 VDC contactor but have no such beast for a 24
vdc system.
I've read the warning and I've observed the performance
of these contactors in service since they went into the
C-140 back in '46 or so. B&C and I have sold hundreds of
these critters for the purpose of providing battery
contactor, external power and cross-feed service for
many moons . . . and found that they continue to offer
satisfactory service in these applications. But if this
idea stresses your sensibilities too much, there ARE
several alternatives . . .
One COULD also craft a after-pull-in power reduction
module to emulate the performance of devices like
the EV200. A 555 timer and a few jelly-beans would
probably make it work.
Also, Bob, take a look at the URLs in your last post. Some malware
or something has changed the url to some odd url.
Looked over my postings as they arrived here
and didn't see anything out of the ordinary.
Which URL you saw was hosed?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | MX20 Vertical stripes - update |
I was finally able to replicate the problem with the primary alternator, secondary
alternator, and more importantly - running on battery power alone.
Contacted Garmin and they suggested I send the unit in - they replaced the display
head and it is on its way back to me.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop> |
Don,
I ended up buying a RhinoPro 5000, which I am very happy with. It will also
print on heatshrink tubing. See link below.
http://www.ecomofficesupplies.com/ProductInfo~productid~DYM15603.html#
These folks have good service and very reasonable shipping for refill
supplies.
Just a quick plug here. Our EAA chapter, Chapter 94 in Mason City, IA, is
sponsoring an Aero Electric Seminar on June 27-28. Refer to Bob's website
for details. The hanger is a great facility located right off the taxiway
for easy flying or driving. There will be a Saturday evening cookout, should
be a great time. Hope to see some of you there.
Tom Barter
Kesley Electric, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
finishing up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I
have no idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way
also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:16:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:21 PM 5/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>I received my Crowbar OV-14 module along with other parts for my
>external power project.
>
>Perhaps because of the importance of the task, or maybe because of
>the macho name "Crowbar" I kind of expected a big meaty device with
>attitude and tatoos. Something that would belong on a De Havilland
>that McGyver could use to save the world and then cook his dinner.
>
>Needless to say I was surprised at the scrawny little twirp that
>looked like it belonged in a Chinese model airplane.
>
>(just funnin' with ya Bob).
>
>Nevertheless, my whole life has been doing more with less, so I have
>100% confidence in this dohicky, I just have a couple of questions.
>
>Is this thingy a one time protector? Does it give its life to an
>overvoltage and you snip it off like a foreskin and replace it? Or
>does it reset itself and endure forever?
It's job is over less than 100 milliseconds after
onset of an OV condition. It forces the 5A field
supply breaker open. It will do this many times
without breaking a sweat.
>What is the best way to install it? Just wire it in and tie wrap it
>somewhere?
>Does anyone have a picture of a proper installation?
Tie-wrap it to a wire bundle. It's okay
to let the body hang on the leads.
>Thanks in advance.
I fussed over packaging for some time. I was
looking for a process and materials that provided
adequate protection while keeping costs low.
When you have an assembled ECB this small
Emacs!
How's the best way to package it? Potting (full
encapsulation) is messy, slow and makes the thing
difficult to diagnose for field failures . . . impossible
to repair.
The double melting wall heat-shrink provides an
envelope that can be put on in seconds, offers
good shielding from contaminants. It can be
cut away for repairs, field failure diagnosis
or re-adjustment.
Our next line of products will be offered in
an enclosure like this:
Emacs!
I have hundreds of plastic boxes with pre-cut d-sub
connector holes in the top. Cost of box and lid is
under $2. While the box is glued shut, it's fast to
assemble, easy to cut off, easy to replace after
repairs are made, etc.
I really considered reviving the CbOVM-14 in
this housing but that would ADD the costs of enclosure
and connector. Not consistent with my design and
marketing goals.
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: | MX20 Vertical stripes - update |
Excellent,
Sounds like it can't be an alternator noise problem then..I know whan I had painted
steel alternator brackets (which produced high resistance ground path between
the alt and the engine block) it played havoc with my GNS 430.
Finally had the "duh" moment, changed the brackets and voila no more problems.
Frank
-----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, May 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MX20 Vertical stripes - update
-->
I was finally able to replicate the problem with the primary alternator, secondary
alternator, and more importantly - running on battery power alone.
Contacted Garmin and they suggested I send the unit in - they replaced the display
head and it is on its way back to me.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charger as Ground Power |
Hi Bob,
Perhaps you could help me understand what the words were that you saw in
the
advert that made you think HF item number 99857 might do the job (I
understand you'd want to test it to confirm) versus very similar words
in
the ad for HF item number 42292 that you said definitely won't do the
job.
Both say they "maintain a full charge without over charging".
Below is the description for 99857 from the HF web site
* Three-stage fully automatic charging protects and prolongs battery
life
* Auto on/off trickle charging stage keeps 12 volt batteries fully
charged without overcharging
* Equipped with overload protection, short circuit protection, and
reverse polarity protection for added safety
* Also great for maintaining batteries while in storage
* Has LED charge indicators
* Includes a bracket for permanent mounting
and here's the description for 42292 from the HF web site
* Use on 12 volt batteries while in storage or during cold weather
* Floating circuit maintains a full charge without overcharging
* Automatic safety shutoff
Is there any way the electron challenged such as myself could tell or do
we
just have to buy and test - or follow your recommendations. Am I being
naive
in believing manufacturers claims?
Thanks for this and all your other explanations.
Tony Babb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Charger as Ground Power
At 06:08 AM 5/12/2009, you wrote:
i have 6 or 8 of these little chargers on all my toys. i have noticed on
some some that the voltage was too low. i tried once to adjust the
voltage
but couldn't get anything to turn.i guess i will go back and try again
to
adjust the voltage on a couple that are too low. on the one that was too
high i soldered a diode in line and dropped the voltage.
bob noffs
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David L. wrote:
The little, cheap Harbor Freight "maintainers" work quite well. I have
used
several. One key point however, ...many of them come set a tad too
high in
their fixed "float" voltage, to my thinking. I have seen them as high
as
13.9 v.
The good news, is they can be adjusted to the float voltage that you
want.
The little controller box should have a back lid that is lightly glued
in
place. Carefully work a very narrow blade screw driver or other tough,
but
thin device into the glued seam and work it until the back pops off.
Inside
is a small circuit board and potentiometer. It may have a spot of RTV
on
it. Work this loose. Turning the pot CW lowers to float voltage. I
like
about 13.2 v. Others may want a slightly different setting. I usually
locate where the pot slotted screw adjust hole is located next to the
little
case and drill a 3/16 hole. That way, it can be adjusted from the
outside.
The little unit is quite stable after you get the setting where you want
it.
David
David's suggestions are worthy of consideration but
he doesn't mention specific model numbers from
H.F. I've tested several battery charger products
from H.F. and found some that were not suited to our tasks.
What we're looking for are devices that first
"top off" a battery and then "drop to maintenance".
This kind of behavior is illustrated in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
This curve is from the Schumacher 1562 series chargers available
from WalMart for about $20. There are dozens of other
products that produce similar charge/maintenance profiles.
This one . . .
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=42292
. . . does not.
I found a pot inside to adjust the output voltage . . .
but only ONE pot. It's a device suitable for maintaining
an already charged battery (adjust it for 13.1 volts) but
will not charge a battery.
Based on its description and price, this device
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=99857
shows more promise. Haven't had time to go get one and
check it out but in the mean time, the Schumacher
1562 is a sure bet
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Schumacher_Chargers/156
2.j
pg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire Sizes Help !!! Which Gauge to use ??? |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I am wiring an airplane and need to know what gauge to use for a 10 amp circuit
running about 10 feet of wire ?
Also, what size wire should I use for the Molex Connectors I find on my Radio and
Transponder ?
Thanks,
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244218#244218
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Sizes Help !!! Which Gauge to use ??? |
At 15:12 5/15/2009, you wrote:
>I am wiring an airplane and need to know what gauge to use for a 10
>amp circuit running about 10 feet of wire ?
>
>Also, what size wire should I use for the Molex Connectors I find on
>my Radio and Transponder ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike
AC 43.13 is your friend, specifically chapter 11. If you don't want
to purchase a copy, go here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/
click on AC in the upper right then enter 43.13 in the resulting
search window. First two hits.
Minimum wire gauge for a 10A breaker or fuse is AWG-18. Beyond that
you'll need to determine maximum acceptable voltage drop, calculate
what the voltage drop for your chosen wire gauge is and then derate
for bundle size, total capacity and altitude to ensure your chosen
size is acceptable.
At least that's what those of us in certified land need to do...
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | High pitch whine from KLN90 GPS |
| From: | "gmkonrad" <gmkonrad(at)netscape.net> |
I recently installed a KLN90 GPS (I know its old, but it is better than my old
loran) and it has a high pitch whine. I noticed the whine when I was wiring the
gps on the bench, thinking I would not hear the noise in the plane-wrong.
Would some kind of filter eliminate this or does it need to go to the shop ?
I can hear the whine thru the headsets also and it gets annoying. Any ideas ?
Thanks in advance,
Gary
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244264#244264
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EXP2BUS and non-functioning alternator |
| From: | "ianxbrown" <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
I discovered that the IG lead to the alternator was only producing 12V when measured
disconnected. As soon as a load was applied that went down to 1.5V. It
turns out that some filings had got under the legs of an IRF4905 Mosfet and
seemed to have shorted the pins.
So, new question: Does anyone know how to test whether the cleaned up IRF4905
still works, and what the pinouts might be. There are three legs, but nothing
I've read tells me what leg does what. Would I have to remove the IRF4905 from
the board to test it's output?
Thanks for your help so far, which got me to this point.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244294#244294
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
I wanted to update you. After getting a new alternator plug that has the connections
I needed, I experimented and rewired the field and ground leads per your
suggestions.
WhaLa, alternator started outputting about 15 volts. Too high, but a few turns
of the LR3C regulator screw has it now outputing 14.2 volts. And if I move the
Master Switch to BATT position the alternator stops producing voltage. Like Hannibal
Smith always said: 'I love it when a plan comes together'.
I have a Z19 system, and here are the measured voltages from various instruments/locations:
Digital meter directly on the main battery: 14.23 v
Digital meter on the Z23 field wire to cockpit: 1.90 v
Digital panel Voltmeter on Ebus: 14.10 v
EM2 engine monitor connected to main bus: 14.44 v
Is that Z23/field voltage what you might expect?
Thanks again,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244296#244296
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Insulation on Welding Wire |
All,
I'm getting ready to buy my main battery cables and would like some advice
on which insulation to choose.- I've read the discussions that say weldin
g cable is good to use for its flexibility and durability, but should I be
worried about the temperature range of the insulation?- The choices seem
to be neoprene welding cable (good to 90C), thermoplastic rubber welding ca
ble (good to 105C), PVC battery cable-(good to 80C), and-"SGX" battery
cable (good to 125C).- Any ideas/insight into which of these is the most
desirable?- The application is-a 24V system in a Velocity (batteries in
the front, engine in the back).- Should I consider using some of the sti
ffer battery cable for the run from the batteries to the firewall-mounted s
tarter contactor and then welding cable from the contactor to the starter m
otor?
-
Also, Waytek has some pretty good prices on these, but only sell in quantit
ies greater than 100ft, does anyone know a good source that won't break the
bank?
-
Thanks,
Dan=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Insulation on Welding Wire |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Dan,
I got my welding cable (~30') at Grainger for what I thought was a very reasonable
price.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, 17 May 2009 11:11 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Insulation on Welding Wire
All,
I'm getting ready to buy my main battery cables and would like some advice on which
insulation to choose.? I've read the discussions that say welding cable is
good to use for its flexibility and durability, but should I be worried about
the temperature range of the insulation?? The choices seem to be neoprene welding
cable (good to 90C), thermoplastic rubber welding cable (good to 105C),
PVC battery cable?(good to 80C), and?"SGX" battery cable (good to 125C).? Any
ideas/insight into which of these is the most desirable?? The application is?a
24V system in a Velocity (batteries in the front, engine in the back).? Should
I consider using some of the stiffer battery cable for the run from the batteries
to the firewall-mounted starter contactor and then welding cable from the
contactor to the starter motor?
?
Also, Waytek has some pretty good prices on these, but only sell in quantities
greater than 100ft, does anyone know a good source that won't break the bank?
?
Thanks,
Dan
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulation on Welding Wire |
Hi Dan,
I think welding wire is a better product for the heavy cable at the
batteries. It's easy to join with silver solder and cupped ring ends.
It's flexible and doesn't
get brittle because of the fine wires.
*January 15 *The order for cable terminals from Wicks came in so the
battery contactor to starter was stripped, inserted and was crimped
once. Flanges were filed off. Silver solder was added to join cable and
terminal and shrink-wrap was added. After refastening it to the
contactor, tie-ties reattached the cable to bus support structures
through the plane. The instrument panel was removed to the worktable and
switches were placed thru the switch template panel to keep them in
order. Wires were revisited to shorten them, provide bundled protection,
and minimize motion.
see link:
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/chargebatteryconnection.gif
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
D Fritz wrote:
> All,
> I'm getting ready to buy my main battery cables and would like some
> advice on which insulation to choose. I've read the discussions that
> say welding cable is good to use for its flexibility and durability,
> but should I be worried about the temperature range of the
> insulation? The choices seem to be neoprene welding cable (good to
> 90C), thermoplastic rubber welding cable (good to 105C), PVC battery
> cable (good to 80C), and "SGX" battery cable (good to 125C). Any
> ideas/insight into which of these is the most desirable? The
> application is a 24V system in a Velocity (batteries in the front,
> engine in the back). Should I consider using some of the stiffer
> battery cable for the run from the batteries to the firewall-mounted
> starter contactor and then welding cable from the contactor to the
> starter motor?
>
> Also, Waytek has some pretty good prices on these, but only sell in
> quantities greater than 100ft, does anyone know a good source that
> won't break the bank?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
These urls
Even the $high$ contactors have bad days
http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm
If you're loosing sleep over it, consider the
these EV200 series contactors. They feature
automatic coil current reduction after pull-in
to reduce continuous power to keep the contactor
energized. However, they're about 6X the price
of the 70 series device and do generate some
noise that has been a problem for a few builders.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/qazl8t
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244422#244422
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
Good Afternoon Don,
I borrowed a WWII vintage, hand operated, electric wire marker and printed
a label about every ten inches on every wire I used. It probably caused me
to waste a few feet of wire as I tended to make each wire just a bit longer
than needed, but it sure helps a lot during the assembly and for trouble
shooting.
Using any sort of shrink tube application darn near doubles the diameter of
the small wires we tend to need. I tried that and did not care for the
extra bulk at all.
If I had a very sophisticated airplane to wire, I would watch E-Bay and buy
my own wire marking machine! If it's good enough for Boeing and
Beechcraft, it's good enough for me!
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 5/15/2009 11:57:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com writes:
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
finishing up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I
have no idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way
also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
**************A strong credit score is 700 or above. See Yours in Just 2
Easy Steps!
bcd=Maystrongfooter51709NO115)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
At 04:42 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
Bob:
These urls
Even the $high$ contactors have bad days
http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm
. . . and this 6041 series contactor . . .
in spite of its pedigree had a very
bad day in a King Air about 20 years
ago.
If you're loosing sleep over it, consider the
these EV200 series contactors. They feature
automatic coil current reduction after pull-in
to reduce continuous power to keep the contactor
energized. However, they're about 6X the price
of the 70 series device and do generate some
noise that has been a problem for a few builders.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/qazl8t
. . . and this is an exemplar 21st century
design for a contactor along with a place to
purchase the critter.
These are "Tiny URL" contractions of the
desired address. See:
http://tinyurl.com
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: Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
Bob,
I wanted to update you. After getting a new alternator plug that has
the connections I needed, I experimented and rewired the field and
ground leads per your suggestions.
WhaLa, alternator started outputting about 15 volts. Too high, but a
few turns of the LR3C regulator screw has it now outputing 14.2
volts. And if I move the Master Switch to BATT position the
alternator stops producing voltage. Like Hannibal Smith always said:
'I love it when a plan comes together'.
I have a Z19 system, and here are the measured voltages from various
instruments/locations:
Digital meter directly on the main battery: 14.23 v
Digital meter on the Z23 field wire to cockpit: 1.90 v
Digital panel Voltmeter on Ebus: 14.10 v
EM2 engine monitor connected to main bus: 14.44 v
Is that Z23/field voltage what you might expect?
Yes, depending on RPM and system loads, the
field excitation to the alternator can be quite
low. At low RPM and high loads, this reading
will climb until it reaches at or slightly
below bus voltage . . . this is were the alternator
is maxed out. A very low reading says the alternator
is carrying present loads without breaking a
sweat.
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: EXP2BUS and non-functioning alternator |
At 05:08 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>I discovered that the IG lead to the alternator was only producing
>12V when measured disconnected. As soon as a load was applied that
>went down to 1.5V. It turns out that some filings had got under
>the legs of an IRF4905 Mosfet and seemed to have shorted the pins.
>
>So, new question: Does anyone know how to test whether the cleaned
>up IRF4905 still works, and what the pinouts might be. There are
>three legs, but nothing I've read tells me what leg does what.
See:
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irf4905s.pdf
>Would I have to remove the IRF4905 from the board to test it's output?
I wouldn't think so . . . but I'm mystified as to how
an IRF4905 might be used to control an alternator. This
is a really husky device. Far larger than necessary
to effect control of the IG lead of an alternator. Do
you have a schematic of the EXP2BUS product? I wasn't
able to find anything useful 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High pitch whine from KLN90 GPS |
At 09:43 AM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>I recently installed a KLN90 GPS (I know its old, but it is better
>than my old loran) and it has a high pitch whine. I noticed the
>whine when I was wiring the gps on the bench, thinking I would not
>hear the noise in the plane-wrong. Would some kind of filter
>eliminate this or does it need to go to the shop ? I can hear the
>whine thru the headsets also and it gets annoying. Any ideas ?
You need to deduce the propagation mode
for the noise as described in chapter 16.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator excitation - suggested wiring? |
| From: | Mike Fontenot <mikef(at)apexconsultingservices.com> |
Bob,
Thanks again for the information on regulators (pull up/pull down), and the
way to wire it up. Sure feels good to have the system really working. This
list is great!
Mike
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> Bob,
>
>
> I wanted to update you. After getting a new alternator plug that has the
> connections I needed, I experimented and rewired the field and ground leads
> per your suggestions.
>
>
> WhaLa, alternator started outputting about 15 volts. Too high, but a few
> turns of the LR3C regulator screw has it now outputing 14.2 volts. And if I
> move the Master Switch to BATT position the alternator stops producing
> voltage. Like Hannibal Smith always said: 'I love it when a plan comes
> together'.
>
>
> I have a Z19 system, and here are the measured voltages from various
> instruments/locations:
>
> Digital meter directly on the main battery: 14.23 v
> Digital meter on the Z23 field wire to cockpit: 1.90 v
> Digital panel Voltmeter on Ebus: 14.10 v
> EM2 engine monitor connected to main bus: 14.44 v
>
>
> Is that Z23/field voltage what you might expect?
>
> Yes, depending on RPM and system loads, the
> field excitation to the alternator can be quite
> low. At low RPM and high loads, this reading
> will climb until it reaches at or slightly
> below bus voltage . . . this is were the alternator
> is maxed out. A very low reading says the alternator
> is carrying present loads without breaking a
> sweat.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
--
Mike
===============================
Mike Fontenot
Apex Consulting & Services LLC
Lakewood, Colorado
303 / 731-6645
mikef AT apexconsultingservices DOT com
===============================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
Bob,
I am now convinced that the variations were real. I inserted an ammeter into
the field line, while the engine was stopped. Got a reading of 3.5 amps.
Then took the plane out, fired it up with the ammeter in place, and when the
alternator switch was turned on, the current went to 3.5 amps for a very
short time, then dropped to zero. At that point, it stayed at zero, and the
battery would not charge.
Put plane back in hanger, and did some static measurements.
Voltage from LR-3 to field circuit breaker ~4.5 volts
Voltage at connector to alternator (black plug) ~4.5V
Resistance to ground through the leads that field current plugs into varies
(jumps around) and then often goes to open circuit.
Could the slip rings be contaminated or not in contact?
Comments?
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LR3 regulator Amperage indications
>
>
> At 10:33 AM 5/8/2009, you wrote:
>>Bob,
>>The heavy B lead comes off the B&C alternator, and passes through a sensor
>>supplied by Blue Mountain avionics, which I believe is a Hall effect
>>transducer, and then goes to the Batteries. The Voltage is measured at
>>the Main buss.
>>
>>I am enclosing the output from the last flight showing the variations.
>
> Those traces are almost certainly plagued with data sampling
> artifacts polluted by noise. There's no way that the "real"
> numbers are that trashy. Have you explored the R/C filtering
> I suggested? How many bits of resolution does the data
> acquisition system offer?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brooke Wolf <bwolf1(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Similarity of construction.
Bruce
Glasair III (28v)
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Brooke Wolf
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
>
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
I wired a Velocity XL RG for a friend as a 12v system. Dual B&C alternators
and Regulators.
No issues for over four years and five hundred hours.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EXP2BUS and non-functioning alternator |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Bob,
I have the installation manual (attached) but it doesn't have a
conventional circuit diagram. There is a logical layout in Figure 7,
and a physical layout in Figure 3 (the IRF4905 is at J17) and a photo on
the front page, which also shows it's location.
There is evidence that the track leading from the Source pin on the
IRF4905 has overheated, but I have yet to check it for continuity (meter
is at the airport).
Ian
>
> At 05:08 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >I discovered that the IG lead to the alternator was only producing
> >12V when measured disconnected. As soon as a load was applied that
> >went down to 1.5V. It turns out that some filings had got under
> >the legs of an IRF4905 Mosfet and seemed to have shorted the pins.
> >
> >So, new question: Does anyone know how to test whether the cleaned
> >up IRF4905 still works, and what the pinouts might be. There are
> >three legs, but nothing I've read tells me what leg does what.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irf4905s.pdf
>
>
> >Would I have to remove the IRF4905 from the board to test it's output?
>
> I wouldn't think so . . . but I'm mystified as to how
> an IRF4905 might be used to control an alternator. This
> is a really husky device. Far larger than necessary
> to effect control of the IG lead of an alternator. Do
> you have a schematic of the EXP2BUS product? I wasn't
> able to find anything useful 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: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Why 24 v. systems.... in the commercial world it is usually about costs and
profits. Less copper used, less cost.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)Glasair.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:01 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt
>
> Similarity of construction.
>
> Bruce
> Glasair III (28v)
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Brooke Wolf
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:40 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt
>
>
> I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
> need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
> robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
> draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
> about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
> wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
> response to a Blue Mountain article
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
>
> the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
> feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
> volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
> build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
>
> Thanks...Brooke
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Similarity of construction.
(Please elaborate!)
Bruce
Glasair III (28v)
www.Glasair.org
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Speaking of W-R/RBM/Stancore Contactors . . . |
FYI . . .
I've become aware of a failure internal to a 3-terminal
White-Rogers/RBM Controls contactor that shorted the coil
stud to the contactor's floating conductor ring. This caused
the contactor to "buzz" and ultimately burned the wire between
the contactor and the battery master switch. Artifacts of
arcing are visible in:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/W-R_RBM_3-Terminal_2s.jpg
The solder lug that attaches to the coil wire is oriented UP
toward the conductor ring and then formed over for clearance.
At first blush, I would suspect that this solder lug was
improperly assembled at the factory . . . it could have
been laid over 90-degrees and still provided for coil
lead termination with MUCH more clearance to the fat
copper conductor ring.
To understand the internal construction of this
product I'll refer the readers to images at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1c.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1d.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1e.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1f.jpg
These photos are for a later configuration of the 3 and 4-
terminal contactors. The tiny coil wire is not even
visible and ample clearances are maintained between coil
terminal hardware and conductor ring by a molded nylon terminal
housing.
The 'Connection (and to the best of my knowledge B&C) has
never sold contactors with the earlier terminal
configuration. The failed contactor had a date code of 9515;
15th week of 1995). Every 4-terminal device I've torn down
featured later configuration for coil terminals visible in
photos above. It's also a fair bet that older versions of
the contactor described in the failure analysis were assembled
with more attention to detail for positioning the solder
lug.
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: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
At 10:44 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Why 24 v. systems.... in the commercial world it is usually about
>costs and profits. Less copper used, less cost.
>David
>
Close. When I went to work for Cessna in '64, we had
14v airplanes (150, 172) and 28v airplanes (182, 206,
210). When you need to run high-energy electro-whizzies
you can get more WATTS of engine driven power from
essentially the same WEIGHT of system if it's 28v.
But as quantities of all airplanes sold dwindled,
it was economically more efficient to simply install
the same hardware in all aircraft. The alternators
were the same size and weight, batteries could be
sized to the task for total energy stored. Common
landing lights, nav lights, strobe kits, etc made
for fewer line items of electrical goodies in
inventory and more wider applicability of fewer
parts for field spares.
It had nothing to do with any practical level
of weight savings. We kinda like 14v stuff in the
OBAM market: unlike the uniquely aircraft
"pallet of paints" for 28V hardware, 14V automotive
hardware is stocked in thousands of varieties and
sources virtually everywhere on the planet.
The "improved performance" and "lighter weight"
canards are difficult to measure/prove without
carefully detailed studies with slice-n-dice
instrumentation. For us get-in-n-go airplane
drivers, the 14 vs. 28 volt differences are
not readily observable. So the big driver is
simply cost of ownership in terms of $acquisition$
and $time$ to maintain. 14v has it hands down.
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: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Good Afternoon,
Definitely NOT 'Lectric Bob here!
I DO like twenty-four volt systems. I also agree that any weight saving is
probably minimal on an overall basis, nevertheless, I do subscribe to the
theory that ounces count.
Twenty-four volts allows us to use lighter weight starters, alternators,
wires, even relays. The trouble is that most twenty-four volt units weigh as
much as their twelve volt counterparts. If you want to take full advantage
of a twenty-four volt system you also have to use lighter components. If
thirty amps at twelve volts will handle all of your aircraft requirements,
all you need is fifteen amps with a twenty-four volt system. How many fifteen
amp alternators do you see available?
If you go ahead and use a thirty amp twenty-four volt alternator, you have
not taken full advantage of the weight saving capabilities of the
twenty-four volt regime.
Cessna went to twenty-four volts for everything from the 152 on up many
years ago. It was cheaper and lighter for the whole fleet and only having to
deal with twenty-four volt components made inventory control a lot easier.
Commonality of parts and all of the economies that breeds!
If you want to be able to jump start your airplane form a twelve volt car,
twenty-four volts may not be for you.
Personally, If I ever have the feeling that I need a jump start for my
airplane, I would also determine that I had made some sort of error in managing
my flying machine.
If I leave the master on and deplete the battery, I will pull the battery,
have it properly serviced, and chalk the experience up to my own stupidity.
(I have, unfortunately for me, had to do that more than once.)
What I have NOT done, however, is jump start my airplane! If I need the
battery at all, I want it to be fully charged and properly serviced before I
fly.
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 5/18/2009 12:07:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes:
Similarity of construction.
(Please elaborate!)
Bruce
Glasair III (28v)
www.Glasair.org
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
=Mayfooter51809NO115)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
And don't forget to add that you can save much more weight in the
operation of your aircraft by going on a diet! Drop 10 to 15 pounds
off your personal frame and it will make up for many many incremental
weight saving devices in your airframe.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
On May 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The "improved performance" and "lighter weight"
> canards are difficult to measure/prove without
> carefully detailed studies with slice-n-dice
> instrumentation. For us get-in-n-go airplane
> drivers, the 14 vs. 28 volt differences are
> not readily observable. So the big driver is
> simply cost of ownership in terms of $acquisition$
> and $time$ to maintain. 14v has it hands down.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was "Commonality of
Manufacturing". It easier for the factory to use one battery, one relay,
one bulb, one starter, across the entire line than a mixed bag for each
different aircraft.
Where 28v has 14v beat is in delivery of power. I remember flying my 14v
C177RG at night with everything, including all the lights turned on.
When I reached for the gear lever and flipped it down, everything went
dim! Just about every 14v RG airplane I've flown does that. Not the 28v
ones, just the 14v. Power, when you need it, you need it!
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt
Similarity of construction.
(Please elaborate!)
Bruce
Glasair III (28v)
www.Glasair.org
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed before, but I
need help deciding on a voltage system for my Velocity. I intend a
robust electrical system to support a high end IFR panel. The highest
draw item will probably be an electric hydraulic pump which pulls
about 30 amps at 12 volts. I know a 24 volt will save some weight in
wiring because of the lower amperage. However, after reading Bob's
response to a Blue Mountain article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
the weight saved appears minimal. I don't know for sure, but I have a
feeling that the vast majority of OBAM airplanes are built around 12
volt systems. My question is, why do the likes of Cessna and Cirrus
build their single engine airplanes with 24 volt systems?
Thanks...Brooke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying the Piper plug |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Bob,
I am going to mount the receptacle close to the battery and run a #4awg right to
the battery ground. As such, would the brass plate washer still be advised?
Thanks for all your help.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244565#244565
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
If you're thinking heated prop, Elec air conditioning, Elec cabin heat,
heated seals, or other high-energy goodies, then a 24V system/alternator
offers twice the "power" for roughly the same system weight as a 12v
alternator. It's not the (potential) smaller wire savings that is
significant/relevant, rather it's twice the available power from the same
weight alternator, contactors, etc (i.e. the heavy items).
This is also perhaps a consideration if you're planning on a small backup
(B&C type) alternator. The 24v version again has twice the available
"power" as the 12v (same weight/package) - i.e. more things you can drive on
the E-bus.
It used to be that 24V goodies were hard to come by. However, an evening
with an aircraft spruce (or west marine) catalog will revel that many common
items are now available 12v or 24v (14/28) for the same price. More over,
most modern avionics items now operate over the entire 12-28 range.
With some "shopping", perhaps the only items that needs converting down to
12v is the cigarette lighter port and Ray Allen trim tab servos.
.02
-----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, May 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt
At 10:44 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Why 24 v. systems.... in the commercial world it is usually about
>costs and profits. Less copper used, less cost.
>David
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | 12 Volt vs. 24 Volt |
At 08:06 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
If you're thinking heated prop, Elec air conditioning, Elec cabin heat,
heated seals, or other high-energy goodies, then a 24V system/alternator
offers twice the "power" for roughly the same system weight as a 12v
alternator. It's not the (potential) smaller wire savings that is
significant/relevant, rather it's twice the available power from the same
weight alternator, contactors, etc (i.e. the heavy items).
Which reminds me of advice I've offered in
years past but worth repeating again: The
first task for crafting your electrical system
is to craft a load analysis. If your maximum
cruising load is expected to exceed 1000 watts,
then PERHAPS a 28v system is called for.
In the past 20 years, I've been directly
involved in crafting only two 28v OBAM
aircraft. One was a LongEz where the owner
wanted to fly a lot in the northern climes.
A 100 amp, 28v alternator was included to
over about 200 watts of energy to run the
airplane . . . and 2,000 watts for toe
heaters!
The other was a Lancair IV with electrically
driven air conditioning. But even this system
pretty low duty cycle. For all the weight, cost
and complexity of an air conditioner, it operates
an average of 30 minutes per flight cycle in
hot weather. The rest of the time, it was dead
weight.
The 14/28 debate really isn't a debate if you
need the energy. But with continuing advances
in LED lighting, LCD under glass instruments,
etc the energy required to run the vast majority
of the OBAM fleet has been going down. It's a
rare airplane that needs more than 500 watts
(40A at 14v) continuous running loads. Up to
twice that load is easily carried by modern
automotive alternators. There are a lot of
cars coming off the line these days with 100+
amp alternators on them.
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: Modifying the Piper plug |
At 07:58 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I am going to mount the receptacle close to the battery and run a
>#4awg right to the battery ground. As such, would the brass plate
>washer still be advised?
Some kind of backing plate is called for.
You need the structural benefits of the
backing plate to double up the skin and
improve conductivity of the pot-metal
jack-housing to cranking currents. But if
you want to make it out of aluminum, that's
okay too . . . in fact probably better.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 12 Volt vs. 24 Volt |
| From: | joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
As more and varied low current draw devices become available, do you see PV
in the equation?
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:06 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
> rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
>
> If you're thinking heated prop, Elec air conditioning, Elec cabin heat,
> heated seals, or other high-energy goodies, then a 24V system/alternator
> offers twice the "power" for roughly the same system weight as a 12v
> alternator. It's not the (potential) smaller wire savings that is
> significant/relevant, rather it's twice the available power from the same
> weight alternator, contactors, etc (i.e. the heavy items).
>
> Which reminds me of advice I've offered in
> years past but worth repeating again: The
> first task for crafting your electrical system
> is to craft a load analysis. If your maximum
> cruising load is expected to exceed 1000 watts,
> then PERHAPS a 28v system is called for.
>
> In the past 20 years, I've been directly
> involved in crafting only two 28v OBAM
> aircraft. One was a LongEz where the owner
> wanted to fly a lot in the northern climes.
> A 100 amp, 28v alternator was included to
> over about 200 watts of energy to run the
> airplane . . . and 2,000 watts for toe
> heaters!
>
> The other was a Lancair IV with electrically
> driven air conditioning. But even this system
> pretty low duty cycle. For all the weight, cost
> and complexity of an air conditioner, it operates
> an average of 30 minutes per flight cycle in
> hot weather. The rest of the time, it was dead
> weight.
>
> The 14/28 debate really isn't a debate if you
> need the energy. But with continuing advances
> in LED lighting, LCD under glass instruments,
> etc the energy required to run the vast majority
> of the OBAM fleet has been going down. It's a
> rare airplane that needs more than 500 watts
> (40A at 14v) continuous running loads. Up to
> twice that load is easily carried by modern
> automotive alternators. There are a lot of
> cars coming off the line these days with 100+
> amp alternators on them.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
| From: | James Quinn <jquinn3(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,Why would the Tyco EV200 create noise in some applications and how could
this problem be mitigated?
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 16:42, Craig Winkelmann wrote:
> capav8r(at)gmail.com>
>
> Bob:
>
> These urls
>
> Even the $high$ contactors have bad days
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm
>
> If you're loosing sleep over it, consider the
> these EV200 series contactors. They feature
> automatic coil current reduction after pull-in
> to reduce continuous power to keep the contactor
> energized. However, they're about 6X the price
> of the 70 series device and do generate some
> noise that has been a problem for a few builders.
> See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qazl8t
>
> >
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244422#244422
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brooke Wolf <bwolf1(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12 Volt .vs. 24 Volt |
Thanks to everybody for their comments. It is much easier to make
informed decisions when armed with the insight that this group
provides. Thanks to Bob and everybody else for making this possible!
Brooke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modifying the Piper plug |
Okay, very good. Be advised that AEC is offering
stand-alone crowbar ov modules. We've sorted through
some fabrication enhancements and will put them
in the catalog soon. In the mean time, you can
order them by emailing me directly.
Bob . . .
Bob,
I will be needing 2 OV modules, one for my alternator circuit and one for
ground power. Do you have pricing for your modules? Are they available
both in kit and assembled form?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor and Crowbar Ratings |
At 03:33 AM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>Why would the Tyco EV200 create noise in some applications and how
>could this problem be mitigated?
"Noise" by definition is the artifact of rapidly
changing current flow that propagates from some
antagonist to some victim. This is described in
more detail in the book. Sometimes the 'noise'
is an intentional byproduct of a useful radiation.
For example, you radiate strong signals from your
comm and transponder antennas to achieve
a useful purpose. In some cases, the stronger the
radiation, the better. However, this radio frequency
energy can become a nuisance too. Its sorta like
being pleased that your wheat fields are benefiting
from a good rain shower but the holes in your roof
are a source of concern.
The EV200 (and similar devices) use an transistor
that's turned on with varying duty cycle to reduce
current in the contactor coil after pull-in is
achieved. The speed of the switching device, the
amount of current it carries, the area of its
"antennas", the frequency of operation and the
artifacts of current modulation flowing out on
the wires are all ingredients that go into
a recipe for problems.
The stuff that gets outside the product needs
to be evaluated for potential nuisance if not
hazard. This is part of what DO-160/Mil-STD-704
is about. In the case of the EV200, the occasional
OBAM aircraft builder has heard the duty cycle
switching of the EV200's control electronics as
a "buzz" in their audio system.
I've not been able to put my hands on one of these
problems to deduce the magnitude of potential noise
or track down the specific propagation path. However,
it's a pretty fair bet that poor grounding techniques
are the probable cause.
I wouldn't shy away from an EV200 installation
based on a reported noise issue. I've never found
a noise problem I couldn't fix. I've found problems
that the customer decided not to fix because it
involved $millions$ of design changes to an
airframe. But in our airplanes, the risk of noise
is low, the cost of the solution is not great.
In response to our List discussion late last week
on the ratings for the lowly el-cheeso contactors,
I've begun a design for a contactor power management
module. This device will be assembled much like the
over voltage modules . . . quasi-potted in double
walled heat shrink. It's easy to add this device
to an el-cheeso contactor and achieve improved
electrical performance that emulates the EV200.
At the same time, it separates control electronics
from the contactor. If the contactor ever requires
replacing, then you don't need to buy new electronics.
Similarly, if the electronics craps, you don't toss
out a perfectly good contactor. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024-700-1P1.pdf
I have an upcoming opportunity to get into the EMC
lab with a customer's product for DO-160 conducted
emissions testing. I'm planning to piggy-back a
couple of my projects into the same testing session.
If my software guru can get me some exemplar chips
for the 9024, I can do an EMC look-see to confirm
my confidence in its OBAM aircraft friendly demeanor.
This module will drastically reduce the temperature
rise on the RBM/W-R/Stancore contactors. This not only
reduces energy required to keep the critter closed,
it honors the manufacturer's ratings limits for
use in systems with bus voltages high enough to
charge batteries.
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: 12 Volt vs. 24 Volt |
At 10:32 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>As more and varied low current draw devices become available, do you
>see PV in the equation?
Photovoltaic? Not soon. The power/weight ratio for PV
generators is not attractive, yet. Yeah, there are some
demonstration projects out there.
http://www.greenjobs.com/Public/IndustryNews/inews04432.htm
. . . but if you're anything like me, flying at night
and on cloudy days is not an option I'd want to give
up.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: 12 Volt vs. 24 Volt |
Thanks,
Allyson
On May 18, 2009, at 9:23 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> >
>
> At 08:06 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
> >
>
> If you're thinking heated prop, Elec air conditioning, Elec cabin
> heat,
> heated seals, or other high-energy goodies, then a 24V system/
> alternator
> offers twice the "power" for roughly the same system weight as a 12v
> alternator. It's not the (potential) smaller wire savings that is
> significant/relevant, rather it's twice the available power from the
> same
> weight alternator, contactors, etc (i.e. the heavy items).
>
> Which reminds me of advice I've offered in
> years past but worth repeating again: The
> first task for crafting your electrical system
> is to craft a load analysis. If your maximum
> cruising load is expected to exceed 1000 watts,
> then PERHAPS a 28v system is called for.
>
> In the past 20 years, I've been directly
> involved in crafting only two 28v OBAM
> aircraft. One was a LongEz where the owner
> wanted to fly a lot in the northern climes.
> A 100 amp, 28v alternator was included to
> over about 200 watts of energy to run the
> airplane . . . and 2,000 watts for toe
> heaters!
>
> The other was a Lancair IV with electrically
> driven air conditioning. But even this system
> pretty low duty cycle. For all the weight, cost
> and complexity of an air conditioner, it operates
> an average of 30 minutes per flight cycle in
> hot weather. The rest of the time, it was dead
> weight.
>
> The 14/28 debate really isn't a debate if you
> need the energy. But with continuing advances
> in LED lighting, LCD under glass instruments,
> etc the energy required to run the vast majority
> of the OBAM fleet has been going down. It's a
> rare airplane that needs more than 500 watts
> (40A at 14v) continuous running loads. Up to
> twice that load is easily carried by modern
> automotive alternators. There are a lot of
> cars coming off the line these days with 100+
> amp alternators on them.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulation on Welding Wire |
Thanks for the replies Larry and Jay.- Has anyone else got any input on t
he material of the insulation?- Particularly, would I be buying into exce
ssive risk using the "Thermoplastic Rubber" insulated welding wire that's r
ated at 80C or do I need to consider going to the 105C or 125C rated materi
als?- I don't intend to have an electrical fire, but I like to plan for t
he worst and hope for the best...
-
Da =0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Insulation on Welding Wire |
At 10:39 AM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks for the replies Larry and Jay. Has anyone else got any input
>on the material of the insulation? Particularly, would I be buying
>into excessive risk using the "Thermoplastic Rubber" insulated
>welding wire that's rated at 80C or do I need to consider going to
>the 105C or 125C rated materials? I don't intend to have an
>electrical fire, but I like to plan for the worst and hope for the best...
Don't loose any sleep over it. You're
not going to start an electrical fire
by heating a fat wire. Welding cable is
just fine. It's inexpensive and a joy
to work with. Wires that burn are the
itty-bitty fellers that should have fuses
and/or breakers protecting them.
Now, the insulation on your wires might
CONTRIBUTE to a fuel fed fire but this
is exceedingly rare . . . and if you've
got a gasoline or oil fed fire going, adding
a few ounces of insulation is the least
of your worries.
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 03:33 AM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>Why would the Tyco EV200 create noise in some applications and how
>could this problem be mitigated?
"Noise" by definition is the artifact of rapidly
changing current flow that propagates from some
antagonist to some victim. This is described in
more detail in the book. Sometimes the 'noise'
is an intentional byproduct of a useful radiation.
For example, you radiate strong signals from your
comm and transponder antennas to achieve
a useful purpose. In some cases, the stronger the
radiation, the better. However, this radio frequency
energy can become a nuisance too. Its sorta like
being pleased that your wheat fields are benefiting
from a good rain shower but the holes in your roof
are a source of concern.
The EV200 (and similar devices) use an transistor
that's turned on with varying duty cycle to reduce
current in the contactor coil after pull-in is
achieved. The speed of the switching device, the
amount of current it carries, the area of its
"antennas", the frequency of operation and the
artifacts of current modulation flowing out on
the wires are all ingredients that go into
a recipe for problems.
The stuff that gets outside the product needs
to be evaluated for potential nuisance if not
hazard. This is part of what DO-160/Mil-STD-704
is about. In the case of the EV200, the occasional
OBAM aircraft builder has heard the duty cycle
switching of the EV200's control electronics as
a "buzz" in their audio system.
I've not been able to put my hands on one of these
problems to deduce the magnitude of potential noise
or track down the specific propagation path. However,
it's a pretty fair bet that poor grounding techniques
are the probable cause.
I wouldn't shy away from an EV200 installation
based on a reported noise issue. I've never found
a noise problem I couldn't fix. I've found problems
that the customer decided not to fix because it
involved $millions$ of design changes to an
airframe. But in our airplanes, the risk of noise
is low, the cost of the solution is not great.
In response to our List discussion late last week
on the ratings for the lowly el-cheeso contactors,
I've begun a design for a contactor power management
module. This device will be assembled much like the
over voltage modules . . . quasi-potted in double
walled heat shrink. It's easy to add this device
to an el-cheeso contactor and achieve improved
electrical performance that emulates the EV200.
At the same time, it separates control electronics
from the contactor. If the contactor ever requires
replacing, then you don't need to buy new electronics.
Similarly, if the electronics craps, you don't toss
out a perfectly good contactor. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024-700-1P1.pdf
I have an upcoming opportunity to get into the EMC
lab with a customer's product for DO-160 conducted
emissions testing. I'm planning to piggy-back a
couple of my projects into the same testing session.
If my software guru can get me some exemplar chips
for the 9024, I can do an EMC look-see to confirm
my confidence in its OBAM aircraft friendly demeanor.
This module will drastically reduce the temperature
rise on the RBM/W-R/Stancore contactors. This not only
reduces energy required to keep the critter closed,
it honors the manufacturer's ratings limits for
use in systems with bus voltages high enough to
charge batteries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulation on Welding Wire |
Considering welding wire is subjected to temporary flame, molten hot
metal and much abuse, I'd think it's an ideal product to carry the heavy
currents
you'll be running thru it. The insulation doesn't want to burn unless
you've a really hot one going. By then, I doubt you'd want to be there
either.
I'd rate the risk as very low for welding cable insulation.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
D Fritz wrote:
> Thanks for the replies Larry and Jay. Has anyone else got any input
> on the material of the insulation? Particularly, would I be buying
> into excessive risk using the "Thermoplastic Rubber" insulated welding
> wire that's rated at 80C or do I need to consider going to the 105C or
> 125C rated materials? I don't intend to have an electrical fire, but
> I like to plan for the worst and hope for the best...
>
> Da
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Insulation on Welding Wire |
Yes and think of the abuse welding cable takes on the industrial job site or ship
yard..I never seen a welding cable sparking to ground in 25 years of construction!
Frank
At 10:39 AM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks for the replies Larry and Jay. Has anyone else got any input on
>the material of the insulation? Particularly, would I be buying into
>excessive risk using the "Thermoplastic Rubber" insulated welding wire
>that's rated at 80C or do I need to consider going to the 105C or 125C
>rated materials? I don't intend to have an electrical fire, but I like
>to plan for the worst and hope for the best...
Don't loose any sleep over it. You're
not going to start an electrical fire
by heating a fat wire. Welding cable is
just fine. It's inexpensive and a joy
to work with. Wires that burn are the
itty-bitty fellers that should have fuses
and/or breakers protecting them.
Now, the insulation on your wires might
CONTRIBUTE to a fuel fed fire but this
is exceedingly rare . . . and if you've
got a gasoline or oil fed fire going, adding
a few ounces of insulation is the least
of your worries.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <scott(at)n696js.com> |
I did exactly what Jay described here. For some of the smaller wire runs
(20-22AWG) I actually used 2 pieces of heat shrink. The first I would
shrink on to give the wire some girth, then I would slip on my label and
shrink on another piece to hold the label in place. It is working great so
far.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:26
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
Don,
I used a laser printer with Arial 7 point type, all caps to make labels. I
would have 4 lines, aligned one below the other. I cut these labels out,
rolled them around the wire, slipped clear tubing over the paper and heat
shrunk it. I labeled both ends of each wire. I labeled the first end at the
first terminal at my shop bench. The other end would wait until I knew the
wire length to the second terminal. That was usually in the airplane, just
before I installed the final terminal connector. Experience tells me that
adequate labeling is an absolute necessity.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: mosquito56 <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:54 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I
have no
idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way
also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
assistance in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Having had very recent experience of this, just remember that the really
neat, shrunk on labels can be fiendishly difficult to read when you're
upside down, under the panel, on the tarmac. There is something to be
said for larger labels, or even a coded system and a lookup table.
Ian Brown
Flight testing RV-9A
> I did exactly what Jay described here. For some of the smaller wire
> runs (20-22AWG) I actually used 2 pieces of heat shrink. The first I
> would shrink on to give the wire some girth, then I would slip on my
> label and shrink on another piece to hold the label in place. It is
> working great so far.
>
>
> Scott R. Shook
> RV-7A (Building)
> N696JS (Reserved)
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jaybannist(at)cs.com
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:26
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
>
>
>
>
> Don,
>
> I used a laser printer with Arial 7 point type, all caps to make
> labels. I would have 4 lines, aligned one below the other. I cut
> these labels out, rolled them around the wire, slipped clear tubing
> over the paper and heat shrunk it. I labeled both ends of each wire. I
> labeled the first end at the first terminal at my shop bench. The
> other end would wait until I knew the wire length to the second
> terminal. That was usually in the airplane, just before I installed
> the final terminal connector. Experience tells me that adequate
> labeling is an absolute necessity.
>
> Jay Bannister
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mosquito56 <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:54 am
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just finishing
>
>
>
> up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I have
no
>
>
>
> idea what one would be called.
>
>
>
> I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some way also.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any other ideas would be welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------
>
>
>
> Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
>
>
>
> Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
>
>
>
> I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for
>
>
>
> assistance in this thing we call life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> size=2 width="100%" align=center>
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
> http://www.cs.com
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
A simple and low cost way to mark wires is to use wire number markers
(1/4=94
x 1 =BC=94) lengthwise on each end of the wire and then put heat shrink
over it.
The only down side is that you have to keep a chart showing what each
wire
number is for. See:
http://cableorganizer.com/wire-marker/#features
Joe R
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
R.
Shook
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
I did exactly what Jay described here. For some of the smaller wire
runs
(20-22AWG) I actually used 2 pieces of heat shrink. The first I would
shrink on to give the wire some girth, then I would slip on my label and
shrink on another piece to hold the label in place. It is working great
so
far.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:26
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
Don,
I used a laser printer with Arial 7 point type, all caps to make labels.
I
would have 4 lines, aligned one below the other. I cut these labels
out,
rolled them around the wire, slipped clear tubing over the paper and
heat
shrunk it. I labeled both ends of each wire. I labeled the first end at
the
first terminal at my shop bench. The other end would wait until I knew
the
wire length to the second terminal. That was usually in the airplane,
just
before I installed the final terminal connector. Experience tells me
that
adequate labeling is an absolute necessity.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: mosquito56 <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:54 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
I am looking for a way to mark my wires in my Zodiac 601XL. I am just
finishing
up the body and will begin engine installation soon.
Can anyone suggest a method to print on shrink sleeving if possible? I
have no
idea what one would be called.
I had heard there was a way to use a laser printer to do this in some
way
also.
Any other ideas would be welcome.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals
for
assistance in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244167#244167
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Marking Wires? |
Good Afternoon Ian,
I find that one of the advantages to marking directly on the wires such as
the big boys do is that if I can't read the label in one spot, there is a
good chance I will be able to read it within a foot or two of the
termination point.
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 5/19/2009 12:20:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
ixb(at)videotron.ca writes:
Having had very recent experience of this, just remember that the really
neat, shrunk on labels can be fiendishly difficult to read when you're
upside down, under the panel, on the tarmac. There is something to be
said for larger labels, or even a coded system and a lookup table.
Ian Brown
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
Excfooter51609NO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:29 PM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
>A simple and low cost way to mark wires is to
>use wire number markers (1/4 x 1 ) lengthwise
>on each end of the wire and then put heat shrink
>over it. The only down side is that you have to
>keep a chart showing what each wire number is for.
Before you spend a lot of $time$ putting numbers
on individual wires, think through the expected return
on investment. While the wires are waiting to be tied
off, a masking tape flag with a sharpie notation of
where it goes will get you done.
Now, what is the likelihood that you'll benefit from
the existence of ANY single wire marking at some
time in the future? When you're working with 3"
wire bundles of hundreds of wires, yeah . . . but
the future maintenance value of individual wire marking
is of limited value in a single engine airplane. But
if you must . . .
B&C still sells the clear heat-shrink kit I used
to offer for marking wires like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Wire_Marking.jpg
You can print columns of labels in 6pt type on
full sheets of label material. Pull of the backing
sheet, paste to a plastic cutting board. Use x-acto
knife to cut out label of interest and attach to
wire with clear shrink.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a pop rivet acceptable for a ground attachment? |
Bob detailed out the acceptable practice documented in AC43.13-1b part
11-190. I kept a copy of that page handy as I wired up my first few
grounds.
(sorry if someone already said this, I'm catching up on email)
Bill "back from some r&r" Watson
RV10
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> I am grounding a gizmotron (Dynon pitot heater controller) to a wing rib
> with a Fast-On Tab. I used a pop rivet to attach the Tab to the rib, but
> then it occurred to me this might not be acceptable. The Tab can rotate
> around the rivet, though not freely or loosely. I'm not concerned about the
> mechanical properties as much as the electrical. Maybe a tighter connection
> is required?
>
> Having been wrong about almost everything electrical in the past, I thought
> I'd post here and get a definitive answer.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA
> RV-9A QB-SA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jay(at)horriblehyde.com |
Jay's think alike- I did the same as Jay Bannister except that I used a sharpie
to write onto strips of white plastic that I had cut from a square shaped milk
container. The surface of the plastic is slightly rough so that you can easily
write on it. The advantage for me was that I didn't have to jump between
the PC and the shop. The plastic was about 0.6mm thick and I cut it into strips
about 4mm high. This also meant that it was often bigger than the wire which
allowed you (with a bit of a tug) to slide the label and clear shrink up and
down the wire to where you wanted it as the plastic slightly held the heat shrink
off the wire except at the ends.
Of course you have to be able to print neatly...
Jay Hyde
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking Wires?
> Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:46:09 -0500
>
>
>
>
> At 12:29 PM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
> > A simple and low cost way to mark wires is to use wire number markers (1/4
> > x 1 ) lengthwise on each end of the wire and then put heat shrink over it.
> > The only down side is that you have to keep a chart showing what each wire
> > number is for.
>
> Before you spend a lot of $time$ putting numbers
> on individual wires, think through the expected return
> on investment. While the wires are waiting to be tied
> off, a masking tape flag with a sharpie notation of
> where it goes will get you done.
>
> Now, what is the likelihood that you'll benefit from
> the existence of ANY single wire marking at some
> time in the future? When you're working with 3"
> wire bundles of hundreds of wires, yeah . . . but
> the future maintenance value of individual wire marking
> is of limited value in a single engine airplane. But
> if you must . . .
>
> B&C still sells the clear heat-shrink kit I used
> to offer for marking wires like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Wire_Marking.jpg
>
> You can print columns of labels in 6pt type on
> full sheets of label material. Pull of the backing
> sheet, paste to a plastic cutting board. Use x-acto
> knife to cut out label of interest and attach to
> wire with clear shrink.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | alternator relay connection |
Hi everyone, =0A=0ALooking at Z-20 for the Jab 3300 engine, I notice off th
e alternator relay the "COM" wire goes to the Starter Contactor.--On my
plane I -also have a Batt Contactor.-Is there a-reason I-cannot or
should not-connect the COM wire to-the-Batt Contactor instead?-I a
m assuming if connected to the starter contactor (like on Z-20) that the-
current would still flow-through the-Batt Contactor (for a lack of bett
er term - going "up stream") to charge the battery?- =0A-=0AThanks! =0A
Michael Hilderbrand=0ADerby, Kansas=0AHttp://www.kansasflying.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator relay connection |
At 08:46 AM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>Looking at Z-20 for the Jab 3300 engine, I notice off the alternator
>relay the "COM" wire goes to the Starter Contactor. On my plane
>I also have a Batt Contactor. Is there a reason I cannot or should
>not connect the COM wire to the Batt Contactor instead? I am
>assuming if connected to the starter contactor (like on Z-20) that
>the current would still flow through the Batt Contactor (for a lack
>of better term - going "up stream") to charge the battery?
Wires are roadways for electrons. You can move
intersections between roadways such that the
electrons can still get from here to there.
If you have a battery contactor on a system
with a small alternator, you might want to
consider a low-energy contactor like the EV200
we discussed earlier this week . . . or add the
Contator Power Manager I spoke of earlier this
week.
This decision can wait however . . . get
everything working first and then think about
decorations on the cake.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS Voltage |
I am a sport pilot and don't fly at night, but took my Zenith 701 /Rotax
912ULS up a few evenings ago just to see how hard it would be to land in the
dark. No problem landing, but with all the extra night time stuff on
(strobes, 55watt landing light, & cabin lights) plus my normal stuff
(intercom, 2GPS's, Dynon 180, ICOM radio, transponder, and intercom) the
voltage went down to 11.9 at 3500-rpm and 12.3V at my 4900-rpm cruse. The
blinding low voltage light (from aeroelectric's Z16 diagram, which I used
for my aircraft) came on for the first time and gave me a scare.
My question; is this low voltage situation normal or do I have voltage
regulation issues?
Without the extra load during daylight flight my voltage runs about
12.9-13.0 V and my battery holds a 12.8V charge. I don't have an extra
alternator and just use the internal Rotax coils for power. One guy already
told me that what I am getting is the norm with the extra stuff on, and that
the Rotax voltage regulator heats up a lot and should not be expected to
last very long. Are these things true?
Thanks for your advice.
Les
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS Voltage |
At 01:08 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
><lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>
>I am a sport pilot and don't fly at night, but took my Zenith 701 /Rotax
>912ULS up a few evenings ago just to see how hard it would be to land in the
>dark. No problem landing, but with all the extra night time stuff on
>(strobes, 55watt landing light, & cabin lights) plus my normal stuff
>(intercom, 2GPS's, Dynon 180, ICOM radio, transponder, and intercom) the
>voltage went down to 11.9 at 3500-rpm and 12.3V at my 4900-rpm cruse. The
>blinding low voltage light (from aeroelectric's Z16 diagram, which I used
>for my aircraft) came on for the first time and gave me a scare.
>My question; is this low voltage situation normal or do I have voltage
>regulation issues?
If the low votlage light is on (bus less than 13.0 volts)
then the alternator is not producing sufficient energy to
carry all of the ship's loads AND maintain a battery.
>Without the extra load during daylight flight my voltage runs about
>12.9-13.0 V and my battery holds a 12.8V charge.
This is TOO LOW. No load and engine running should produce
a bus voltage of 14.0 MINIMUM, 14.2 to 14.4 is better. With
a 13.0V set-point, your alternator is not replenishing the
energy used to get the engine started. It's also maintaining
your battery in a very low state of charge, probably less
than 50% of capacity.
> I don't have an extra
>alternator and just use the internal Rotax coils for power. One guy already
>told me that what I am getting is the norm with the extra stuff on, and that
>the Rotax voltage regulator heats up a lot and should not be expected to
>last very long. Are these things true?
Not quite. That voltage level is too low. You need to
add up the real current draw for all accessories that
might be on at the same time. These cannot exceed
the rating of the alternator (assuming the battery
is charged) for the operating RPM . . .
Emacs!
. . . and should not be more than 75% of that rating if
you want the alternator to replenish energy removed
before cruising flight RPMs are achieved.
The stock rectifier/regulator is marginal for the
way we use them. I wish they were a bit more robust.
It would add very little to the cost of the product.
John Deere has some single phase rectifier/regulators
rated in the 30A class. It would be interesting to
see how well these might substitute for the
stock regulator.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS Voltage |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi Bob,
Could you please help me with a low voltage problem that I am having in my
RV7. Voltage indicators on the Dynon and engine monitor both show
fluctuations between 12.5V and 11.5V while in flight. This is something that
just started during the last few flights, I have 300h on the airplane with
this being the first problem. I have had the ND 60A internally regulated
alternator form Vans in the shop and it checked out fine, I also have put in
a new battery with no improvements. Airplane wired as per Z11 with an added
electronic ignition on the top side
Thanks for any suggestions you may have
Franz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator Failure |
At 05:16 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>Could you please help me with a low voltage problem that I am having
>in my RV7. Voltage indicators on the Dynon and engine monitor both
>show fluctuations between 12.5V and 11.5V while in flight.
These are the voltages you can expect from a battery
that is NOT benefiting from support by the alternator.
> This is something that just started during the last few flights, I
> have 300h on the airplane with this being the first problem. I have
> had the ND 60A internally regulated alternator form Vans in the
> shop and it checked out fine.
If the alternator is okay, then it's deprived of
an ON/OFF command that controls it . . . or is
otherwise disconnected from the system.
With the engine not running but with battery and
alternator switches ON, you should measure some
voltage close to the battery output at all wires
attached to the alternator. If no/low voltage at
the b-lead terminal, perhaps your b-lead fuse or
current limiter is open. If no/low voltage to
the control terminal, then there is a failure in
the wiring between that terminal and the bus.
> I also have put in a new battery with no improvements. Airplane
> wired as per Z11 with an added electronic ignition on the top side
I wouldn't expect a battery to fix this. The alternator
is definitely not being allowed to do its job
for some reason.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Failure |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Thanks for your prompt reply, I will investigate further
Franz
On 20/05/09 3:55 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 05:16 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> Could you please help me with a low voltage problem that I am having
>> in my RV7. Voltage indicators on the Dynon and engine monitor both
>> show fluctuations between 12.5V and 11.5V while in flight.
>
> These are the voltages you can expect from a battery
> that is NOT benefiting from support by the alternator.
>
>> This is something that just started during the last few flights, I
>> have 300h on the airplane with this being the first problem. I have
>> had the ND 60A internally regulated alternator form Vans in the
>> shop and it checked out fine.
>
> If the alternator is okay, then it's deprived of
> an ON/OFF command that controls it . . . or is
> otherwise disconnected from the system.
>
> With the engine not running but with battery and
> alternator switches ON, you should measure some
> voltage close to the battery output at all wires
> attached to the alternator. If no/low voltage at
> the b-lead terminal, perhaps your b-lead fuse or
> current limiter is open. If no/low voltage to
> the control terminal, then there is a failure in
> the wiring between that terminal and the bus.
>
>
>> I also have put in a new battery with no improvements. Airplane
>> wired as per Z11 with an added electronic ignition on the top side
>
>
> I wouldn't expect a battery to fix this. The alternator
> is definitely not being allowed to do its job
> for some reason.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <ch47.ip(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New to electronics |
Although I have some low level electrical knowledge, I am still
wandering around in the dark. I am waiting for Vans to ship the rest of
my kit so I am taking advantage of the down time to determine my
electrical requirements and design the system. I have downloaded a
couple of spreadsheets that seem to calculate the power requirements for
many system and avionic components. So I am developing a list of the
things I want and their respective power requirements. To my questions:
1. There seems to be some discussion as to the BUS system used. For
those that have build their own, how did that workout for you. What
"gotchas" would you warn me about?
2. If you could give one piece of advice, what would that be?
3. Other than determine what I feel I need for systems and their
respective power requirements, any suggests on getting started?
I hope to order the 12th edition of The AreoElectric Connection. I am
sure it will be very useful in answering many of my questions.
Thanks for your time
Scott Ahrens
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Mitchell" <rmitch1(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Welding Cable source |
Try www.weldingsupply.com
Just received 100' #2 welding cable at around 50% of Grainger and others
price including shipping. Very fast shipping
Bob Mitchell
Lancair 320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulation on Welding Wire |
Thank you all for the responses on this, I feel a lot better about welding
wire now.
-
Dan=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | New to electronics |
At 09:34 PM 5/21/2009, you wrote:
Although I have some low level electrical knowledge, I am still
wandering around in the dark. I am waiting for Vans to ship the rest
of my kit so I am taking advantage of the down time to determine my
electrical requirements and design the system. I have downloaded a
couple of spreadsheets that seem to calculate the power requirements
for many system and avionic components. So I am developing a list of
the things I want and their respective power requirements. To my questions:
1. There seems to be some discussion as to the BUS system used. For
those that have build their own, how did that workout for you. What
"gotchas" would you warn me about?
I'm aware of no potential for "gotchas". We've been flying
single engine airplanes with one battery, one generator/alternator,
and a main bus (added the avionics bus about 1965), for about
80 years. Hollywood notions of how airplanes work aside,
electrical system failures are exceedingly low order
causes for accidents. The POTENTIAL for an increase in
electrically induced accident has been rising as
engines have become more electrically dependent . . .
and instrument panels have shed their vacuum driven
flight instruments.
But this increase in risk is EASILY offset by (1)
taking advantage of the open vacuum pump drive pad
and (2) OBAM aircraft users improved understanding
of what it takes to craft and maintain a very low
risk electrical system.
2. If you could give one piece of advice, what would that be?
Don't order Vans electrical system kit.
Certainly study all the options. Download this
portion of the 'Connection.
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A3.pdf
Note that NONE of the exemplar architectures
speak to specific airplanes. There ARE variations
on a theme based on engines. So as you cruise
through the drawings, you'll find that your
choices are narrowed to Z-10/8 through Z-14.
These architectures offer some options for
crafting Plan A (everything working) and Plan-B
(something broke). The differences between
these drawings are designed to accommodate
a range of design goals, equipment compliments
and missions for your aircraft.
I can tell you now that Z-13/8 is probably
suited to 95% of the OBAM aircraft in existence.
It's a step-wise evolution of the systems
flying in a very high percentage of certified
S.E. aircraft with Z-12 coming up strong as
the TC version of Z-13/8.
For lowest cost, lightest weight, and exceedingly
high reliability, Z-13/8 is my personal choice
and it has been installed in hundreds of OBAM
aircraft with great reports of user satisfaction.
To my knowledge, the first such system to fly
was in a father and son RV-8 project built in
CT about 10 years ago. Since that time, I've
had numerous reports of no-sweat failure
events that were made so by (1) pilot understanding
of how the system works. (2) well maintained
battery. (3) Failure tolerant design where
no single failure brings down so much hardware
that continued flight becomes a sweaty-palms
affair.
While Z-14 can and has been installed in RVs,
it's a heavy, expensive over-kill. Z-14 was
crafted to address the rather rare OBAM project
that flies high, fast, and through less than
comfortable weather. Preferably with two
pilots and IFR capability from either seat
wherein there is a separate electrical system
to accommodate each system. This is what SHOULD
be flying in King Airs and Beechjets . . . but
isn't.
3. Other than determine what I feel I need for systems and their
respective power requirements, any suggests on getting started?
If you've taken the time to list all your
anticipated electro-whizzies and shuffle the
loads into various phases of flight (we call
this load analysis) then you've already accomplished
that which most builders skip over. They just
bolt on a 60A alternator and keep truck'n.
This is fine as long as Plan-A is in operation.
If the alternator clocks out early, having
a calculated Plan-B implemented by the
second engine driven power source combined with
a well maintained battery is your ticket to
comfortable termination of flight at the airport
of intended destination.
I hope to order the 12th edition of The AreoElectric Connection. I
am sure it will be very useful in answering many of my questions.
The paper version of R12 is starved for cash.
As soon as I scrape together a couple more $grand$
I'll get it off to the printer.
A big start can be achieved from the down-loadable
chapter I cited above. The second most valuable
resource is the community of aviation enthusiasts
who frequent this List. Stay on board and let
us help you with this 24/7/365 service from
lots of folks who have been there, done that.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding Cable source |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I just had an inquiry from a guy who has a racing car with 34' battery cable.
I am selling him 34' of Super-2-CCA (equivalent to about AWG 1.5 that will save
him 3 ounces per foot. Not a bad investment if you really want to win.
It is really easy to show that hauling extra pounds around in the sky is a poor
use of money. See this great little article:
aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
You can get Super-2-CCA from SteinAir.com or Super-4-CCA from PerihelionDesign.com.
--------
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=244968#244968
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Comm 2 volume Very low |
My Com2 Garmin SL40 which is connected through a Garmin 340 audio panel
produces only a fraction of the volume, that the Com1 SL 30 does. I've
been through the manuals looking for a clue as to where to begin. The
audio panel states that the volume is controlled by the volume control
on the radios. The Comm2 Vol is at max level. Anybody got suggestions on
where to look?
THANKS
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Someone is offering EV200 contactors on Ebay for far less than the usual retail
price. Search for EV200
I am not affiliated with the listing and have no additional information.
Cheers,
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245034#245034
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Comm 2 volume Very low |
Deems,
I had the OPPOSITE problem but the solution may be the key for you... See
below.
"For some reason the SL40 com is much louder through the intercom when
transmitting than the GNS430W com even with the volume turned down as low as
possible."
You can tell him that's "bad" setting in SL-40 for the side tone. It should
be set to "000" - by going into setup mode then jumping through a few
settings until side tone setting is encountered. When set to 000, the side
tone volume will "follow" whatever volume is on the volume knob. Currently
it's set to some value other than 000 (most likely 128) and that's why it's
not following volume knob at all.. (all this is in the manual J). Fixed
that on Thane's plane just the other day.. he had exact same thing going
on..
HTH
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 7:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm 2 volume Very low
-->
My Com2 Garmin SL40 which is connected through a Garmin 340 audio panel
produces only a fraction of the volume, that the Com1 SL 30 does. I've been
through the manuals looking for a clue as to where to begin. The audio panel
states that the volume is controlled by the volume control on the radios.
The Comm2 Vol is at max level. Anybody got suggestions on where to look?
THANKS
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <ch47.ip(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New to electronics |
Thank you Bob for the sound advice. And thank you to all the folks who
emailed me directly. I will download the diagrams and start digesting
all this new information.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm 2 volume Very low |
Bret, Thanks for the suggestion I stopped by the hangar this afternoon,
and made the changes to the 'sidetone' on the SL40 Unfortunately there
was no difference in the Volume level through the audio panel.
Does anyone think this might/could be related to antenna/coax? I'm
trying to eliminate the easier things, as getting to the connectors and
pins is going to be some serious access challenge.
Deems
Bret Smith wrote:
>
> Deems,
>
> I had the OPPOSITE problem but the solution may be the key for you... See
> below.
>
> "For some reason the SL40 com is much louder through the intercom when
> transmitting than the GNS430W com even with the volume turned down as low as
> possible."
>
>
> You can tell him that's "bad" setting in SL-40 for the side tone. It should
> be set to "000" - by going into setup mode then jumping through a few
> settings until side tone setting is encountered. When set to 000, the side
> tone volume will "follow" whatever volume is on the volume knob. Currently
> it's set to some value other than 000 (most likely 128) and that's why it's
> not following volume knob at all.. (all this is in the manual J). Fixed
> that on Thane's plane just the other day.. he had exact same thing going
> on..
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b e <bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Source for the colied cord used on yoke type aircraft |
Good evening all. Wishing all VETS a good weekend and may we always remember those
who have flown on before us.
Am looking for a source of coiled cord. Does anyone know of one?
I have looked at McMaster-Carr and they have some but I don't know one type from
the other. My mechanic says get the stuff that doesn't have the shiny outside
jacket, it breaks down too fast. I have googled and came up with some others,
there again I don't which type to get.
Would like to have at least 24 guage or larger due to ease of working with the
larger guages (i.e. 28 guage is a pain)
Thanks
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for the colied cord used on yoke type |
aircraft
At 09:24 PM 5/23/2009, you wrote:
>Good evening all. Wishing all VETS a good weekend and may we always
>remember those who have flown on before us.
>
>Am looking for a source of coiled cord. Does anyone know of one?
>
>I have looked at McMaster-Carr and they have some but I don't know
>one type from the other. My mechanic says get the stuff that
>doesn't have the shiny outside jacket, it breaks down too fast. I
>have googled and came up with some others, there again I don't which
>type to get.
>
>Would like to have at least 24 guage or larger due to ease of
>working with the larger guages (i.e. 28 guage is a pain)
How many conductors do you need and how long?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b e <bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for the colied cord used on yoke type |
aircraft
Looking for 2 conductor, 6 inches long for each piece. 2 pieces needed now, but
if good source, would get several for my mechanic. Thanks Bob.
Barry
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:40:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for the colied cord used on yoke type
aircraft
At 09:24 PM 5/23/2009, you wrote:
> Good evening all. Wishing all VETS a good weekend and may we always remember
those who have flown on before us.
>
> Am looking for a source of coiled cord. Does anyone know of one?
>
> I have looked at McMaster-Carr and they have some but I don't know one type from
the other. My mechanic says get the stuff that doesn't have the shiny outside
jacket, it breaks down too fast. I have googled and came up with some others,
there again I don't which type to get.
>
> Would like to have at least 24 guage or larger due to ease of working with the
larger guages (i.e. 28 guage is a pain)
How many conductors do you need and how long?
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: | Source for the coiled cord used on yoke type aircraft |
At 07:43 AM 5/24/2009, you wrote:
>Looking for 2 conductor, 6 inches long for each piece. 2 pieces
>needed now, but if good source, would get several for my mechanic. Thanks Bob.
Coiled cord is not something you find as a "by the foot"
bulk item. Coiled cords are custom made with wires,
of specified insulation color and material, a diameter,
coiled length, uncoiled length, and usually some straight
segments at each end. I've had occasion to order such
items several times over the years.
Coiled cords in the wild are prolific. The electrical/
electronic products world is fond of them and
they're readily available as new or surplus. Try
e-bay and search on coiled cord . . . you'll get
a hundred plus hits.
Your mechanic is correct, the "shiny" stuff tends
to be pretty cheesy plastic. However, the matt finish
are generally some form of more robust rubber. Getting
the wire size is problematic. Many small signal
applications (usually audio) don't need much
copper to do the job . . . on occasion you'll
find coil cords wired with copper foil wound
around a string core . . . nearly impossible
to make connections.
Coiled power adapter cords for cell phones
flash guns, dash mounted GPS receivers, etc. tend
to be heavier conductors made from real wire.
Every coiled cord has two conductors, some will
have more. I think many of the personality modules
for upscale cigar lighter adapters "talk back"
on one or more wires to the electronics in the plug.
These are more expensive . . . like $25 or so . . .
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3336570
. . . but you might be able to get two cords
from cannibalizing the one device.
Somewhere in my skunk werks boxes I have some
2-conductor coiled cords I bought off E-bay
many moons ago. Things are somewhat scrambled
right now with the move but I'll dig around
and see what I can find. In any case, there
are dozens of opportunities out there to be
explored. Start with R-S, Best Buy, WalMart
electronics, etc. Of course, when you cut
a stock cord, only one end will have the
desired straight section, the cut end will
be coiled . . . but I'm sure you can deal
with that. I'll let you know about what
I find in the junk box.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
Greetings,
I needed a coiled cord and went to a local thrift store. Rummaging
through a box of miscellaneous stuff in the "electronics section," there
were dozens of devices with coiled cords attached. I bought four
different devices, each with a coiled cord attached to it. I don't
remember what they were originally connected to; I think one had a cigar
lighter power plug on one end and I think another one was a cell phone
battery charger. I think all four of them, combined, cost two dollars.
I took them home and cut off whatever was connected to one end and
examined the cut end to see how many wires were in the cable and how big
they were. Of the four I brought home, one was perfect, another would
have been adequate, and the other two either didn't have enough wires or
they were too tiny for my application.
It turned out great, cost almost nothing, and kept something out of the
landfill. Plus a charity got a couple of bucks.
Good luck,
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Military style external power receptacle question |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Looking at Bob's wiring diagram in Appendix Z, 31A, for a military style external
power receptacle, what is the function of the smaller third pin? Just guessing
by the schematic it's hot power, just like the middle pin.
Inquiring minds want to know........
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245177#245177
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Military style external power receptacle question |
Hi John,
More or less. You have to supply power to the third pin to close the
ground power contactor. If you had such a connector, you could still
wire it up like the Piper ground power jack and just ignore the third
pin.
Bob W.
"johngoodman" wrote:
>
> Looking at Bob's wiring diagram in Appendix Z, 31A, for a military style external
power receptacle, what is the function of the smaller third pin? Just guessing
by the schematic it's hot power, just like the middle pin.
> Inquiring minds want to know........
>
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
> N711JG reserved
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245177#245177
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Military style external power receptacle question |
It's a sense pin and it is hot, the same as the center pin. Without
the plug, it is not connected to the center pin. It can be used as the
drawing shows, to separate the source of power activating the
contactor from what is flowing through the contactor.
This allows you a way to take action on this pin going hot. In the
case of Z31A, that drawing shows polarity and overvoltage sensing
being done from that pin.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On May 24, 2009, at 4:15 PM, johngoodman wrote:
> >
>
> Looking at Bob's wiring diagram in Appendix Z, 31A, for a military
> style external power receptacle, what is the function of the smaller
> third pin? Just guessing by the schematic it's hot power, just like
> the middle pin.
> Inquiring minds want to know........
>
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
> N711JG reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245177#245177
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Military style external power receptacle question |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks for the response. I assume that the military and airlines use the pin for
the same thing.
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245185#245185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Military style external power receptacle question |
At 04:15 PM 5/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Looking at Bob's wiring diagram in Appendix Z, 31A, for a military
>style external power receptacle, what is the function of the smaller
>third pin? Just guessing by the schematic it's hot power, just like
>the middle pin.
>Inquiring minds want to know........
It's a pretty subtle thing . . . not obvious without
some attention to the little details.
The third pin is much shorter than the other two
fat pins. This means that as you push the socket
onto the pins, the two fat ones are electrically
engaged before the third pin mates and current
flows.
Similarly, assume you're pulling the plug out of a
ground power connector that is loaded. The
third pin breaks first and de-energizes the system
before the fat pins break.
In some applications, this connector can be loaded
to hundreds of amp at 28V. That kind of power makes
for long hot sparks during a slow make/break operation.
The pins of the connector are not designed to work
like a contactor and are subject to damage if not
made or broken "cold".
Using the third pin to control the ground power
contactor prevents damage to the connector from
a hot make or break of the main power pins.
Finally, the smaller size of the third pin provides
"polarization" for the mated connector halves. If
on tried to plug it in backwards the differences in
sizes prevents any form of engagement from taking
place.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solar & Wind Power |
This forum may not be the appropriate place to discuss alternative
energy sources as they might apply to an aircraft hangar to be built
in a location far removed from the energy grid. I'm hoping that one of
you may have experience in this area and reply on this forum or
contact me directly.
Thanks,
Angier Ames
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solar & Wind Power |
Angier M. Ames wrote:
>
>
> This forum may not be the appropriate place to discuss alternative
> energy sources as they might apply to an aircraft hangar to be built
> in a location far removed from the energy grid. I'm hoping that one of
> you may have experience in this area and reply on this forum or
> contact me directly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Angier Ames
A friend has put 5 kw of 'thin film' solar panels on the roof of his
hangar in S Florida. He is 'on grid' and the grid interface feeds any
excess power into the grid & the power company has to buy the power (at
wholesale rates, of course).
If you're totally off-grid, you'd almost certainly need storage
(batteries) & an inverter, which raises cost considerably. Actual power
demands obviously matter, too. Do you need to run serious power tools
(big air compressor, welder, etc), or just light the hangar & run small
power tools?
If you have access to newsgroups, try alt.energy.homepower or
alt.solar.thermal.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Military style external power receptacle question |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob,
Thanks!
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245293#245293
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Capacity Tester |
5/25/2009
Hello Fellow Listers, There has been some interest in the past on how to
test the capacity of one's aircraft battery. Here is a new piece of
equipment available from Concorde for this purpose.
http://www.concordebattery.com/accessories.php?id
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
At 06:12 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I am now convinced that the variations were real. I inserted an
>ammeter into the field line, while the engine was stopped. Got a
>reading of 3.5 amps. Then took the plane out, fired it up with the
>ammeter in place, and when the alternator switch was turned on, the
>current went to 3.5 amps for a very short time, then dropped to
>zero. At that point, it stayed at zero, and the battery would not charge.
>
>Put plane back in hanger, and did some static measurements.
>
>Voltage from LR-3 to field circuit breaker ~4.5 volts
This voltage comes FROM your battery via the contactor,
main bus, alternator field breaker and switch. When
you made these measurements, was the battery charged
at all? Or was it down to 4.5 volts?
>Voltage at connector to alternator (black plug) ~4.5V
>Resistance to ground through the leads that field current plugs into
>varies (jumps around) and then often goes to open circuit.
>
>Could the slip rings be contaminated or not in contact?
This is a possibility. You need to deduce the
reason for such low voltage readings. Put
a charger/maintainer on your battery and make
sure it's 100% before you continue the investigation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Tester |
For $1300 I would want to have a requirement to test more than one or
two batteries every year!
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bc5000.php
I think maybe Bob's tester would prove more than adequate for the
average OBAM user.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
Just my opinion,
Bob W.
wrote:
>
> 5/25/2009
>
> Hello Fellow Listers, There has been some interest in the past on how to
> test the capacity of one's aircraft battery. Here is a new piece of
> equipment available from Concorde for this purpose.
>
> http://www.concordebattery.com/accessories.php?id
>
> OC
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
Bob, an update -- The Battery, alternator, and LR3C are fine, the symptoms
below are attributed to operator induced problems.
1. Apparently when hooking up for the test, I caused a short that blew the
fuse to the alternator field. That is the reason for the battery not
charging.
2. I talked to B&C, and downloaded there diagnostic check sheet. This led to
the discovery of the blown fuse.
3. I have installed an old fashioned 50mv/60A shunt in the B lead, and
hooked it up to a DVM. Alternator working fine, hash on recorded output must
be as you originally surmised, the result of noise.
I have not yet tried to filter the noise, now that I know the output is
stable, I can ignore the chart until I have time to fix it.
Thanks for your help/input.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LR3 regulator Amperage indications
>
>
> At 06:12 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>I am now convinced that the variations were real. I inserted an ammeter
>>into the field line, while the engine was stopped. Got a reading of 3.5
>>amps. Then took the plane out, fired it up with the ammeter in place, and
>>when the alternator switch was turned on, the current went to 3.5 amps for
>>a very short time, then dropped to zero. At that point, it stayed at
>>zero, and the battery would not charge.
>>
>>Put plane back in hanger, and did some static measurements.
>>
>>Voltage from LR-3 to field circuit breaker ~4.5 volts
>
> This voltage comes FROM your battery via the contactor,
> main bus, alternator field breaker and switch. When
> you made these measurements, was the battery charged
> at all? Or was it down to 4.5 volts?
>
>>Voltage at connector to alternator (black plug) ~4.5V
>
>
>>Resistance to ground through the leads that field current plugs into
>>varies (jumps around) and then often goes to open circuit.
>>
>>Could the slip rings be contaminated or not in contact?
>
> This is a possibility. You need to deduce the
> reason for such low voltage readings. Put
> a charger/maintainer on your battery and make
> sure it's 100% before you continue the investigation.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Failure |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi Bob,
Just letting you know that after some trouble shooting I found the culprit
of my problems, a loose connection that I overlooked many times, all is
working as it should again
Thanks
Franz
On 20/05/09 3:55 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 05:16 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> Could you please help me with a low voltage problem that I am having
>> in my RV7. Voltage indicators on the Dynon and engine monitor both
>> show fluctuations between 12.5V and 11.5V while in flight.
>
> These are the voltages you can expect from a battery
> that is NOT benefiting from support by the alternator.
>
>> This is something that just started during the last few flights, I
>> have 300h on the airplane with this being the first problem. I have
>> had the ND 60A internally regulated alternator form Vans in the
>> shop and it checked out fine.
>
> If the alternator is okay, then it's deprived of
> an ON/OFF command that controls it . . . or is
> otherwise disconnected from the system.
>
> With the engine not running but with battery and
> alternator switches ON, you should measure some
> voltage close to the battery output at all wires
> attached to the alternator. If no/low voltage at
> the b-lead terminal, perhaps your b-lead fuse or
> current limiter is open. If no/low voltage to
> the control terminal, then there is a failure in
> the wiring between that terminal and the bus.
>
>
>> I also have put in a new battery with no improvements. Airplane
>> wired as per Z11 with an added electronic ignition on the top side
>
>
> I wouldn't expect a battery to fix this. The alternator
> is definitely not being allowed to do its job
> for some reason.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solar & Wind Power |
This forum may not be the appropriate place to discuss alternative
energy sources as they might apply to an aircraft hangar to be built
in a location far removed from the energy grid. I'm hoping that one of
you may have experience in this area and reply on this forum or
contact me directly.
Thanks,
Angier Ames
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Not sure if this is relevant to your situation, but I just had a similar
experience with the EXPBUS output to the alternator. The IRF4905 MOSFET
that was controlling the 12V to the alternator was measuring 12V with no
load, but when connected to the alternator dropped to a low voltage.
Replacing that device on the EXPBUS resolved my problem, as of
today. ;-)
The ammeter output was totally confusing during this time, in that it
was indicating 2A, but may have actually been indicating no charging
current at all. The battery was certainly discharging with minimal
loads.
If the LR3 "solid state" components include a similar device to the
IRF4905 it seems it's not so simple as just measuring the voltage at the
output, since it seems to drop as soon as a load is applied if faulty.
Good luck,
Ian Brown
Bromont
Quebec
Finally getting back to flying tomorrow!
>
> At 06:12 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >Bob,
> >I am now convinced that the variations were real. I inserted an
> >ammeter into the field line, while the engine was stopped. Got a
> >reading of 3.5 amps. Then took the plane out, fired it up with the
> >ammeter in place, and when the alternator switch was turned on, the
> >current went to 3.5 amps for a very short time, then dropped to
> >zero. At that point, it stayed at zero, and the battery would not charge.
> >
> >Put plane back in hanger, and did some static measurements.
> >
> >Voltage from LR-3 to field circuit breaker ~4.5 volts
>
> This voltage comes FROM your battery via the contactor,
> main bus, alternator field breaker and switch. When
> you made these measurements, was the battery charged
> at all? Or was it down to 4.5 volts?
>
> >Voltage at connector to alternator (black plug) ~4.5V
>
>
> >Resistance to ground through the leads that field current plugs into
> >varies (jumps around) and then often goes to open circuit.
> >
> >Could the slip rings be contaminated or not in contact?
>
> This is a possibility. You need to deduce the
> reason for such low voltage readings. Put
> a charger/maintainer on your battery and make
> sure it's 100% before you continue the investigation.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Millner [OAK]" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Ground Power Receptacle - 3 pin |
>> I assume that the military and airlines use the pin for the same thing.
In the 70's, Cessna used that small third pin, hotted up by the external
power source, to both close the ground power contactor, connecting the
external power source to the bus, *and* to energize an avionics relay,
which disconnected the avionics bus from the main bus. The relay coil
was diode or'd with the starter contactor coil circuit... so turning the
key to start *also* disconnected the avionics bus.
Where it gets exciting is when the diode from the starter contactor
fails as a short.. then, connecting ground power causes the prop to
start spinning, Youza!
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS Voltage |
Thank you for the information Bob.
I am trying to trouble shoot my low voltage problem to determine its cause
(i.e.; the regulator, wiring, or the internal engine alternator) so I can
take corrective action.
There is nothing in the Rotax 912 manuals to assist in doing this. I checked
the internal engine coil resistance reading and found it to be .7-ohms. The
DC voltage at the regulator is the same previously reported (still under
13-volts). Finally I measured AC voltage coming from the coils. The voltage
varied as follows:
Idle (1900-RPM) was 12.8 volts
2500-RPM was 16.0 v
3000-RPM was 19.0 v
4000-RPM was 24.5 v
cruse(5000-RPM)was not measured.
Bob, Am I correct to think that the AC voltage looks adequate and the
problem is likely a faulty Rotax voltage regulator?
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Les
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Rotax 912ULS Voltage
At 01:08 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
<lgold@quantum-associates.com>
I am a sport pilot and don't fly at night, but took my Zenith 701 /Rotax
912ULS up a few evenings ago just to see how hard it would be to land in the
dark. No problem landing, but with all the extra night time stuff on
(strobes, 55watt landing light, & cabin lights) plus my normal stuff
(intercom, 2GPS's, Dynon 180, ICOM radio, transponder, and intercom) the
voltage went down to 11.9 at 3500-rpm and 12.3V at my 4900-rpm cruse. The
blinding low voltage light (from aeroelectric's Z16 diagram, which I used
for my aircraft) came on for the first time and gave me a scare.
My question; is this low voltage situation normal or do I have voltage
regulation issues?
If the low votlage light is on (bus less than 13.0 volts)
then the alternator is not producing sufficient energy to
carry all of the ship's loads AND maintain a battery.
Without the extra load during daylight flight my voltage runs about
12.9-13.0 V and my battery holds a 12.8V charge.
This is TOO LOW. No load and engine running should produce
a bus voltage of 14.0 MINIMUM, 14.2 to 14.4 is better. With
a 13.0V set-point, your alternator is not replenishing the
energy used to get the engine started. It's also maintaining
your battery in a very low state of charge, probably less
than 50% of capacity.
I don't have an extra
alternator and just use the internal Rotax coils for power. One guy already
told me that what I am getting is the norm with the extra stuff on, and that
the Rotax voltage regulator heats up a lot and should not be expected to
last very long. Are these things true?
Not quite. That voltage level is too low. You need to
add up the real current draw for all accessories that
might be on at the same time. These cannot exceed
the rating of the alternator (assuming the battery
is charged) for the operating RPM . . .
Emacs!
. . . and should not be more than 75% of that rating if
you want the alternator to replenish energy removed
before cruising flight RPMs are achieved.
The stock rectifier/regulator is marginal for the
way we use them. I wish they were a bit more robust.
It would add very little to the cost of the product.
John Deere has some single phase rectifier/regulators
rated in the 30A class. It would be interesting to
see how well these might substitute for the
stock regulator.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solar & Wind Power |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Besides, there is nothing that encourages wild speculation as knowing nothing about
it...and a few beers.
Instead, google "Home Power" magazine online (and print). They have everything
and lots of archives. The internet is a wealth of information on the subject.
"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=245377#245377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Engine mount as starter ground path |
Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine mount as starter ground path |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Totally separate but possibly dead on. My 1978 Ford pickup suffered
catastrophic electrolysis of the cab floorboards and the entire bed
(years 28-31). The Tailgate was replaced with an Electro-Hydraulic
1,000 pound Tommy Lift. The lift motor used high current capacity
welding cable with neoprene shielding for the Positive. NO GROUND.
Just the mounting to the bed of the truck and the frame rails. All of a
sudden over the last several years, the truck began rapid corrosion
(Really Rapid - Decomposition).
My conclusion. Stray electrons looking for the primary path to ground -
found their path without the aid of the missing ground. My action -
Never again! use a structural mount in hopes of taking a path of less
effort during installation. Provide an adequate ground from the battery
or generator source. Listen to Bob. Semi-monocoque construction makes
it even more valid.
YMMV.
John Cox
Now for the experts.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Page
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine mount as starter ground path |
How about the scientific principle of rubber engine mounts being a poor
conductor of electricity? That would go for the cadmium plating on the
bolts themselves. Not a perfect conductor. Scientifically engine
mounting bolts will corrode over time, get oily and generally loose what
connectivity they have.
Under Ohm's law the addition of the engine mount changes sub R in the
equation reducing the conductance value of the material. If he works out
the equation using the combined values conductivity will be less. After
he is done scratching his head, he'll recognize why it's done this way.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductance
If he is trying to save $3.00 on the cost of the additional 5" of cable
required to anchor it to the engine, there is little argument on his
side.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Page
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob,
I'm following the Z-31A schematic for a military style ground power jack, and I'm
ordering parts. I've found everything except for the OVM-14 Crowbar O.V. Module.
I called B&C sales and they referred me to a part number 504-1 , which is
something for an alternator with a lot of pieces. How do I get just the OVM-14?
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245430#245430
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:25 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>I'm following the Z-31A schematic for a military style ground power
>jack, and I'm ordering parts. I've found everything except for the
>OVM-14 Crowbar O.V. Module. I called B&C sales and they referred me
>to a part number 504-1 , which is something for an alternator with a
>lot of pieces. How do I get just the OVM-14?
They're in production in our shop now. I don't have
them on the catalog yet. Fill out an order at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
and put "1ea CbOVM-14 @ $25.00" in the comments box.
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: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 10:14 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
>description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
>running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
>
>Thanks !
The shortest, lowest resistance and minimum parts count path
in any high current conduction path is the road to Ground
System Nirvana. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
Engine mounts are steel assembled with steel
hardware. The joints between mounts and other
components of the airframe are not treated for
the purpose of electrical "bonding". The engine
mount is intended to hold the engine on the
airplane and was not designed or installed to
be a part of the electrical system.
Note that Figure Z-15 and Chapter 5 of the
'Connection speak to and illustrate a notion
that engines are best tied to the single point
fire-wall ground block with a single-flexible-
fatwire. To avoid having the firewall sheet
participate in a PARALLEL ground path (read
ground loop) any bonding jumpers across the
engine mounts are best removed.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
Given such a ground path, how does one get lineboys trained that the
engine exhaust pipe is a terrible place for ground wire, that the fuel
tanks are in the wings, and something like a bare spot on wing tiedown
has a much shorter ground path? I always wonder how static charge is
supposed to make it from the fuel tank through the airframe to the
engine and down the rusty, carboned up exhaust pipe, usually with a
swivel or slip joint or two to that ground wire, without significant
resistance.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:14 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
>> description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
>> running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
>>
>> Thanks !
>
> The shortest, lowest resistance and minimum parts count path
> in any high current conduction path is the road to Ground
> System Nirvana. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
>
> Engine mounts are steel assembled with steel
> hardware. The joints between mounts and other
> components of the airframe are not treated for
> the purpose of electrical "bonding". The engine
> mount is intended to hold the engine on the
> airplane and was not designed or installed to
> be a part of the electrical system.
>
> Note that Figure Z-15 and Chapter 5 of the
> 'Connection speak to and illustrate a notion
> that engines are best tied to the single point
> fire-wall ground block with a single-flexible-
> fatwire. To avoid having the firewall sheet
> participate in a PARALLEL ground path (read
> ground loop) any bonding jumpers across the
> engine mounts are best removed.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vaughn Teegarden" <europaul260i(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
How about some anecdotal evidence. I had a Cadillac 4.9 liter V8 installed
in my Pontiac Fiero. Since it weighted 15 pounds more than the V6 that was
in there, I had the battery moved from the rear engine compartment to just
on top of the front axle. My voltmeter would not show over 13.5 volts even
when the battery was weak and would drop below 12 volts if I ran the AC and
lights at the same time. I would also have intermittent problems starting
the car when it was hot. The battery was grounded to the frame and the
engine was also grounded to the frame. A 9 foot #2 wire went from the
positive terminal to the starter. After putting on a new starter the engine
would not start hot the very first time I drove it somewhere. I put a 9 foot
#2 wire from the negative side of the battery to the one of the mounting
studs of the starter and now no more starting problems. The voltmeter shows
14.5 volts on start-up and after a brief drop when turning on the lights and
AC, it shows 13.5 volts. The ground is important. I only wish it hadn't
taken me 2 years to figure it out.
Vaughn Teegarden
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:14
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
>
> Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
> description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
> running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Engine mount as starter ground path |
Just be thankful your ground path didn't go thru your crank bearings..You would
have figured itout a lot sooner though..:)
Frank
RV 7a and a tractor where the battery negative goes directly to the starter as
well!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vaughn Teegarden
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
-->
How about some anecdotal evidence. I had a Cadillac 4.9 liter V8 installed in my
Pontiac Fiero. Since it weighted 15 pounds more than the V6 that was in there,
I had the battery moved from the rear engine compartment to just on top of
the front axle. My voltmeter would not show over 13.5 volts even when the battery
was weak and would drop below 12 volts if I ran the AC and lights at the same
time. I would also have intermittent problems starting the car when it was
hot. The battery was grounded to the frame and the engine was also grounded to
the frame. A 9 foot #2 wire went from the positive terminal to the starter.
After putting on a new starter the engine would not start hot the very first time
I drove it somewhere. I put a 9 foot
#2 wire from the negative side of the battery to the one of the mounting studs
of the starter and now no more starting problems. The voltmeter shows
14.5 volts on start-up and after a brief drop when turning on the lights and AC,
it shows 13.5 volts. The ground is important. I only wish it hadn't taken me
2 years to figure it out.
Vaughn Teegarden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS voltage . . . |
At 12:38 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
Thank you for the information Bob.
I am trying to trouble shoot my low voltage problem to determine its
cause (i.e.; the regulator, wiring, or the internal engine
alternator) so I can take corrective action.
There is nothing in the Rotax 912 manuals to assist in doing this. I
checked the internal engine coil resistance reading and found it to
be .7-ohms. The DC voltage at the regulator is the same previously
reported (still under 13-volts). Finally I measured AC voltage coming
from the coils. The voltage varied as follows:
Idle (1900-RPM) was 12.8 volts
2500-RPM was 16.0 v
3000-RPM was 19.0 v
4000-RPM was 24.5 v
cruse(5000-RPM)was not measured.
Bob, Am I correct to think that the AC voltage looks adequate and the
problem is likely a faulty Rotax voltage regulator?
Thanks again for your help.
If you have ANY voltage from the alternator's output winding
at any speed, and the winding is not shorted to ground (very
unlikely) then the alternator is fine. Rotax PM alternators are
exceedingly simple, rugged and reliable. I'm not aware of any
failures.
The Ducati rectifier/regulator supplied with these engines
is another matter. They are of marginal thermal design and
sadly lacking in adjustability. Two conditions VERY
easy to fix if anyone with responsibility for the product
cared.
Unfortunately, replacing it with an identical OEM R/R has
a high probability of installing a similar problem right
out of the box. I've heard that John Deere has a single
phase, PM alternator regulator that is rated for up to
35 amps. Goto http://matronics.com/search
Search the AeroElectric List for AM101406 and you'll
get several hits by folks who discussed it some time
back.
Here are some after-market clones . . .
http://www.watercraftstarter.com/Lawn%20Garden/Regulator%20Rectifier/?nocache=1
http://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Voltage-Regulator-Deere-AM101406/dp/B00169H3E0
I don't see a voltage adjustment mentioned or
shown . . . unfortunate but perhaps understandable.
Most of these regulators are used on small tractors
and most users are not skilled in the use of such
features.
Wish I had my alternator drive stand running. Building
a 'real' PM r/r for aircraft is not a big task . . .
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: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 04:21 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>Given such a ground path, how does one get lineboys trained that the
>engine exhaust pipe is a terrible place for ground wire, that the
>fuel tanks are in the wings, and something like a bare spot on wing
>tiedown has a much shorter ground path? I always wonder how static
>charge is supposed to make it from the fuel tank through the
>airframe to the engine and down the rusty, carboned up exhaust pipe,
>usually with a swivel or slip joint or two to that ground wire,
>without significant resistance.
The line boy's ground lead is not intended to carry
more than micro-amps of current . . . and then for
only enough time to equalize the STATIC charge on
the airplane with the STATIC charge on the fuel truck.
Given the proliferation of composite aircraft it's
not a bad bet for fuel truck operators to use the exhaust
pipe . . . it's metallic and definitely connected to
the crankcase through other metallic parts. Now, it's
entirely possible that a metallic tank resides in a
composite wing and is plumbed up with some modern
synthetic tubing . . . it's a tiny bit of a crap-shoot.
Bottom line is that the rusty, gunked up piece of pipe
is not a bad choice.
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: Ground Power Receptacle - 3 pin |
At 10:13 PM 5/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> >> I assume that the military and airlines use the pin for the same thing.
>
>In the 70's, Cessna used that small third pin, hotted up by the
>external power source, to both close the ground power contactor,
>connecting the external power source to the bus, *and* to energize
>an avionics relay, which disconnected the avionics bus from the main
>bus. The relay coil was diode or'd with the starter contactor coil
>circuit... so turning the key to start *also* disconnected the avionics bus.
>
>Where it gets exciting is when the diode from the starter contactor
>fails as a short.. then, connecting ground power causes the prop to
>start spinning, Youza!
Yeah . . . I remember that setup. We sure thought
it was a good idea . . . at the time . . .
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: Alternator Failure |
At 04:31 PM 5/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>Just letting you know that after some trouble shooting I found the culprit
>of my problems, a loose connection that I overlooked many times, all is
>working as it should again
>Thanks
>Franz
Very good sir. Keep the dirty side down and the pointy
end forward!
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: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
At 06:09 PM 5/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Not sure if this is relevant to your situation, but I just had a similar
>experience with the EXPBUS output to the alternator. The IRF4905 MOSFET
>that was controlling the 12V to the alternator was measuring 12V with no
>load, but when connected to the alternator dropped to a low voltage.
>Replacing that device on the EXPBUS resolved my problem, as of
>today. ;-)
>
>The ammeter output was totally confusing during this time, in that it
>was indicating 2A, but may have actually been indicating no charging
>current at all. The battery was certainly discharging with minimal
>loads.
>
>If the LR3 "solid state" components include a similar device to the
>IRF4905 it seems it's not so simple as just measuring the voltage at the
>output, since it seems to drop as soon as a load is applied if faulty.
Not exactly . . . The mosfet in the EXP bus appears to
be used as a ON/OFF switch in the feature labeled OV CUTOFF.
It should be turned on hard at all times when not OV-tripped
so as to not upset regulator performance downstream.
Emacs!
The LR3 does have a series control device used as part of
the voltage regulator system. The LR3 also features its own
ov protection that would NOT be compatible with an EXP BUS
installation. Bill cited a voltage reading on the order of
4.5 volts on the wire between circuit breaker and the field
terminal of the LR3 . . . this would cause the LR3 output
to be similarly depressed.
There's either something "unhooked" between the field supply
breaker and the field power terminal of the LR3 . . . or the
battery is REALLY soggy.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
At 03:50 PM 5/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob, an update -- The Battery, alternator, and LR3C are fine, the
>symptoms below are attributed to operator induced problems.
>
>1. Apparently when hooking up for the test, I caused a short that
>blew the fuse to the alternator field. That is the reason for the
>battery not charging.
>
>2. I talked to B&C, and downloaded there diagnostic check sheet.
>This led to the discovery of the blown fuse.
>
>3. I have installed an old fashioned 50mv/60A shunt in the B lead,
>and hooked it up to a DVM. Alternator working fine, hash on recorded
>output must be as you originally surmised, the result of noise.
>
>I have not yet tried to filter the noise, now that I know the output
>is stable, I can ignore the chart until I have time to fix it.
>
>Thanks for your help/input.
Aha! funny thing about those pesky electrons. The
alchemists have been trying to teach them how to jump
gaps for centuries . . . no joy.
If you have an LR3, it should have no fuses in the
field supply lead, only a 5A breaker and perhaps a
fusible link as illustrated in Z14.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Estu <bwcengineering(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ARC R-402A Pin Out |
I have an aircraft with an MX-300 radio and an ARC R-402A marker beacon rec
eiver. There is an unlabeled-mystery switch in the panel that leads to th
e marker beacon receiver. Anyone know what this switch is for, and is a pin
out diagram available?
-
Thanks, Mike=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
The Z-14 I've put into my RV10 follows the best practices as described
in the Connection with one oversight.... I have the 2 sided forest of
tabs on the firewall but I only have an AWG 8 cable running to it from
the rear batteries instead of an AWG2 fat wire. And it's too late to
swap it out without significant re-work.
The isssue is how to get the engine adequately grounded for the
start. I remember this same situation being discussed recently on
either the RV10 or AeroConnection list but I'd like to get some more
input regarding my choices as I see it.
Choice1: Run a flat fat wire (AWG 2 equivalent) from the forest of tabs
lug to the engine and keep the engine mount out of the circuit. Here
I'm depending on the AWG 8 cable and the firewall to provide and
adequate ground for starting. I feel that I do have a solidly grounded
airframe and it is a metal fuselage.
Choice2: Ground the engine to the mount per Van's wiring diagram - 2
straps from the mount to the engine and relying on the 6 mount bolts to
provide what they're not designed to provide. Here I'm trusting that
the steel engine mount will work as a working part of my electrical
system - clearly this is what the Connection is steering me away from.
Choice3: Do both 1 and 2 which gives me a better chance of an adequate
ground than either choice alone gives me, but I run the risk of ground
loops. (what is the potential impact of ground loops in the starter
circuit? Does this introduce potential ground loop problems to systems
connected to the forest of tabs?)
Bob, thanks for covering the same ground over and over!
Bill "enjoying panel wiring and fiberglassing at the same time" Watson
RV10 40605
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:14 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
>> description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
>> running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
>>
>> Thanks !
>
> The shortest, lowest resistance and minimum parts count path
> in any high current conduction path is the road to Ground
> System Nirvana. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Re: LR3 regulator Amperage indications |
Hi Bill.
I was out at Aurora today and once last week. Both times I remembered
your plane was out there but had forgotten to contact you to see if
you would be around. I'm flying again out of Gauntlet Warbirds at
least once a week. I'll be there next Monday if the weather is good.
If you'd like to show off your plane, I would be delighted to see it.
How often are you around out there?
Take care, good to see your making progress with the issue you posted.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On May 25, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Bill Schertz wrote:
> >
>
> Bob, an update -- The Battery, alternator, and LR3C are fine, the
> symptoms below are attributed to operator induced problems.
>
> 1. Apparently when hooking up for the test, I caused a short that
> blew the fuse to the alternator field. That is the reason for the
> battery not charging.
>
> 2. I talked to B&C, and downloaded there diagnostic check sheet.
> This led to the discovery of the blown fuse.
>
> 3. I have installed an old fashioned 50mv/60A shunt in the B lead,
> and hooked it up to a DVM. Alternator working fine, hash on recorded
> output must be as you originally surmised, the result of noise.
>
> I have not yet tried to filter the noise, now that I know the output
> is stable, I can ignore the chart until I have time to fix it.
>
> Thanks for your help/input.
>
> Bill Schertz
> KIS Cruiser #4045
> N343BS
> Phase I testing
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
> >
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 3:26 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LR3 regulator Amperage indications
>
>
>> >
>>
>> At 06:12 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>> I am now convinced that the variations were real. I inserted an
>>> ammeter into the field line, while the engine was stopped. Got a
>>> reading of 3.5 amps. Then took the plane out, fired it up with the
>>> ammeter in place, and when the alternator switch was turned on,
>>> the current went to 3.5 amps for a very short time, then dropped
>>> to zero. At that point, it stayed at zero, and the battery would
>>> not charge.
>>>
>>> Put plane back in hanger, and did some static measurements.
>>>
>>> Voltage from LR-3 to field circuit breaker ~4.5 volts
>>
>> This voltage comes FROM your battery via the contactor,
>> main bus, alternator field breaker and switch. When
>> you made these measurements, was the battery charged
>> at all? Or was it down to 4.5 volts?
>>
>>> Voltage at connector to alternator (black plug) ~4.5V
>>
>>
>>> Resistance to ground through the leads that field current plugs
>>> into varies (jumps around) and then often goes to open circuit.
>>>
>>> Could the slip rings be contaminated or not in contact?
>>
>> This is a possibility. You need to deduce the
>> reason for such low voltage readings. Put
>> a charger/maintainer on your battery and make
>> sure it's 100% before you continue the investigation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ARC R-402A Pin Out |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Is the switch MB sensitivity?
Matt-
> I have an aircraft with an MX-300 radio and an ARC R-402A marker beacon
> receiver. There is an unlabeledmystery switch in the panel that leads to
> the marker beacon receiver. Anyone know what this switch is for, and is a
> pin out diagram available?
>
> Thanks, Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Engine mount as starter ground path |
t 08:47 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
The Z-14 I've put into my RV10 follows the best practices as
described in the Connection with one oversight.... I have the 2 sided
forest of tabs on the firewall but I only have an AWG 8
cable running to it from the rear batteries instead of an AWG2 fat
wire. And it's too late to swap it out without significant re-work.
Is this the ONLY ground for the rear-mounted batteries?
8AWG is waaayyyy too small. Pull it out and ground the
battery(ies) locally to the airframe.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Battery_Install_OBrien_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Battery_Install_OBrien_2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Local_Battery_Grounds_1.jpg
The isssue is how to get the engine adequately grounded for the
start. I remember this same situation being discussed recently on
either the RV10 or AeroConnection list but I'd like to get some more
input regarding my choices as I see it.
Choice1: Run a flat fat wire (AWG 2 equivalent) from the forest of
tabs lug to the engine and keep the engine mount out of the circuit.
This is a given . . . no matter what the
rest of the ground system looks like.
Here I'm depending on the AWG 8 cable and the firewall to provide
and adequate ground for starting. I feel that I do have a solidly
grounded airframe and it is a metal fuselage.
I'm not sure from your description where the ends
of the 8AWG wire are tied. This size of
wire is too small for any significant starter
performance.
Choice2: Ground the engine to the mount per Van's wiring diagram - 2
straps from the mount to the engine and relying on the 6 mount bolts
to provide what they're not designed to provide. Here I'm trusting
that the steel engine mount will work as a working part of
my electrical system - clearly this is what the Connection is
steering me away from.
It's been done before. Leave it alone.
Choice3: Do both 1 and 2 which gives me a better chance of an
adequate ground than either choice alone gives me, but I run the risk
of ground loops. (what is the potential impact of ground loops in
the starter circuit? Does this introduce potential ground loop
problems to systems connected to the forest of tabs?)
Do them both and ground the batteries
to the airframe. The 8AWG wire can be
cut loose and pulled out.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 11:35 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>t 08:47 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>The Z-14 I've put into my RV10 follows the best practices as
>described in the Connection with one oversight.... I have the 2
>sided forest of tabs on the firewall but I only have an AWG 8
>cable running to it from the rear batteries instead of an AWG2 fat
>wire. And it's too late to swap it out without significant re-work.
Bill, re-reading my posting from last night I'm not
sure I conveyed a clear image of my recommendations.
In a nutshell:
Add local grounds to airframe for the batteries if
you don't already have them.
Add crankcase to firewall ground stud for engine.
Leave jumpers across the engine mount biscuits.
You can cut the 8AWG wire out if you wish and
if it is practical. It adds only weight and
offers no significant electrical function.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KX-125 Installation Manual? |
| From: | "jf3sb" <jf3sb(at)yahoo.com> |
Ladies/Gents:
I'm in the process of wiring up a KX-125 Nav/Com into my Zenith 701 panel. Would
anyone happen to have an installation manual for this radio? I've got the
connector pinouts, but still more questions than answers about what gets connected
where.
Thanks...
John Flavin
Olathe, KS
Zenith CH701 still 80% and holding...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245534#245534
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johnson, Phillip (EXP)" <phillip.johnson(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 05/26/09 |
Bob,
I read your message and went to your web link indicated below and I
can't accept that it is a good design. The problem that I see is that
your design does not create a single ground reference. Ideally you want
the engine block to be the ground reference with all currents flowing
through it. To this end you need to connect the battery -ve to the
crankcase and then make all grounds connect, either directly or
indirectly, to the crankcase as well. In doing this there will be no
ground potential differences to upset the instrumentation. If we look
at schematic given in http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
there is no alternator shown but we all know that the alternator ground
is connected to the crankcase so all the current that the alternator
generates must pass through the engine block and then on to the battery
through the interconnections given in your circuit. If I now connect an
instrument such as an engine monitor to the instrument panel and ground
it as indicated in the diagram the ground voltage that the engine
monitor uses will be different to the ground reference seen by the
sensor located on the engine in particular when high currents are being
sourced from the alternator. Such a configuration will cause erroneous
readings unless a differential arrangement is utilised.
In addition to the grounding issues related to the instrumentation it is
likely that, at some point, someone will make some ground connections to
the engine block and some to the instrumentation ground. Somewhere , we
are all human, the two will interconnect (yes you could/should check for
all of these but people don't in particular when the owner is not the
builder). All will be well when the system is new but as the aircraft
ages and maybe the aircraft is sold to a new owner the ground between
the engine and instrumentation/firewall ground will be left off (maybe
after an annual inspection or maintenance session) or degraded through
loose connection. The pilot now tries to start the engine and all of
the current tries to flow through this instrumentation ground. This
causes a melt down of the wiring and a potential ground fire and risk to
those expensive electronics.
It is my opinion, and I believe that the automotive industry also adopts
this philosophy, that you connect the battery ground to the crankcase
and then strap the engine to the airframe/car body and system ground so
that the high current grounds pass only through the engine. Charging
ground currents, which can be extremely high, also only pass through the
engine block thereby preventing erroneous instrumentation and potential
fire risk.
OK I've now started to run and get my flame suit on.
Regards to all
Phillip Johnson
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
At 10:14 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
>description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone that
>running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor choice ?
>
>Thanks !
The shortest, lowest resistance and minimum parts count path
in any high current conduction path is the road to Ground
System Nirvana. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
Engine mounts are steel assembled with steel
hardware. The joints between mounts and other
components of the airframe are not treated for
the purpose of electrical "bonding". The engine
mount is intended to hold the engine on the
airplane and was not designed or installed to
be a part of the electrical system.
Note that Figure Z-15 and Chapter 5 of the
'Connection speak to and illustrate a notion
that engines are best tied to the single point
fire-wall ground block with a single-flexible-
fatwire. To avoid having the firewall sheet
participate in a PARALLEL ground path (read
ground loop) any bonding jumpers across the
engine mounts are best removed.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SEC-1223 Power Supply --Question re isolating diode |
and charge limiting resistor
Bob,
On reading a recent thread on Aerolectrics, I ordered the SEC-1223 Power
Supply from Universal Radio to power my avionics on the ground with direct
connection to my aircraft battery as a battery backup.
Question: The supplied manual gives a warning: "These units are power
supplies and not battery chargers. Do not connect these units directly to a
battery. Battery charging and battery charging may be undertaken only when
the battery is connected through suitable external isolating diodes and
charge limiting resistor. The isolating diode will ensure that the battery
does not back power the power supply.. When the battery is deeply
discharged, it will initially draw a very large charging current and thus, will
force
the power supply into current limit mode for prolonged periods. This is
harmful for the power supply. The charge limiting resistor will limit the
charging current, thereby, ensuring that the maximum charging current is
well below the current limit value of the power supply. It is recommended
that optional battery backup module BBM-1225 may be used to convert SEC-1223
for battery backup application."
Looks simple enough to make my own module? Could you recommend a circuit
with diagram and give your two cents regarding the warning?
Don Schmiesing
**************Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your
Family. Sign Up Now!
3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
Sent by PM
br Werner
jf3sb wrote:
>
> Ladies/Gents:
>
> I'm in the process of wiring up a KX-125 Nav/Com into my Zenith 701 panel.
Would anyone happen to have an installation manual for this radio? I've got the
connector pinouts, but still more questions than answers about what gets connected
where.
>
> Thanks...
>
> John Flavin
> Olathe, KS
> Zenith CH701 still 80% and holding...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245534#245534
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding philosophy |
At 09:05 AM 5/27/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
I read your message and went to your web link indicated below and I
can't accept that it is a good design. The problem that I see is that
your design does not create a single ground reference.
Yes it does. The architectures discussed in Figure Z-15 and
other writings suggeste the stud at the forest of tabs on the
firewall is the central point ground for the aircraft.
Ideally you want
the engine block to be the ground reference with all currents flowing
through it. To this end you need to connect the battery -ve to the
crankcase and then make all grounds connect, either directly or
indirectly, to the crankcase as well. In doing this there will be no
ground potential differences to upset the instrumentation.
Instrumentation is a special case where grounded automotive
sensors are at risk for suffering ground loop interference.
This has been discussed at length in various writings. If the
problem presents itself (usually manifest by a shift in
instrumentation readings in response to alternator loads),
then the "ground" leads for panel mounted instruments need
to be extended to the crankcase. However, if one has a very
low resistance net between he crankcase and the firewall
ground stud . . . then the "problem" may be reduced to
insignificant if not completely unobservable.
The pilot now tries to start the engine and all of
the current tries to flow through this instrumentation ground. This
causes a melt down of the wiring and a potential ground fire and risk to
those expensive electronics.
Again, discussed in past publications and postings . . .
"Smoking ground returns" is easily avoided by not closing
the returns. Common occurrences include the risk of
instrumentation grounds for instruments not designed
to live in the real world of aircraft. Another common
risk happens when builders attached p-lead shields to
crankcase at one end and airframe at the other end.
All of my drawings illustrate technique for avoiding
that loop as well.
It is my opinion, and I believe that the automotive industry also adopts
this philosophy, that you connect the battery ground to the crankcase
and then strap the engine to the airframe/car body and system ground so
that the high current grounds pass only through the engine. Charging
ground currents, which can be extremely high, also only pass through the
engine block thereby preventing erroneous instrumentation and potential
fire risk.
Batteries go to crankcases in cars because the battery
always sits right next to the engine. The automotive
industry has adopted the same philosophy as every other
industry for minimizing the numbers of joints, fasteners
and pieces of wire in the fat-wire conduction paths.
Now, if one had a battery on the forward side of
the firewall then there is no electrical reason
NOT to ground the battery right to the crankcase.
There are mechanical reasons not to . . . we've
already established the value of a 2AWG equivalent
jumper from crankcase to ground stud. This same stud
becomes a practical spot to ground a battery as
well . . . and the 2AWG bonding strap makes sure
that voltage differences between the crankcase
and the ground stud are insignificantly small.
If the battery is aft of the firewall, then the
most practical battery ground is the firewall
ground stud . . . or to the airframe on an all
metal airplane.
OK I've now started to run and get my flame suit on.
Zero risk from me sir . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | SEC-1223 Power Supply |
At 09:18 AM 5/27/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
On reading a recent thread on Aerolectrics, I ordered the SEC-1223
Power Supply from Universal Radio to power my avionics on the ground
with direct connection to my aircraft battery as a battery backup.
Question: The supplied manual gives a warning: "These units are
power supplies and not battery chargers. Do not connect these units
directly to a battery. Battery charging and battery charging may be
undertaken only when the battery is connected through suitable
external isolating diodes and charge limiting resistor. The
isolating diode will ensure that the battery does not back power the
power supply.. When the battery is deeply discharged, it will
initially draw a very large charging current and thus, will force the
power supply into current limit mode for prolonged periods. This is
harmful for the power supply. The charge limiting resistor will
limit the charging current, thereby, ensuring that the maximum
charging current is well below the current limit value of the power
supply. It is recommended that optional battery backup module
BBM-1225 may be used to convert SEC-1223 for battery backup application."
Looks simple enough to make my own module? Could you recommend a
circuit with diagram and give your two cents regarding the warning?
Yes. I have a drawing in the pile of things
to do that shows how to convert the SEC-1223 (or
a similar power supply) to an "alternator
emulator". The warnings from Samlex about using
the stand-alone power supply as a battery charger
are well taken. Any time I've used these supplies
to power up the airplane in the shop, the power
supply was used as a battery emulator.
I'll see if I can dig out those drawings and
publish them along with the explanatory text.
In the mean time, just use the power supply to
energize the system (tied to the alternator
b-lead?) but leaving the battery master switch
OFF.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding philosophy |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>
>
snip
>
> Batteries go to crankcases in cars because the battery
> always sits right next to the engine. The automotive
> industry has adopted the same philosophy as every other
snip
Just to be contrarian, our family has owned two different cars with the
battery in the trunk (rear) and the engine in the front - both foreign
jobs.. :) The manufacturer claims they did it for better weight
distribution. I can't recall whether the batteries were locally
grounded, or if they had a dedicated ground wire running to the front.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
It's crystal clear now! Thanks
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:35 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> t 08:47 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Z-14 I've put into my RV10 follows the best practices as
>> described in the Connection with one oversight.... I have the 2 sided
>> forest of tabs on the firewall but I only have an AWG 8 cable
>> running to it from the rear batteries instead of an AWG2 fat wire.
>> And it's too late to swap it out without significant re-work.
>
> Bill, re-reading my posting from last night I'm not
> sure I conveyed a clear image of my recommendations.
> In a nutshell:
>
> Add local grounds to airframe for the batteries if
> you don't already have them.
>
> Add crankcase to firewall ground stud for engine.
>
> Leave jumpers across the engine mount biscuits.
>
> You can cut the 8AWG wire out if you wish and
> if it is practical. It adds only weight and
> offers no significant electrical function.
>
>
> 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: | DynaFocal engine mount ring |
Not exactly electric, but airplane related...
I have an engine mount ring for sale..
I am using an alternative engine, so I don't need this ring. AC Spruce sells
it for $180 plus shipping. I will sell mine for $125 plus shipping. It is a
Type 1 Dynafocal with 2.75 cups.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
Static is usually described as high voltage and little to no current.
That means those nasty electrons are really juiced up...like a 2 year
old loaded with chocolate cake, etc. They can jump tall buildings, and
wide gaps, etc.
A hopped up electron does not need a good conductor to move and be a
nuisance. Rusty or otherwise not well connected pipes, etc. work just
fine. So connecting a static grounding line to an exhaust pipe should
work just fine to dump most, if not all, of the electrons to ground.
Most of my Cessna wing is bare aluminum. As an extra precaution, I
lightly touch the fuel nozzle to the wing surface before I even take the
fuel caps off. That also relieves any final electrons off the table
before fueling. Also, as the fuel flows, I make sure the nozzle is
touching the metal filler neck. In dry climates especially, flowing
fuel will also generate some static. With the nozzle grounded against
the filler metal that takes care of those speedy critters also.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly McMullen
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Engine mount as starter ground path
Given such a ground path, how does one get lineboys trained that the
engine exhaust pipe is a terrible place for ground wire, that the fuel
tanks are in the wings, and something like a bare spot on wing tiedown
has a much shorter ground path? I always wonder how static charge is
supposed to make it from the fuel tank through the airframe to the
engine and down the rusty, carboned up exhaust pipe, usually with a
swivel or slip joint or two to that ground wire, without significant
resistance.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 10:14 AM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
Does anyone have some scientific information (beyond the practical
description in the Connection) that I can use to convince someone
that
running the engine ground strap to the engine mount is a poor
choice ?
Thanks !
The shortest, lowest resistance and minimum parts count path
in any high current conduction path is the road to Ground
System Nirvana. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
Engine mounts are steel assembled with steel
hardware. The joints between mounts and other
components of the airframe are not treated for
the purpose of electrical "bonding". The engine
mount is intended to hold the engine on the
airplane and was not designed or installed to
be a part of the electrical system.
Note that Figure Z-15 and Chapter 5 of the
'Connection speak to and illustrate a notion
that engines are best tied to the single point
fire-wall ground block with a single-flexible-
fatwire. To avoid having the firewall sheet
participate in a PARALLEL ground path (read
ground loop) any bonding jumpers across the
engine mounts are best removed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
I am building an RV-7 and have purchased a stock alternator from Vans
(in firewall forward kit). I understand this unit to have a built-in
regulator. I hope to use the B&C LR3C-14. Being new to aircraft
electronics...will this create an issue or is there something that I'm
missing?
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
If the regulator is built in it means exactly that..No external regulator will
be required or indeed desired... Did you get the Plane Power 60A alternator or
the rebuilt Honda unit I think it is.
The Plane Power is the finest internally regulated alternator there is and Van's
has the best prices on them.
If you are building an electrically dependant airplane or an IFR bird then this
is the unit you should have.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade Roe
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
I am building an RV-7 and have purchased a stock alternator from Vans (in firewall
forward kit). I understand this unit to have a built-in regulator. I hope
to use the B&C LR3C-14. Being new to aircraft electronics...will this create
an issue or is there something that I'm missing?
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | State of the art - then and now |
I'm in possession of several issues of the Electrical
Experimenter circa 1916. This hobbyist/amateur/semi-
professional publication offered a newsstand source
for both understanding and state of the art news in
a range of technologies.
I'm using one of these magazines as reference for a
science history presentation I'm doing. I've scanned it
for sharing and thought I would post it for those
having an interest in such things. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ofbj3c
It's interesting to see the depth and scope of interests
illustrated on these pages. It's also interesting to
see a level of hucksterism and quackery not unlike
that which pours forth in today's video and print media!
See pdf pages 7, 25, 62 (violet rays), 65 (Pandiculator).
But the casually discriminating eye can easily identify
and appreciate the good stuff of which there is plenty.
Hope you enjoy browsing this piece of technological history.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
The alternator from Vans is a reconditioned Japanese automobile unit
(Honda?) that came with the firewall forward kit. I figured the B&C
linear regulator to be a superior/cleaner product than that on the
alternator.
The plane will be IFR and all electric.
Wade Roe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
(Corvallis)"
If the regulator is built in it means exactly that..No external
regulator will be required or indeed desired... Did you get the Plane
Power 60A alternator or the rebuilt Honda unit I think it is.
The Plane Power is the finest internally regulated alternator there is
and Van's has the best prices on them.
If you are building an electrically dependant airplane or an IFR bird
then this is the unit you should have.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade
Roe
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
I am building an RV-7 and have purchased a stock alternator from Vans
(in firewall forward kit). I understand this unit to have a built-in
regulator. I hope to use the B&C LR3C-14. Being new to aircraft
electronics...will this create an issue or is there something that I'm
missing?
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with built-in regulator |
At 02:59 PM 5/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am building an RV-7 and have purchased a stock alternator from Vans
>(in firewall forward kit). I understand this unit to have a built-in
>regulator. I hope to use the B&C LR3C-14. Being new to aircraft
>electronics...will this create an issue or is there something that I'm
>missing?
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? It speaks to
the various configurations for internally/externally
regulated alternators. The updated chapter on alternators
is posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/03_Alternator_12A1.pdf
Most single engine airplanes fly with externally
regulated alternators for reasons offered in the
chapter cited above. But either configuration can
be adapted to aircraft.
If you have a Plane Power unit from Van's, know
that it has been successfully integrated into
aircraft while meeting design goals for ON/OFF,
any time, any conditions control. Further, it's
fitted with over-voltage management.
You won't need an LR-3 for this alternator.
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: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 01:00 PM 5/27/2009, you wrote:
>The discussion about engine mounts as ground points has generated a
>question. The "When is a Good Ground Not?" article shows 2AWG wire
>for the high current paths as do the Z-15 diagrams demonstrating
>various grounding architectures.
>
>The Z-13/8 diagram I was planning my electrical system around shows
>4AWG wires for these same high current paths. All my "fat wires"
>will be under 3 feet since my RG battery, starter and battery
>contactors, 40A alternator, and firewall ground block will all be on
>or close to the firewall. I thought I had read somewhere in the
>"AeroElectric Connection" that 4AWG was fine as long as all the fat
>wires were 3 feet or less, but now I can't find it.
>
>Could someone confirm that 4AWG welding cable is acceptable for the
>high current wires when these wires are all located on the hot side
>of the firewall, wired per Z-13/8 and each under three feet in length?
The drawings published on our website and publications
are intended to illustrate architectures. Exact sizing
of circuit protection, wires, batteries, alternators, etc.
are up to the builder based on a host of considerations.
Your recollection is accurate in that if the battery,
starter and alternator are all within short distances
of each other (3' or so) then 4AWG is adequate to the
task of managing fat-wire duties.
When engine and batteries are remotely located from each
other (rear mounted batteries in RV-8, canard pushers) will
benefit from something bigger like 2AWG battery cables.
Really extreme cases like some some winged watercraft,
parallel 2AWG or 0AWG is often used.
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: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
In that case send that alternator back to Vans and exchange it for the plane power
unit...Trying to use the B&C regulator (which it was not designed for) is
a bit like putting lipstick on a pig..Its still a pig!
I futzed with a rebuilt alternator for a while and had a couple of scary moments
in IMC..then I changed to the Plane power and its been faultless ever since.
They come with a wonderful reputation. No electrical noise, just fit (with the
supplied brackets) and forget it.
On An all electric IFR airplane the alternator is not the place to be making shortcuts!!!..The
extra couple of hundred bucks is WELL spent.
Frank
RV7a..all electric IFR including 2* EI's and the fuel pumps!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade Roe
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
The alternator from Vans is a reconditioned Japanese automobile unit
(Honda?) that came with the firewall forward kit. I figured the B&C linear regulator
to be a superior/cleaner product than that on the alternator.
The plane will be IFR and all electric.
Wade Roe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
>
>
>The plane will be IFR and all electric.
>
>Wade Roe
>
Wade, would it be a fair assumption then that
a second alternator will go onto the vacuum
pump pad?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RScott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com> |
| Subject: | Military_Humor_Miss_America_1.jpg (JPEG Image, 490x442 |
pixels)
http://www.allmilitary.com/i/Image/Military_Humor_Miss_America_1.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | 12V Power Socket |
Hello,
I am wiring up a 12V (cigarette lighter) power socket into my panel.
Can anyone tell me the convention for the +ve and -terminals on these things?
Thanks,
Andrew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
Bob,
My first post to this site. I'm working on an rv-10. I thought I understood
the grounding once you gave the below explanation to Bill W.
One and two are clear. I read #3 as putting a jumper across an individual
mount t0 both sides of a single biscuit. In a later post, you advise "any
bonding jumpers across the engine mounts are best removed" to avoid parallel
grounds. Equally, the Connection speaks of a single point ground at
firewall. Is this a contradiction or does it refer to not having jumpers
between two completely separate mounts?
Thanks,
Tom Hanaway
Boynton Beach, FL
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
>
> At 11:35 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> t 08:47 PM 5/26/2009, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> The Z-14 I've put into my RV10 follows the best practices as
>> described in the Connection with one oversight.... I have the 2 sided
>> forest of tabs on the firewall but I only have an AWG 8 cable
>> running to it from the rear batteries instead of an AWG2 fat wire.
>> And it's too late to swap it out without significant re-work.
>
> Bill, re-reading my posting from last night I'm not
> sure I conveyed a clear image of my recommendations.
> In a nutshell:
>
> Add local grounds to airframe for the batteries if
> you don't already have them.
>
> Add crankcase to firewall ground stud for engine.
>
> Leave jumpers across the engine mount biscuits.
>
> You can cut the 8AWG wire out if you wish and
> if it is practical. It adds only weight and
> offers no significant electrical function.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jay(at)horriblehyde.com" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12V Power Socket |
The positive is the centre post and negative the outer shell.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew Butler" [andrewbutler(at)ireland.com]
Date: 05/28/2009 04:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 12V Power Socket
Hello,
I am wiring up a 12V (cigarette lighter) power socket into my panel.
Can anyone tell me the convention for the +ve and -terminals on these things?
Thanks,
Andrew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 12V Power Socket |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Positive is the center (spring loaded plunger on the plug), ground is the
shell (two flat connectors along the side of the plug).
Rick
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Andrew Butler wrote:
> andrewbutler(at)ireland.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am wiring up a 12V (cigarette lighter) power socket into my panel.
>
> Can anyone tell me the convention for the +ve and -terminals on these
> things?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wade Roe <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with built-in regulator |
Roger that. I plan to use the B&C 8 amp alternator or the 20 amp as
backup.
Wade Roe
IPhone message
On May 27, 2009, at 10:38 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> >
>
>
>>
>>
>> The plane will be IFR and all electric.
>>
>> Wade Roe
>>
>
> Wade, would it be a fair assumption then that
> a second alternator will go onto the vacuum
> pump pad?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 12V Power Socket |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Andrew,
The usual center is positive and the shell goest to ground. You
should wire the scocket to powerthe panel with out turning the master on.
I have mine that way so I can play with the panel with out using the
aircraft battery. I have a little cpmpressor / battery unit that I take
to the hanger and keeps the tires up and lets me run my glass panel for
setting up a trip etc.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97zF6gFxJRmQXuZsZBzUiPEnqkuoiaMthATKQtsww5EJAaYCWxa/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johnson, Phillip (EXP)" <phillip.johnson(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding philosophy |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject:
At 09:05 AM 5/27/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
>I read your message and went to your web link indicated below and I
>can't accept that it is a good design. The problem that I see is that
>your design does not create a single ground reference.
>Yes it does. The architectures discussed in Figure Z-15 and
>other writings suggeste the stud at the forest of tabs on the
>firewall is the central point ground for the aircraft.
So Ground point number one is the "forest of tabs" and ground point
number two is the engine crankcase when the alternator, starter motor,
and most engine sensors make their ground. I.e. there is not a single
point ground. In an ideal world where #2 gauge wires and
interconnections have zero resistance but, as you point out in your
document, this is not the case.
>>Ideally you want
>>the engine block to be the ground reference with all currents flowing
>>through it. To this end you need to connect the battery -ve to the
>>crankcase and then make all grounds connect, either directly or
>>indirectly, to the crankcase as well. In doing this there will be no
>>ground potential differences to upset the instrumentation.
>Instrumentation is a special case where grounded automotive
>sensors are at risk for suffering ground loop interference.
>This has been discussed at length in various writings. If the
>problem presents itself (usually manifest by a shift in
>instrumentation readings in response to alternator loads),
>then the "ground" leads for panel mounted instruments need
>to be extended to the crankcase. However, if one has a very
>low resistance net between he crankcase and the firewall
>ground stud . . . then the "problem" may be reduced to
>insignificant if not completely unobservable.
They should not have to be a special case if wired correctly. When
everything references the crankcase there is no special case. The
problem is that when the installation is done all the connections are
clean and the installer usually knows what he is doing. A few years
down the road an unknowledgeable person does not prepare the electrical
bonding surface as well as he should and then problems start happening
when current starts to flow through the circuit. Using the philosophy
that I have given, these problems are reduced significantly, which in my
opinion makes for a better design.
>>The pilot now tries to start the engine and all of
>>the current tries to flow through this instrumentation ground. This
>>causes a melt down of the wiring and a potential ground fire and risk
to
>>those expensive electronics.
>Again, discussed in past publications and postings . . .
>"Smoking ground returns" is easily avoided by not closing
>the returns. Common occurrences include the risk of
>instrumentation grounds for instruments not designed
>to live in the real world of aircraft. Another common
>risk happens when builders attached p-lead shields to
>crankcase at one end and airframe at the other end.
>All of my drawings illustrate technique for avoiding
>that loop as well.
Again, "Smoking ground returns" are avoided if you use my design
solution.
>>It is my opinion, and I believe that the automotive industry also
adopts
>>this philosophy, that you connect the battery ground to the crankcase
>>and then strap the engine to the airframe/car body and system ground
so
>>that the high current grounds pass only through the engine. Charging
>>ground currents, which can be extremely high, also only pass through
the
>>engine block thereby preventing erroneous instrumentation and
potential
>>fire risk.
>Batteries go to crankcases in cars because the battery
>always sits right next to the engine.
In the old days the battery ground went straight to the bodywork and
then there was an engine strap in a different location which coupled the
body to the engine. I'm not sure when the change occurred but I would
guess that it occurred somewhere soon after the first electronic systems
were implemented. I changed the battery on my neighbours Audi a couple
of years ago and that had the battery under the rear seats. The ground
lead did not go straight to the body but I can't be sure that it went
all the way to the front either. I surmise that if it did not go
directly to the body it would probably make the full journey to the
engine.
>The automotive
>industry has adopted the same philosophy as every other
>industry for minimizing the numbers of joints, fasteners
>and pieces of wire in the fat-wire conduction paths.
Agreed
>Now, if one had a battery on the forward side of
>the firewall then there is no electrical reason
>NOT to ground the battery right to the crankcase.
>There are mechanical reasons not to . . . we've
>already established the value of a 2AWG equivalent
>jumper from crankcase to ground stud. This same stud
>becomes a practical spot to ground a battery as
>well . . . and the 2AWG bonding strap makes sure
>that voltage differences between the crankcase
>and the ground stud are insignificantly small.
I have a Cozy MK IV with the battery on the cockpit side of the
firewall. I have approximately two feet of cable connecting the -ve to
crankcase ground so length cant be an issue. The issue is that there
are two additional connections and a couple of feet of #2 cable
separating the engine ground from the "forest of tabs". Using the
numbers from your paper this gives 1.3 mohm of resistance. Assuming you
have an alternator sourcing say 40 amps you now have 50 mV ground
difference which is also rectified AC i.e. noise. Now as you have said
it is difficult to get better than 0.5miliohm per connection and with
time and sloppy maintenance the number grows to something that is
unacceptable. All this just because the ground reference was not
defined appropriately.
>If the battery is aft of the firewall, then the
>most practical battery ground is the firewall
>ground stud . . . or to the airframe on an all
>metal airplane.
OK I have a plastic aeroplane so airframe is not an option but I still
feel the firewall is a bad choice.
>>OK I've now started to run and get my flame suit on.
>Zero risk from me sir . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Reading Potentiometer Values |
I have a handful of potentiometers at home and I want to verify the ohms
rating of each. What is the best/easiest or cheapest way to determine
their rating? The only real equipment I have is a simple DC tester with
ohms values. I will be using one to control the audio volume between my
D180 & GMA340.
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 12V Power Socket |
Absolutely, if you think about it for just a second, these things are no
different than a standard light bulb socket. Touch the center contact
and you'll light up; touch the ring and your still here. When people
used to smoke everyone knew the center contact had to touch to make the
heat and the cool ground was the outside. After too many cigarettes you
got stinky fingers and the contact would begin to fail and loose heat
thus becoming less of a conductor between the center and the shell. If
the shell were a on the + side of the ship, your 63 Chevy's steel panel
would still be smoking.
Glenn
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Girard
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 12V Power Socket
Positive is the center (spring loaded plunger on the plug), ground is
the shell (two flat connectors along the side of the plug).
Rick
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Andrew Butler
wrote:
Hello,
I am wiring up a 12V (cigarette lighter) power socket into my panel.
Can anyone tell me the convention for the +ve and -terminals on these
things?
Thanks,
Andrew.
-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
One caveat on P & P alts. The one I had came with what I'll call a cheap
Molex connector for the field wire etc. I replaced it with sold wiring
after it vibrated and sheared itself off for the second time. I now use
and internal job and have not had any issues. It's all about the core
quality. Alternators are one of the biggest scams in automotive history.
They cost about $10.00 to rebuild and the vendors charge you an arm and
a leg.
As Frank mentioned, start with a good core and stick with it. I'm using
one off a Porsche and it works like a champ.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
(Corvallis)"
In that case send that alternator back to Vans and exchange it for the
plane power unit...Trying to use the B&C regulator (which it was not
designed for) is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig..Its still a pig!
I futzed with a rebuilt alternator for a while and had a couple of scary
moments in IMC..then I changed to the Plane power and its been faultless
ever since. They come with a wonderful reputation. No electrical noise,
just fit (with the supplied brackets) and forget it.
On An all electric IFR airplane the alternator is not the place to be
making shortcuts!!!..The extra couple of hundred bucks is WELL spent.
Frank
RV7a..all electric IFR including 2* EI's and the fuel pumps!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade
Roe
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
The alternator from Vans is a reconditioned Japanese automobile unit
(Honda?) that came with the firewall forward kit. I figured the B&C
linear regulator to be a superior/cleaner product than that on the
alternator.
The plane will be IFR and all electric.
Wade Roe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator with built-in regulator |
Me too..I found that the SD8 was adequate and remember I run electric fuel pumps..One
of them MUST be running or I become a glider.
I have a GNS 430W, transponder etc etc and found that with sensible load management
the SD8 would maintian the battery volts at 12..Not enough to charge the
battery but it would keep up with the load.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade Roe
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with built-in regulator
Roger that. I plan to use the B&C 8 amp alternator or the 20 amp as backup.
Wade Roe
IPhone message
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: State of the art - then and now |
Great stuff Bob!
"The more things change the more they stay the same."
Thanks for sharing...
C. Stone
I'm in possession of several issues of the Electrical
Experimenter circa 1916. This hobbyist/amateur/semi-
professional publication offered a newsstand source
for both understanding and state of the art news in
a range of technologies.
I'm using one of these magazines as reference for a
science history presentation I'm doing. I've scanned it
for sharing and thought I would post it for those
having an interest in such things. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ofbj3c
It's interesting to see the depth and scope of interests
illustrated on these pages. It's also interesting to
see a level of hucksterism and quackery not unlike
that which pours forth in today's video and print media!
See pdf pages 7, 25, 62 (violet rays), 65 (Pandiculator).
But the casually discriminating eye can easily identify
and appreciate the good stuff of which there is plenty.
Hope you enjoy browsing this piece of technological history.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reading Potentiometer Values |
Hi Glenn,
It sounds like you have what you need. Measure the resistance (ohms)
between the two outside pins. That will tell you what the resistance
of the pot is. There is another consideration when selecting a pot.
There linear and "audio" taper pots. A linear pot will change
resistance linearly with pot rotation. Turn it half way between CCW
and CW will give a reading of 1/2 the total resistance. An audio taper
will change exponentially. Rotating half way between CCW and CW will
result in a lower resistance between the center pin and the CCW pin and
a higher resistance between the center pin and the CW pin. The audio
taper is probably the best choice for your application.
Also, there should be some markings on the pot that will tell you what
value the pot is. Picking up a couple of random pots from by work
bench, one is marked "200 (ohm) LIN" which is pretty straightforward to
decode. the other is marked "A100K" which clearly indicates it is a
100 kohm pot, and I would guess the "A" means audio taper but I would
have to check.
(There are pots that aren't configured quite as described, but it
should work for most run of the mill pots.)
Bob W.
wrote:
>
> I have a handful of potentiometers at home and I want to verify the ohms
> rating of each. What is the best/easiest or cheapest way to determine
> their rating? The only real equipment I have is a simple DC tester with
> ohms values. I will be using one to control the audio volume between my
> D180 & GMA340.
>
> Thanks,
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 12V Power Socket |
It depends on what you want to accomplish. If you wire it to the buss side
of the master you can power your panel from it during the build. But if you
wire it to the battery side of the master you can power accessories or
trickle charge the battery without turning on the master. There are pluses &
minuses both ways. Think it through and decide what's best for you.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> ground. You should wire the scocket to powerthe panel with
> out turning the master on.
> I have mine that way so I can play with the panel with out
> using the aircraft battery. I have a little cpmpressor /
> battery unit that I take to the hanger and keeps the tires
> up and lets me run my glass panel for setting up a trip etc.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Grey code output to multiple devices |
Folks,
I have a Narco AR 850 grey code altitude reporter. I would like to connect it
to two devices (GPS and transponder) instead of just the transponder. The serial
port on the GPS is being used for something else and it has grey code lines
also.
Both the GPS and transponder have diode suppression in the grey code lines in order
to prevent an off unit from dropping the signal to low.
What say ye.....can I do this - or will smoke escape....?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Reading Potentiometer Values |
Excellent,
Thanks Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
White
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reading Potentiometer Values
Hi Glenn,
It sounds like you have what you need. Measure the resistance (ohms)
between the two outside pins. That will tell you what the resistance
of the pot is. There is another consideration when selecting a pot.
There linear and "audio" taper pots. A linear pot will change
resistance linearly with pot rotation. Turn it half way between CCW
and CW will give a reading of 1/2 the total resistance. An audio taper
will change exponentially. Rotating half way between CCW and CW will
result in a lower resistance between the center pin and the CCW pin and
a higher resistance between the center pin and the CW pin. The audio
taper is probably the best choice for your application.
Also, there should be some markings on the pot that will tell you what
value the pot is. Picking up a couple of random pots from by work
bench, one is marked "200 (ohm) LIN" which is pretty straightforward to
decode. the other is marked "A100K" which clearly indicates it is a
100 kohm pot, and I would guess the "A" means audio taper but I would
have to check.
(There are pots that aren't configured quite as described, but it
should work for most run of the mill pots.)
Bob W.
wrote:
>
> I have a handful of potentiometers at home and I want to verify the
ohms
> rating of each. What is the best/easiest or cheapest way to determine
> their rating? The only real equipment I have is a simple DC tester
with
> ohms values. I will be using one to control the audio volume between
my
> D180 & GMA340.
>
> Thanks,
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reading Potentiometer Values |
At 09:23 AM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>I have a handful of potentiometers at home and I want to verify the ohms
>rating of each. What is the best/easiest or cheapest way to determine
>their rating? The only real equipment I have is a simple DC tester with
>ohms values. I will be using one to control the audio volume between my
>D180 & GMA340.
For simple volume control duties, simply
knowing the resistance value is sufficient.
Further, it's unlikely that the exact value
is critical. Potentiometers with values
ranging from 500 to perhaps as high as
10000 ohms would work for you. It's an
easy experiment and zero risk to the rest
of your system.
Digital multi-meters are inexpensive. Harbor
Freight has one that seems to be perpetually
on sale for under $5.
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: Alternator with built-in regulator |
At 08:51 AM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>Roger that. I plan to use the B&C 8 amp alternator or the 20 amp as
>backup.
Most builders find the SD-8 to be adquate to the
task. Consider Figure 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: Grounding philosophy |
So Ground point number one is the "forest of tabs" and ground point
number two is the engine crankcase when the alternator, starter motor,
and most engine sensors make their ground. I.e. there is not a single
point ground. In an ideal world where #2 gauge wires and
interconnections have zero resistance but, as you point out in your
document, this is not the case.
Let's not get wrapped around the axle for defining
"single point ground". The better term is perhaps
a central ground point from which the rest of the
ground system radiates. Now, there can be and often
is further spreading from nodes remote from the
central ground. One example is the crankcase from which
numerous grounded sensors find a reference. See
Figure Z-15 (three sheets).
Risks of system performance degrading due to currents
circulating in the ground system are reduced if not
eliminated by first avoiding multiple grounds within
any single system that are not co-located. In the
case of engine instruments with grounded sensors,
taking the ground returns for panel mounted instruments
back to the crankcase makes the crankcase a "single
point ground" for that suite of instruments.
Figure Z-15 speaks to a variety of grounding options
for accessories located all over the airplane. None
of those illustrations suggests that ALL grounds
be brought to a single-point be it the crankcase
or forest of tabs. What those drawing DO illustrate
is making a distinction between potential noise
victims, noise antagonists and breaking the ground
loop coupling mode.
They should not have to be a special case if wired correctly. When
everything references the crankcase there is no special case. The
problem is that when the installation is done all the connections are
clean and the installer usually knows what he is doing. A few years
down the road an unknowledgeable person does not prepare the electrical
bonding surface as well as he should and then problems start happening
when current starts to flow through the circuit. Using the philosophy
that I have given, these problems are reduced significantly, which in my
opinion makes for a better design.
Define "wired correctly". In the TC aviation world
we're very much aware of the problems associated
with engine sensors conforming to legacy automotive
conventions of grounding to the block. In the 1957
Chevy, the grounded oil pressure "sender" is
"wired correctly". In a 1995 Beechjet, this product
would not be considered for a host of reasons not
the least of which is "incorrect wiring" for design
goals imposed on the project. But if my boss says
"Put this 1957 oil pressure gage in that airplane"
I can get 'er done with zero risk of degraded
performance induced by poor grounding decisions.
Again, "Smoking ground returns" are avoided if you use my design
solution.
I'm not suggesting that there is but one solution
for avoiding smoking grounds or ground loop induced
noise. If you choose to use the crankcase as your
"single point ground" . . . is it your intention to
take all the ground wires from ship's electro-whizzies
to the crankcase? That could make for a really big
bundle of wires through the firewall. If you grounded
EVERYTHING to the crankcase, would you still ground
the p-lead shields at both ends?
>Batteries go to crankcases in cars because the battery
>always sits right next to the engine.
In the old days the battery ground went straight to the bodywork and
then there was an engine strap in a different location which coupled the
body to the engine. I'm not sure when the change occurred but I would
guess that it occurred somewhere soon after the first electronic systems
were implemented. I changed the battery on my neighbours Audi a couple
of years ago and that had the battery under the rear seats. The ground
lead did not go straight to the body but I can't be sure that it went
all the way to the front either. I surmise that if it did not go
directly to the body it would probably make the full journey to the
engine.
Which is anecdotal to what we're discussing here.
Exactly how you achieve low resistance, minimum
parts count, no-loop architecture for grounds in
your airplane has many recipes for success as long
as the components are assembled with understanding.
But let us take care that we don't confuse 1800+
readers of this List with some notion that the crankcase
is the touchstone of grounds . . . this simply isn't so.
I have a Cozy MK IV with the battery on the cockpit side of the
firewall. I have approximately two feet of cable connecting the -ve to
crankcase ground so length cant be an issue. The issue is that there
are two additional connections and a couple of feet of #2 cable
separating the engine ground from the "forest of tabs". Using the
numbers from your paper this gives 1.3 mohm of resistance. Assuming you
have an alternator sourcing say 40 amps you now have 50 mV ground
difference which is also rectified AC i.e. noise. Now as you have said
it is difficult to get better than 0.5miliohm per connection and with
time and sloppy maintenance the number grows to something that is
unacceptable. All this just because the ground reference was not
defined appropriately.
I think you're sifting the sand here. There
is NO electrical system for any vehicle that is
not plagued with beeps, burps, hums, spikes and
assorted perturbations of voltage a LOT bigger
than your hypothesis. In the TC aircraft world
we KNOW that those noises exist and we design
to live with them. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/DO-160.pdf
The voltage levels you hypothesize are of
no significance if potentially vulnerable
systems don't see them because ground loops have
been eliminated. Making sure the loops don't exist
is easy if you understand your system integration
task. It matters not whether the system follows
legacy automotive design goals or modern aviation
design goals. BOTH technologies can be successfully
integrated into the OBAM aircraft.
>If the battery is aft of the firewall, then the
>most practical battery ground is the firewall
>ground stud . . . or to the airframe on an all
>metal airplane.
OK I have a plastic aeroplane so airframe is not an option but I still
feel the firewall is a bad choice.
A "bad choice" only if you allow ground
loops to exist without evaluating their potential
for influencing system performance. Please
wire in any manner that gives you comfort.
All I'm offering is a constellation of options
based on many recipes for success. Virtually
ALL of those recipes call for elimination of
ground loops that offer a potential for problems.
NONE of those recipes treats any location or
component of the ground system as the Nirvana
of grounds.
The forest-of-tabs offers a level of convenience
for the majority of system grounds for devices
both sides of the firewall. Having this device
be 'central' to the ship's ground system
makes sense . . . especially if the engine
sensors are "wired correctly" in observance of
modern aircraft design goals. But even if they
are not, the third sheet of Z15 suggests how the
1950's design goals can be accommodated in a 2009
RV.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 07:58 AM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>My first post to this site. I'm working on an rv-10. I thought I
>understood the grounding once you gave the below explanation to Bill W.
>
>One and two are clear. I read #3 as putting a jumper across an
>individual mount t0 both sides of a single biscuit. In a later
>post, you advise "any bonding jumpers across the engine mounts are
>best removed" to avoid parallel grounds. Equally, the Connection
>speaks of a single point ground at firewall. Is this a contradiction
>or does it refer to not having jumpers between two completely separate mounts?
No, I was referencing a project-in-process where an
already too-small 8AWG battery(-) wire was installed.
Upsizing that wire was not an attractive option.
The work-around involved the used of jumper straps
around the shock mount biscuits and local battery grounds.
Now, if you're starting from scratch and your
battery is located near the firewall, that
posting was not applicable to you. Use NO
JUMPERS on the engine mount biscuits. Wire
as suggested in chapter 5 and Figure Z-15.
Welcome to the List!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
Thanks Bob.
Sorry to beat a dead horse but I need one more clarification. Your
response
mentions "if battery near firewall". The batteries are actually both in
the
aft area. Can the battery be locally grounded to airframe at site of
battery (metal frame craft) with B&C tab forest on firewall for grounds
and
engine ground?
Or is best solution still to run a 2awg ground wire up to firewall and
proceed with grounding to tab forest as above?
Thanks,
Tom
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Engine mount as starter ground path
At 07:58 AM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
My first post to this site. I=12m working on an
rv-10. I thought I understood the grounding once you gave the below
explanation to Bill W.
One and two are clear. I read #3 as putting a
jumper across an individual mount t0 both sides of a single
biscuit. In a later post, you advise =13any bonding jumpers across
the engine mounts are best removed=14 to avoid parallel grounds.
Equally,
the Connection speaks of a single point ground at firewall. Is this a
contradiction or does it refer to not having jumpers between two
completely separate mounts?
No, I was referencing a project-in-process where an
already too-small 8AWG battery(-) wire was installed.
Upsizing that wire was not an attractive option.
The work-around involved the used of jumper straps
around the shock mount biscuits and local battery grounds.
Now, if you're starting from scratch and your
battery is located near the firewall, that
posting was not applicable to you. Use NO
JUMPERS on the engine mount biscuits. Wire
as suggested in chapter 5 and Figure Z-15.
Welcome to the List!
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: Engine mount as starter ground path |
At 07:34 PM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob.
>Sorry to beat a dead horse but I need one more clarification. Your
>response mentions "if battery near firewall". The batteries are
>actually both in the aft area. Can the battery be locally grounded
>to airframe at site of battery (metal frame craft) with B&C tab
>forest on firewall for grounds and engine ground?
>
>Or is best solution still to run a 2awg ground wire up to firewall
>and proceed with grounding to tab forest as above?
>
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
>----------
You say "both batteries". Which Z-figure are
you crafting?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount as starter ground path |
The RV-10 by necessity and design has the battery(s) located in the
tailcone to partly offset the weight of the IO-540 up front.
Given that the structure from the battery location to the firewall is
all riveted aluminum in the lower half of the fuselage there likely is a
solid ground path. Running a fat wire to parallel that ground path, or
to replace it doesn't appear to be all that good an option.
Kelly
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> No, I was referencing a project-in-process where an
> already too-small 8AWG battery(-) wire was installed.
> Upsizing that wire was not an attractive option.
> The work-around involved the used of jumper straps
> around the shock mount biscuits and local battery grounds.
>
> Now, if you're starting from scratch and your
> battery is located near the firewall, that
> posting was not applicable to you. Use NO
> JUMPERS on the engine mount biscuits. Wire
> as suggested in chapter 5 and Figure Z-15.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
If it's not too much trouble, can you please PM me the KX 125 manual also? I'm
adding a second com and need to patch into the harness for my 125.
Thanks,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245836#245836
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
done
iconoclast wrote:
>
> If it's not too much trouble, can you please PM me the KX 125 manual also? I'm
adding a second com and need to patch into the harness for my 125.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245836#245836
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> |
I want to install a plug in my panel to plug my stereo Walkman into but my intercom
(PM1000 II) is mono. Can I just splice the Right and Left leads together
to go into the intercom? Also the intercom pins are labeled "HI" and "LOW". Is
this just the pin identification numbers?
--------
Don McIntosh
Kitfox Series 7 under construction
Jabiru 3300
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245926#245926
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stereo to Mono |
At 12:58 PM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I want to install a plug in my panel to plug my stereo Walkman into
>but my intercom (PM1000 II) is mono. Can I just splice the Right and
>Left leads together to go into the intercom? Also the intercom pins
>are labeled "HI" and "LOW". Is this just the pin identification numbers?
Put a 100 ohm, 1/4w resistor in series with the two
stereo output before bringing them together at the
"HI" input terminal. The "LOW" terminal is ground.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stereo to Mono |
| From: | "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the answer. OK, so behind the panel, where do you mount these resistors,
or are they just soldered in-line with heat shrink over them?BTW I am in
process of reading your book.
--------
Don McIntosh
Kitfox Series 7 under construction
Jabiru 3300
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245963#245963
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stereo to Mono |
At 05:08 PM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>Thanks for the answer. OK, so behind the panel, where do you mount
>these resistors, or are they just soldered in-line with heat shrink over them?
Given the relatively low priority for
comfortable terminaion of flight, I think
I'd build them into the wire bundle and
heat shrink 'em. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Homeless/Homeless_Components.htm
>BTW I am in process of reading your book.
Great! If you have any questions, post them
here on the List.
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: | Under-Glareshield GPS/WAAS Antenna |
5/29/2009
Hello Fellow Listers, A while back there was a thread initiated by a
question on where to best mount a GPS WAAS antenna.
Below is a copy of an FAA SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS INFORMATION BULLETIN that
relates to tlhis subject. A couple of comments:
1) 3MT Dual LockT is 3M's version of a Velcro like product.
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/gertie/superlock.htm
2) My GNS 430W antenna mounted on an aluminum shelf under the fiberglass
fuselage shell forward of the windshield on my KIS TR-1 has given excellent
service. The antenna is mounted with machine screws.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==========================================================
1
FAA
Aircraft Certification Service
SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
INFORMATION BULLETIN
SUBJ: Navigation: Cirrus Aircraft Under-Glareshield GPS/WAAS Antenna SAIB:
CE-09-32
Mount Date: May 29, 2009
This is information only. Recommendations aren't mandatory.
Introduction
This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin is being issued to alert
owners and installers to an
airworthiness concern regarding under-glareshield mounted antennas that may
cause loss of Global
Positioning System/Wide-Area Augmentation System (GPS/WAAS) navigation
service on Cirrus
Design Corporation (Cirrus) Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This Special
Airworthiness
Information Bulletin applies to all Cirrus aircraft with GPS/WAAS antennas
installed using the
original under-glareshield mounting location when replacing the non-WAAS GPS
antenna.
The airworthiness concern is not an unsafe condition that would warrant
airworthiness directive (AD)
action under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 39.
Background
Cirrus originally incorporated an internal mounting location under the
aircraft glareshield for non-
WAAS GPS antennas on the Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes as part of the
aircraft type design.
These antennas were secured using the 3MT Dual LockT Reclosable Fastener
SJ3552 (Type 170)
engaged to 3MT Dual LockT Reclosable Fastener SJ3551 (Type 400). This method
to secure the
antennas was evaluated during the type certification process and found
satisfactory.
To upgrade the non-WAAS GPS equipment to GPS/WAAS capability requires new
antennas that
may be installed in the same location using the same fastener method as the
non-WAAS antennas.
There are two potential issues for GPS/WAAS service associated with the
under-glareshield
mounting location and fastener method: 1) robustness of the antenna mounting
method; and 2)
Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) service interruption due
to signal loss from
airframe shadowing. Both issues affect service availability and may
ultimately result in loss of
GPS/WAAS navigation capability. Loss of GPS/WAAS navigation capability
requires the operator to
rely on other on-board navigation equipment that may not have area
navigation or LPV capability.
Antenna Mounting Robustness
Two service difficulty reports (S8Y2008F00000 and 2007FA0000554) indicate
the possibility for
antennas secured using the 3MT Dual LockT fastener system to detach, which
would result in loss
of navigation. A detached antenna will not have an adequate field of view to
receive satellite signals
resulting in loss of GPS/WAAS navigation.
Airframe Shadowing
Cirrus airplanes use composite construction, which, unlike metal aircraft,
is essentially transparent to
radio signals. There is always concern that metal components such as
engines, instrument panels, or
embedded metal mesh for lightening protection can affect GPS/WAAS signal
reception for internally
mounted antennas. Antenna location, even on composite aircraft, can have an
affect on GPS/WAAS
2
signal availability due to signal shadowing and/or attenuation effects.
Shadowing and attenuation are
more critical during LPV operations due to the more stringent requirements
receivers must meet.
The current receiver and antenna performance standards use a conservative
estimate for intra-system
noise environment and antenna gain patterns that provides significant signal
margin. However, the
margin available today will gradually decrease as new systems, signals, and
satellites come on-line
over the next decade. This decrease could potentially cause decreased LPV
availability or loss of
GPS/WAAS navigation on Cirrus aircraft with antennas mounted under the
glareshield.
Recommendations
We recommend that owners and operators of Cirrus Models SR20 and SR22
airplanes using the
under-glareshield location for GPS/WAAS antennas relocate the antennas to
upper fuselage external
locations following Cirrus Optional Service Bulletins SB 2X-34-23 R1 (for
aircraft without a primary
flight display) or SB 2X-34-24 R1 (for aircraft with a primary flight
display). Relocating the
antennas according to the Optional Service Bulletins provides a more robust
antenna mounting; and
assures maximum GPS/WAAS signal reception for optimum service availability
when performing
LPV instrument approaches.
To obtain copies of Cirrus Optional Service Bulletins SB 2X-34-23 R1 or SB
2X-34-24 R1, contact
Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle Duluth, MN 5581-1548 or visit
their website at
www.cirruslink.com/mycirrus/servicepubs.aspx.
For Further Information Contact
Kevin J. Bridges, General Engineer, AIR-130; phone: (202) 385-4627; fax:
(202) 385-4651; e-mail:
kevin.bridges(at)faa.gov.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stereo to Mono |
At 06:24 PM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
> Just a quick question. It the resistor to lower the
> voltage at the intercom or is it related to what the CD player
> output sees? Or something completely different. If it is to lower
> the voltage, should the voltage be in the same range as the other
> inputs to the intercom?
The resistors are a crude "audio mixer" that
gives you a mono-average of right and
left channels. It also isolates the right
and left audio amplifiers from each other so
that diverse audio signal levels in the
two channels don't cause the two amplifiers
to arm-wrestle.
The resistors can be lower . . . say the
same as for MP3 player headphones . . .
33 ohms. But you probably won't hear much
loss of signal that cannot be compensated
for by turning up the volume on the audio
device.
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> |
5/30/2009
Hello Don, You wrote: "I want to install a plug in my panel to plug my
stereo Walkman into but my intercom (PM1000 II) is mono."
Here is one way to solve that problem --
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102669
This adapter will put the output of a mono jack on your panel into both
sides of your stereo Walkman.
May 13, 2009 - May 30, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ir