AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-km

June 02, 2011 - July 01, 2011



         one and why?" Finally, "If I do need one, is it
         not better to deduce the driving deficiency and
         correct that as opposed to pasting on a band-aid?"
      
      It's the same as how Bob K. could care less about
      really helping people design better alternator
      integrations with internally regulated alternators.
      
         Say what? You seem to recall nothing of the
         thousands of words I have published on my
         website, written for this forum, and published
         in my book.
      
      So you're really on your
      own or need to rely on the other people in
      the forum to fill in the blanks.
      
         Please do fill in the blanks. Please quote
         any paragraph from the List-Server archives,
         from my website or my book wherein I have
         "bad mouthed" any alternator of any style.
      
         In fact, here is an exchange in which both
         you and I were participants:
      
      http://tinyurl.com/65lze95
      
         The Plane Power is an internally regulated
         alternator NOT designed by me that has
         been modified to meet legacy design goals
         for engine driven power sources. Check
         out latest revision to chapter on Alternators
         in the book. You can download it for free.
      
      Personally, I own neither TCW's IBBS nor their
      power stabilizer....they simply weren't around
      when I was building my panel.
      
          But they COULD have been. DC-DC converters
          are 60-year old technology. Most avionics
          include one in their architecture. Standby
          batteries are text-book implementations dating
          back decades.
      
          Why, just now, is it suddenly a GOOD thing
          to start pasting these devices into what
          MIGHT be a perfectly workable system without
          them? Is it not better to leave such devices
          on the ground if a work-around offers the
          opportunity with less cost, weight and complexity
          without sacrificing failure tolerance?
      
        But, I had design
      goals similar to yours. I wanted redundancy,
      reliability, endurance, and no headaches during
      startup.
      
          Your design goals are impressive, lengthy,
          and certainly "covers all the bases." They
          give one pause to wonder how single-engine,
          general aviation aircraft got on so admirably
          with so little hardware and so few backups
          to backups thrown in with the kitchen sink.
      
         
      
      It's just too bad that Bob K. doesn't spend more
      time actually trying to understand the products
      that 90% of the current builder crop will be using.
      
          ??? I'm mystified as to the source of information
          to support your assertions. You don't need a
          direct pipeline into the inner workings of any
          product for the purpose of deducing (1) the
          need for such a device to meet a design goal
          and (2) suitability of the device to the task
          and (3) return on investment for buying,
          installing, maintaining and fuel to carry
          it around for the lifetime of the aircraft.
      
      It would really be nice to get useful info on
      some specific systems, from someone as knowledgeable
      as he.  But as it is, buy the book, read the
      book, understand Bob's underlying philosophies,
      because they're good.  But then realize that
      if it's not in the book, you're going to need
      to ask other builders for help, because he's
      probably not going to take enough interest in your
      exact product layout to give you good guidance.
      
      Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
      
          Tim, I'm truly at a loss to bring your
          assertions into alignment with published,
          archived and readily researchable fact.
      
          Please understand that this ol' horse
          has not yet been turned out to pasture nor
          has his interest and attention in things
          modern been diluted in the slightest.
      
         Bob . . . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Power Stabilizer
At 06:12 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: > > >You're right Bob ... I have no idea if the D700 will reboot on start ... >maybe not, but I am cranking an IO-540. Yes, no doubt I am overcapitalising >and weighing down the aircraft by chasing shadows in some areas. If I'd been >smart I would have first explained that I don't have a vaccum system or a >backup alternator But it's easy to add later. An given that you don't have it now suggests that your design goals based on anticipated use of the airplane do not call for it. > so I will be more comfortable with a separate backup >battery in an emergency (which may not needed either). Okay, how is it that you intend to use this airplane? Do you plan to operate with some frequency in flight environments that could not be navigated with this suite of tools? http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly In other words, do you anticipate flights that are so hardware critical that you cannot extract yourself comfortably from a case of "dark panel syndrome?" I've flown aircraft from ultra-lights (with nothing) to A-36 (with a panel full of goodies). But in 1000 hours I've spent perhaps 30 minutes total in IMC and that for the purpose of poking through a cloud layer. That 1000 hours includes no small percentage of time over unfriendly terrain and/or night flight. The manner in which I used airplanes had a very low risk of reversion to the tools in my flight bag . . . indeed, I was never presented with the situation. But any of those flights could have been low risk accomplishments with the master switch OFF. If your anticipated used of the airplane demands that things work for the purposed of reducing risk, exactly which items and do you plan backups for those items? Not knowing oil pressure for the first seconds of start up is an exceedingly low risk feature on an airplane engine. The admonition for 'checking oil pressure with a hand on the mixture' may have been a useful admonition way back when. I suppose somebody may have experienced a pump failure at start-up sometime . . . but I don't know of any. I've never observed it in any engine driven machine. Yet it seems that folks are willing to pile extra costs, weight, complexity (read reduced reliability) into their airplane just to be rewarded with seeing those numbers rise as they always have. Having devices on board that routinely reboot during starter inrush brown-out can be accommodated by a start-up procedure that tolerates the effect and without adding weight or complexity to the system. This is a 'connect the dots' exercise that depends on you describing all the dots. We can assist with that but the exercise is placed at risk by not having a list of all the dots . . . or having one or more dots mis- identified. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Repacing coax
At 11:11 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: > > >Hi Bob, > >I've been working on getting my 1983 Long-EZ back to flying >condition. It has RG-58 coax and BNC's with a soldered center >conductor and the screw together compression fitting for the >exterior shielding. There are also splices done with BNC's to >change radios over the years. There have been issues with the >transponder and the com transmitter (copper foil antenna in the >winglet) over the years. Is it worth while from a performance >perspective to swap out the RG-58 and replace it with RG-400 and new >crimp connectors? If this is worth doing, how do I deal with the >coax coming out of the BNC's on the radio trays? Can the RG-400 be >spliced to the RG-59 just beyond the the tray BNC's? > > >Sheldon Olesen > >Sent from my iPad > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: OOPS_Repacing coax
Sorry, accidently hit the 'send' button too soon . . . > message posted by: Sheldon Olesen > >Hi Bob, > >I've been working on getting my 1983 Long-EZ back to flying >condition. It has RG-58 coax and BNC's with a soldered center >conductor and the screw together compression fitting for the >exterior shielding. There are also splices done with BNC's to >change radios over the years. There have been issues with the >transponder and the com transmitter (copper foil antenna in the >winglet) over the years. How does the wire look? Still pliable? Are the connectors on tight (i.e. do not rotate if lightly twisted). RG-58 is a legacy materials product with vulnerabilities and performance issues that have improved with RG-400 et. als. But it is not a pariah wire to be purged. >Is it worth while from a performance perspective to swap out the >RG-58 and replace it with RG-400 and new crimp connectors? If the installed wire is in good shape, the runs are usually so short in a light aircraft as to offer little improvement on performance for making a change. It's a matter for your personal sense of craftsmanship. If you can get at the RG-58 runs, the time and cost of replacing them is small in the grand scheme of things . . . but there are no technical imperatives for doing it. >If this is worth doing, how do I deal with the coax coming out of >the BNC's on the radio trays? Those connectors can be opened, de-soldered and refurbished with new wire . . . assuming you have the tools and talents. >Can the RG-400 be spliced to the RG-59 just beyond the the tray BNC's? Yes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC Modules
At 02:36 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: > >I might have missed the message, but are these now available ? or what is >the current status ? Software is in development. I'm planning to turn the electrical system in my truck to a Z-11 so I can use the vehicle as a test bed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
At 01:47 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: > > >Bob, > >Can you tell me how much current the 1/2" wide (.025 thick) brass bus bar >stock that B&C sells can comfortably handle? It would be a short piece, >about 3 inches long if that makes a difference? It will carry a LOT of current but it does have a significant temperature rise if subjected to starter currents. .025 is a bit skinny. I think all the brass (and copper) straps I've seen on airplanes is at least .050 if not thicker. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Contactor_Interconnect/ Brass has a small fraction the electrical conductivity of copper. Look for a display like this: Emacs! In your hardware store or hobby shop. I think it includes copper sheets in .025 which would be much better and probably adequate. Also consider soldering up a short piece of welding cable with terminals of appropriate spacing. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf Brass isn't out of the question . . . but it's not the best choice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
Now, for the final test.....the joystick button. Plugged it in, pushed it, and voila'!! Works like a champ!! I can now say that everything functions as it should!! I really appreciate your help and pointers, Mike and Vern. Thanks a million!! Now, I can start the final stages of the plane construction. Good work guys. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
Date: Jun 02, 2011
I still think that you may have the 1N4148 diode wired in reverse. The 10K=99s should have worked, but the 4.7K=99s may be enough current to forward bias the diode and the base-emitter junction of the 2N3904. The band on the diode should connect to the transistor. V From: Mike Welch Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:44 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit Vern & Mike L, Rather than rebuild the whole thing, I went ahead and made the changes you guys suggested. I replaced those two 10K resistors in the alarm circuit with two 4.7K's. These were the resistors that went to each leg of the activation leads. I didn't replace any of the 10Ks in any of the rest of the alarm circuit. Next, I added a 22K resistor, rather than the straight wire that was there, between pins 6&7 on the 555. I didn't add the capacitor that you referred to, Mike, that went from pin 6 to ground , on the 555. I figured if it didn't act right, I'd try it. Besides, I didn't have a value, so I didn't know what size would work the best. The results: On the table, it works perfect, just like before!! Now, for the test that really matters.....the plane. I dropped it in place, hooked up the LEDs, and the +12 & neg leads. Then I ran a jumper wire from the instrument bus to the light blue wire. Works perfect!! So far, so good!! Now, for the hurdle I couldn't seem to get over!! Unhooked the light blue wire, and hooked up the green.....IT WORKS!!! Progress finally!! Now, for the final test.....the joystick button. Plugged it in, pushed it, and voila'!! Works like a champ!! I can now say that everything functions as it should!! I really appreciate your help and pointers, Mike and Vern. Thanks a million!! Now, I can start the final stages of the plane construction. Mike Welch ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
Date: Jun 02, 2011
Hi Vern=2C I think I verified that it was correct=2C when I was replacing those resi sotrs....but I will double-check=2C and get back to you. Thanks=2C Mike W From: sprocket@vx-aviation.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit Date: Thu=2C 2 Jun 2011 17:08:02 -0700 I still think that you may have the 1N4148 diode wired in reverse. The 10K =92s should have worked=2C but the 4.7K=92s may be enough current to forwar d bias the diode and the base-emitter junction of the 2N3904. The band on the diode should connect to the transistor. V From: Mike Welch Sent: Wednesday=2C June 01=2C 2011 11:44 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit Vern & Mike L=2C Rather than rebuild the whole thing=2C I went ahead and made the changes you guys suggested. I replaced those two 10K resistors in the alarm circuit with two 4.7K's. These were the resistors that went to each leg of the activation leads. I didn't replace any of the 10Ks in any of the rest of the alarm circuit. Next=2C I added a 22K resistor=2C rather than the straight wire that was there=2C between pins 6&7 on the 555. I didn't add the capacitor that you referred to=2C Mike=2C that went from pin 6 to ground =2C on the 5 55. I figured if it didn't act right=2C I'd try it. Besides=2C I didn't have a value=2C so I didn't know what size would work the best. The results: On the table=2C it works perfect=2C just like before!! Now =2C for the test that really matters.....the plane. I dropped it in place=2C hooked up the LEDs=2C and the +12 & neg leads. Then I ran a jumper wire from the instrument bus to the light blue wire. Works perfect!! So far=2C so good!! Now=2C for the hurdle I couldn't seem to get over!! Unhooked the light blue wire=2C and hooked up the green.....IT WORKS!!! Progress finally!! Now=2C for the final test.....the joystick button. Plugged it in=2C push ed it=2C and voila'!! Works like a champ!! I can now say that everything functions as it should!! I really appreciate your help and pointers=2C Mike and Vern. Thanks a million!! Now=2C I can start the final stages of the plane construction. Mike Welch href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.ma tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Power Stabilizer
Date: Jun 04, 2011
G'day Bob, Yep, I plan to fly IFR often and I 'feel better' about backup, especially with my son sitting beside me - he likes lights and is afraid of the dark. In about 3500 hours, I've flown about 500 at night and about 500 in IMC. I've seen everything from catastrophic turbine failures to electrical fires and I don't like fumbling for my tool kit in the dark or wroking the family brain cell to hard. Yes, I have a handheld GPS, an LED torch and a handheld radio. I don't plan to use any of them in an emergency, cos I like using my hands to fly the aeroplane. My IBBS will power COM 2 and LED utility lights and the EFIS screens can run for 60 minutes each off their own backup batteries, or the IBBS if necessary. That should see me on the ground somewhere with runway lights .... in this particular vast country, where there is a LOT of uninhabited red dirt. Kind regards, Stu F1 Rocket VH-FLY <http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY> http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY www.teamrocketaircraft.com _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 3:54 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Power Stabilizer At 06:12 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: You're right Bob ... I have no idea if the D700 will reboot on start ... maybe not, but I am cranking an IO-540. Yes, no doubt I am overcapitalising and weighing down the aircraft by chasing shadows in some areas. If I'd been smart I would have first explained that I don't have a vaccum system or a backup alternator But it's easy to add later. An given that you don't have it now suggests that your design goals based on anticipated use of the airplane do not call for it. so I will be more comfortable with a separate backup battery in an emergency (which may not needed either). Okay, how is it that you intend to use this airplane? Do you plan to operate with some frequency in flight environments that could not be navigated with this suite of tools? http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly In other words, do you anticipate flights that are so hardware critical that you cannot extract yourself comfortably from a case of "dark panel syndrome?" I've flown aircraft from ultra-lights (with nothing) to A-36 (with a panel full of goodies). But in 1000 hours I've spent perhaps 30 minutes total in IMC and that for the purpose of poking through a cloud layer. That 1000 hours includes no small percentage of time over unfriendly terrain and/or night flight. The manner in which I used airplanes had a very low risk of reversion to the tools in my flight bag . . . indeed, I was never presented with the situation. But any of those flights could have been low risk accomplishments with the master switch OFF. If your anticipated used of the airplane demands that things work for the purposed of reducing risk, exactly which items and do you plan backups for those items? Not knowing oil pressure for the first seconds of start up is an exceedingly low risk feature on an airplane engine. The admonition for 'checking oil pressure with a hand on the mixture' may have been a useful admonition way back when. I suppose somebody may have experienced a pump failure at start-up sometime . . . but I don't know of any. I've never observed it in any engine driven machine. Yet it seems that folks are willing to pile extra costs, weight, complexity (read reduced reliability) into their airplane just to be rewarded with seeing those numbers rise as they always have. Having devices on board that routinely reboot during starter inrush brown-out can be accommodated by a start-up procedure that tolerates the effect and without adding weight or complexity to the system. This is a 'connect the dots' exercise that depends on you describing all the dots. We can assist with that but the exercise is placed at risk by not having a list of all the dots . . . or having one or more dots mis- identified. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2011
Subject: Re: Power Stabilizer
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
If your alternator quits, how long will your primary battery last? If you have a warning light that indicates that your alternator has failed, you can start your response immediately and make the most of that time. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Stuart Hutchison < stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> wrote: > G'day Bob, > > Yep, I plan to fly IFR often and I 'feel better' about backup, especially > with my son sitting beside me - he likes lights and is afraid of the dark. > In about 3500 hours, I've flown about 500 at night and about 500 in IMC. > I've seen everything from catastrophic turbine failures to electrical fires > and I don't like fumbling for my tool kit in the dark or wroking the family > brain cell to hard. Yes, I have a handheld GPS, an LED torch and a handheld > radio. I don't plan to use any of them in an emergency, cos I like using my > hands to fly the aeroplane. My IBBS will power COM 2 and LED utility lights > and the EFIS screens can run for 60 minutes each off their own backup > batteries, or the IBBS if necessary. That should see me on the ground > somewhere with runway lights .... in this particular vast country, where > there is a LOT of uninhabited red dirt. > > > Kind regards, Stu > > > F1 Rocket VH-FLY http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY > www.teamrocketaircraft.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert L. > Nuckolls, III > *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2011 3:54 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Power Stabilizer > > At 06:12 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: > > stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> > > You're right Bob ... I have no idea if the D700 will reboot on start ... > maybe not, but I am cranking an IO-540. Yes, no doubt I am > overcapitalising > and weighing down the aircraft by chasing shadows in some areas. If I'd > been > smart I would have first explained that I don't have a vaccum system or a > backup alternator > > > But it's easy to add later. An given that you don't > have it now suggests that your design goals based > on anticipated use of the airplane do not call > for it. > > so I will be more comfortable with a separate backup > battery in an emergency (which may not needed either). > > > Okay, how is it that you intend to use this airplane? > Do you plan to operate with some frequency in flight > environments that could not be navigated with this > suite of tools? > > *http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly* > > In other words, do you anticipate flights that > are so hardware critical that you cannot extract > yourself comfortably from a case of "dark panel > syndrome?" > > I've flown aircraft from ultra-lights (with > nothing) to A-36 (with a panel full of goodies). > But in 1000 hours I've spent perhaps 30 minutes > total in IMC and that for the purpose of > poking through a cloud layer. That 1000 hours > includes no small percentage of time over > unfriendly terrain and/or night flight. > > The manner in which I used airplanes had > a very low risk of reversion to the tools > in my flight bag . . . indeed, I was never > presented with the situation. But any of > those flights could have been low risk > accomplishments with the master switch OFF. > > If your anticipated used of the airplane > demands that things work for the purposed > of reducing risk, exactly which items and > do you plan backups for those items? > > Not knowing oil pressure for the first seconds > of start up is an exceedingly low risk > feature on an airplane engine. The admonition > for 'checking oil pressure with a hand on the > mixture' may have been a useful admonition way > back when. I suppose somebody may have > experienced a pump failure at start-up sometime > . . . but I don't know of any. I've never > observed it in any engine driven machine. > > Yet it seems that folks are willing to pile > extra costs, weight, complexity (read reduced > reliability) into their airplane just to > be rewarded with seeing those numbers > rise as they always have. > > Having devices on board that routinely reboot > during starter inrush brown-out can be > accommodated by a start-up procedure that > tolerates the effect and without adding weight > or complexity to the system. > > This is a 'connect the dots' exercise that > depends on you describing all the dots. We > can assist with that but the exercise is > placed at risk by not having a list of all > the dots . . . or having one or more dots mis- > identified. > > Bob . . . > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c* > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
Date: Jun 03, 2011
Vern=2C I just check for the orientation of the 1N4148. Yes=2C it is correct. T he 'band' end of the diode is sharing the 2N3904 base node (the center leg of the 3904). I turned the ignition on and did another joystick button check....still working grea t. By all accounts=2C and from what I can tell=2C everything appears to be operating very well now. I have a question for Bob Nuchols=2C Bob=2C Does it hurt the circuitry by changing just those two resistors from 10K to 4.7K? These were the ones that went to the Dynon alarm signal wire=2C and the tes t PTT switch. Maybe I exceeded the original design abilities of the 10K's (current requ irements) by adding in that 555/4017 cascading LED circuit. All I know at this point is it sure likes the 4.7K's! Will there be any deleterious consequences by not changing any of the oth er resistors in the Dynon Alarm circuit? Or=2C can I call it good? Thanks for all your help=2C guys. Mike Welch From: sprocket@vx-aviation.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit Date: Thu=2C 2 Jun 2011 17:08:02 -0700 I still think that you may have the 1N4148 diode wired in reverse. The 10K =92s should have worked=2C but the 4.7K=92s may be enough current to forwar d bias the diode and the base-emitter junction of the 2N3904. The band on the diode should connect to the transistor. V ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
Date: Jun 03, 2011
Bob N=2C My apologies for the mispelling of your name. Nuckolls=2C not Nuchols. Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Power Stabilizer
At 10:05 AM 6/3/2011, you wrote: >G'day Bob, > >Yep, I plan to fly IFR often and I 'feel better' about backup, >especially with my son sitting beside me - he likes lights and is >afraid of the dark. In about 3500 hours, I've flown about 500 at >night and about 500 in IMC. I've seen everything from catastrophic >turbine failures to electrical fires and I don't like fumbling for >my tool kit in the dark or wroking the family brain cell to hard. >Yes, I have a handheld GPS, an LED torch and a handheld radio. I >don't plan to use any of them in an emergency, cos I like using my >hands to fly the aeroplane. My IBBS will power COM 2 and LED >utility lights and the EFIS screens can run for 60 minutes each off >their own backup batteries, or the IBBS if necessary. That should >see me on the ground somewhere with runway lights .... in this >particular vast country, where there is a LOT of uninhabited red dirt. Understand. Why aren't you going with Z-13/8? That's a VERY bulletproof system and much less weight penalty, higher energy budgets and unlimited endurance. Around here, I prefer to fly after dark. The air gets smoother, cooler and you can see lightning strikes from a whole lot further away . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
At 12:44 PM 6/3/2011, you wrote: >Bob N, > > My apologies for the mispelling of your name. Nuckolls, not Nuchols. No problem, I've answered to all the above for decades. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Dynon alarm--LED part of the circuit
> > I have a question for Bob Nuchols, > >Bob, Does it hurt the circuitry by changing just those two resistors >from 10K to 4.7K? >These were the ones that went to the Dynon alarm signal wire, and the test PTT >switch. > Maybe I exceeded the original design abilities of the 10K's > (current requirements) >by adding in that 555/4017 cascading LED circuit. All I know at >this point is it sure >likes the 4.7K's! No, not at all. Those values were a WAG based on best judgement at the time for minimizing loads on the circuit being monitored . . . but always subject to tweaking based on observed behaviors. > > Will there be any deleterious consequences by not changing any of > the other >resistors in the Dynon Alarm circuit? Or, can I call it good? Probably not . . .within limits. For example, if you had to reduce a 1000 ohm resistor down to 100 ohms to get something to work, the 10:1 'miss' on the WAG may point to fundamental mis-understandings of how things are working . . . or not working. There's some level of risk for doing design, development and production by remote control. Not having it all spread out on the bench where you can poke, measure, observe and then validate or modify a circuit has some risks associated with it. Risks that you've suffered. Fortunately, there's little or no risk for what you're doing beyond failure to function. The power levels your dealing with are not going to set things on fire. >Thanks for all your help, guys. I was interesting in watching the exercise play out . . . and it MIGHT not be over yet. But much has been discovered so far. Y'all done good. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dougshep(at)netzero.com" <dougshep(at)NetZero.com>
Date: Jun 04, 2011
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
If soldering is not necessary, Could a strip of Aluminum be used for the bus bar? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 04, 2011
Thanks Bob, I found a strip of stainless. .028 thick X 3/4 wide. I believe the terminals of the BlueSea ANL holders are stainless. I applied some terminal conductive paste for corrosion control on the aluminum ring terminals. The Stainless strip connects the two ANL holders. We'll see how this combo holds up. All parts are easily accessible and replaceable if necessary after flying. Thanks for the responses. Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 11:27 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar At 01:47 AM 6/2/2011, you wrote: Bob, Can you tell me how much current the 1/2" wide (.025 thick) brass bus bar stock that B&C sells can comfortably handle? It would be a short piece, about 3 inches long if that makes a difference? It will carry a LOT of current but it does have a significant temperature rise if subjected to starter currents. .025 is a bit skinny. I think all the brass (and copper) straps I've seen on airplanes is at least .050 if not thicker. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Contactor_Interconnect/ <http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Contactor_Interconnect/> Brass has a small fraction the electrical conductivity of copper. Look for a display like this: Emacs! In your hardware store or hobby shop. I think it includes copper sheets in .025 which would be much better and probably adequate. Also consider soldering up a short piece of welding cable with terminals of appropriate spacing. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf <http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf> Brass isn't out of the question . . . but it's not the best choice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Brass bus bar
At 10:02 PM 6/4/2011, you wrote: > >Thanks Bob, > >I found a strip of stainless. .028 thick X 3/4 wide. I believe the >terminals of the BlueSea ANL holders are stainless. Hmmmm . . . Keep in mind that the threaded fasteners used to hold things together are just that . . . designed to hold things together. In this case we're hoping to put sufficient 'mash' on OTHER materials that are the current carrying conductors such that large areas of 'gas tightness' are achieved. Those are typically tin-plated copper terminals. > I applied some terminal >conductive paste for corrosion control on the aluminum ring terminals. The >Stainless strip connects the two ANL holders. We'll see how this combo >holds up. All parts are easily accessible and replaceable if necessary >after flying. Thanks for the responses. Folks who float boats have an environmental stress not common to airplanes. Corrosion. There's a strong reason to look for more materials more robust in the salt-air. But that's a trade off. Stainless is, I believe, less conductive than brass. So heating of the material may well contribute to joint failure. Stainless is harder too, the area of "gas-tightness" is lower for the same-mate up forces. Aluminum gets you some pretty good contact area but it is the most reactive of the metals we've discussed. Thick brass or thinner copper are the materials of choice for jumpers between fat-terminals. ESPECIALLY if those jumpers carry starter currents. Stainless and particularly aluminum are not recommended. Stainless HARDWARE to hold things together is fine . . . where conductors come together with other conductors is our focus for performance. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 05, 2011
Without going into detail of units etc, the relative resistivity of common conductors is as follows. The best common conductor is silver, with copper a close second. Stainless is waaay down the list. A smaller number represents a better conductor from a purely conductive viewpoint. (The smaller the number the less losses) Best to stick to copper conductors wherever feasible with the possible exception of Eric's copper clad aluminium for very long heavy runs. ( http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm ) Silver 15.9 Copper 17.1 Aluminium 26.5 Brass 64.0 Mild steel 180 Stainless steel 720 Nichrome 1500 (used for heating elements) Bob McC > -----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: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:58 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar > > > > At 10:02 PM 6/4/2011, you wrote: > > > >Thanks Bob, > > > >I found a strip of stainless. .028 thick X 3/4 wide. I believe the > >terminals of the BlueSea ANL holders are stainless. > > Hmmmm . . . > > Keep in mind that the threaded fasteners used to > hold things together are just that . . . designed > to hold things together. In this case we're hoping > to put sufficient 'mash' on OTHER materials that > are the current carrying conductors such that large > areas of 'gas tightness' are achieved. Those are typically > tin-plated copper terminals. > > > > I applied some terminal > >conductive paste for corrosion control on the aluminum ring terminals. The > >Stainless strip connects the two ANL holders. We'll see how this combo > >holds up. All parts are easily accessible and replaceable if necessary > >after flying. Thanks for the responses. > > Folks who float boats have an environmental > stress not common to airplanes. Corrosion. > There's a strong reason to look for more > materials more robust in the salt-air. > > But that's a trade off. Stainless is, I > believe, less conductive than brass. So > heating of the material may well contribute > to joint failure. Stainless is harder too, > the area of "gas-tightness" is lower for > the same-mate up forces. Aluminum gets you > some pretty good contact area but it is the > most reactive of the metals we've discussed. > > Thick brass or thinner copper are the > materials of choice for jumpers between > fat-terminals. ESPECIALLY if those jumpers > carry starter currents. Stainless and > particularly aluminum are not recommended. > Stainless HARDWARE to hold things together > is fine . . . where conductors come together > with other conductors is our focus for > performance. > > > Bob . . . > > > _- > ==================================================== > ====== > _- > ==================================================== > ====== > _- > ==================================================== > ====== > _- > ==================================================== > ====== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 05, 2011
Subject: How to arrange the fat wires
Hi All, I have been scratching my head about a wiring layout issue. I am wiring an RV 8, rear mounted battery. I have a #2 wire from the primary contactor that needs to go to the starter contactor on the far side of the firewall. I also need a #8 or so wire to my main bus--in this case a VP-X. So here's my question: do I run the #2 uninterrupted to the starter contactor and then run a wire back through the firewall to the main bus or do I break the #2 and run the bus wire more directly. I am reluctant to break the fat wire before the starter but bringing a relatively fat wire back through the firewall has its downside as well. If I am going to break the #2 wire, what is the best physical method of doing so. I have seen fiberglass pass-throughs, but I don't think they are adequate firewall material. There are insulated posts. My auto mechanic friend suggested terminals held together with a bolt and well insulated. Thoughts on this? Regards, Michael Wynn RV 8 Wiring San Ramon, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2011
Subject: Re: isolating mic and headphone jacks
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Hi Lincoln, I found the best way to choose the location was sit in the part-built Jodel with headset and try out a few places. It's surprising how many places interfere with your elbow during cruise, or your knee when landing, or your kneeboard, etc... FWIW. James On 5 June 2011 20:23, Lincoln Keill wrote: > I'm installing microphone and headphone jacks in my RV-7A -- both jacks > come with built in locking tabs. I understand how to isolate the jack > itself from the aluminum structure using uninsulated shoulder washers, but > *how to isolate the locking tab from the structure? Any ideas? Cut off > the locking tabs?* > > Also, I'm planning on installing both jacks vertically on the aft part of > the arm rest (behind seatback) -- seems to be out of the way, it's not near > any other wiring and keeps the headset wires out of the way when plugged > into the jacks -- was going to run the leads forward up under the canopy > rail where the static line lives. *Anybody have any opinion (pro or con) > on this location?* > * > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Bob,=0A=0AI'm not sure where you got those "relative resistivity" numbers b elow, as I've always seen metals and other substances' resistance described as Ohms/meter. -However, I checked the resistance of silver over copper and compared them to your numbers below (15.9/17.1), and the ratios are the same.=0A=0AI just want to point out that gold should be in there between c opper and aluminum. -Gold is widely used in the electronics industry to p late connector pins and sockets, on integrated circuits to connect die to p ins and pads, and on circuit board pads. -No doubt there are countless ot her uses for gold in electrical circuits.=0A=0AEric's fat wires are a great trade off between resistivity, weight and volume. -It's one of the best simple ideas to come out of the aerospace industry. -My hat off to Eric f or being one of our vendors!=0A=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A______________ __________________=0AFrom: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>=0AT o: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, June 5, 2011 2:04 PM=0AS ubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List mes sage posted by: Bob McCallum =0A=0AWithout g oing into detail of units etc, the relative resistivity of common=0Aconduct ors is as follows. The best common conductor is silver, with copper a=0Aclo se second. Stainless is waaay down the list. A smaller number represents=0A a better conductor from a purely conductive viewpoint. (The smaller the=0An umber the less losses) Best to stick to copper conductors wherever feasible =0Awith the possible exception of Eric's copper clad aluminium for very lon g=0Aheavy runs. ( http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm )=0A=0ASilve r--- --- --- 15.9=0ACopper--- --- 17.1=0AAlum inium--- --- 26.5=0ABrass--- --- --- 64.0=0AM ild steel--- --- 180=0AStainless steel--- 720=0ANichrome --- --- 1500--- --- (used for heating elements)=0A =0ABob McC=0A=0A> -----Original Message-----=0A> From: owner-aeroelectric-l ist-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-=0A> server@matr onics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III=0A> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:58 AM=0A> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A> Subject: RE: Aero Electric-List: Brass bus bar=0A> =0A> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"=0A> =0A> =0A> At 10:02 PM 6/4/2011, you wrote:=0A> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" =0A> >=0A> >Thanks Bob,=0A> >=0A> >I fou nd a strip of stainless.- .028 thick X 3/4 wide.- I believe the=0A> >te rminals of the BlueSea ANL holders are stainless.=0A> =0A>- - Hmmmm . . .=0A> =0A>- - Keep in mind that the threaded fasteners used to=0A> - - hold things together are just that . . . designed=0A>- - to h old things together. In this case we're hoping=0A>- - to put sufficien t 'mash' on OTHER materials that=0A>- - are the current carrying condu ctors such that large=0A>- - areas of 'gas tightness' are achieved. Th ose are typically=0A>- - tin-plated copper terminals.=0A> =0A> =0A> > - I applied some terminal=0A> >conductive paste for corrosion control on the aluminum ring terminals.=0AThe=0A> >Stainless strip connects the two A NL holders.- We'll see how this combo=0A> >holds up.- All parts are eas ily accessible and replaceable if necessary=0A> >after flying.- Thanks fo r the responses.=0A> =0A>- - - Folks who float boats have an environm ental=0A>- - - stress not common to airplanes. Corrosion.=0A>- - - There's a strong reason to look for more=0A>- - - materials more robust in the salt-air.=0A> =0A>- - - But that's a trade off. Stainle ss is, I=0A>- - - believe, less conductive than brass. So=0A>- - - heating of the material may well contribute=0A>- - - to joint fai lure. Stainless is harder too,=0A>- - - the area of "gas-tightness" i s lower for=0A>- - - the same-mate up forces. Aluminum gets you=0A> - - - some pretty good contact area but it is the=0A>- - - most reactive of the metals we've discussed.=0A> =0A>- - - Thick brass or thinner copper are the=0A>- - - materials of choice for jumpers betw een=0A>- - - fat-terminals. ESPECIALLY if those jumpers=0A>- - - carry starter currents. Stainless and=0A>- - - particularly alumi num are not recommended.=0A>- - - Stainless HARDWARE to hold things t ogether=0A>- - - is fine . . . where conductors come together=0A>- - - with other conductors is our focus for=0A>- - - performance. ======================0A> == ====================0A> ==== == ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
At 04:52 PM 6/5/2011, you wrote: >Bob, > >I'm not sure where you got those "relative resistivity" numbers >below, as I've always seen metals and other substances' resistance >described as Ohms/meter. However, I checked the resistance of >silver over copper and compared them to your numbers below >(15.9/17.1), and the ratios are the same. There's a fist full of ways to describe the relative resistance of materials. Obviously, it's a volume thing. A bar of copper 1" square and 10' long will show a much lower resistance than a .1" square that is also 10' long. Any chart that speaks to relative resistivity of materials will be incomplete without building definitions around the samples for which the numbers are cited. For example. Here's a chart I found on the 'net . . . http://tinyurl.com/3w4m4kp Emacs! Some resistivity charts have been published using copper as a baseline and assigning it the value 1.0 with all other metals compared to copper. Similar charts have been made with silver having the base-line assignment of 1.0. MOST such charts are used to calculate the ratio of RELATIVE resistance between two different materials. The chart above does us the service of adding a cross-section that's well known, like 10AWG wire. Note the similarity of this value to the resistance for copper wire published in the 'Connection. VERY close to 1 millohm/foot. RESISTANCE is always a point-to-point measurement like from one end of a resistor to the other, two different points in a circuit, one end of a wire to another. The value observed may be the sum effects of many resistances. RESISTIVITY always speaks to the volumetric resistance of a homogenous but otherwise single material . . . like a bar of brass, copper or stainless steel. >I just want to point out that gold should be in there between copper >and aluminum. Gold is widely used in the electronics industry to >plate connector pins and sockets, on integrated circuits to connect >die to pins and pads, and on circuit board pads. No doubt there are >countless other uses for gold in electrical circuits. Yes! Thanks for mentioning it. The primary use for gold is corrosion protection. It's not a terribly good conductor but it is very resistant to corrosion. This explains the popularity for putting the very smallest layers of gold on a connector's mating surfaces. Typically 50 micro-inches or less. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
From: "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Jun 05, 2011
Hi Bob A while back I put together a list of links for galvonic and conductivity info: http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=87240 It's in word format, you need to click on "download document". Ron Parigoris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342151#342151 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 06, 2011
So, me thinks that the best conclusion from this thread is: If you want the best bus, use a gold plated silver bar. This will give you the lowest resistance and the highest rejection of corrosion. Mine will be on order as soon as my house refinancing goes through =98=BA=98=BA=98=BA Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 06, 2011
Henador would know about gold. He used solid gold in all his fat wires. When the engine fails to catch, he just flies on the starter! :>) B2 _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henador Titzoff Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 4:53 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar Bob, I'm not sure where you got those "relative resistivity" numbers below, as I've always seen metals and other substances' resistance described as Ohms/meter. However, I checked the resistance of silver over copper and compared them to your numbers below (15.9/17.1), and the ratios are the same. I just want to point out that gold should be in there between copper and aluminum. Gold is widely used in the electronics industry to plate connector pins and sockets, on integrated circuits to connect die to pins and pads, and on circuit board pads. No doubt there are countless other uses for gold in electrical circuits. Eric's fat wires are a great trade off between resistivity, weight and volume. It's one of the best simple ideas to come out of the aerospace industry. My hat off to Eric for being one of our vendors! Henador Titzoff _____ From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2011 2:04 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar Without going into detail of units etc, the relative resistivity of common conductors is as follows. The best common conductor is silver, with copper a close second. Stainless is waaay down the list. A smaller number represents a better conductor from a purely conductive viewpoint. (The smaller the number the less losses) Best to stick to copper conductors wherever feasible with the possible exception of Eric's copper clad aluminium for very long heavy runs. ( http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm ) Silver 15.9 Copper 17.1 Aluminium 26.5 Brass 64.0 Mild steel 180 Stainless steel 720 Nichrome 1500 (used for heating elements) Bob McC > -----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: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:58 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar > > > > At 10:02 PM 6/4/2011, you wrote: > > > >Thanks Bob, > > > >I found a strip of stainless. .028 thick X 3/4 wide. I believe the > >terminals of the BlueSea ANL holders are stainless. > > Hmmmm . . . > > Keep in mind that the threaded fasteners used to > hold things together are just that . . . designed > to hold things together. In this case we're hoping > to put sufficient 'mash' on OTHER materials that > are the current carrying conductors such that large > areas of 'gas tightness' are achieved. Those are typically > tin-plated copper terminals. > > > > I applied some terminal > >conductive paste for corrosion control on the aluminum ring terminals. The > >Stainless strip connects the two ANL holders. We'll see how this combo > >holds up. All parts are easily accessible and replaceable if necessary > >after flying. Thanks for the responses. > > Folks who float boats have an environmental > stress not common to airplanes. Corrosion. > There's a strong reason to look for more > materials more robust in the salt-air. > > But that's a trade off. Stainless is, I > believe, less conductive than brass. So > heating of the material may well contribute > to joint failure. Stainless is harder too, > the area of "gas-tightness" is lower for > the same-mate up forces. Aluminum gets you > some pretty good contact area but it is the > most reactive of the metals we've discussed. > > Thick brass or thinner copper are the > materials of choice for jumpers between > fat-terminals. ESPECIALLY if those jumpers > carry starter currents. Stainless and > particularly aluminum are not recommended. > Stainless HARDWARE to hold things together > is fine . . . where conductors come together > with other conductors is our focus for > performance. > > > Bob . . . > > > _- > =========================== > ====== > _- > =========================== > ====== > _- > =========================== > ====== > _- > =========================== > ====== > > < --> sp; -=============== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Save your house and go with copper plated aluminum or just copper. =C2-I' ll even finance it for you. :)=0A=C2-=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A_________ _______________________=0AFrom: ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <mrspudandcompany@veri zon.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, June 6, 2011 8:13 AM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Brass bus bar=0A=0A=0A =0ASo, me thi nks that the best conclusion from=0Athis thread is:=C2- If you want the b est bus, use a gold plated silver bar.=C2- This=0Awill give you the lowes t resistance and the highest rejection of corrosion.=C2- Mine=0Awill be o n order as soon as my house refinancing goes through =98=BA=98=BA =98=BA=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2 =========================0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Thank you very much, Ron. -I checked out your website and found one link to a "relative resistivity" chart that I really like. -It's really a rela tive conductivity chart, which is of course the reciprocal. -It shows cop per to be 100%, and it compares everything to it. -Silver, for example, h as a conductivity of 105%.=0A=0AI really like this chart and info below it. -It says that although brass has a large percentage of copper, its condu ctivity is degraded much more by the additive metals than the percentages o f them in brass. -I never use brass for electrical conduction, although i t can be used for RFI shielding.=0A-=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A_______ _________________________=0AFrom: rparigoris <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, June 5, 2011 9:40 PM =0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rparigoris" =0A=0AHi Bob =0A=0AA while back I put together a list of links for galvonic and conducti vity info:=0A=0Ahttp://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId =87240=0A=0AIt's in word format, you need to click on "download document" .=0A=0ARon Parigoris=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp:/ /forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342151#342151=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =========================0A =================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 06, 2011
Save your house and go with copper plated aluminum or just copper. I'll even finance it for you. :) Seriously, what I used, and find that it works great and is inexpensive is, 3/8" soft copper tubing. Take the tubing and flatten it in your vice and it becomes a nice bar that you can solder on tabs, and it will carry the current load. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
From: "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Jun 06, 2011
Hi Henador "Thank you very much, Ron. I checked out your website and found one link to a "relative resistivity" chart that I really like. It's really a relative conductivity chart, which is of course the reciprocal. It shows copper to be 100%, and it compares everything to it. Silver, for example, has a conductivity of 105%." I too like that chart. I have been using copper bus bars (and thin wires): http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=30710 and silver plating using cool amp: http://www.cool-amp.com/ When copper oxidizess it doesn't conduct very well, silver when it tarnishes it still conducts somewhat. I find it easy to use, it is non toxic and if I let plain copper sit around it needs cleaning before use which sometimes is a pain, but the plated parts are still beautiful. I did a test leaving some plain copper bus and some plated copper bus sit in my yard for some time (probably more than a year). The copper is dark brown and will not solder at all unless cleaned. the silver plated bus is a little tarnished but still solders OK believe it or not. I should take a pic of what this thin wide wire/bus looks like now: http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=30937 I plated the end in the foreground with six screws, I also plated just a hole punch sized spot. Now the copper is plenty brown just sitting around in the hangar. the silver plate still looks great. Now the other end is plated, but if you had to clean oxidized copper there for final assembly like I did a few months ago, what a pain. Ron Parigoris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342214#342214 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Groan, Ron! The prices of the Cool-Amp is $231.87 for a 16 oz bottle and Co nducto-Lube is $496.72 for a 8 oz bottle! -At those prices, I'd have to s ell my house and outsource my wife! -I like much better burnishing the co rrosion off the copper, which is easy to do and cheap. -This business of using silver bus bar or Cool-Amp/Conducto-Lube is okay for the US governmen t, which we all know has an endless bucket of money. :)=0A=0AI could see us ing these two materials in our experimental airplanes if there was a reliab ility problem that we're trying to solve; however, I haven't heard of one, and a one foot of 1/8"x1/2" C110 H04 copper bus bar costs only $3.16 at Onl ineMetals.com, plus shipping. -I think this is reasonable.=0A-=0AHenado r Titzoff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: rparigoris <rpar igor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monda y, June 6, 2011 2:14 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar=0A lib.ny.us>=0A=0AHi Henador=0A=0A"Thank you very much, Ron. I checked out yo ur website and found one link to a "relative resistivity" chart that I real ly like. It's really a relative conductivity chart, which is of course the reciprocal. It shows copper to be 100%, and it compares everything to it. S ilver, for example, has a conductivity of 105%."=0A=0AI too like that chart .=0A=0AI have been using copper bus bars (and thin wires):=0Ahttp://www.eur opaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=30710=0Aand silver plating us ing cool amp:=0Ahttp://www.cool-amp.com/=0A=0AWhen copper oxidizess it does n't conduct very well, silver when it tarnishes it still conducts somewhat. I find it easy to use, it is non toxic and if I let plain copper sit aroun d it needs cleaning before use which sometimes is a pain, but the plated pa rts are still beautiful.=0A=0AI did a test leaving some plain copper bus an d some plated copper bus sit in my yard for some time (probably more than a year). The copper is dark brown and will not solder at all unless cleaned. the silver plated bus is a little tarnished but still solders OK believe i t or not. =0A=0AI should take a pic of what this thin wide wire/bus looks l ike now:=0Ahttp://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=3093 7=0AI plated the end in the foreground with six screws, I also plated just a hole punch sized spot. Now the copper is plenty brown just sitting around in the hangar. the silver plate still looks great. Now the other end is pl ated, but if you had to clean oxidized copper there for final assembly like I did a few months ago, what a pain. =0A=0ARon Parigoris=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARea d this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p =========================0A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Adm ===== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
Subject: Re: How to arrange the fat wires
From: Christopher SeaStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com>
Hi Michael, As a data point... RV-8 w/ rear mounted battery w/AWG 4 welding cable to the starter contactor and from starter contactor to starter. I mounted the starter contactor in the baggage compartment, right side near the bottom on the gear leg tower. This creates a breakout point for the fatwire to the main bus. It is also the point for the alternator B-lead connection. There is a 60 amp ANL fuse adjacent to the starter contactor that protects the alternator B-lead wire. chris RV-8 #2 Newberg, OR BTW... I am in the BAY from time to time visiting friends in San Ramon (Arenas Ct). Would like to see your project if you are agreeable. cs On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been scratching my head about a wiring layout issue. I am wiring an > RV 8, rear mounted battery. I have a #2 wire from the primary contactor > that needs to go to the starter contactor on the far side of the firewall. > I also need a #8 or so wire to my main bus--in this case a VP-X. > > So here's my question: do I run the #2 uninterrupted to the starter > contactor and then run a wire back through the firewall to the main bus or > do I break the #2 and run the bus wire more directly. I am reluctant to > break the fat wire before the starter but bringing a relatively fat wire > back through the firewall has its downside as well. > > If I am going to break the #2 wire, what is the best physical method of > doing so. I have seen fiberglass pass-throughs, but I don't think they are > adequate firewall material. There are insulated posts. My auto mechanic > friend suggested terminals held together with a bolt and well insulated. > > Thoughts on this? > > Regards, > > Michael Wynn > RV 8 Wiring > San Ramon, CA > > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Hands-on Builder Assistance Houston Area?
Got a call today from a retired airline pilot who is involved in a number of build/restoration projects. A noteworthy project he mentioned was a '49 Piper that's been completely restored with respect to airframe and engine but needs some attention now for a modern electrical system. Anyone in the Houston area interested in getting involved? Of course, you'd have the enthusiastic support and near-real-time contact with all of us here on the List. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
At 03:15 PM 6/6/2011, you wrote: >Groan, Ron! The prices of the Cool-Amp is $231.87 for a 16 oz bottle >and Conducto-Lube is $496.72 for a 8 oz bottle! At those prices, >I'd have to sell my house and outsource my wife! Such potions are mostly intended for connectors that can be mated/de-mated with some frequency and do not enjoy gas-tight make-up of the contacts. The only time you might get some benefit for permanent joints is if they've been made up too loose to begin with. Those products are popular with the maintenance folks in factories, etc. but I've never seen them called out on an airplane drawing anywhere. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
From: "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Jun 06, 2011
Hi Henador If you take a look on cool Amps site they sell a 2 oz. jar for $43.95 If you go in with some of your buddies (probably up to 10) you all will have a lifetime supply. A sixteen oz. jar would be good for probably a lifetime supply for 80 builders. There are problems with copper. There are places where if it oxidizes it is hard to clean. For instance my port and starboard connecting copper thin wide wire. They plate copper lugs for that same reason, would be hard to clean internal portion. Cool amp also works on brass. My Flaming River race car cut off contactor got the threads and mounting hardware plated as well. Again it was installed a while ago and hard to remove to clean contact areas. the silver plating a few months ago were in very nice condition where other brass stuff would in fact need burnishing. Ron Parigoris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342250#342250 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Ron,=0A=0AUsually going in with the guys doesn't work, as one of them will use Cool-Amps to do his whole house and poof, it's gone! -Either that or nobody knows where it is anymore. -I've found that as you involve 2 or mo re people in any effort, it gets complicated.=0A=0AGreat product, but the r eal reason that Cool-Amps is not cost effective for what we're doing is bec ause it is a solution (no pun intended) looking for a problem. -AE bus ba r designs are so easy to get to on our airplanes that even Kim Kardashian c ould burnish one for you. As Bob pointed out, gas tight fittings have been solving the corrosion problem for decades.=0A-=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A =0A________________________________=0AFrom: rparigoris <rparigor(at)suffolk.li b.ny.us>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, June 6, 2011 6:13 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar=0A=0A--> AeroElect ric-List message posted by: "rparigoris" =0A=0A Hi Henador=0A=0AIf you take a look on cool Amps site they sell a 2 oz. jar for $43.95=0A=0AIf you go in with some of your buddies (probably up to 10) you all will have a lifetime supply.=0A=0AA sixteen oz. jar would be good f or probably a lifetime supply for 80 builders.=0A=0AThere are problems with copper. There are places where if it oxidizes it is hard to clean. For ins tance my port and starboard connecting copper thin wide wire. They plate co pper lugs for that same reason, would be hard to clean internal portion.=0A =0ACool amp also works on brass. My Flaming River race car cut off contacto r got the threads and mounting hardware plated as well. Again it was instal led a while ago and hard to remove to clean contact areas. the silver plati ng a few months ago were in very nice condition where other brass stuff wou ld in fact need burnishing. =0A=0ARon Parigoris=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this top ic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342250#3 == ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 07, 2011
By the way. My local airport, Southbridge, MA had 33 aircraft of which 30 were totalled by a tornado last week. Jeeeeezz.......... On the subject of wires and materials, as has been mentioned. Silver is the best conductor ---and this is the important part--per unit volume. Aluminum is 2X as good as anything else in the universe per unit mass. This is important to people where weight (and MONEY) is concerned. I sell a lot of Copper-Clad Aluminum to race car drivers, helicopter builders and anyone who wants to lose a pound or two. I sell many thousands of feet to military drone builders. I even sell to top-fuel dragsters. (Hey, I can shave a pound off your 320 mph in 1/4 mile dragster!). But for really short runs, or bus bars, it doesn't save much. There is a copper clad aluminum bus bar material (which I am considering carrying), but I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar. Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulting low resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/currents. You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't. Factoid: Copper and other metals works even if oxidized, but curiously CuO etc. was used for diodes. This can cause bizarre electrical problems--for example at high frequencies, strange DC biases appear. This is a problem in electro-surgery where the connection may have been electroplated but now the plating has scratches, chips and corrosion. I surmise that transmitters are not totally immune to this, so keep those connections clean and tight. -------- 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=342295#342295 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 07, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
>I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar. Not sure what this means. In the classic sense, a bus bar is a solid conductor distribution point from which multiple branch feeds are taken. The strip of conductor behind rows of breakers on the panel is a "bus". The strip of conductor down the center of a multiple slot fuse holder is a "bus". But when you want to connect two closely spaced studs together, like on a pair of contactors with bar stock, that's a rectangular wire. I can deduce no value in designing "not to need a bus bar." They are used wherever they present the elegant solution for minimizing parts count. >Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulting low >resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/currents. The only time gold has a 'voltage/current' significance is in the use of gold for switching. The very best switches and relays for switching tiny signal levels feature gold plated contacts. But gold is easily eroded away if the wattage levels in the switch circuit get very high. We generally limit the use gold switches and relays in the tens of milliamps and tens of volts range. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Microswitch/ > You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't. But it's not "bad" either. The conductivity of gold is relatively insignificant because nobody makes either wire or bus bars out of gold. They do PLATE certain conductors with gold for the purpose of minimizing surface corrosion . . . the layers are so thin as to add no significant resistance to the joint. >Factoid: Copper and other metals works even if oxidized ??? Don't know what "works" means. Every material and the manner in which joints are made with other materials will drive system performance. If the materials are particularly reactive with each other and with oxygen in the presence of moisture, performance levels will degrade with time. It's true that the observable surfaces of conductors can be severely corroded without observable performance issues . . . this happens because the metal-to-metal interface between components is sealed from the environment . . . i.e. GAS TIGHT. So whether your "rectangular wires" of choice are copper, aluminum or brass, both initial and future performance is dependent upon maintaining gas-tightness of the joint either by exemplary craftsmanship on assembly, periodic maintenance later or both. > so keep those connections clean and tight. Hear, HEAR!!!! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 07, 2011
Wow, I had no idea what a lively discussion my original question would initiate. I have learned much but not the answer to the original question. Maybe it is less important than the sum of all the new knowledge in my old noggin. OK, I understand that my electrician friend's advice about using stainless bar stock with the stainless terminals is not ideal for aircraft. I still have not found 1/8" copper bar stock locally and really don't want to ship it. What about using some 1/2" copper plumbing pipe, hammer flatten each end of it's 3" length, drill mounting holes as required and bolt it in? By the way, the current going through this bar stock connector will max out at about 55amp under max (everything on) load and is protected by the 60 amp ANL fuse, to which it is connected. Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar --> >I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar. Not sure what this means. In the classic sense, a bus bar is a solid conductor distribution point from which multiple branch feeds are taken. The strip of conductor behind rows of breakers on the panel is a "bus". The strip of conductor down the center of a multiple slot fuse holder is a "bus". But when you want to connect two closely spaced studs together, like on a pair of contactors with bar stock, that's a rectangular wire. I can deduce no value in designing "not to need a bus bar." They are used wherever they present the elegant solution for minimizing parts count. >Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulting low >resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/currents. The only time gold has a 'voltage/current' significance is in the use of gold for switching. The very best switches and relays for switching tiny signal levels feature gold plated contacts. But gold is easily eroded away if the wattage levels in the switch circuit get very high. We generally limit the use gold switches and relays in the tens of milliamps and tens of volts range. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Microswitch/ > You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't. But it's not "bad" either. The conductivity of gold is relatively insignificant because nobody makes either wire or bus bars out of gold. They do PLATE certain conductors with gold for the purpose of minimizing surface corrosion . . . the layers are so thin as to add no significant resistance to the joint. >Factoid: Copper and other metals works even if oxidized ??? Don't know what "works" means. Every material and the manner in which joints are made with other materials will drive system performance. If the materials are particularly reactive with each other and with oxygen in the presence of moisture, performance levels will degrade with time. It's true that the observable surfaces of conductors can be severely corroded without observable performance issues . . . this happens because the metal-to-metal interface between components is sealed from the environment . . . i.e. GAS TIGHT. So whether your "rectangular wires" of choice are copper, aluminum or brass, both initial and future performance is dependent upon maintaining gas-tightness of the joint either by exemplary craftsmanship on assembly, periodic maintenance later or both. > so keep those connections clean and tight. Hear, HEAR!!!! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2011
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Wow,=0A=0AIf you cannot find copper bus bar at your location and you do NOT want to have it shipped in, then your obvious solution is to use Roger/Jea n Curtis' solution. -He/she said that they flattened 3/8" soft copper tub ing in a vise, and it works great!=0A=0AProblem solved.=0A-=0AHenador Tit zoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: B Tomm <fvalarm@ra pidnet.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, June 8 , 2011 1:07 AM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" =0A=0A Wow,=0A=0AI had no idea what a lively discussion my original question would initiate.=0AI have learned much but not the answer to the original questio n. Maybe it is=0Aless important than the sum of all the new knowledge in my old noggin.=0A=0AOK, I understand that my electrician friend's advice abou t using stainless=0Abar stock with the stainless terminals is not ideal for aircraft.- I still=0Ahave not found 1/8" copper bar stock locally and re ally don't want to ship=0Ait.=0A=0AWhat about using some 1/2" copper plumbi ng pipe, hammer flatten each end of=0Ait's 3" length, drill mounting holes as required and bolt it in?=0A=0ABy the way, the current going through this bar stock connector will max out=0Aat about 55amp under max (everything on ) load and is protected by the 60 amp=0AANL fuse, to which it is connected. =0A=0ABevan=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.co m] On Behalf Of Robert L.=0ANuckolls, III=0ASent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9: 06 AM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Lis L. Nuckolls, III" =0A--> =0A=0A=0A>I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar.=0A=0A- - Not sure what this means. In the classic sense, a=0A- - bus bar is a solid conductor distribution point from=0A- - which multiple branch feeds are taken. The strip of=0A- - conductor behind rows of breakers on the pan el is=0A- - a "bus". The strip of conductor down the center of=0A- - a multiple slot fuse holder is a "bus".=0A=0A- - But when you want to connect two closely spaced=0A- - studs together, like on a pair of c ontactors with=0A- - bar stock, that's a rectangular wire. I can deduce =0A- - no value in designing "not to need a bus bar."=0A- - They ar e used wherever they present the elegant=0A- - solution for minimizing parts count.=0A=0A>Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulti ng low =0A>resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/curren ts.=0A=0A- - The only time gold has a 'voltage/current' significance =0A- - is in the use of gold for switching. The very best=0A- - s witches and relays for switching tiny signal=0A- - levels feature gold plated contacts. But gold=0A- - is easily eroded away if the wattage levels=0A- - in the switch circuit get very high. We generally=0A- - limit the use gold switches and relays in the tens=0A- - of milli amps and tens of volts range. See:=0A=0Ahttp://www.aeroelectric.com/Referen ce_Docs/Microswitch/=0A=0A>- You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't.=0A=0A- - But it's not "bad" either. The conduc tivity=0A- - of gold is relatively insignificant because=0A- - nobo dy makes either wire or bus bars out of gold.=0A- - They do PLATE certa in conductors with gold for=0A- - the purpose of minimizing surface cor rosion=0A- - . . . the layers are so thin as to add no=0A- - signif icant resistance to the joint.=0A=0A=0A>Factoid: Copper and other metals wo rks even if oxidized=0A=0A- - ??? Don't know what "works" means. Every material=0A- - and the manner in which joints are made with other=0A- - materials will drive system performance. If the=0A- - materials ar e particularly reactive with each other=0A- - and with oxygen in the pr esence of moisture, performance=0A- - levels will degrade with time.=0A =0A- - It's true that the observable surfaces of conductors=0A- - c an be severely corroded without observable=0A- - performance issues . . . this happens because=0A- - the metal-to-metal interface between comp onents=0A- - is sealed from the environment . . . i.e. GAS=0A- - TI GHT.=0A=0A- - So whether your "rectangular wires" of choice=0A- - a re copper, aluminum or brass, both initial=0A- - and future performance is dependent upon maintaining=0A- - gas-tightness of the joint either by exemplary=0A- - craftsmanship on assembly, periodic maintenance=0A - - later or both.=0A=0A>- so keep those connections clean and tight. ================= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 08, 2011
I used a sheet of copper stock and cut the strips I needed from it. Available at hardware stores and hobby shops. Google K&S to find info. Storm Copper has everything you can imagine if you decide that you can order it in after all. William -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:08 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar Wow, I had no idea what a lively discussion my original question would initiate. I have learned much but not the answer to the original question. Maybe it is less important than the sum of all the new knowledge in my old noggin. OK, I understand that my electrician friend's advice about using stainless bar stock with the stainless terminals is not ideal for aircraft. I still have not found 1/8" copper bar stock locally and really don't want to ship it. What about using some 1/2" copper plumbing pipe, hammer flatten each end of it's 3" length, drill mounting holes as required and bolt it in? By the way, the current going through this bar stock connector will max out at about 55amp under max (everything on) load and is protected by the 60 amp ANL fuse, to which it is connected. Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar --> >I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar. Not sure what this means. In the classic sense, a bus bar is a solid conductor distribution point from which multiple branch feeds are taken. The strip of conductor behind rows of breakers on the panel is a "bus". The strip of conductor down the center of a multiple slot fuse holder is a "bus". But when you want to connect two closely spaced studs together, like on a pair of contactors with bar stock, that's a rectangular wire. I can deduce no value in designing "not to need a bus bar." They are used wherever they present the elegant solution for minimizing parts count. >Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulting low >resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/currents. The only time gold has a 'voltage/current' significance is in the use of gold for switching. The very best switches and relays for switching tiny signal levels feature gold plated contacts. But gold is easily eroded away if the wattage levels in the switch circuit get very high. We generally limit the use gold switches and relays in the tens of milliamps and tens of volts range. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Microswitch/ > You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't. But it's not "bad" either. The conductivity of gold is relatively insignificant because nobody makes either wire or bus bars out of gold. They do PLATE certain conductors with gold for the purpose of minimizing surface corrosion . . . the layers are so thin as to add no significant resistance to the joint. >Factoid: Copper and other metals works even if oxidized ??? Don't know what "works" means. Every material and the manner in which joints are made with other materials will drive system performance. If the materials are particularly reactive with each other and with oxygen in the presence of moisture, performance levels will degrade with time. It's true that the observable surfaces of conductors can be severely corroded without observable performance issues . . . this happens because the metal-to-metal interface between components is sealed from the environment . . . i.e. GAS TIGHT. So whether your "rectangular wires" of choice are copper, aluminum or brass, both initial and future performance is dependent upon maintaining gas-tightness of the joint either by exemplary craftsmanship on assembly, periodic maintenance later or both. > so keep those connections clean and tight. Hear, HEAR!!!! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
OK, I understand that my electrician friend's advice about using stainless bar stock with the stainless terminals is not ideal for aircraft. I still have not found 1/8" copper bar stock locally and really don't want to ship it. 1/8" is 'hefty' to your task What about using some 1/2" copper plumbing pipe, hammer flatten each end of it's 3" length, drill mounting holes as required and bolt it in? That would work too but kind'a . . . well . . . not very graceful. That piece of pipe would be good for hundreds of amps . . . By the way, the current going through this bar stock connector will max out at about 55amp under max (everything on) load and is protected by the 60 amp ANL fuse, to which it is connected. For that connection consider using aluminum. .062", or so, 3/4" wide. Brighten up the interfacing surfaces before installation. Maybe use some dielectric grease on those same surfaces (Permatx 67VR or equal at hardware or automotive parts stores). Torque the fasteners well. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Switch Position within the Circuit
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 08, 2011
On a 12 volt DC system, does it make any difference if the toggle switch is located between the device and ground vs the device and the + bus bar? Wiring my aircraft it's going to be more convenient to make the runs from the ground bus to the cockpit and then to the device and then the the + bus. (There is no grounding via the airframe - it's a dual wire installation with a ground block on the firewall.) Dan warbirds(at)shaw.ca Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342406#342406 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
Date: Jun 08, 2011
The short answer is yes, it does matter. In the event of an electrical short circuit (or even when you are servicing), you want to be able to switch off the circuit. If your unswitched wire is always hot (+12) and you have a short to ground, which is the most likely scenario, then you can't do this. If you need to do ground switching, you can wire in a relay in series with the +12V feed, with one side of the coil connected to +12V as well. Then, you can switch the other coil connection to ground to control the circuit. Vern -----Original Message----- From: stearman456 Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch Position within the Circuit On a 12 volt DC system, does it make any difference if the toggle switch is located between the device and ground vs the device and the + bus bar? Wiring my aircraft it's going to be more convenient to make the runs from the ground bus to the cockpit and then to the device and then the the + bus. (There is no grounding via the airframe - it's a dual wire installation with a ground block on the firewall.) Dan warbirds(at)shaw.ca Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342406#342406 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 08, 2011
Of course! All it would take is a chafed wire. Man, I can be dumb. Thanks for the help - back to the drawing board! Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342416#342416 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 08, 2011
Subject: Switch Position within the Circuit
Good Afternoon Dan, As another thought, if putting the switch in the "ground" side is more convenient, go ahead and do it. Just make sure the circuit breaker is properly located as close as practical to the primary power source and that it is properly sized to protect the wire used. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Stearman N3977A LL22 In a message dated 6/8/2011 11:55:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, warbirds(at)shaw.ca writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "stearman456" Of course! All it would take is a chafed wire. Man, I can be dumb. Thanks for the help - back to the drawing board! Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342416#342416 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 08, 2011
Hi Bob, It's not a big deal, just a little less direct routing of the main bundle from the junction box on the backside of the firewall, but not by much. Mine is also a Stearman, so there's lots of room for it. Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342424#342424 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kent Orr" <kcorr(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Brass bus bar
Date: Jun 08, 2011
Bevan, You might try going to an electrical contractor or electrical supply house and see if they have any scrap electrical panels. A 200A or 400A panel should have 1/8" thick copper bus bars in it. Good Luck Kent -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:08 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar Wow, I had no idea what a lively discussion my original question would initiate. I have learned much but not the answer to the original question. Maybe it is less important than the sum of all the new knowledge in my old noggin. OK, I understand that my electrician friend's advice about using stainless bar stock with the stainless terminals is not ideal for aircraft. I still have not found 1/8" copper bar stock locally and really don't want to ship it. What about using some 1/2" copper plumbing pipe, hammer flatten each end of it's 3" length, drill mounting holes as required and bolt it in? By the way, the current going through this bar stock connector will max out at about 55amp under max (everything on) load and is protected by the 60 amp ANL fuse, to which it is connected. Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Brass bus bar --> >I really recommend configuring wiring so as to not need a bus bar. Not sure what this means. In the classic sense, a bus bar is a solid conductor distribution point from which multiple branch feeds are taken. The strip of conductor behind rows of breakers on the panel is a "bus". The strip of conductor down the center of a multiple slot fuse holder is a "bus". But when you want to connect two closely spaced studs together, like on a pair of contactors with bar stock, that's a rectangular wire. I can deduce no value in designing "not to need a bus bar." They are used wherever they present the elegant solution for minimizing parts count. >Factoids: Gold is good for low corrosion and its resulting low >resistance. But it only makes sense for very low voltages/currents. The only time gold has a 'voltage/current' significance is in the use of gold for switching. The very best switches and relays for switching tiny signal levels feature gold plated contacts. But gold is easily eroded away if the wattage levels in the switch circuit get very high. We generally limit the use gold switches and relays in the tens of milliamps and tens of volts range. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Microswitch/ > You might think gold might would be a great conductor, but it isn't. But it's not "bad" either. The conductivity of gold is relatively insignificant because nobody makes either wire or bus bars out of gold. They do PLATE certain conductors with gold for the purpose of minimizing surface corrosion . . . the layers are so thin as to add no significant resistance to the joint. >Factoid: Copper and other metals works even if oxidized ??? Don't know what "works" means. Every material and the manner in which joints are made with other materials will drive system performance. If the materials are particularly reactive with each other and with oxygen in the presence of moisture, performance levels will degrade with time. It's true that the observable surfaces of conductors can be severely corroded without observable performance issues . . . this happens because the metal-to-metal interface between components is sealed from the environment . . . i.e. GAS TIGHT. So whether your "rectangular wires" of choice are copper, aluminum or brass, both initial and future performance is dependent upon maintaining gas-tightness of the joint either by exemplary craftsmanship on assembly, periodic maintenance later or both. > so keep those connections clean and tight. Hear, HEAR!!!! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2011
The master contactor is an example of switching the negative side of a circuit. There is nothing wrong with doing it that way as long as good workmanship is used. If the aircraft is not wired according to common practices, it will be confusing to future troubleshooters. It is better to follow convention unless there is a compelling reason to be different. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342491#342491 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
Date: Jun 09, 2011
The master contactor is an example of switching the negative side of a circuit. There is nothing wrong with doing it that way as long as good workmanship is used. If the aircraft is not wired according to common practices, it will be confusing to future troubleshooters. It is better to follow convention unless there is a compelling reason to be different. Joe Correct me if I am wrong but, I believe that what joe is saying is that the switch which controls the master contactor goes to ground. The master contactor itself is on the positive side very close to the battery. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
At 12:44 PM 6/8/2011, you wrote: > >Of course! All it would take is a chafed wire. Man, I can be >dumb. Thanks for the help - back to the drawing board! > >Dan It is not uncommon to have pull-to-ground control systems. Our automobiles have them at every door light switch, hour-meters on many airplanes pull-to- ground. There are dozens of ground-side switched circuits in a Beechjet. You do what becomes the most elegant solution to your design goals. Of course, all circuits are protected upstream by fuse or breaker . . . which is what deals with issue of electrical hazard. But don't add parts count just to steer away from ground-side switching. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switch Position within the Circuit
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 09, 2011
Thanks, Bob. I like to stick with convention but I'll have a good long stare at it tonight with your advice in mind. I appreciate the help, everybody. Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342522#342522 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Shrink Tubing
From: "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2011
Hi All I have a small surplus of large heat shrink CANUSA 1500 and 1700 I have 54' of 1500 and 45 of 1700 I will cut as necessary. I will let it go at $2.00/Ft. + Shipping Contact robnrobinh(at)comcast.net Rob Henderson 6020 97th Dr NE Lake Stevens, WA. 98258 Canusa CFvT-1500 1.5 " Black Heat Shrink, Glue Lined (Encapsulant Lined) CFTV tubing is the leading method of protecting cables and splices for CATV applications. CFvT-1700 1.75" Black Heat Shrink, Glue Lined (Encapsulant Lined) CFTV tubing is the leading method of protecting cables and splices for CATV applications. Features and Benefits Craft friendly installation Exceptional split resistance CFTV adhesive retains bond providing long term protection Minimal heat required to produce error free installation without splitting Thermochromatic lines change color to signal waterproof seal Shrink ratio: 3:1 Continuous operating temperature: -55 Deg C to 110 Deg C Dimensions Shrink Ratio: 3 to 1 Expanded Internal Diameter (min.): 38.1 mm, 1.50 inch Recovered Internal Diameter (max.): 12.7 mm, 0.50 inch Recovered Wall Thickness (nom.): 2 mm, 0.08 inch Application Range for General Use: 14.0- 35.0 mm, 0.55- 1.4 inch When the shrink sleeve reaches the target temperature, the sleeve recovers, the sealant flows and the thermocromatic paint changes color, a waterproof barrier is formed. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342649#342649 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/sk3075_888.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Avionics ground bus
Hey Bob! That avionics ground bus you sell worked great on my project. Included in the kit were some long D-sub female pins. I used some to double up small wires and to attach a few 18 awg wires with. Can you tell me the PN# please? I need a few more. BTW, the panel & electrical is now about done, I used your ideas, book & web page a great deal on this project so thanks for the help! Here's the finished project: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/tim/chapter22.html Thanks, Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
At 03:32 PM 6/10/2011, you wrote: > >Hey Bob! That avionics ground bus you sell worked great on my >project. Included in the kit were some long D-sub female pins. I >used some to double up small wires and to attach a few 18 awg wires >with. Can you tell me the PN# please? I need a few more. >BTW, the panel & electrical is now about done, I used your ideas, >book & web page a great deal on this project so thanks for the help! >Here's the finished project: Oh man . . . I don't recall the event at all. Were these pins with wire grips that extended out past connector body and would accept wire larger than 20AWG? I think I've see such pins in my travels but don't recall ever having some in hand . . . much less having shared them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 10, 2011
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
On that subject, I have one 18 gauge ground from my avionics stack that I couldn't put into the ground bus. I was going to run a separate wire to the firewall forest of tabs. Is there a better way? Ditto on the book and website. Thanks, Michael Wynn RV 8 Wiring San Ramon, CA In a message dated 6/10/2011 1:04:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:32 PM 6/10/2011, you wrote: > >Hey Bob! That avionics ground bus you sell worked great on my >project. Included in the kit were some long D-sub female pins. I >used some to double up small wires and to attach a few 18 awg wires >with. Can you tell me the PN# please? I need a few more. >BTW, the panel & electrical is now about done, I used your ideas, >book & web page a great deal on this project so thanks for the help! >Here's the finished project: Oh man . . . I don't recall the event at all. Were these pins with wire grips that extended out past connector body and would accept wire larger than 20AWG? I think I've see such pins in my travels but don't recall ever having some in hand . . . much less having shared them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2011
Perhaps they came from the 327 install kit? Mine came with 4. On Jun 10, 2011, at 16:00, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > At 03:32 PM 6/10/2011, you wrote: >> >> Hey Bob! That avionics ground bus you sell worked great on my project. Included in the kit were some long D-sub female pins. I used some to double up small wires and to attach a few 18 awg wires with. Can you tell me the PN# please? I need a few more. >> BTW, the panel & electrical is now about done, I used your ideas, book & web page a great deal on this project so thanks for the help! >> Here's the finished project: > > Oh man . . . I don't recall the event at all. > Were these pins with wire grips that extended > out past connector body and would accept wire > larger than 20AWG? I think I've see such > pins in my travels but don't recall ever having > some in hand . . . much less having shared > them. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
> Oh man . . . I don't recall the event at all. > Were these pins with wire grips that extended > out past connector body and would accept wire > larger than 20AWG? I think I've see such > pins in my travels but don't recall ever having > some in hand . . . much less having shared > them. > > > Bob . . . > > Thanks Bob. Well maybe I got them elsewhere then. I did put all the pins from the install kits into the same container, I bet they came from Garmin. They are about 1/4" longer and will accept a 18awg wire, why longer I have no idea. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
At 04:31 PM 6/10/2011, you wrote: >On that subject, I have one 18 gauge ground from my avionics stack >that I couldn't put into the ground bus. I was going to run a >separate wire to the firewall forest of tabs. Is there a better >way? Ditto on the book and website. Cut 18AWG 6" short of reaching avionics ground bus. Butt splice or lap solder two 22AWG wires onto end of 18AWG. Then terminate the two smaller wires into the D-sub pins. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
From: Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Hi Bob, I would like to ask you a question regarding the wiring of the starter in my plane. It has the left mag and an electronic ignition. I fly an RV7 wired according to Diagram #11 and the addition of #25 (I believe) for the electronic ignition on the top plugs. The way it is wired I need to have the mag on and the electronic ignition off in order for the starter to engage. I would like to change over to either start on both or the electronic ignition only for better starting. Could you let me know how I would go about accomplishing that task Thanks Franz Fux RV7A 450h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
>Thanks Bob. >Well maybe I got them elsewhere then. I did put all the pins from >the install kits into the same container, I bet they came from >Garmin. They are about 1/4" longer and will accept a 18awg wire, why >longer I have no idea. Because the wire grip for 18AWG won't go into the d-sub connector housing. So they use a longer pin to effect the crimp just outside the housing. I'd prefer to spread the loads over two pins as putting a too-big wire into one pin. See previous post. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 10, 2011
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
Great! Thanks! Michael In a message dated 6/10/2011 2:34:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: At 04:31 PM 6/10/2011, you wrote: On that subject, I have one 18 gauge ground from my avionics stack that I couldn't put into the ground bus. I was going to run a separate wire to the firewall forest of tabs. Is there a better way? Ditto on the book and website. Cut 18AWG 6" short of reaching avionics ground bus. Butt splice or lap solder two 22AWG wires onto end of 18AWG. Then terminate the two smaller wires into the D-sub pins. Bob . . . (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
On 6/10/2011 2:31 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> Thanks Bob. >> Well maybe I got them elsewhere then. I did put all the pins from the >> install kits into the same container, I bet they came from Garmin. >> They are about 1/4" longer and will accept a 18awg wire, why longer I >> have no idea. > > Because the wire grip for 18AWG won't go into the > d-sub connector housing. So they use a longer pin > to effect the crimp just outside the housing. > > I'd prefer to spread the loads over two pins as > putting a too-big wire into one pin. See previous > post. > > > Bob . . . > > Thanks Bob & understood. I had run out of 20 at the time and it was a short run so 18 was called into duty. I split the load as described on the comm radios etc. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics ground bus
>I would like to change over to either start on both or the electronic ignition >only for better starting. Is the mag impulse coupled? > Could you let me know how I would go about >accomplishing that task. What are you using for an ignition switch? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mixing together two mics
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 11, 2011
Is it workable to mix two mics together for input into a Com's mike jack by using impedance matching resistors? Here' my situation... My two place aircraft is fitted with one headphone jack and one mic jack. The mic is keyed via SPST PTT switches in the control sticks. The intercom I have is a portable unit that inconveniently gives me two mic output plugs: one for pilot and one for copilot. Ostensibly, the two mic ouputs are to allow use of external DPDT PTT switches and a "Y" harness which would then plug into the aircraft's one mic jack. I understand that the normally open DPDT switches essentially shield one mic from the other and allow the "Y" cord to "mix" the mics into one output. However, I want to avoid the resulting cabling mess if I were to do this. So, I'm looking for a good way to combine the mic outputs into one output without causing too much signal deterioration. --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342762#342762 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing together two mics
At 11:46 PM 6/11/2011, you wrote: > >Is it workable to mix two mics together for input into a Com's mike >jack by using impedance matching resistors? Here' my situation... > >My two place aircraft is fitted with one headphone jack and one mic >jack. The mic is keyed via SPST PTT switches in the control sticks. >The intercom I have is a portable unit that inconveniently gives me >two mic output plugs: one for pilot and one for copilot. > >Ostensibly, the two mic ouputs are to allow use of external DPDT PTT >switches and a "Y" harness which would then plug into the aircraft's >one mic jack. I understand that the normally open DPDT switches >essentially shield one mic from the other and allow the "Y" cord to >"mix" the mics into one output. However, I want to avoid the >resulting cabling mess if I were to do this. So, I'm looking for a >good way to combine the mic outputs into one output without causing >too much signal deterioration. Not enough information to offer cogent advice. I've not encountered this kind of intercom before and it's difficult to deduce the rationale behind its design. Are you planning to permanently install this intercom? If so, it seems practical to eliminate the y-cable and simply hardwire the harness to emulate the 'portable' wiring configuration. Without seeing internal schematics for the intercom, we have no way of knowing how the push to talk switches influence connection of the microphones. A simple y-cable can do no more than parallel the three conductors. It's a low risk experiment. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2011
Subject: Re: Starter wiring
From: Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
It is wired per Z-27 with one non impulse coupler magneto and the Lazar ignition. Starter is a simple push button switch. In order to engage the starter, magneto switch is in the on position and ignition in the off as per drawing Franz On 10/06/11 4:21 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > >> I would like to change over to either start on both or the electronic >> ignition >> only for better starting. > > Is the mag impulse coupled? > >> Could you let me know how I would go about >> accomplishing that task. > > > What are you using for an ignition switch? > > > Bob . . . > > > > > Franz Fux Director of Operations Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd. Bell 2 Lodge P.O. Box 1237 Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6 CANADA Office Contact T: (250) 558-7980 F: (250) 558-7981 Lodge Contact T: (250) 275-4770 F: (250) 275-4912 http://www.bell2lodge.com --- LAST FRONTIER Heliskiing www.lastfrontierheli.com --- And for some of the best Steelhead Fishing in the world at Bell 2 Lodge www.steelhead-fishing.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter wiring
At 12:56 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote: > > >It is wired per Z-27 with one non impulse coupler magneto and the Lazar >ignition. Starter is a simple push button switch. In order to engage the >starter, magneto switch is in the on position and ignition in the off as per >drawing Okay. I presume your ignition switch is not the OFF-R-L-BOTH-START functionality offered by the legacy key-switch described . . . If your magneto is not impulse coupled, then you would want it to be OFF during all cranking operations. Starting would be accomplished with the electronic ignition only. If you were using the A510 style switch magneto would be treated as if it were the classic RIGHT magneto. The electronic ignition would be LEFT. The R to GRD jumper would be left in place to disable the right mag during cranking. In your case, there is no START function on the ignition switch with which to effect an auto-disable of the right mag. Therefore, you would want to start the engine with the ignition switch in the LEFT position. Once the engine is started, the switch may be freely manipulated between R-L-BOTH for the purpose of pre-flight run-up testing and flight ops. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mixing together two mics
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 12, 2011
The Intercom is an RST 442B. Old stuff, but it works well and I can't afford a replacement right now. So, I'm planning to install it as a permanent intercom and am trying to hardwire the "portable harness" as you suggest. The only problem is how to make the two output mic signals as one. If I follow to the letter the way the two mic outputs are to be used with a DPDT PTT switch and Y-cable, I wind up with I think the rationale was to allow each pilot to install his own PTT switch without involving the aircraft wiring and to allow easy portability to any other aircraft. Each mic that plugs into the intercom sees a resistor network that eventually sums all inputs into an LM386. Before each mic signal gets very far into the network it is looped back via a 27 Ohm resistor as a mic output. I can send a schematic. My assumption is that it is not OK to simply tie the two mics together to make one mic output. I'm hoping some simple resistors can be used to mix the two mic outputs. I f I picked up a "mixed signal" after the LM386, then I would get all audio (music, nav, marker beacon, etc) possibly into the COM and I think I want to avoid this. --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342805#342805 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing together two mics
At 05:12 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote: > >The Intercom is an RST 442B. Old stuff, I found the schematic in my archives . . . >Each mic that plugs into the intercom sees a resistor network that >eventually sums all inputs into an LM386. Before each mic signal >gets very far into the network it is looped back via a 27 Ohm >resistor as a mic output. I can send a schematic. > >My assumption is that it is not OK to simply tie the two mics >together to make one mic output. I'm hoping some simple resistors >can be used to mix the two mic outputs. I f I picked up a "mixed >signal" after the LM386, then I would get all audio (music, nav, >marker beacon, etc) possibly into the COM and I think I want to avoid this. Yup. But as a permanent installation, you could do something like the 'relay' version of PTT and mount the relays in an enclosure along with the intercom board. A sort of re-packaging effort that would meed Jim's design goals while keeping all the mickey-mouse wiring corralled in one enclosure. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mixing together two mics
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 12, 2011
Bob, Thanks for taking the time to look at the schematic. I guess you're right and that I should just implement a relay. I was hoping to avoid yet another device, but it is probably the path of least resistance given the situation. Or....maybe I could install a 2 channel isolation op-amp (unity gain) in the intercom to combine the pilot copilot mics lines. Hmmmm. Decisions, decisions. --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342820#342820 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing together two mics
At 07:49 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote: > >Bob, Thanks for taking the time to look at the schematic. I guess >you're right and that I should just implement a relay. I was hoping >to avoid yet another device, but it is probably the path of least >resistance given the situation. > >Or....maybe I could install a 2 channel isolation op-amp (unity >gain) in the intercom to combine the pilot copilot mics lines. But that would put both mics into the keyed radio at the same time . . probably not good. > Hmmmm. Decisions, decisions. There's a host of useful experiments that would probably lead to a useful configuration. It's all a matter of time and return on investment. I can't count how many times I would have been better off just following the instructions . . . or pitching the thing and starting from scratch. Nobody ever said that education was cheap. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
Date: Jun 13, 2011
G'day Bob, I have an all-metal aircraft without much room for large diameter wires, especially two. I recall reading that it's a good idea to have power and return lines of the same size for small systems, but is it really necessary to have a return wire to the battery of the same size as the starter wire? In other words, I have # 2 AWG CCA fatwire from the battery (down aft) to the starter contactor at the firewall, but I would like to use a # 6 CCA fatwire for inflight currents? I was thinking of grounding the engine to the airframe, but using an # 6 CCA fatwire for return to the battery (insulated from the airframe - to which normal inflight loads [lights, avionics etc] would be connected). Is this idea OK? Cheers, Stu ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ben Boatright <benboatright(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2011
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
There was a very good article in one of the aviation magazines recently that discussed grounding. The article pointed out that your ground wire should be as large as (or larger) than your positive wire. Keeping the size to those rules should minimize and/or eliminate any ground feedback looping. Ben J. Ben Boatright ----- benboatright(at)gmail.com ----- Member, AOPA and EAA On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Stuart Hutchison < stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> wrote: > stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> > > G'day Bob, > > I have an all-metal aircraft without much room for large diameter wires, > especially two. I recall reading that it's a good idea to have power and > return lines of the same size for small systems, but is it really necessary > to have a return wire to the battery of the same size as the starter wire? > In other words, I have # 2 AWG CCA fatwire from the battery (down aft) to > the starter contactor at the firewall, but I would like to use a # 6 CCA > fatwire for inflight currents? I was thinking of grounding the engine to > the airframe, but using an # 6 CCA fatwire for return to the battery > (insulated from the airframe - to which normal inflight loads [lights, > avionics etc] would be connected). Is this idea OK? > > Cheers, Stu > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
Date: Jun 13, 2011
I have an all-metal aircraft without much room for large diameter wires, especially two. I recall reading that it's a good idea to have power and return lines of the same size for small systems, but is it really necessary to have a return wire to the battery of the same size as the starter wire? Cheers, Stu I own a "tin" T/C aircraft (Cessna Cardinal) and it has the battery in the rear. The negative terminal is connected directly to the airframe with a short cable. There are no other cables going to the negative side of the battery. This seems to work well for Cessna, in that they use the whole airframe as ground reference. When you use this method always be sure that you have a substantial ground strap from the engine to the airframe. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Inflight load return wire size
At 04:13 AM 6/13/2011, you wrote: > > >G'day Bob, > >I have an all-metal aircraft without much room for large diameter wires, >especially two. I recall reading that it's a good idea to have power and >return lines of the same size for small systems, but is it really necessary >to have a return wire to the battery of the same size as the starter wire? >In other words, I have # 2 AWG CCA fatwire from the battery (down aft) to >the starter contactor at the firewall, but I would like to use a # 6 CCA >fatwire for inflight currents? I was thinking of grounding the engine to >the airframe, but using an # 6 CCA fatwire for return to the battery >(insulated from the airframe - to which normal inflight loads [lights, >avionics etc] would be connected). Is this idea OK? I'm not getting a good mental image of your proposed ground system architecture. How long are the wires in question? If you take the approach illustrated in Figure Z-15 View -A- http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15K1.pdf . . . you can consider the option of taking a same-size battery ground wire to the single-point, firewall ground -OR- grounding the battery locally http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Local_Battery_Grounds_1.jpg 2AWG wire may be somewhat oversized too. Unless you have a really big engine or the battery is a long ways away from the starter, 4AWG wire might be adequate to the task. But I do suggest you review your grounding philosophy in light of suggestions offered in Z-15 and chapter 5 of the 'Connection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
Date: Jun 14, 2011
Thanks Bob, Yes, I have an IO-540 with the starter about 10 feet ahead of the battery. This configuration is needed A) due to space limitations and B) for weight and balance. I understand the need for a big cable to carry start current and planned to ground this current via the airframe to a local bonding strap next to the battery. However, after start, normal inflight currents will obviously feed via the same big cable to the hot pole of the starter contactor, then to the busses and I would like to ground via a dedicated return to the battery post that is only 6 AWG and is insulated from the airframe. I don't understand why we need an return cable the same size as the starter wire when only 60-70A max is passing through this during flight? Z-15 shows the engine bonding strap connected to a 2 AWG return all the way to the battery, but I propose not to do this, since high currents are only required during start and can be grounded via the airframe for that short period. I would have thought any noise generated during start would be acceptable, because it is temporary? Perhaps different sized power and return wires cause noise regardless of whether they are both quite able to carry the current .. I don't know? Kind regards, Stu -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:01 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inflight load return wire size --> At 04:13 AM 6/13/2011, you wrote: > > >G'day Bob, > >I have an all-metal aircraft without much room for large diameter wires, >especially two. I recall reading that it's a good idea to have power and >return lines of the same size for small systems, but is it really >necessary to have a return wire to the battery of the same size as the starter wire? >In other words, I have # 2 AWG CCA fatwire from the battery (down aft) >to the starter contactor at the firewall, but I would like to use a # 6 >CCA fatwire for inflight currents? I was thinking of grounding the >engine to the airframe, but using an # 6 CCA fatwire for return to the >battery (insulated from the airframe - to which normal inflight loads >[lights, avionics etc] would be connected). Is this idea OK? I'm not getting a good mental image of your proposed ground system architecture. How long are the wires in question? If you take the approach illustrated in Figure Z-15 View -A- http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15K1.pdf . . . you can consider the option of taking a same-size battery ground wire to the single-point, firewall ground -OR- grounding the battery locally http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Local_Battery_Grounds_1.jpg 2AWG wire may be somewhat oversized too. Unless you have a really big engine or the battery is a long ways away from the starter, 4AWG wire might be adequate to the task. But I do suggest you review your grounding philosophy in light of suggestions offered in Z-15 and chapter 5 of the 'Connection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
At 11:54 PM 6/13/2011, you wrote: > > >Thanks Bob, > >Yes, I have an IO-540 with the starter about 10 feet ahead of the battery. >This configuration is needed A) due to space limitations and B) for weight >and balance. I understand the need for a big cable to carry start current >and planned to ground this current via the airframe to a local bonding strap >next to the battery. However, after start, normal inflight currents will >obviously feed via the same big cable to the hot pole of the starter >contactor, then to the busses and I would like to ground via a dedicated >return to the battery post that is only 6 AWG and is insulated from the >airframe. Ground what? If the engine is grounded to airframe (at the firewall ground bus?) and the battery is grounded to airframe locally, everything else goes to the firewall ground bus. You don't need any wire going back to the battery(-) for grounding other things. > I don't understand why we need an return cable the same size as >the starter wire when only 60-70A max is passing through this during flight? >Z-15 shows the engine bonding strap connected to a 2 AWG return all the way >to the battery, For a plastic airplane that. That pathway CAN be eliminated in metal airplanes as described above. > but I propose not to do this, since high currents are only >required during start and can be grounded via the airframe for that short >period. I would have thought any noise generated during start would be >acceptable, because it is temporary? Perhaps different sized power and >return wires cause noise regardless of whether they are both quite able to >carry the current .. I don't know? This is not a noise issue, only cranking performance. Do Z-15 with local ground for the battery, single point firewall ground for everything else (with exceptions for remotely grounded, non-victims noted) and you're done. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
Date: Jun 14, 2011
OK, thanks Bob. I seem to recall reading somewhere ... over the past 3 years ... that grounding the avionics at the firewall in a metal airframe can lead to multiple grounds with different potentials. Perhaps I confused this with grounding the various avionics boxes to the airframe whereever it happened to be convenient, rather than at a common point. Kind regards, Stu -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:36 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Inflight load return wire size --> At 11:54 PM 6/13/2011, you wrote: > > >Thanks Bob, > >Yes, I have an IO-540 with the starter about 10 feet ahead of the battery. >This configuration is needed A) due to space limitations and B) for >weight and balance. I understand the need for a big cable to carry >start current and planned to ground this current via the airframe to a >local bonding strap next to the battery. However, after start, normal >inflight currents will obviously feed via the same big cable to the hot >pole of the starter contactor, then to the busses and I would like to >ground via a dedicated return to the battery post that is only 6 AWG >and is insulated from the airframe. Ground what? If the engine is grounded to airframe (at the firewall ground bus?) and the battery is grounded to airframe locally, everything else goes to the firewall ground bus. You don't need any wire going back to the battery(-) for grounding other things. > I don't understand why we need an return cable the same size as the >starter wire when only 60-70A max is passing through this during flight? >Z-15 shows the engine bonding strap connected to a 2 AWG return all the >way to the battery, For a plastic airplane that. That pathway CAN be eliminated in metal airplanes as described above. > but I propose not to do this, since high currents are only required >during start and can be grounded via the airframe for that short >period. I would have thought any noise generated during start would be >acceptable, because it is temporary? Perhaps different sized power and >return wires cause noise regardless of whether they are both quite able >to carry the current .. I don't know? This is not a noise issue, only cranking performance. Do Z-15 with local ground for the battery, single point firewall ground for everything else (with exceptions for remotely grounded, non-victims noted) and you're done. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Inflight load return wire size
At 09:26 AM 6/14/2011, you wrote: > > > >OK, thanks Bob. > >I seem to recall reading somewhere ... over the past 3 years ... that >grounding the avionics at the firewall in a metal airframe can lead to >multiple grounds with different potentials. Perhaps I confused this with >grounding the various avionics boxes to the airframe whereever it happened >to be convenient, rather than at a common point. Yeah. Lots if not most avionics get grounded to the airframe locally because their power and signal grounds are common to chassis. This is what prompted the idea behind the avionics panel ground bus added to the Z-figures along with this product to the catalog. Emacs! The idea is to take all the potential victims to ground in a location as local to the avionics package as practical. Ground-loops on the panel are short, and VERY weakly excited. Once the potential victims are fire-walled, you can take the power grounds off the panel to about anywhere free of concerns for installation induced noise. This is not so much about holding big risks for noise at bay as it is doing-the- best-we-know-how-to-do without jacking up cost of ownership. The local ground bus on the panel is a great convenience when assembling the panel that also goes to risk of noise reduction. When we put the insulating washers under headset and mic jacks, THAT activity beat down most of the risk for noises in the radios right there. There is still the occasional strobe noise issue but those are pretty rare now too. The point is that after 100 years of bolting engines to wings and climbing aboard, our recipe for success is pretty well refined. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 14, 2011
A while ago I purchased a Shumacher 1562A (not the original 1562) battery minder. I forget the details, but it did not seem to be supplying the correct voltages. I sent it to Bob K. for investigation, but I doubt that he has had a chance to look into it. I think that Schumacher now has a new line of this type of charger. Anybody using these "Speed Charger" products? What are people using these days to top off their sealed lead-acid batteries. --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=342964#342964 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
At 04:24 PM 6/14/2011, you wrote: > >A while ago I purchased a Shumacher 1562A (not the original 1562) >battery minder. I forget the details, but it did not seem to be >supplying the correct voltages. I sent it to Bob K. for >investigation, but I doubt that he has had a chance to look into it. ???? when did you sent it and to what address. I don't have it in hand. >I think that Schumacher now has a new line of this type of charger. >Anybody using these "Speed Charger" products? What are people using >these days to top off their sealed lead-acid batteries. I've purchased a number of 1562's over the years. A couple for personal use and more for customer applications. I've only plotted the performance of a couple . . . and they both plotted out like this http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg Schumacher is an old-line charger house with pretty good credentials and history. What's your application and what's your budget? I have a couple of the gee-whiz processor controlled chargers . . . haven't plugged on in for years. I think I reduce the inventory to one and put the others in the next garage sale. I've got several maintainers that cover 99% of my charging/maintaining needs. Meaning I almost never plug in a battery where I need to put it back in service in less than 24-48 hours . . . so the itty-bitty wall-wart style devices get the job done. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
Date: Jun 14, 2011
Bob, I noted your plotted graph for the 1562 style charger. How important is it for the charger to top off at the 15v before dropping down to the 13 volt float range...? I ask because some of the "itty bitty" lower cost units (Harbor Freight, etc.) appear to slowly bring the charge up to the 13 volt range and just float there. Thus, skipping the 'top off' potential. This is referring to standard or sealed aircraft batteries usage..... Dave ________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:09 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders? > > > At 04:24 PM 6/14/2011, you wrote: >> >> >>A while ago I purchased a Shumacher 1562A (not the original 1562) battery >>minder. I forget the details, but it did not seem to be supplying the >>correct voltages. I sent it to Bob K. for investigation, but I doubt that >>he has had a chance to look into it. > > ???? when did you sent it and to what address. I > don't have it in hand. > >>I think that Schumacher now has a new line of this type of charger. >>Anybody using these "Speed Charger" products? What are people using these >>days to top off their sealed lead-acid batteries. > > I've purchased a number of 1562's over the years. A couple > for personal use and more for customer applications. I've > only plotted the performance of a couple . . . and they > both plotted out like this > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg > > Schumacher is an old-line charger house with pretty > good credentials and history. What's your application > and what's your budget? > > I have a couple of the gee-whiz processor controlled > chargers . . . haven't plugged on in for years. I think > I reduce the inventory to one and put the others in > the next garage sale. I've got several maintainers > that cover 99% of my charging/maintaining needs. Meaning > I almost never plug in a battery where I need to put it > back in service in less than 24-48 hours . . . so the > itty-bitty wall-wart style devices get the job done. > > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
At 05:55 PM 6/14/2011, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I noted your plotted graph for the 1562 style charger. > >How important is it for the charger to top off at the 15v before >dropping down to the 13 volt float range...? > >I ask because some of the "itty bitty" lower cost units (Harbor >Freight, etc.) appear to slowly bring the charge up to the 13 volt >range and just float there. Thus, skipping the 'top off' >potential. This is referring to standard or sealed aircraft >batteries usage..... Doesn't matter which type of lead-acid technology. They all perform best for accepting and then holding a charge when treated thusly. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Ideal_Recharge_Protocol.jpg The Schumacher curve I cited earlier looks something like this. You need to discharge the battery to 'trigger' a top-off on some chargers. So if you hook some smart-chargers to a fully charged battery, they'll drop immediately to a maintenance potential of just over 13 volts. A battery cannot be charged at 13 volts . . . since this is close to the battery's open circuit voltage at rest. That top-off plateau is important if you're going to get 100% of what the battery can store stuffed into it. Go to this directory and you'll find some exemplar recharge curves taken from Battery Tenders, Battery > Minders and some Schumacher products. > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/ > > They don't all offer what appears to be a solid > top-off protocol. I suspect the best approximations > are 98% golden. See: > >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 14, 2011
Hi Bob K., I sent the unit to you quite sometime ago maybe spring 2010...I can't recall more exactly. You acknowledged receipt, but I think it was just prior to your workshop move/reorganization. You had warned it would be a while before you could get to it. But, don't worry, no harm done. I'm in need for another unit and am just wondering what I should be getting. Something like the $20, 1 A Shumacher "Speed Charger" unit should be fine for topping off my small Concorde and Odyssey batteries...if the Schumachers are working as they should. --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343008#343008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
At 11:44 PM 6/14/2011, you wrote: > >Hi Bob K., > >I sent the unit to you quite sometime ago maybe spring 2010...I >can't recall more exactly. You acknowledged receipt, but I think it >was just prior to your workshop move/reorganization. You had warned >it would be a while before you could get to it. But, don't worry, no >harm done. I'm in need for another unit and am just wondering what I >should be getting. Something like the $20, 1 A Shumacher "Speed >Charger" unit should be fine for topping off my small Concorde and >Odyssey batteries...if the Schumachers are working as they should. Hmmmm . . . my bad. I've still got some totes to unpack. These are what one generally refers to as 'chaos boxes", the final dregs of cleaning off the shelves and benches but still awaiting storage space to unload them into. Where are you seeing this "speed charger" offered? Which model? Just curious. If it's got Schumacher's name on it, the risks for failure to perform as advertised is low. By the way, if you're storing multiple batteries on a charger capable of maintenance operations, you can parallel a number of batteries on a single maintainer. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2011
Ok, I'll try out another shumacher. I just picked up the "Speed Charge" name from the shumacher website (SC series). I'll see what I find at wall mart or autozone. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343040#343040 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Current advice on Battery charger/tenders?
At 09:53 AM 6/15/2011, you wrote: > >Ok, I'll try out another shumacher. I just picked up the "Speed >Charge" name from the shumacher website (SC series). I'll see what I >find at wall mart or autozone. Aha! I guess I was out of the loop on Schumacher's advertising. Seems the whole line of Schumacher products bear the 'speed charge' label. I've uploaded some Schumacher user's manuals to the website at: http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Battery_Chargers/ Walmart offers several chargers in this line starting with the 1562 and moving up. I'll keep an eye open for your 1562 . . . it's got to be in that pile of stuff somewhere . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
Subject: AEC 9009 Audio Amplifier Troubleshooting Questions
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
I just got to the point where I can test my home-made audio amplifier, but it isn't working yet, and I was hoping I might be able to get some help from those who have built the circuit before to help narrow down the troubleshooting. I wired it up, applied power, and it blew the 1A fuse. I looked everything over to be sure that I didn't have any obvious shorts and couldn't find any. Just to be sure that the rest of the wiring wasn't the problem, I removed all of the wires except for the power and ground, but it still blows the fuse. I went through each component and verified the placement of the ICs and resistors. I did notice that I had one capacitor backwards, number 127, 1uF capacitor. I reversed it but still didn't notice any difference. Is there an easy way to test a capacitor to see if it is still good? There isn't any physical damage to any of them. I replaced the fuse with my multimeter leads to try and measure how much current it was taking, but the meter read zero, so I turned off the switch after a second or so. After that test the 317 was warm, but not hot, and nothing seemed to be smoking. Here are some pictures of the board: http://jaredyates.com/temp/aec9009/P1010764.JPG http://jaredyates.com/temp/aec9009/P1010765.JPG> http://jaredyates.com/temp/aec9009/P1010766.JPG> http://jaredyates.com/temp/aec9009/P1010767.JPG> I had to make some substitutions in the capacitor part numbers due to digikey stock changes, but the resistors and ICs are all per specs. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to check next? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Photo FET Optocoupler
I have a pressure gauge that outputs a 5 VDC 10 mA signal. I need it to turn on a bulb that draws 28 mA. I can't find a suitable relay, but I was thinking that a photo FET optocoupler might work. The problem is that I have no experience with these, and although I understand how they work, I don't know how to find a particular one that will work with my application. Could anyone suggest a part number for me? It would be appreciated. John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2011
How about a radioshack 2N2222 BJT transistor? Feed your signal into a 2.2K resistor. Other side of 2.2K resistor goes into the transistor base (B) terminal. +12V (or 5V) power into the bulb bulb to the collector (C) of the transistor Emitter (E) of the transistor to ground You can give it a rough test using a 5v source (or 3 AA batteries for 4.5V) and a 470 Ohm resistor. Hope that helps! --Daniel On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:30 PM, John Grosse wrote: > > I have a pressure gauge that outputs a 5 VDC 10 mA signal. I need it to turn on a bulb that draws 28 mA. I can't find a suitable relay, but I was thinking that a photo FET optocoupler might work. The problem is that I have no experience with these, and although I understand how they work, I don't know how to find a particular one that will work with my application. Could anyone suggest a part number for me? It would be appreciated. > > John Grosse > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC 9009 Audio Amplifier Troubleshooting Questions
At 07:39 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote: >I just got to the point where I can test my home-made audio >amplifier, but it isn't working yet, and I was hoping I might be >able to get some help from those who have built the circuit before >to help narrow down the troubleshooting. I wired it up, applied >power, and it blew the 1A fuse. I looked everything over to be sure >that I didn't have any obvious shorts and couldn't find any. Just >to be sure that the rest of the wiring wasn't the problem, I removed >all of the wires except for the power and ground, but it still blows >the fuse. I went through each component and verified the placement >of the ICs and resistors. I did notice that I had one capacitor >backwards, number 127, 1uF capacitor. I reversed it but still >didn't notice any difference. Is there an easy way to test a >capacitor to see if it is still good? There isn't any physical >damage to any of them. Hmmm . . . I wish I had called out sockets under the amplifiers so that the builder can power it up with the ic's out. Capacitor size is not terribly critical but polarity is. MOST of the times you get a hot LM317 is for a reversed capacitor C122. Do an ohmmeter test from pin 6 to ground on either of the two amplifier chips. It should be non-zero. Actual measurement depends on your ohmmeter and polarity of the ohmmeter connections. The main thing is that it should be some substantial number showing that the path is not shorted. >I replaced the fuse with my multimeter leads to try and measure how >much current it was taking, but the meter read zero, so I turned off >the switch after a second or so. After that test the 317 was warm, >but not hot, and nothing seemed to be smoking. When powered up, you should have just under 9v on pin 6 of the two amplifiers. I don't know how you heat up the LM317 with zero current. Check the measurement setup. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
At 08:30 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote: > >I have a pressure gauge that outputs a 5 VDC 10 mA signal. I need it >to turn on a bulb that draws 28 mA. I can't find a suitable relay, >but I was thinking that a photo FET optocoupler might work. The >problem is that I have no experience with these, and although I >understand how they work, I don't know how to find a particular one >that will work with my application. Could anyone suggest a part >number for me? It would be appreciated. Doesn't need to be a photo-fet. There are plenty of LED couplers that would work. Is the 5v output measured with respect to ground . . . and does it go to zero volts in the off state? Can you turn the bulb on by pulling its control lead to ground? 28 mA lamp sounds like an LED, no? Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
At 08:30 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote: > >I have a pressure gauge that outputs a 5 VDC 10 mA signal. I need it >to turn on a bulb that draws 28 mA. I can't find a suitable relay, >but I was thinking that a photo FET optocoupler might work. The >problem is that I have no experience with these, and although I >understand how they work, I don't know how to find a particular one >that will work with my application. Could anyone suggest a part >number for me? It would be appreciated. Doesn't need to be a photo-fet. There are plenty of LED couplers that would work. Is the 5v output measured with respect to ground . . . and does it go to zero volts in the off state? Can you turn the bulb on by pulling its control lead to ground? 28 mA lamp sounds like an LED, no? Emacs! OOPS! You said pressure gage? Is this output a linear voltage that represents pressure or some voltage that is zero some times and 5v other times? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AEC 9009 Audio Amplifier Troubleshooting Questions
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2011
Indeed, I had installed the 122 backwards. It works now, thanks! On Jun 15, 2011, at 22:45, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > At 07:39 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote: >> I just got to the point where I can test my home-made audio amplifier, but it isn't working yet, and I was hoping I might be able to get some help from those who have built the circuit before to help narrow down the troubleshooting. I wired it up, applied power, and it blew the 1A fuse. I looked everything over to be sure that I didn't have any obvious shorts and couldn't find any. Just to be sure that the rest of the wiring wasn't the problem, I removed all of the wires except for the power and ground, but it still blows the fuse. I went through each component and verified the placement of the ICs and resistors. I did notice that I had one capacitor backwards, number 127, 1uF capacitor. I reversed it but still didn't notice any difference. Is there an easy way to test a capacitor to see if it is still good? There isn't any physical damage to any of them. > > Hmmm . . . I wish I had called out sockets under the > amplifiers so that the builder can power it up with the > ic's out. > > Capacitor size is not terribly critical but polarity > is. MOST of the times you get a hot LM317 is for > a reversed capacitor C122. > > Do an ohmmeter test from pin 6 to ground on either > of the two amplifier chips. It should be non-zero. > Actual measurement depends on your ohmmeter and > polarity of the ohmmeter connections. The main > thing is that it should be some substantial number > showing that the path is not shorted. > > > >> I replaced the fuse with my multimeter leads to try and measure how much current it was taking, but the meter read zero, so I turned off the switch after a second or so. After that test the 317 was warm, but not hot, and nothing seemed to be smoking. > > When powered up, you should have just under 9v > on pin 6 of the two amplifiers. I don't know how > you heat up the LM317 with zero current. Check > the measurement setup. > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
The voltage from the gauge is +5v or 0 with respect to ground. The bulb is incandescent: 140 mW at 5 VDC, but that was what I was going to use when I thought a direct connection to the gauge would work. Now I'll use a #73 which is 1.12W at 14 VDC . Yes I can turn the bulb on by pulling it to ground. John > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III > June 15, 2011 9:57 PM > > > At 08:30 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote: > > Doesn't need to be a photo-fet. There are plenty of LED > couplers that would work. Is the 5v output measured with > respect to ground . . . and does it go to zero volts > in the off state? Can you turn the bulb on by pulling > its control lead to ground? 28 mA lamp sounds like an > LED, no? > > Emacs! > > > OOPS! You said pressure gage? Is this output a linear > voltage that represents pressure or some voltage that is > zero some times and 5v other times? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC 9009 Audio Amplifier Troubleshooting Questions
At 10:53 AM 6/16/2011, you wrote: > >Indeed, I had installed the 122 backwards. It works now, thanks! You might want to consider replacing the capacitor. Reversed polarity can have deleterious effects on service life. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
At 11:11 AM 6/16/2011, you wrote: > >The voltage from the gauge is +5v or 0 with respect to ground. The >bulb is incandescent: 140 mW at 5 VDC, but that was what I was going >to use when I thought a direct connection to the gauge would work. >Now I'll use a #73 which is 1.12W at 14 VDC . Yes I can turn the >bulb on by pulling it to ground. The the single transistor buffer suggested by myself and others is a practical solution. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
I'm curious why Daniel recommended a 2.2K resistor and you suggested a 1K resistor. Thanks to both for your suggestions. This looks like it should work for me well. John > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III > June 16, 2011 10:20 AM > > > > > > The the single transistor buffer suggested by myself > and others is a practical solution. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
At 12:34 PM 6/16/2011, you wrote: > >I'm curious why Daniel recommended a 2.2K resistor and you suggested >a 1K resistor. Not critical. Throw a dart and anything from 1k to 50K would probably work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2011
Subject: Re: Photo FET Optocoupler
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
I actually thought about it, changed to a 1K, then changed back to a 2.2K before I sent it. I guess I just like the color red.. haha On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 12:34 PM 6/16/2011, you wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm curious why Daniel recommended a 2.2K resistor and you suggested a 1K >> resistor. > > Not critical. Throw a dart and anything from 1k to 50K would probably > work. > > > Bob . . . > > -- Daniel Hooper ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "hhobbit" <jm2833530(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2011
Say you've fried a transponder for no apparent reason. So it gets fixed, at a cost. Now putting it back in and hoping for the best doesn't seem particularly bright. I wonder if general info on troubleshooting this sort of problem has been published anywhere, and would really appreciate any advice or links available. Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343493#343493 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 19, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
At 08:40 PM 6/19/2011, you wrote: > >Say you've fried a transponder for no apparent reason. So it gets >fixed, at a cost. Now putting it back in and hoping for the best >doesn't seem particularly bright. I wonder if general info on >troubleshooting this sort of problem has been published anywhere, >and would really appreciate any advice or links available. What parts were damaged? Did the repairing service offers some hypothesis as to what happened? Is your airplane fitted with overvoltage protection? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "hhobbit" <jm2833530(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Bob Dont know for sure until it goes back for repair. I phoned the Mendelssohn repair shop and they tell me that the Bendix King KT76C is rarely a victim of overvoltage. There is a fuse marked LF 7A in near the edge connector which is supposedly the first item to blow; it tested ok for continuity without removing it from the board. Further in there is a crowbar device which I am informed cannot be tested in place, at least one end must be desoldered. I don't want to disturb that because I don't have conformal coating product to reinstate it in. One might reasonably go on the assumption that the fuse would protect from an overvoltage? or not? In either case the crowbar device should. I am awaiting further communication from another repair shop which should help decide that. Seems the circuit breaker was too lazy to do its job then [Evil or Very Mad] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343537#343537 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2011
> Say you've fried a transponder for no apparent reason. Dear H. Hobbit, Please furnish us AeroListers with a reasonably good schematic. Together, we eclipse the combined intelligence of the Krell Empire.... -------- 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=343538#343538 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dabbling_with_electricity_692.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Eric, I just flew into Southbridge airport this past week and saw the devastation. I counted about 15 damaged aircraft at the tiedowns. The damage seemed to be everything from some wingtip damage to total destruction. One aircraft was just a pile of rubble with the only way to tell it was an aircraft was an engine with propeller attached in the pile. Hope you did not suffer any loss to the wind. I have my plane at North Central, certainly glad it was not Southbridge. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2011
From: Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
Perhaps even the known universe do not arhive ________________________________ From: Eric M. Jones <emjones(at)charter.net> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages > Say you've fried a transponder for no apparent reason. Dear H. Hobbit, Please furnish us AeroListers with a reasonably good schematic. Together, we eclipse the combined intelligence of the Krell Empire.... -------- Eric M. Jones ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy Thanks Dick In a message dated 6/20/2011 9:17:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes: Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Eric, I just flew into Southbridge airport this past week and saw the devastation. I counted about 15 damaged aircraft at the tiedowns. The damage seemed to be everything from some wingtip damage to total destruction. One aircraft was just a pile of rubble with the only way to tell it was an aircraft was an engine with propeller attached in the pile. Hope you did not suffer any loss to the wind. I have my plane at North Central, certainly glad it was not Southbridge. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
At 09:25 AM 6/20/2011, you wrote: >Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find >anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy >Thanks >Dick > .dat files are usually information files created by some application like a spread sheet, electronic Rolodex, data acquisition system, etc. Thus they don't have any common industry format and will generally be accessible only by the application that generated it. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
At 08:25 AM 6/20/2011, you wrote: > >Bob >Dont know for sure until it goes back for repair. I phoned the >Mendelssohn repair shop and they tell me that the Bendix King KT76C >is rarely a victim of overvoltage. There is a fuse marked LF 7A in >near the edge connector which is supposedly the first item to blow; >it tested ok for continuity without removing it from the >board. Further in there is a crowbar device which I am informed >cannot be tested in place, at least one end must be desoldered. I >don't want to disturb that because I don't have conformal coating >product to reinstate it in. One might reasonably go on the >assumption that the fuse would protect from an overvoltage? Actually, the Transorb is the 'protective' device. The upstream fuse offers a means by which the circuit may be broken if the antagonistic transient duration is too long (like runaway alternator). > or not? In either case the crowbar device should. Yes, if there was a power transient event, one would reasonably expect the transorb to stand off the event until (1) the even ends or (2) the fuse blows. > I am awaiting further communication from another repair shop > which should help decide that. Seems the circuit breaker was too > lazy to do its job then [Evil or Very Mad] Circuit breakers are not ov protection devices any more than fuses. They become part of an ov protection system when combined with crowbar ov protection devices like our OVM series devices . . . Transorbs must be combined with fuses which are 10 to 100 times FASTER than breakers. It's a rather common misconception that fuses and breakers in the power distribution system are protection for ov events. The only service they perform is to protect wires from severe overload along with isolating a fault such that it does not affect the rest of the airplane. If your fuse is intact, then perhaps there was no OV event. The transponder may have simply suffered a failure of a venerable component. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
Ok, Thanks, I find that a lot of those files are attached to the e-mails. I'll just disregard them in the future Thanks again Dick In a message dated 6/20/2011 9:55:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: At 09:25 AM 6/20/2011, you wrote: Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy Thanks Dick .dat files are usually information files created by some application like a spread sheet, electronic Rolodex, data acquisition system, etc. Thus they don't have any common industry format and will generally be accessible only by the application that generated it. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Make sure you understand the difference between Transorbs and MOVs. They do approximately the same thing, but MOVs are rarely used anymore because they have an inherent wearout mechanism. So over time, they tend to age...then fail short. Ask the service tech for the part ID. -------- 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=343560#343560 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lynn Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
Date: Jun 20, 2011
A *.dat file is a data file that is used by and other program that needs information to run and the dat file gives it that information. What operation system are you using? From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RGent1224(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy Thanks Dick In a message dated 6/20/2011 9:17:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes: Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Eric, I just flew into Southbridge airport this past week and saw the devastation. I counted about 15 damaged aircraft at the tiedowns. The damage seemed to be everything from some wingtip damage to total destruction. One aircraft was just a pile of rubble with the only way to tell it was an aircraft was an engine with propeller attached in the pile. Hope you did not suffer any loss to the wind. I have my plane at North Central, certainly glad it was not Southbridge. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 20, 2011
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
windows XP Pro In a message dated 6/20/2011 4:02:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, riggs_la(at)yahoo.com writes: A *.dat file is a data file that is used by and other program that needs information to run and the dat file gives it that information. What operation system are you using? From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RGent1224(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy Thanks Dick In a message dated 6/20/2011 9:17:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes: Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Eric, I just flew into Southbridge airport this past week and saw the devastation. I counted about 15 damaged aircraft at the tiedowns. The damage seemed to be everything from some wingtip damage to total destruction. One aircraft was just a pile of rubble with the only way to tell it was an aircraft was an engine with propeller attached in the pile. Hope you did not suffer any loss to the wind. I have my plane at North Central, certainly glad it was not Southbridge. Roger http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lynn Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado
Date: Jun 20, 2011
I would be very suspicious of an email that had a dat file attached to it. Do you have good anti-virus checking software? From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RGent1224(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:04 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Southbridge Airport Tornado Ok, Thanks, I find that a lot of those files are attached to the e-mails. I'll just disregard them in the future Thanks again Dick In a message dated 6/20/2011 9:55:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: At 09:25 AM 6/20/2011, you wrote: Question: What program do you use to run .dat files???? I can't find anything to run them on but I'm a computer dummy Thanks Dick .dat files are usually information files created by some application like a spread sheet, electronic Rolodex, data acquisition system, etc. Thus they don't have any common industry format and will generally be accessible only by the application that generated it. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ist href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric.com server down
Matt tells me that the server went dirty side up sometime this morning. It may take some time to get it back up if there's a significant hardware failure. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Southbridge Airport Tornado Damage.
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2011
I finally went up to the airport and spoke to Jim Latour, the manager. The tornado destroyed 15 airplanes, not including an almost completed and not-insured RV that just went into the new hangar...now totally destroyed. There had been a lot of cleanup in the week since the twister. I live a couple miles from 3BO, and there was hardly a breath of wind. Hummingbirds were happy at the feeder. Great sadness. The path of destruction was very narrow. A block away from the path was unaffected. In the path, oak trees two feet in diameter were broken like match-sticks....shredded by a billion HP weed-whacker. See attached. -------- 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=343630#343630 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000226_741.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000228_595.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000233_134.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000238_209.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: PTT buzz
I just finished wiring the Ray Allen G205 stick in conjunction w/ Garmin SL40 radio and the intercom PM1000 (PS Engineering). Turning it all on and headphone jacks connected...I talk into mic and hear loud and clear. When I key the PTT, I immediately get a pulsating buzz. I release, it goes away. Could this be a ground loop? don't know...never heard this b-4. Thanks, Dan B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Bob N=2C Quite a while back I built and installed the IvoProp current limiter circ uit you desgned. By all account=2C it appears to work=2C with one significant exception=3B i t cuts out very quickly when cycling in either direction. In other words=2C the blades barely move at all. Yes=2C the LEDs light up=2C and all other aspects of the circuit appear t o function properly. The only weakness is the extreme shortage of blade movement. I know the ob vious=2C question is=3B do we know if the blades are free to mover properly? As far as I kno w=2C yes=2C they used to work just fine=2C prior to the installation of the current limiter circuit. Bob=2C is it possible to "vary" the circuit's current limitation. Exampl e....if the present resistors that control the circuit's current to "top out" at such and such amps=2C wo uld it be reasonable to redesign the circuit to allow for 'differing" overloads. Do you get what I 'm trying to say? By watching the entire system (circuit=2C prop blades/motor=2C etc)=2C th e circuit appears to operate as it was designed=2C except that it appears to cut out at 1=2C may be 2 amps. I have to run off to Minneapolis for a few days=2C but when I get back=2C I'll hook up a highly accurate ammeter in the present arrangement=2C and see exactly how m uch current shuts it off. Any ideas=2C or suggestions are highly appreciated. Thanks=2C Mike Welch ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
At 02:56 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: >Bob N, > > Quite a while back I built and installed the IvoProp current > limiter circuit you desgned. >By all account, it appears to work, with one significant exception; >it cuts out very quickly >when cycling in either direction. In other words, the blades barely >move at all. Okay, just so folks know what we're talking about here's a recap of the circuit and design goals for the system Mike has crafted: ----------------------- http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/IVO-Prop_Pitch_Controller.pdf Design goals: Provide absolute current limit on the order of 9A: Q114 is a power FET that saturates with bias through R104, R105 and D109 when power is applied through "M" connections that sense motor power. Voltage drop across R117/R118 is monitored through R116 causing Q115 to turn on when drop across the R117/118 exceeds Vbe of Q115. This is approx .6 volts. When Q115 turns on, it starves Q114 of gate drive and causes it to become a constant current generator with calibration set by the combination of R117/R118. Any time the constant current loop is active, LED D109 will be illuminated. D109 will flash each time the prop pitch motor is energized and the system becomes an active inrush current limiter. Limit the duration of the current limit mode to 100-200 mS whereupon the system goes open circuit and removes power from the motor: At any time the current limiter is active, Q115 collector current through R105 will turn on Q103 causing the collector to pull up to the supply rail. This causes C112 to charge through R106 until zener D110 conducts at about 8V. This event will occur approximately 120 mS after onset of current limit. When D110 conducts, it pulls the base of Q115 more positive causing the Q115/Q103 pair to "latch up" not unlike an SCR. When the latching event occurs, the collector of Q115 pulls to a few millivolts above ground depriving Q114 of all gate drive. Normal operation: D109 will flash each time the motor control switch is closed due to motor inrush current being electronically limited. D109 will also flash a bit longer (about 120 mS) when the prop pitch motor reaches the mechanical stop and the current limit is invoked. As long as the prop pitch motor is powered D108 will be illuminated. When the prop pitch system reaches a mechanical limit and the control switch is NOT relaxed, D019 flashes for about 120 mS and D108 goes dark. Releasing the motor control switch removes power from the latching loop and discharges C112 through R119, R104, BC junction Q103, and R106. The system spends so little time in I-limit mode that Q114 does not require a heat-sink. D109 and D108 staying on together indicates a malfunction and the motor control switch needs to be released within a second or so to avoid over-heat damage to Q114. -------------------- > Yes, the LEDs light up, and all other aspects of the circuit > appear to function properly. >The only weakness is the extreme shortage of blade movement. I know >the obvious, question >is; do we know if the blades are free to mover properly? As far as >I know, yes, they >used to work just fine, prior to the installation of the current >limiter circuit. The green LED should be illuminated when the pitch motor is being commanded and the system is NOT in a current limited mode. If the motor hits the stop and current spikes, the current limit mode kicks in. The green LED should dim or go dark . . . the amber LED should illuminate saying that current limiting operation is in effect. One should release the switch quickly after the amber LED comes on. > By watching the entire system (circuit, prop blades/motor, etc), > the circuit appears to >operate as it was designed, except that it appears to cut out at 1, >maybe 2 amps. Had you tested this before? With the values selected for R117 and R118, current limit should be on the order of 10 amps. If your 'stalled' current is 2A, then the current limit is kicking in MUCH to low. > I have to run off to Minneapolis for a few days, but when I get > back, I'll hook up a >highly accurate ammeter in the present arrangement, and see exactly >how much current >shuts it off. Good lick. But be cautious about this measurement. The TIME that the Q114 can stand to run at 10A (140 watts) is limited by the size of heat-sink it enjoys. Normal operations will have you releasing the switch within a second or so of having the amber light come on so when things are working right, a large heat-sink is not needed. Experimental measurements are another matter. Be quick. > Bob, is it possible to "vary" the circuit's current > limitation. Example....if the present resistors >that control the circuit's current to "top out" at such and such >amps, would it be reasonable to >redesign the circuit to allow for 'differing" overloads. Do you get >what I'm trying to say? Yes but . . . this does not appear to be the root cause of symptoms you're observing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: PTT buzz
I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it it sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very consistant). AFter going thru this symptom with a few folks...Garmin techs saying they never heard of it b-4... I was scratching my head and looked up. The antenna was hovering between two floursent lights in the garage...it WAS AC! Dan --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley wrote: > From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 10:40 AM > --> AeroElectric-List message > posted by: Dan Billingsley > > I just finished wiring the Ray Allen G205 stick in > conjunction w/ Garmin SL40 radio and the intercom PM1000 (PS > Engineering). Turning it all on and headphone jacks > connected...I talk into mic and hear loud and clear. When I > key the PTT, I immediately get a pulsating buzz. I release, > it goes away. > Could this be a ground loop? don't know...never heard this > b-4. > Thanks, > Dan B > > AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > FAQ, > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > List Contribution Web Site - > -Matt > Dralle, List Admin. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: PTT buzz
At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: > > >I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it it sounded like AC >cycling (the noise was very consistant). AFter going thru this >symptom with a few folks...Garmin techs saying they never heard of it b-4... >I was scratching my head and looked up. The antenna was >hovering between two floursent lights in the garage...it WAS AC! >Dan Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn off the lights does the buzz go away? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: push to test circuit for differing loads
From: "pmnewlon" <philn(at)toosan.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2011
I posted on VAF yesterday and got a partial answer to my question there, which caused me to have more questions so I thought I better get to the right place! I have seven annunciator LEDs on my panel; as it turns out all but one switch the positive side of the LED but one switches the ground. I understand how to arrange diodes in a push to test circuit if all the LEDs are switched the same way but cannot find an example of a circuit where there is a mixture of ground and positive switching with a single push to test button. The response to my post on VAF suggested a double pole push button but I have not found a suitably small DPST (ON) device. I'd really like to make the circuit with a small SPST (ON) pushbutton but am short on the circuit knowledge. Does anyone have a reference diagram of such a circuit that I could 'borrow'? Thanks! Phil Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343682#343682 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: push to test circuit for differing loads
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Phil, Just off the top of my head (and without having seen a schematic of your particular setup) I'd say that what you're asking for is not possible. In a single pole you could handle the ground legs of the test circuit (with proper isolation diodes as you mentioned) or the high-side circuit, but not both. But I have another suggestion: You could add a small 2-pole relay to manage the LED test circuitry and control its coil w/ your SPST pushbutton. There are all kinds of cheap, circuit board mountable, smaller-than-a-sugar-cube relays that could do the job (I don't have part numbers available to me at the moment). -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pmnewlon Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 15:02 Subject: AeroElectric-List: push to test circuit for differing loads I posted on VAF yesterday and got a partial answer to my question there, which caused me to have more questions so I thought I better get to the right place! I have seven annunciator LEDs on my panel; as it turns out all but one switch the positive side of the LED but one switches the ground. I understand how to arrange diodes in a push to test circuit if all the LEDs are switched the same way but cannot find an example of a circuit where there is a mixture of ground and positive switching with a single push to test button. The response to my post on VAF suggested a double pole push button but I have not found a suitably small DPST (ON) device. I'd really like to make the circuit with a small SPST (ON) pushbutton but am short on the circuit knowledge. Does anyone have a reference diagram of such a circuit that I could 'borrow'? Thanks! Phil Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343682#343682 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: PTT buzz
I didn't turn the lights off but I was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways. When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as well? Dan --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM > --> AeroElectric-List message > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: > Billingsley > > > > I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it it > sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very consistant). > AFter going thru this symptom with a few folks...Garmin > techs saying they never heard of it b-4... > > I was scratching my head and looked up. The antenna > was hovering between two floursent lights in the > garage...it WAS AC! > > Dan > > Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn > off the lights > does the buzz go away? > > > Bob . . . > > AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > FAQ, > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > List Contribution Web Site - > -Matt > Dralle, List Admin. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis & Anne Glaeser" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Bob and Mike, I have been using Bob's circuit on my IVO and it works flawlessly. It's a simple and foolproof way to protect the gear train that drives the blade pitch mechanism. When I finished the circuit, Bob asked if I had access to an oscilloscope in order to verify it's operation. One of my EAA chapter members has one and we captured the traces per Bob's specs. Perhaps Mike could do the same thing and that might provide a clue as to what is (or isn't) happening. Bob's description says that when the current limit is reached, D108 (amber LED) flashed for 120 ms and D109 (green LED) goes dark. In my implementation, the amber LED stays lit as long as I hold the switch (the motor stops) - the green LED does go dark. I don't know if that is significant, but thought I'd mention it. When the motor is running, the green LED is on, but the amber LED is off (except for the flash at startup). If there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. Dennis Glaeser ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Bob=2C Thank you for the highly informative description of the circuit. I know to keep the toggle switch testing very brief=2C however=2C I did mount the FET on a 1 1 /2" X 2" piece of aluminum for a heat sink. The heat sink=2C and complete circuit is cont ained in a neat plastic box. After I get back from my mini-vacation=2C I'll do my best to test the cir cuit...carefully. I also verify the correct LEDs are lighting as you described. Thanks a bunch=2C I'll get back ya early next week. Mike Welch PS. Do they have fish in Minnesota? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: PTT buzz
At 08:29 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: > > >I didn't turn the lights off but I was able to roll the plane out >from under the lights a ways. When I did that, the noise became less >prominent. I will need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll >the plane all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane >in street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point about >when I key the mic inside the closed space I have quite a bit RF >dancing back and forth in there. Would it be reasonable to say it >could be some feedback interference as well? Possible . . . but low risk. The lighting interference hypothesis is much stronger given that the noise changed when you moved. Modern fluorescent lamps not only generate noise from the cacophony of molecular noise in the gas filled tube, they feature electronic ballasts also renowned for their ability to 'sing' at a constellation of frequencies. I'm betting on the lights. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
At 09:12 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: >Bob and Mike, > >I have been using Bob=92s circuit on my IVO and it >works flawlessly. It=92s a simple and foolproof >way to protect the gear train that drives the blade pitch mechanism. > >When I finished the circuit, Bob asked if I had >access to an oscilloscope in order to verify >it=92s operation. One of my EAA chapter members >has one and we captured the traces per Bob=92s >specs. Perhaps Mike could do the same thing and >that might provide a clue as to what is (or isn=92t) happening. > >Bob=92s description says that when the current >limit is reached, D108 (amber LED) flashed for >120 ms and D109 (green LED) goes dark. In my >implementation, the amber LED stays lit as long >as I hold the switch (the motor stops) ' the >green LED does go dark. I don=92t know if that is >significant, but thought I=92d mention it. You bet. I'd forgotten how that thing was supposed to work. Q103/Q115 form a time-delayed latching switch that switches ON as soon as C112 charges up enough to cause D110 to go into conduction. Once the latch triggers, Q115 is held on 'saturated' until power is removed. > When the motor is running, the green LED is > on, but the amber LED is off (except for the flash at startup). So the amber LED flashes at start up indicating that the current limiter did its job while the motor spins up. When the system hits mechanical stops, the led will light again when current limit becomes active. A few milliseconds later, the latch trips and the motor current goes to zero. Green led goes dark. Amber LED stays lit. So my earlier admonition about being quick on the switch to avoid overheating Q114 is all wet. The time-delayed shut-down latch protects Q114. > >If there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. You just did. Thanks! If there's enough interest in this device, it could be packaged up nicely in a box like this: Emacs! Since you guys did all the development and proof of concept work, it would only take a couple hours to package it up and add it to the product line. We could also make this a DIY project and sell the ECB, case and connector hardware. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
Date: Jun 21, 2011
I will take 2 Deems If there's enough interest in this device=2C it could be packaged up nicely in a box like this: Since you guys did all the development and proof of concept work=2C it would only take a couple hours to package it up and add it to the product line. We could also make this a DIY project and sell the ECB=2C case and connector hardware. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: push to test circuit for differing loads
At 06:01 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: > >I posted on VAF yesterday and got a partial answer to my question >there, which caused me to have more questions so I thought I better >get to the right place! > >I have seven annunciator LEDs on my panel; as it turns out all but >one switch the positive side of the LED but one switches the >ground. I understand how to arrange diodes in a push to test >circuit if all the LEDs are switched the same way but cannot find an >example of a circuit where there is a mixture of ground and positive >switching with a single push to test button. The response to my >post on VAF suggested a double pole push button but I have not found >a suitably small DPST (ON) device. I'd really like to make the >circuit with a small SPST (ON) pushbutton but am short on the >circuit knowledge. > >Does anyone have a reference diagram of such a circuit that I could 'borrow'? You betcha. Did this in some airplane wayyyyyyy back when. The annunciators were light bulbs instead of leds but the principal is the same. You can get the parts at Radio Shack . . . http://tinyurl.com/3lu334y The transistors operate saturated so given the intermittent duty service, will not require heat-sinks. Wire 'em up and truck on. You could probably get it to work fine with physically smaller transistors but these TO-200 devices are robust and easy to mount to a piece of perf-board. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Thanks for the responses=2C guys. I really wish I had more time to try and figure it out right now=2C but I'll have to wait until next Monday or so=2C after I get b ack. I went out and did a quick cycle or two of the circuit=2C and the LEDs appe ar to turn on and off as Dennis describes. The pitch motor obviously is twisting the prop blades =2C but the whole thing still seems to be working exactly as it should=2C except it only has a one second range=2C from switch on to circuit off=2C maybe at most=2C two seconds! I did see that if I keep switching in the same direction=2C over and over =2C I can get the opposite direction to stay "lit" longer=2C getting it to twist for 3-4 seconds. I e ven kept "pressuring it"=2C and the 10A circuit breaker popped. I reset it=2C and everything still wor ked fine...just briefly. I'll know more after I get back. Thanks=2C Mike W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: push to test circuit for differing loads
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Check out the IL-4A or IL-12A on this site: http://vx-aviation.com/page_2.html The datasheet has the schematic for what you want if you feel like building your own. Thx, Vern Little Vx Aviation From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:52 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push to test circuit for differing loads At 06:01 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: I posted on VAF yesterday and got a partial answer to my question there, which caused me to have more questions so I thought I better get to the right place! I have seven annunciator LEDs on my panel; as it turns out all but one switch the positive side of the LED but one switches the ground. I understand how to arrange diodes in a push to test circuit if all the LEDs are switched the same way but cannot find an example of a circuit where there is a mixture of ground and positive switching with a single push to test button. The response to my post on VAF suggested a double pole push button but I have not found a suitably small DPST (ON) device. I'd really like to make the circuit with a small SPST (ON) pushbutton but am short on the circuit knowledge. Does anyone have a reference diagram of such a circuit that I could 'borrow'? You betcha. Did this in some airplane wayyyyyyy back when. The annunciators were light bulbs instead of leds but the principal is the same. You can get the parts at Radio Shack . . . http://tinyurl.com/3lu334y The transistors operate saturated so given the intermittent duty service, will not require heat-sinks. Wire 'em up and truck on. You could probably get it to work fine with physically smaller transistors but these TO-200 devices are robust and easy to mount to a piece of perf-board. Bob . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
At 11:17 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: >Thanks for the responses, guys. I really wish I had more time to >try and figure it out >right now, but I'll have to wait until next Monday or so, after I get back. > >I went out and did a quick cycle or two of the circuit, and the LEDs >appear to turn on and off >as Dennis describes. The pitch motor obviously is twisting the prop >blades, but the whole >thing still seems to be working exactly as it should, except it only >has a one second range, >from switch on to circuit off, maybe at most, two seconds! > >I did see that if I keep switching in the same direction, over and >over, I can get the opposite >direction to stay "lit" longer, getting it to twist for 3-4 >seconds. I even kept "pressuring it", >and the 10A circuit breaker popped. I reset it, and everything >still worked fine...just briefly. Okay, if your 10A breaker popped, the motor/gearbox combo is drawing way too much current . . . for reasons as yet unknown. The limiter may well be doing what it was designed to do. Try taking it out of the circuit as described earlier and then measure the current. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
At 10:42 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: >I will take 2 > >Deems noted. thanks. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: push to test circuit for differing loads
Date: Jun 21, 2011
Ok - devil's advocate here. Bob's schematic parts count: 2 transistors, 4 resistors = 6 components - or -- ONE small, 2-amp, DIP DPDT relay. Which way is stronger/better/faster/easier? _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern Little Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 20:29 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push to test circuit for differing loads Check out the IL-4A or IL-12A on this site: http://vx-aviation.com/page_2.html The datasheet has the schematic for what you want if you feel like building your own. Thx, Vern Little Vx Aviation From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:52 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push to test circuit for differing loads At 06:01 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: I posted on VAF yesterday and got a partial answer to my question there, which caused me to have more questions so I thought I better get to the right place! I have seven annunciator LEDs on my panel; as it turns out all but one switch the positive side of the LED but one switches the ground. I understand how to arrange diodes in a push to test circuit if all the LEDs are switched the same way but cannot find an example of a circuit where there is a mixture of ground and positive switching with a single push to test button. The response to my post on VAF suggested a double pole push button but I have not found a suitably small DPST (ON) device. I'd really like to make the circuit with a small SPST (ON) pushbutton but am short on the circuit knowledge. Does anyone have a reference diagram of such a circuit that I could 'borrow'? You betcha. Did this in some airplane wayyyyyyy back when. The annunciators were light bulbs instead of leds but the principal is the same. You can get the parts at Radio Shack . . . http://tinyurl.com/3lu334y The transistors operate saturated so given the intermittent duty service, will not require heat-sinks. Wire 'em up and truck on. You could probably get it to work fine with physically smaller transistors but these TO-200 devices are robust and easy to mount to a piece of perf-board. Bob . . . href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jack Haviland <jgh2(at)charter.net>
Subject: Mag Timing
Date: Jun 22, 2011
See the low cost magneto timing kit at www.MagnetoTimer.com. It works well and can be built and tested quickly. Jack Haviland RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: push to test circuit for differing loads
From: "pmnewlon" <philn(at)toosan.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Thank you guys for your excellent input! Phil Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343736#343736 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
From: "pmnewlon" <philn(at)toosan.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
> One way is to take a piece of .032 aluminum strip that spans several switches, drill the hole for the strip, and the keyway hole, and install it BEHIND the panel with the lock tab facing the switch panel. Invisible and fairly easy. Guess who got stalled for about a week trying to decide how to do this? This past weekend I went ahead and drilled the holes thru on my right arm rest panel. The parts are painted and assembled now so they are staying the way they are. I am so glad I saw this post before I did the instrument panel itself the same way! You guys rock :-) Phil Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343737#343737 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Subject: IvoProp current limiter -revisit
I can add some insight into why the device might be inconsistant.... I run the Ivo Prop on my V-8 experimental. I switch back and forth from the regular Magnum series tapered blades to the Paddle blades depending on if I am cruising or hitting the back country strips where leading edg e protection in needed. Both are cut down to 76" dia. The regular magnum ones twist alot easier then the paddle ones simply because of the mass of the blades. Maybe one person has the tapered blades and the device wo rks great and the other guy had the paddle blades and that makes it trip the circuit ????. I do find the idea you guys are crafting quite novel and useful. With a BIG disclaimer, I admit I am old school and on my exp erimental I run a non shunted ammeter gauge. Yeah, I know possible radio noise but I crafted my install using as many safeguards as I could and my set up is bone quiet... I like the idea of a quick glance to see if m y charging system is working or not. Voltmeters are good but it takes a moment to do the math and the ammeter shows instantly whether I am keepi ng up with the load or not.. My choice, I know........ The best part of the ammeter gauge is when I change pitch I can look at the gauge and see the neddle deflection. Slight movement shows it is twisting the prop. When I get to the end of the travel, which is pretty easy to guess when that happens, I see the major needle deflection, which is indicative of a locked rotor, then I know I am at my stop. If I don't quickly get of f the switch, in about 2 seconds the Ivo provided CB will trip. Also ke ep in mind during the blade bending event the greatest load is when the prop is at each end of its twisting. The load on the motor is not linear at all throughout the entire range so that needs to be taken into consi deretion.. IMHO. .02 cents worth. Ben. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IvoProp current limiter -revisit Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:26 -0400 olls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> At 11:17 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote: >Thanks for the responses, guys. I really wish I had more time to >try and figure it out >right now, but I'll have to wait until next Monday or so, after I get b ack. > >I went out and did a quick cycle or two of the circuit, and the LEDs >appear to turn on and off >as Dennis describes. The pitch motor obviously is twisting the prop >blades, but the whole >thing still seems to be working exactly as it should, except it only >has a one second range, >from switch on to circuit off, maybe at most, two seconds! > >I did see that if I keep switching in the same direction, over and >over, I can get the opposite >direction to stay "lit" longer, getting it to twist for 3-4 >seconds. I even kept "pressuring it", >and the 10A circuit breaker popped. I reset it, and everything >still worked fine...just briefly. Okay, if your 10A breaker popped, the motor/gearbox combo is drawing way too much current . . . for reasons as yet unknown. The limiter may well be doing what it was designed to do. Try taking it out of the circuit as described earlier and then measure the current. Bob . . . ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ____________________________________________________________ Official Obama Website President Obama needs your help. Join his 2012 campaign now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e01efe23f9f03ccbst04vuc ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mag Timing
At 05:19 AM 6/22/2011, you wrote: >See the low cost magneto timing kit at ><http://www.MagnetoTimer.com/>www.MagnetoTimer.com. >It works well and can be built and tested quickly. The "magic" behind a magneto timing light is the device's ability to detect points opening and closing when paralleled with a VERY low resistance of a magneto's p-lead winding. The DC resistance measured with points-open is low and goes lower when points close . . . difficult to see with the garden variety ohmmeter. The legacy mag-timer used a buzzer to generate an AC signal (not unlike the Shower-of-Sparks buzzer) to excite the p-lead circuit. Emacs! When the mag points are closed, there's a dead short across the primary of the transformer and no signal is detected by the neon lamp. When the points open, the dc resistance rises slightly but the inductive value rises greatly. The small AC component that appears between the test leads is amplified by the transformer to a value sufficient to light the neon lamp. This is the legacy "buzz box". Additionally, one could generally hear a change in the characteristic of the sound from the buzzer when the points open. You can still build this device from readily available parts. For a compendium of magneto timing devices see: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Magneto_Timing/ There's a dozen ways to "skin this cat." I've not tried it, but I'll bet the low-ohms adapter we developed would detect point-opening/closure on a mag. I'm certain that the new and improved version (coming out shortly) would do it. The directory cited above shows Jim Wier's approach to exciting the open p-lead with a 2 kHz signal and then detecting the rise in circuit impedance as points open to light some leds and give an audible indication. A google search on 'magneto timing' will yield dozens of articles and tools . . . each of which is cited as a better way to skin the cat. In fact, all such tools from the lowly buzz-box to the most sophisticated micro-processor based gee-whiz work as advertised . . . Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
BTW, Keyway slot DOWN. It's settled. -------- 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=343788#343788 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
Good Afternoon Eric, The problem is that not only are the manufacturers inconsistent within the industry, but they are inconsistent within their own product lines. I ordered CBs for a project last year. All were ordered from the same manufacturer. Obviously, I wanted all of them installed so that I could read the amperage numbers easily. Most of them had the keyway in the same orientation but many did not. My answer was to drill top and bottom keying holes for all circuit breakers so that they could all have the numbers right side up even though the keyways were in different orientations. So much for standardization even for Klixon! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/22/2011 12:40:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, emjones(at)charter.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" BTW, Keyway slot DOWN. It's settled. -------- 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=343788#343788 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
Date: Jun 22, 2011
I would think that the CB's being jammed cheek to jowl, (at least they are on my panel), would make rotation impossible and the washers unnecessary. 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 BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:57 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? Good Afternoon Eric, The problem is that not only are the manufacturers inconsistent within the industry, but they are inconsistent within their own product lines. I ordered CBs for a project last year. All were ordered from the same manufacturer. Obviously, I wanted all of them installed so that I could read the amperage numbers easily. Most of them had the keyway in the same orientation but many did not. My answer was to drill top and bottom keying holes for all circuit breakers so that they could all have the numbers right side up even though the keyways were in different orientations. So much for standardization even for Klixon! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/22/2011 12:40:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, emjones(at)charter.net writes: BTW, Keyway slot DOWN. It's settled. -------- 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=343788#343788============== =============================== ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =============================================== - List Contribution Web Site sp; ================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
Date: Jun 22, 2011
BTW, Keyway slot DOWN. It's settled. -------- Eric M. Jones Perhaps for you, but apparently not for the rest of the world!!=98=BA Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
Good Afternoon Bruce, I have no doubt that you are correct and chances are my fears are unfounded, but by using the anti rotation washers, all torque loads are ca rried by the threaded barrel. If you rely on close proximity of the devices to stop rotation, any torque that is present will be applied to the case. Seems a bit more sanitary to confine that torque to one metal shaft! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/22/2011 3:27:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, BGray(at)glasair.org writes: I would think that the CB=99s being jammed cheek to jowl, (at least they are on my panel), would make rotation impossible and the washers unnecessary. 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 BobsV35 B(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:57 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? Good Afternoon Eric, The problem is that not only are the manufacturers inconsistent within th e industry, but they are inconsistent within their own product lines. I ordered CBs for a project last year. All were ordered from the same manufacturer. Obviously, I wanted all of them installed so that I could read the amperage numbers easily. Most of them had the keyway in the same orientation but many did not. My answer was to drill top and bottom keying holes for all circuit breakers so that they could all have the numbers right side up even though the keyway s were in different orientations. So much for standardization even for Klixon! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/22/2011 12:40:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, emjones(at)charter.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" BTW, Keyway slot DOWN. It's settled. -------- 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=343788#343788===== ============= == ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================= ====== - List Contribution Web Site sp; - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - --> _http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> _http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/) - List Contribution Web Site - Thank you for your generous support! -Matt Dralle, List Admin. --> _http://www.matronics.com/contribution_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) ======================== ============ ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "hhobbit" <jm2833530(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Has anyone here got a usb oscilloscope? the type that turns a laptop or notebook pc into a storage scope? If you have one, it would be great to find out what are the important specs for such a device. They are on ebay starting at suspiciously cheap $50. I figure on recording for example start up voltage transients in the vicinity of the starter, alternator and regulator. Using such a device, the intention is to eliminate a lot of theorising . The manufacturer tells me there is no history of this kind of trouble, and if there is a rogue regulator or capacitor this could be a definitive way to diagnose. My original question on this forum was for general information on how to go about solving such a problem. BTW I found an interesting general article on ESD: http://www.eib-gmbh.de/englisch/faqs/text_faqs.htm in particular Q13. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343814#343814 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: multiple wires to a single terminal
From: "pmnewlon" <philn(at)toosan.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot.... :) I have searched the archives, Bob's AC, and AC43.13 and found nothing that addresses the question "can I (for example) put two 20AWG wires in a 18AWG crimp-on terminal"? Does this defy best practices? It would be electrically sound, mechanically sound, and I think gas-tight. Is it better to lap solder a Y connection with shrink tube and then have a single wire going in the crimped terminal? Along the same lines, how about a solder connection on a switch terminal that needs two wires attached to it? I think the answer to that one is the lap soldered Y. The answer is probably in one of the cited places but I can't seem to come up with the right search words. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343815#343815 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: David <ainut(at)knology.net>
Subject: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps?
I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 amp fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to keep the fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? Thanks, David ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of
amps?
Date: Jun 22, 2011
Not sure what the cap will do for you, but I'm sure it won't help reduce current in the circuit. Are you thinking of a resistor? You could put a current-limiting resistor in series with the horn, but then the horn might be a lot quieter. It would require a little experimentation & knowing how many amps the horn draws. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 15:51 Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps? I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 amp fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to keep the fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? Thanks, David ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: multiple wires to a single terminal
Date: Jun 22, 2011
You may want to check out the chart on this url: http://www.te.com/catalog/bin/TE.Connect?C=24255&M=HELP&BML=&PID=2963&N=40&R QS=C~1%5EM~BYPN%5ETCPN~2-520184-2%5ERQPN~403233752 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pmnewlon Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:47 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: multiple wires to a single terminal At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot.... :) I have searched the archives, Bob's AC, and AC43.13 and found nothing that addresses the question "can I (for example) put two 20AWG wires in a 18AWG crimp-on terminal"? Does this defy best practices? It would be electrically sound, mechanically sound, and I think gas-tight. Is it better to lap solder a Y connection with shrink tube and then have a single wire going in the crimped terminal? Along the same lines, how about a solder connection on a switch terminal that needs two wires attached to it? I think the answer to that one is the lap soldered Y. The answer is probably in one of the cited places but I can't seem to come up with the right search words. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343815#343815 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots
of amps? At 05:51 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: > >I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 >amp fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to >keep the fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? Horns are, in general, 'robust' devices. It's not uncommon for automobiles to use relays to put a firewall between the relatively low current horn button and the noisy beast(s) under the hood. Some parts stores offer devices called "horn relays" . . . in fact, these are simply high current rated relays that can be used for any similar control task. http://tinyurl.com/64xls33 Suggest you go with 20A fuse, 14AWG wire and add a relay like so Emacs! Yeah, 20A is a lot of snort and the horn is probably really loud . . . but it's an intermittent duty system that requires less total energy to run than your tail light. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
At 04:18 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: >Good Afternoon Bruce, > >I have no doubt that you are correct and chances are my fears are >unfounded, but by using the anti rotation washers, all torque loads >are carried by the threaded barrel. If you rely on close proximity >of the devices to stop rotation, any torque that is present will be >applied to the case. Seems a bit more sanitary to confine that >torque to one metal shaft! Good put my friend. I HAVE twisted the mounting barrel off of both breakers and switches by not transferring those torque loads to the panel as opposed to the device body. It probably comes down to planning. If the builder puts the holes in while the panel is being laid out on the table, keyway washer holes are a small part of the total task. ADDING holes after things are bolted to the airplane is another matter. THEN is when the builder is looking for a good excuse not to add them! I've got access to a mill with digital readouts. In the past I've considered offering drill templates for various rows of switches and breakers that would help get ALL the holes nicely lined up and dead-on for location. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of
amps?
Date: Jun 22, 2011
David, I think that you meant what size "Resister" do I put in series with the horn to reduce the current (amps). It is probably going to be a low value 1 - 3 ohms and it will have to be large in "watt" rating. 10 or more watts, depending on how long you beep the horn. Also, keep in mind that you are trying to make a tuned horn work on less power, under 10 amps, than the current it was designed. So, by cutting back the "power" to the horn, it will probably sound "weird"; maybe not even presentable as a bike horn. Try it on the "bench" first before going to the trouble of mounting it to the bike, etc. and discovering then, that it will not do what you wanted it to do. If you bike's wiring can handle say 20 amp loads with a short duty cycle, I would upgrade the fuse to i.e. 20 amps and not modify the horn using a resister. But, it is critical that you know that the factory wiring can handle this level of current without frying. Dave ___________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <ainut(at)knology.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:51 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps? > > I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 amp > fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to keep the > fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? > > Thanks, > David > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
At 04:43 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: > >Has anyone here got a usb oscilloscope? the type that turns a laptop >or notebook pc into a storage scope? If you have one, it would be >great to find out what are the important specs for such a >device. They are on ebay starting at suspiciously cheap $50. Every one of those products will perform as advertised . . . and in many cases, ANY 'scope is better than NO 'scope. Be wary of the ratings. Know that "samples per second" is related to but separate from "bandwidth." For example: http://tinyurl.com/6b6lytn is advertised as a 200 mHz bandwidth and 250 mega-samples per second. In general, sample rates should be AT LEAST 3x the period of interest. So 250 m-s/S implies a useful bandwidth on the order of 80 mHz . . . which is respectable for a $350 digital 'scope. But really 'clean' paints of wave-forms will be limited to 25 mHz. My Tektronix digital scope is rated at 100 mHz bandwidth and 1000 m-s/Sec. Or 10x the rate of the signal of interest. This means that 100 mHz displayed wave-forms will be very faithful to reality a compared with a device that is only 3x faster. Your search for electrical gremlins needs to capture transients of 100 nanoseconds or longer. Shorter transients are easily shunted off by the capacitors that are invariably part of every piece of electronics. Looking for these little short duration spikes is always disappointing. But to get a good picture of a 100 nS event, you're looking for samples at 20nS intervals which is 50 megasamples/S. So the 'scope described in the link above would suffice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: multiple wires to a single terminal
At 04:47 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot.... :) I have searched the archives, Bob's AC, and AC43.13 and found nothing that addresses the question "can I (for example) put two 20AWG wires in a 18AWG crimp-on terminal"? Does this defy best practices? Not at all. See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html It would be electrically sound, mechanically sound, and I think gas-tight. Is it better to lap solder a Y connection with shrink tube and then have a single wire going in the crimped terminal? No Along the same lines, how about a solder connection on a switch terminal that needs two wires attached to it? I think the answer to that one is the lap soldered Y. How big a terminal and what size wires. Generally speaking, a solder-terminal on a switch is robust enough to handle wires rated at a level similar to the switch. For example: How big a terminal and what size wires? Generally speaking, a solder-terminal on a switch is robust enough to handle wires rated at a level similar to the switch. For example: Emacs! This 5A switch handles 22AWG wires nicely. But I probably wouldn't pile more than 2 such wires onto one terminal. Emacs! Switches like this are wired with ring terminals. I've seen a couple of terminals stacked onto one screw with perhaps 4-5 total wires. It's pretty much a judgement call. If in doubt, don't add more wires. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: multiple wires to a single terminal
General question on crimping. Is it better to twist the wires together, in the case of multiple wires, or to twist the strands of a single wire or is it better to have them straight and parallel to the sleeve? Thanks. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 06/22/2011 07:19 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 04:47 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: > > At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot.... :) I have searched the > archives, Bob's AC, and AC43.13 and found nothing that addresses the > question "can I (for example) put two 20AWG wires in a 18AWG crimp-on > terminal"? Does this defy best practices? > > > Not at all. > See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html > > > It would be electrically sound, mechanically sound, and I think > gas-tight. Is it better to lap solder a Y connection with shrink tube > and then have a single wire going in the crimped terminal? > > No > > > Along the same lines, how about a solder connection on a switch terminal > that needs two wires attached to it? I think the answer to that one is > the lap soldered Y. > > How big a terminal and what size wires. Generally > speaking, a solder-terminal on a switch is robust > enough to handle wires rated at a level similar to > the switch. For example: > > How big a terminal and what size wires? > > Generally speaking, a solder-terminal on a switch is robust > enough to handle wires rated at a level similar to > the switch. For example: > > Emacs! > > This 5A switch handles 22AWG wires nicely. But I > probably wouldn't pile more than 2 such wires > onto one terminal. > > Emacs! > > Switches like this are wired with ring terminals. > I've seen a couple of terminals stacked onto one > screw with perhaps 4-5 total wires. It's pretty > much a judgement call. If in doubt, don't add more > wires. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: multiple wires to a single terminal
At 07:36 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote: > >General question on crimping. Is it better to twist the wires >together, in the case of multiple wires, or to twist the strands of >a single wire or is it better to have them straight and parallel to the sleeve? Straight and parallel. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of
amps?
Date: Jun 23, 2011
David a capacitor will filter DC current and pass AC current so it will not work. What you want is probably a resistor which limits current flow. The truth is that if the horn is blowing 10A fuses there is probably a short in the coils of the horn. Bring it back and get another one. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Sent: June 22, 2011 8:21 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps? I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 amp fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to keep the fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? Thanks, David ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2011
I have a Rigol 1052E... it has 50MHz bandwidth and 1GS/s (gigasample per second) when using one channel and 500MS/s when using both channels. If you're feeling brave, it can be hacked up to 100MHz bandwidth. Around $400. It has some drawbacks, but it's pretty great for the price. http://www.tequipment.net/RigolDS1052E.html Another option is the DSO Nano v2. It's more of a toy, but a lot cheaper. $99 http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10244 With both you should be able to save images of your captures. The first exceeds Bob's advice, the second doesn't really come close. On Jun 22, 2011, at 4:43 PM, hhobbit wrote: > > Has anyone here got a usb oscilloscope? the type that turns a laptop or notebook pc into a storage scope? If you have one, it would be great to find out what are the important specs for such a device. They are on ebay starting at suspiciously cheap $50. I figure on recording for example start up voltage transients in the vicinity of the starter, alternator and regulator. Using such a device, the intention is to eliminate a lot of theorising . The manufacturer tells me there is no history of this kind of trouble, and if there is a rogue regulator or capacitor this could be a definitive way to diagnose. My original question on this forum was for general information on how to go about solving such a problem. > BTW I found an interesting general article on ESD: http://www.eib-gmbh.de/englisch/faqs/text_faqs.htm in particular Q13. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of
amps?
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Wattage can be calculated using the equation W=VI=I2R Therefore if the horn is drawing ten amps@12V that is 120Watts DC That is just too much current for the average bike horn. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Lloyd Sent: June 22, 2011 9:33 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps? David, I think that you meant what size "Resister" do I put in series with the horn to reduce the current (amps). It is probably going to be a low value 1 - 3 ohms and it will have to be large in "watt" rating. 10 or more watts, depending on how long you beep the horn. Also, keep in mind that you are trying to make a tuned horn work on less power, under 10 amps, than the current it was designed. So, by cutting back the "power" to the horn, it will probably sound "weird"; maybe not even presentable as a bike horn. Try it on the "bench" first before going to the trouble of mounting it to the bike, etc. and discovering then, that it will not do what you wanted it to do. If you bike's wiring can handle say 20 amp loads with a short duty cycle, I would upgrade the fuse to i.e. 20 amps and not modify the horn using a resister. But, it is critical that you know that the factory wiring can handle this level of current without frying. Dave ___________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <ainut(at)knology.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:51 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: will a cap help here, horn that uses lots of amps? > > I bought an aftermarket horn for my wife's motorcycle that blows 10 amp > fuses when you use it. Can I put a capacitor in front of it to keep the > fuse from blowing? How do I calculate the size of cap to use? > > Thanks, > David > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: multiple wires to a single terminal
From: "pmnewlon" <philn(at)toosan.com>
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Thanks Bob K and Bob L! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343867#343867 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: David <ainut(at)knology.net>
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
Be advised. the DSO unit is made and is shipped from China. David Daniel Hooper wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Daniel Hooper > > I have a Rigol 1052E... it has 50MHz bandwidth and 1GS/s (gigasample per second) when using one channel and 500MS/s when using both channels. If you're feeling brave, it can be hacked up to 100MHz bandwidth. Around $400. It has some drawbacks, but it's pretty great for the price. > > http://www.tequipment.net/RigolDS1052E.html > > > Another option is the DSO Nano v2. It's more of a toy, but a lot cheaper. $99 > http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10244 > > With both you should be able to save images of your captures. The first exceeds Bob's advice, the second doesn't really come close. > > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 4:43 PM, hhobbit wrote: > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "hhobbit" >> >> Has anyone here got a usb oscilloscope? the type that turns a laptop or notebook pc into a storage scope? If you have one, it would be great to find out what are the important specs for such a device. They are on ebay starting at suspiciously cheap $50. I figure on recording for example start up voltage transients in the vicinity of the starter, alternator and regulator. Using such a device, the intention is to eliminate a lot of theorising . The manufacturer tells me there is no history of this kind of trouble, and if there is a rogue regulator or capacitor this could be a definitive way to diagnose. My original question on this forum was for general information on how to go about solving such a problem. >> BTW I found an interesting general article on ESD: http://www.eib-gmbh.de/englisch/faqs/text_faqs.htm in particular Q13. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid of Soros. ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of gubmnt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Nav Data Headsets
Time to replace my 20+ year old Telex headsets. Been looking around and am interested in the Nav Data headset ( www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html ). ANR is not necessary, as I'll modify my headset to ANR if I feel I need it (Headsets Inc.). So these seem like a pretty good choice. The price is right, and judging by the information, they are a US company (Florida). They are being sold at ACS, Tropicaero, The Pilot shop and several other pilot supply stores. But I can't find any reviews on them. Has anyone any experience with them? Or know anyone who has? Or opinions? Harley Dixon Long EZ N28EZ Canandaigua, NY ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Harley, At that price, I would be shocked if they were American made or of good quality. All of the headsets in that price range seem to fall apart in a few years with moderate use. I'd recommend a David Clark 13.4. You can add ANR later, and those headsets are absurdly sturdy. Of the five headsets I have, two are David Clarks, they have more use than the other three headsets I have but the DCs are the only ones that have never broken. My Lightspeed 15K has been sent to Lightspeed several times and now they no longer make several of the replacement parts, so next time it breaks I guess it goes in the trash. If a David Clark headset does break you can send it to them and they'll often fix it free of charge. On Ebay, nearly new 13.4s go for less than $200. New they are less than $300. My guess is that the NavData headset is just a re-badged cheap headset from a foreign manufacturer. It looks identical to the "SHS880C", the weight and noise reduction are identical to the 10th of an ounce. I think the SHS is Korean made. http://www.sadoun.com/Sat/Products/Aviation/SHS880C-Aviation-HeadSet.htm My opinion...the cheap headset will cost you more than a sturdy David Clark...and you have to deal with the inconvenience of it breaking when you need it. Steve Ruse Norman, OK wrote: > Time to replace my 20+ year old Telex headsets. Been looking > around and am interested in the Nav Data headset ( > www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html [1] ). ANR is not necessary, as > I'll modify my headset to ANR if I feel I need it (Headsets Inc.). > > So these seem like a pretty good choice. The price is right, and > judging by the information, they are a US company (Florida). They are > being sold at ACS, Tropicaero, The Pilot shop and several other pilot > supply stores. > > But I can't find any reviews on them. Has anyone any experience with > them? Or know anyone who has? > Or opinions? > > Harley Dixon > Long EZ N28EZ > Canandaigua, NY > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html > [2] http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > [3] http://forums.matronics.com > [4] http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: "hhobbit" <jm2833530(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Sheesh Ainut, why dont you tell you speech outside any WalMart and get your countrymen on your side? Not every pilot is a Republican!!! :D Great derail try BTW! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343891#343891 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Subject: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 23, 2011
I find headsets to be the biggest marketing gimmick since spark plugs and sneakers. Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. If it works, suits the mission and your ears don't look like cherries when you get home, it's probably worth saving a few bucks or at least carrying as a spare. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric- list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve(at)wotelectronics.com Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:50 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav Data Headsets Harley, At that price, I would be shocked if they were American made or of good quality. All of the headsets in that price range seem to fall apart in [Long, Glenn] a few years with moderate use. I'd recommend a David Clark 13.4. You can add ANR later, and those headsets are absurdly sturdy. Of the five headsets I have, two are David Clarks, they have more use than the other three headsets I have but the DCs are the only ones that have never broken. My Lightspeed 15K has been sent to Lightspeed several times and now they no longer make several of the replacement parts, so next time it breaks I guess it goes in the trash. If a David Clark headset does break you can send it to them and they'll often fix it free of charge. On Ebay, nearly new 13.4s go for less than $200. New they are less than $300. My guess is that the NavData headset is just a re-badged cheap headset from a foreign manufacturer. It looks identical to the "SHS880C", the weight and noise reduction are identical to the 10th of an ounce. I think the SHS is Korean made. http://www.sadoun.com/Sat/Products/Aviation/SHS880C-Aviation-HeadSet.htm My opinion...the cheap headset will cost you more than a sturdy David Clark...and you have to deal with the inconvenience of it breaking when you need it. Steve Ruse Norman, OK wrote: > Time to replace my 20+ year old Telex headsets. Been looking > around and am interested in the Nav Data headset ( > www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html [1] ). ANR is not necessary, as > I'll modify my headset to ANR if I feel I need it (Headsets Inc.). > > So these seem like a pretty good choice. The price is right, and > judging by the information, they are a US company (Florida). They are > being sold at ACS, Tropicaero, The Pilot shop and several other pilot > supply stores. > > But I can't find any reviews on them. Has anyone any experience with > them? Or know anyone who has? > Or opinions? > > Harley Dixon > Long EZ N28EZ > Canandaigua, NY > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html > [2] http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > [3] http://forums.matronics.com > [4] http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Thanks for the comment, Glenn...Now that's my kinda thinking...those old Telex's I have fit this description exactly, only ran me about $65 back then and they've been fine...just decided it's time to replace them. Harley ----------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/23/2011 11:17 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > I find headsets to be the biggest marketing gimmick since spark plugs and sneakers. Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. > > If it works, suits the mission and your ears don't look like cherries when you get home, it's probably worth saving a few bucks or at least carrying as a spare. > > Glenn > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 06/23/2011 11:17 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. I wonder if we took a survey, how many of those people now have hearing loss? $300 spent so that I can still hear when I get to retirement age seems like a pretty good investment to me. I can wear the $100 headset I have for about a half an hour before I start getting a headache. I have worn my Bose headset for over 8 hours in a day (two 4 hour flights, back to back with a small break in between), and at the end of the day I still barely noticed it was there. I consider the $950 Bose headset one of the best values I've made in aviation purchases. I've been using them for about 8 years now, so that's roughly $118 per year at present, with the cost decreasing and the value received increasing every day. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Good Afternoon Dj, I am afraid I am one of those who flew for well over fifty years without using any ear protection. I DO now have a considerable hearing loss. About fifteen years ago, I bought Bose Headsets for my airplane. Just wish I had started sooner! Not only are my ears protected, I now comfortably communicate with my passengers. Something that could only be done by shouting in years past. A good set of noise canceling headsets is the cheapest, lightest, and most efficient way to get a comfortable environment in any airplane. It beats thick windshields and massive insulation. As you said. The noise canceling headsets are not expensive, they are cheap when compared to other methods of sound attenuation. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/23/2011 12:48:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, deej(at)deej.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill On 06/23/2011 11:17 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. I wonder if we took a survey, how many of those people now have hearing loss? $300 spent so that I can still hear when I get to retirement age seems like a pretty good investment to me. I can wear the $100 headset I have for about a half an hour before I start getting a headache. I have worn my Bose headset for over 8 hours in a day (two 4 hour flights, back to back with a small break in between), and at the end of the day I still barely noticed it was there. I consider the $950 Bose headset one of the best values I've made in aviation purchases. I've been using them for about 8 years now, so that's roughly $118 per year at present, with the cost decreasing and the value received increasing every day. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
Subject: Re: troubleshooting overvoltages
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
You've got that a little turned around. If you order the Rigol from tequipment.net, it will ship directly from China, like mine did. Rigol is a Chinese company, and makes decent products for people on a tight budget. The only issue I had was the foreign power plug that came with it. I substituted a spare US IEC cable (a computer power cord) and was up and going quickly. The DSO (which I've never used) may be made in China, but Sparkfun is in Boulder, CO -- to the best of my knowledge everything they sell ships from there. Both sparkfun and tequipment.net are companies I've bought from in the past. On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:14 AM, David wrote: > > Be advised. the DSO unit is made and is shipped from China. > > David > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
I belong to an Aviation club where the average membership age is 68. Most of the members over 50 begin pursuit of hearing aids from the flights back in the 60's & 70's. John Cox ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Dj Merrill Sent: Thu 6/23/2011 10:42 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav Data Headsets On 06/23/2011 11:17 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. I wonder if we took a survey, how many of those people now have hearing loss? $300 spent so that I can still hear when I get to retirement age seems like a pretty good investment to me. I can wear the $100 headset I have for about a half an hour before I start getting a headache. I have worn my Bose headset for over 8 hours in a day (two 4 hour flights, back to back with a small break in between), and at the end of the day I still barely noticed it was there. I consider the $950 Bose headset one of the best values I've made in aviation purchases. I've been using them for about 8 years now, so that's roughly $118 per year at present, with the cost decreasing and the value received increasing every day. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Yes, but many of us lost our high frequency hearing courtesy of that little distraction we had occupying the lives of high school graduates, brought to us by Ike, JFK, LBJ and Tricky Dick. Flying was one of the few pleasurable things we could do while waiting for the next set of orders to proceed to the nearest flight across the Pacific. Only benefit is VA providing the hearing aids gratis. On 6/23/2011 4:49 PM, John Cox wrote: > I belong to an Aviation club where the average membership age is 68. > Most of the members over 50 begin pursuit of hearing aids from the > flights back in the 60's & 70's. > John Cox > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Dj > Merrill > *Sent:* Thu 6/23/2011 10:42 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav Data Headsets > > > On 06/23/2011 11:17 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > > > Do you folks remember when we used the Mic? Ok, yes, they are comfy, > cut off important engine noises you should hear and sell lots of > magazine advertising, but for the poor sap that fly's 35 hours/year, > one doesn't need a $300-$1000.00 set of ear muffs. > > > I wonder if we took a survey, how many of those people now > have hearing > loss? > > $300 spent so that I can still hear when I get to retirement > age seems > like a pretty good investment to me. > > I can wear the $100 headset I have for about a half an hour > before I > start getting a headache. I have worn my Bose headset for over 8 hours > in a day (two 4 hour flights, back to back with a small break in > between), and at the end of the day I still barely noticed it was there. > I consider the $950 Bose headset one of the best values I've made in > aviation purchases. I've been using them for about 8 years now, so > that's roughly $118 per year at present, with the cost decreasing and > the value received increasing every day. > > -Dj > > -- > Dj Merrill - N1JOV > Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ > Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://www.Same great content also available > via the Web > href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> > p; - List Contribution bsp; -Matt Dralle, > List > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c================ > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2011
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Thank you, Kelly...I agree... I think it's a little naive to blame all hearing loss in pilots on flying/headsets (or lack of). A little more than a quarter of the people I know that are older than me (70+) have hearing aids, and NONE of them ever flew (including my dad who just started wearing one last year at age 96) other than in commercial planes. In fact, at age 69, my hearing is fine...despite a life of race cars, rock bands, motorcycles, and, oh yes, flying...the majority of the time with NO headsets! And, I was in an artillery battalion in the 60s...nothing like an 8" gun going off right next to you! There are many reasons for hearing loss...and many people who don't have any despite what one may have considered risky behavior in their lives. Harley ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Yes, but many of us lost our high frequency hearing courtesy of > that little distraction we had occupying the lives of high > school graduates, brought to us by Ike, JFK, LBJ and Tricky > Dick. Flying was one of the few pleasurable things we could do > while waiting for the next set of orders to proceed to the > nearest flight across the Pacific. Only benefit is VA providing > the hearing aids gratis. > > On 6/23/2011 4:49 PM, John Cox wrote: >> I belong to an Aviation club where the average membership age >> is 68. Most of the members over 50 begin pursuit of hearing >> aids from the flights back in the 60's & 70's. >> John Cox >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Malcolm Ferguson" <malannx(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 24, 2011
I use a homemade headset similar to the Clarity Aloft using the mic and preamp of an old headset and these little beauties: http://www.cep-usa.com/id23.htm They place the speaker in your ear canal with a foam tip attached-very quiet and comfortable. I have significant hearing loss and wear hearings aids and the homemade set is the only one I have confidence in talking to ATC. My other headset is a Telex Stratus 50D and my wife uses Bose. For clarity I rate my homemade set No 1, the Telex No 2 and the Bose No 3. For quietness Bose No 1, 50D No 2, Mine No 3. Comfort Mine No 1, 50D No 2, Bose No 3( I have largish ears that don't fit that well in the small Bose cup) An inline pot controls volume. For amazing quiet I sometimes put the Telex over my homemade set. Malcolm Ferguson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
From: "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net>
Date: Jun 24, 2011
Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than the Quiet Technologies. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ It is a foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: Quiet as an ANR headset Clearer audio - critical to communication Unbelievably lightweight Rugged design Long-distance flying comfort Inexpensive replacement ear tips No head-squeeze No sweaty earmuffs No "bad hair" days Easy to carry and pack LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset My 2 cents Regards David Lamb Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=343982#343982 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
At 08:12 AM 6/24/2011, you wrote: Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than the Quiet Technologies. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ It is a foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: Quiet as an ANR headset Clearer audio - critical to communication Unbelievably lightweight Rugged design Long-distance flying comfort Inexpensive replacement ear tips No head-squeeze No sweaty earmuffs No "bad hair" days Easy to carry and pack LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset A few years ago I had a headset discussion on the radio with some local hams. One of them was needing a lightweight headset that would let him listen to a radio in a busy office (emergency operations center) but anything that pressed on or covered his ears was uncomfortable. We tossed around some ideas. After several passes at an experiment, he settled on some $10 ear buds with nice foam seals. He said that he could not wear them with the usual 'wedge' fit for which they were designed but he fashioned a head band from coat hangar wire. The buds were attached to loops at the ends of the wire with JB Weld. With simple manipulation of the wire, he could get exactly the pressure he wanted on the ear canal without actually forcing anything into the ear. Since the seal to the outside world was still quite effective, noise attenuation was on a par with foam ear-plugs. The poorest of foam ear plugs offers 20+ db attenuation . . . . reduction of ambient noises to 1% or less. This combination of head-set and stock hand-held microphone proved a practical, low cost and effective solution. Telex had a super-light headset way back when with 'insert' technology. They gave some samples to Cessna flight test guys. None of them were still in the hands of a flight test pilot a few months later. I ended up with a pair that I kept in my flight bag. They 'worked' fine as a headset but had small, hard plastic tips that needed to be wedged into the ear canal. I couldn't wear them for more than an hour. Kept them many years as 'backup' to the audio isolation amplifier but very seldom needed them. The DIY earbud solution might need an impedance matching transformer to work well with the higher impedance aviation headset circuits . . . furhter study is needed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2011
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
From: Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com>
I did a DIY headset after studying some of the guys on vaf for awhile. I haven't actually flown with it yet (or really figured out a good way to attach the microphone to my head), but initial tests with the impedance matching and volume control work well). I use Klipsh S4 headphones with this setup, they are awesome in-ear headphones, cost $80 and are marketed (in consumer reviews) as sounding like the $300 audiophile in-ear headphones. Here's the link to my page describing the DIY portion: http://n999za.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/roll-your-own-in-ear-headset/. I need to try them out in an RV to see how they'll work in my future rv-7. -Andrew On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> > > > At 08:12 AM 6/24/2011, you wrote: > > Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve hours > over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than the Quiet > Technologies. http://www.quiettechnologies.**com/>It is a foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: > Quiet as an ANR headset > Clearer audio - critical to communication > Unbelievably lightweight > Rugged design > Long-distance flying comfort > Inexpensive replacement ear tips > No head-squeeze > No sweaty earmuffs > No "bad hair" days > Easy to carry and pack > LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset > > A few years ago I had a headset discussion on the > radio with some local hams. One of them was needing > a lightweight headset that would let him listen to > a radio in a busy office (emergency operations > center) but anything that pressed on or covered > his ears was uncomfortable. > > We tossed around some ideas. After several passes > at an experiment, he settled on some $10 ear buds > with nice foam seals. He said that he could not > wear them with the usual 'wedge' fit for which > they were designed but he fashioned a head band > from coat hangar wire. The buds were attached > to loops at the ends of the wire with JB Weld. > With simple manipulation of the wire, he could > get exactly the pressure he wanted on the ear > canal without actually forcing anything into > the ear. Since the seal to the outside world > was still quite effective, noise attenuation > was on a par with foam ear-plugs. > > The poorest of foam ear plugs offers 20+ db > attenuation . . . . reduction of ambient noises > to 1% or less. This combination of head-set > and stock hand-held microphone proved a practical, > low cost and effective solution. > > Telex had a super-light headset way back when > with 'insert' technology. They gave some samples > to Cessna flight test guys. None of them were > still in the hands of a flight test pilot a few > months later. I ended up with a pair that I kept > in my flight bag. They 'worked' fine as a headset > but had small, hard plastic tips that needed to > be wedged into the ear canal. I couldn't wear > them for more than an hour. Kept them many years > as 'backup' to the audio isolation amplifier > but very seldom needed them. > > The DIY earbud solution might need an impedance > matching transformer to work well with the higher > impedance aviation headset circuits . . . furhter > study is needed. > > > Bob . . . > > -- Andrew Zachar andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Ciolino" <johnciolino(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 24, 2011
Harley, I have a Dave Clark 13.4 headset that is used but in fairly good condition that I'll sell to you for $75 plus shipping. It needs a new mic muff but has the Oregon Aero ear pad upgrade as well as the DC gel pads. If interested respond off-line to johnciolino(at)comcast.net. John Ciolino From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harley Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:48 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nav Data Headsets Time to replace my 20+ year old Telex headsets. Been looking around and am interested in the Nav Data headset ( www.navdatakneeboard.com/index.html ). ANR is not necessary, as I'll modify my headset to ANR if I feel I need it (Headsets Inc.). So these seem like a pretty good choice. The price is right, and judging by the information, they are a US company (Florida). They are being sold at ACS, Tropicaero, The Pilot shop and several other pilot supply stores. But I can't find any reviews on them. Has anyone any experience with them? Or know anyone who has? Or opinions? Harley Dixon Long EZ N28EZ Canandaigua, NY ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2011
From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
On 06/24/2011 08:12 AM, RV7ASask wrote: > > > Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve > hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than > the Quiet Technologies.
http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ It is a > foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: Quiet as an ANR > headset Clearer audio - critical to communication Unbelievably > lightweight Rugged design Long-distance flying comfort Inexpensive > replacement ear tips No head-squeeze No sweaty earmuffs No "bad hair" > days Easy to carry and pack LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset > > My 2 cents Regards David Lamb I bought two sets at Oshkosh a few years ago. My wife and I both love them. -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Cole <LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 24, 2011
I have a 1946 Cessna 140 that has a very noisy interior (no mufflers on the engine). The problem that I have is that the microphone picks up the noise. If I turn the squelch up so it doesn't continuously pick up the noise, I have to shout to break the squelch. Any solutions to this problem? Lynn Cole LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 08:12 AM 6/24/2011, you wrote: > > > Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve > hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than > the Quiet Technologies. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ It is a > foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: > Quiet as an ANR headset > Clearer audio - critical to communication > Unbelievably lightweight > Rugged design > Long-distance flying comfort > Inexpensive replacement ear tips > No head-squeeze > No sweaty earmuffs > No "bad hair" days > Easy to carry and pack > LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset > > A few years ago I had a headset discussion on the > radio with some local hams. One of them was needing > a lightweight headset that would let him listen to > a radio in a busy office (emergency operations > center) but anything that pressed on or covered > his ears was uncomfortable. > > We tossed around some ideas. After several passes > at an experiment, he settled on some $10 ear buds > with nice foam seals. He said that he could not > wear them with the usual 'wedge' fit for which > they were designed but he fashioned a head band > from coat hangar wire. The buds were attached > to loops at the ends of the wire with JB Weld. > With simple manipulation of the wire, he could > get exactly the pressure he wanted on the ear > canal without actually forcing anything into > the ear. Since the seal to the outside world > was still quite effective, noise attenuation > was on a par with foam ear-plugs. > > The poorest of foam ear plugs offers 20+ db > attenuation . . . . reduction of ambient noises > to 1% or less. This combination of head-set > and stock hand-held microphone proved a practical, > low cost and effective solution. > > Telex had a super-light headset way back when > with 'insert' technology. They gave some samples > to Cessna flight test guys. None of them were > still in the hands of a flight test pilot a few > months later. I ended up with a pair that I kept > in my flight bag. They 'worked' fine as a headset > but had small, hard plastic tips that needed to > be wedged into the ear canal. I couldn't wear > them for more than an hour. Kept them many years > as 'backup' to the audio isolation amplifier > but very seldom needed them. > > The DIY earbud solution might need an impedance > matching transformer to work well with the higher > impedance aviation headset circuits . . . furhter > study is needed. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 24, 2011
Subject: Nav Data Headsets
Good Afternoon Lynn, Don't know if it will help, but I have a small leather sleeve that fits over the boom mike. It has a couple of holes where the sound can get through. That is what I use for my open cockpit Stearman. I am confident that my Stearman is at least as noisy an environment as is your Cessna 140! Not sure where I got the leather sleeves, but I kinda think they came with the David Clark headsets used in my cloth helmets. You might give it a try. Happy Skies, Old Bob PS Which Fox Valley are you in? There is one nearby my Downers Grove, IL home. In a message dated 6/24/2011 3:35:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net writes: I have a 1946 Cessna 140 that has a very noisy interior (no mufflers on the engine). The problem that I have is that the microphone picks up the noise. If I turn the squelch up so it doesn't continuously pick up the noise, I have to shout to break the squelch. Any solutions to this problem? Lynn Cole _LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net_ (mailto:LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net) On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: <_nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com_ (mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com) > At 08:12 AM 6/24/2011, you wrote: <_rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net_ (mailto:rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net) > Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset than the Quiet Technologies. _http://www.quiettechnologies.com_ (http://www.quiettechnologies.com/) / It is a foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: Quiet as an ANR headset Clearer audio - critical to communication Unbelievably lightweight Rugged design Long-distance flying comfort Inexpensive replacement ear tips No head-squeeze No sweaty earmuffs No "bad hair" days Easy to carry and pack LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset A few years ago I had a headset discussion on the radio with some local hams. One of them was needing a lightweight headset that would let him listen to a radio in a busy office (emergency operations center) but anything that pressed on or covered his ears was uncomfortable. We tossed around some ideas. After several passes at an experiment, he settled on some $10 ear buds with nice foam seals. He said that he could not wear them with the usual 'wedge' fit for which they were designed but he fashioned a head band from coat hangar wire. The buds were attached to loops at the ends of the wire with JB Weld. With simple manipulation of the wire, he could get exactly the pressure he wanted on the ear canal without actually forcing anything into the ear. Since the seal to the outside world was still quite effective, noise attenuation was on a par with foam ear-plugs. The poorest of foam ear plugs offers 20+ db attenuation . . . . reduction of ambient noises to 1% or less. This combination of head-set and stock hand-held microphone proved a practical, low cost and effective solution. Telex had a super-light headset way back when with 'insert' technology. They gave some samples to Cessna flight test guys. None of them were still in the hands of a flight test pilot a few months later. I ended up with a pair that I kept in my flight bag. They 'worked' fine as a headset but had small, hard plastic tips that needed to be wedged into the ear canal. I couldn't wear them for more than an hour. Kept them many years as 'backup' to the audio isolation amplifier but very seldom needed them. The DIY earbud solution might need an impedance matching transformer to work well with the higher impedance aviation headset circuits . . . furhter study is needed. Bob . . . - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - --> _http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - http://forums.matronics.com - List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. --> _http://www.matronics.com/contribution_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lynn Cole <LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net>
Subject: Re: Nav Data Headsets
Date: Jun 24, 2011
I'm at C77. Lynn Cole LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:04 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Afternoon Lynn, > > Don't know if it will help, but I have a small leather sleeve that > fits over the boom mike. It has a couple of holes where the sound > can get through. That is what I use for my open cockpit Stearman. I > am confident that my Stearman is at least as noisy an environment > as is your Cessna 140! > > Not sure where I got the leather sleeves, but I kinda think they > came with the David Clark headsets used in my cloth helmets. > > You might give it a try. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > PS Which Fox Valley are you in? There is one nearby my Downers > Grove, IL home. > > In a message dated 6/24/2011 3:35:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net writes: > I have a 1946 Cessna 140 that has a very noisy interior (no > mufflers on the engine). The problem that I have is that the > microphone picks up the noise. If I turn the squelch up so it > doesn't continuously pick up the noise, I have to shout to break > the squelch. Any solutions to this problem? > Lynn Cole > LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net > > > On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> >> >> At 08:12 AM 6/24/2011, you wrote: >> >> >> Everyone has their favorite headset. On a recent flight of twelve >> hours over two days I couldn't have asked for a better headset >> than the Quiet Technologies. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ It >> is a foamie in the ear type. Their advertising says: >> Quiet as an ANR headset >> Clearer audio - critical to communication >> Unbelievably lightweight >> Rugged design >> Long-distance flying comfort >> Inexpensive replacement ear tips >> No head-squeeze >> No sweaty earmuffs >> No "bad hair" days >> Easy to carry and pack >> LOWEST PRICE of any insert headset >> >> A few years ago I had a headset discussion on the >> radio with some local hams. One of them was needing >> a lightweight headset that would let him listen to >> a radio in a busy office (emergency operations >> center) but anything that pressed on or covered >> his ears was uncomfortable. >> >> We tossed around some ideas. After several passes >> at an experiment, he settled on some $10 ear buds >> with nice foam seals. He said that he could not >> wear them with the usual 'wedge' fit for which >> they were designed but he fashioned a head band >> from coat hangar wire. The buds were attached >> to loops at the ends of the wire with JB Weld. >> With simple manipulation of the wire, he could >> get exactly the pressure he wanted on the ear >> canal without actually forcing anything into >> the ear. Since the seal to the outside world >> was still quite effective, noise attenuation >> was on a par with foam ear-plugs. >> >> The poorest of foam ear plugs offers 20+ db >> attenuation . . . . reduction of ambient noises >> to 1% or less. This combination of head-set >> and stock hand-held microphone proved a practical, >> low cost and effective solution. >> >> Telex had a super-light headset way back when >> with 'insert' technology. They gave some samples >> to Cessna flight test guys. None of them were >> still in the hands of a flight test pilot a few >> months later. I ended up with a pair that I kept >> in my flight bag. They 'worked' fine as a headset >> but had small, hard plastic tips that needed to >> be wedged into the ear canal. I couldn't wear >> them for more than an hour. Kept them many years >> as 'backup' to the audio isolation amplifier >> but very seldom needed them. >> >> The DIY earbud solution might need an impedance >> matching transformer to work well with the higher >> impedance aviation headset circuits . . . furhter >> study is needed. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - >> <> >> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - >> http://forums.matronics.com >> - List Contribution Web Site - >> <>-Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> ======================== Web href="http:// >> forums.matronics.com/">http:// >> forums.matronics.com========================= -Matt com/ >> contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http:// >> www.matronics.com/contribution ===================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Toggle switch keyway convention: up vs. down
From: "mathewdisoza" <mathewdisoza(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2011
Hey Bob.. . . . . . . .! Cool hah 8) -------- I'm Mathew and I love to learn Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=344078#344078 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Toggle switch keyway convention: up vs. down
At 01:03 PM 6/25/2011, you wrote: > > >Hey Bob.. . . . . . . .! >Cool hah 8) > >-------- >I'm Mathew and I love to learn Welcome to the list. The sum total of experiences and willingness to share amongst members is huge. You've come to the right place! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2011
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Diodes on Relays
I understand about using diodes to protect the contacts on contactors, but I'm wondering why we don't typically use them on smaller electro-mechanical relays in the 20-40 amp range such as http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=34M8970 Is it the lower current? If so what's the point where you do or don't need a diode across the coil contacts? John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Diodes on Relays
At 10:46 AM 6/26/2011, you wrote: > >I understand about using diodes to protect the contacts on >contactors, but I'm wondering why we don't typically use them on >smaller electro-mechanical relays in the 20-40 amp range such as >http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=34M8970 >Is it the lower current? If so what's the point where you do or >don't need a diode across the coil contacts? No hard and fast rule. The diode, or any other "spike suppression" device is really an energy management tool. EVERY inductive device has a potential for returning a bundle of stored energy back into the system when the energizing source of current is broken. In some cases, that energy has the potential for (1) causing anomalous behavior in some other system, (2) erosion of contacts for the controlling switch, (3) damage to the controlling solid state device . . . or some combination of the three. There are many cases where none of these risks are significant and spike suppression is not part of the design. Except for rare instances involving close control of relay operating speed, ANY of the legacy spike suppression techniques is useful to the task . . . and if you're in doubt, it doesn't hurt to add it. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Diodes on Relays
I understand about using diodes to protect the contacts on contactors, but I'm wondering why we don't typically use them on smaller electro-mechanical relays in the 20-40 amp range such as http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=34M8970 Is it the lower current? If so what's the point where you do or don't need a diode across the coil contacts? No hard and fast rule. The diode, or any other "spike suppression" device is really an energy management tool. EVERY inductive device has a potential for returning a bundle of stored energy back into the system when the energizing source of current is broken. A little elaboration . . . EVERY conductor of electrons has some predictable and measurable inductive AND capacitive component . . . even a lowly chunk of wire running from point A to point B. For wires the value of capacitance to any adjacent conductors manifests in PICO farads per foot. Inductance for a 10' length of 22awg wire is in the neighborhood of 30 NANO henries per foot. Neither characteristic's magnitude large enough to be significant storage reservoirs of energy. Now, wind say 50' of 30AWG wire around a core and put it inside the shell of a contactor to operate the armature and the ability to store energy takes a quantum jump. Fabricating two conductors of significant area on either side of a dielectric material and that too creates a huge increase in capacitance along with an ability to store energy. Playing the energy management game in any system of interactive components is a juggling act. The goal is to (1) understand significant sources of rogue energy, (2) identify potential risks for letting that energy roam free in the wild and (3) deducing what techniques are most practical for keeping risks to vulnerable systems within reason. In some cases you can never corral all the errant energy, in some cases you design potentially vulnerable systems to shrug off potential antagonists at or below certain levels. In other words, craft a full-up system where there is a comfortable band of separation between ability to withstand versus ability to control the deleterious exchange of energy between systems. Small relays controlled by ordinary switches do not represent a cost of ownership/service life issue . . . so the designer may choose to leave energy mitigation devices off the bill of materials. At the same time, that exact same combination of inductance and switch might produce transients that are antagonistic to the performance of some high-speed digital system . . . but if the designers of systems at high risk for interference are doing their job, risks generated by the occasional operation of a switch on the panel are accommodated by design. See: http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal My assertion for 'no hard and fast rules' was not intended to minimize the need for understanding exactly how all the ingredients for your particular recipe come together. The competent observer will take note of that 'hiccup' in display being coincident with operating the switch and then decide if there is value in changes to the recipe to correct the phenomenon. He will also note that some switch is demonstrating a poor service life and do something about it . . . http://tinyurl.com/3k6he9s Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Diodes on Relays
Date: Jun 26, 2011
Bob, I've recently discovered that the 20 amp relays that B&C sells have non-polarity sensitive coil terminals. Does this mean that there are (steering) diodes already built into the relay? And if so, do these same diodes take care of the small inductive spike on release? Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diodes on Relays I understand about using diodes to protect the contacts on contactors, but I'm wondering why we don't typically use them on smaller electro-mechanical relays in the 20-40 amp range such as http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=34M8970 Is it the lower current? If so what's the point where you do or don't need a diode across the coil contacts? No hard and fast rule. The diode, or any other "spike suppression" device is really an energy management tool. EVERY inductive device has a potential for returning a bundle of stored energy back into the system when the energizing source of current is broken. A little elaboration . . . EVERY conductor of electrons has some predictable and measurable inductive AND capacitive component . . . even a lowly chunk of wire running from point A to point B. For wires the value of capacitance to any adjacent conductors manifests in PICO farads per foot. Inductance for a 10' length of 22awg wire is in the neighborhood of 30 NANO henries per foot. Neither characteristic's magnitude large enough to be significant storage reservoirs of energy. Now, wind say 50' of 30AWG wire around a core and put it inside the shell of a contactor to operate the armature and the ability to store energy takes a quantum jump. Fabricating two conductors of significant area on either side of a dielectric material and that too creates a huge increase in capacitance along with an ability to store energy. Playing the energy management game in any system of interactive components is a juggling act. The goal is to (1) understand significant sources of rogue energy, (2) identify potential risks for letting that energy roam free in the wild and (3) deducing what techniques are most practical for keeping risks to vulnerable systems within reason. In some cases you can never corral all the errant energy, in some cases you design potentially vulnerable systems to shrug off potential antagonists at or below certain levels. In other words, craft a full-up system where there is a comfortable band of separation between ability to withstand versus ability to control the deleterious exchange of energy between systems. Small relays controlled by ordinary switches do not represent a cost of ownership/service life issue . . . so the designer may choose to leave energy mitigation devices off the bill of materials. At the same time, that exact same combination of inductance and switch might produce transients that are antagonistic to the performance of some high-speed digital system . . . but if the designers of systems at high risk for interference are doing their job, risks generated by the occasional operation of a switch on the panel are accommodated by design. See: http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal My assertion for 'no hard and fast rules' was not intended to minimize the need for understanding exactly how all the ingredients for your particular recipe come together. The competent observer will take note of that 'hiccup' in display being coincident with operating the switch and then decide if there is value in changes to the recipe to correct the phenomenon. He will also note that some switch is demonstrating a poor service life and do something about it . . . http://tinyurl.com/3k6he9s Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Diodes on Relays
Date: Jun 26, 2011
Bevan; MOST small relays are NOT polarity sensitive. For the most part, the only ones that are, are the ones containing spike suppression diodes or LED indicators. The relay coil itself doesn't care about polarity. The B&C relays are most likely generic basic relays without any sort of diodes such as the ones linked to by John at the start of this thread. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:43 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Diodes on Relays Bob, I've recently discovered that the 20 amp relays that B&C sells have non-polarity sensitive coil terminals. Does this mean that there are (steering) diodes already built into the relay? And if so, do these same diodes take care of the small inductive spike on release? Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diodes on Relays I understand about using diodes to protect the contacts on contactors, but I'm wondering why we don't typically use them on smaller electro-mechanical relays in the 20-40 amp range such as http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=34M8970 Is it the lower current? If so what's the point where you do or don't need a diode across the coil contacts? No hard and fast rule. The diode, or any other "spike suppression" device is really an energy management tool. EVERY inductive device has a potential for returning a bundle of stored energy back into the system when the energizing source of current is broken. A little elaboration . . . EVERY conductor of electrons has some predictable and measurable inductive AND capacitive component . . . even a lowly chunk of wire running from point A to point B. For wires the value of capacitance to any adjacent conductors manifests in PICO farads per foot. Inductance for a 10' length of 22awg wire is in the neighborhood of 30 NANO henries per foot. Neither characteristic's magnitude large enough to be significant storage reservoirs of energy. Now, wind say 50' of 30AWG wire around a core and put it inside the shell of a contactor to operate the armature and the ability to store energy takes a quantum jump. Fabricating two conductors of significant area on either side of a dielectric material and that too creates a huge increase in capacitance along with an ability to store energy. Playing the energy management game in any system of interactive components is a juggling act. The goal is to (1) understand significant sources of rogue energy, (2) identify potential risks for letting that energy roam free in the wild and (3) deducing what techniques are most practical for keeping risks to vulnerable systems within reason. In some cases you can never corral all the errant energy, in some cases you design potentially vulnerable systems to shrug off potential antagonists at or below certain levels. In other words, craft a full-up system where there is a comfortable band of separation between ability to withstand versus ability to control the deleterious exchange of energy between systems. Small relays controlled by ordinary switches do not represent a cost of ownership/service life issue . . . so the designer may choose to leave energy mitigation devices off the bill of materials. At the same time, that exact same combination of inductance and switch might produce transients that are antagonistic to the performance of some high-speed digital system . . . but if the designers of systems at high risk for interference are doing their job, risks generated by the occasional operation of a switch on the panel are accommodated by design. See: http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal My assertion for 'no hard and fast rules' was not intended to minimize the need for understanding exactly how all the ingredients for your particular recipe come together. The competent observer will take note of that 'hiccup' in display being coincident with operating the switch and then decide if there is value in changes to the recipe to correct the phenomenon. He will also note that some switch is demonstrating a poor service life and do something about it . . . http://tinyurl.com/3k6he9s Bob . . . href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Diodes on Relays
At 08:57 PM 6/26/2011, you wrote: >Bevan; > >MOST small relays are NOT polarity sensitive. For the most part, >the only ones that are, are the ones containing spike suppression >diodes or LED indicators. The relay coil itself doesn't care about polarity. >The B&C relays are most likely generic basic relays without any sort >of diodes such as the ones linked to by John at the start of this thread. > Correct. The only relay I used to sell that did have the built in diode was a starter contactor . . . and it was available either way. There was some notation like 'coil suppression' stamped on the bottom of the one with a diode. I'm aware of no relays other than mil-spec devices and a few 'upper crust' industrial relays that commonly sport the built in suppression. Emacs! This one clearly does not . . . Emacs! While the schematic on the enclosure for this one shows a diode and clear (+) mark for the coil polarity. If the relay you have in hand DOES include coil suppression, then it will be clearly marked as such in some manner on the outside. Otherwise, relay coils are not polarity sensitive. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 27, 2011
Subject: Mechanics of adding resistors
Hi all, I am wiring a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 into my RV 8. The unit has a 4.8V "exciter" circuit. Two auxiliary inputs are for fuel tank sensors. I understand from the wiring diagram here _http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0H4ITpn8XkreroJCKrbKAiMAAupS245hbJv750-QGDWR_s M4xYTe_rS3WbvLLocO9yHTwpDwbZCoOirg3wW5zJBdnGsGgN0/File0002.pdf_ (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0H4ITpn8XkreroJCKrbKAiMAAupS245hbJv750-QGDWR_sM4xYTe_rS3Wb vLLocO9yHTwpDwbZCoOirg3wW5zJBdnGsGgN0/File0002.pdf) that I wire a 470 ohm resistor between the 4.8V exciter circuit and the wire to the fuel tank sensor. The other end of the fuel tank sensor goes to ground. Since there are two circuits, one to each fuel tank, I had thought to solder or crimp the two resistors to the exciter wire and then strip a half inch of the wire from the EIS unit to the fuel sensor. The ends of the resistors would be soldered into the sensor wire and the joint covered in heat shrink. I began to wonder how much heat would be generated and if I need to protect this from other wires. I wouldn't think there would be much heat since there is little current in a sensor. Can anyone shed some light on the mechanics of how I should set this up? Regards Michael Wynn RV 8 Wiring San Ramon, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanics of adding resistors
At 08:41 AM 6/27/2011, you wrote: Hi all, I am wiring a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 into my RV 8. The unit has a 4.8V "exciter" circuit. Two auxiliary inputs are for fuel tank sensors. I understand from the wiring diagram here http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0H4ITpn8XkreroJCKrbKAiMAAupS245hbJv750-QGDWR_sM4xYTe_rS3WbvLLocO9yHTwpDwbZCoOirg3wW5zJBdnGsGgN0/File0002.pdf I tried to open that link but was not successful . . . that I wire a 470 ohm resistor between the 4.8V exciter circuit and the wire to the fuel tank sensor. The other end of the fuel tank sensor goes to ground. Since there are two circuits, one to each fuel tank, I had thought to solder or crimp the two resistors to the exciter wire and then strip a half inch of the wire from the EIS unit to the fuel sensor. The ends of the resistors would be soldered into the sensor wire and the joint covered in heat shrink. Like this? Emacs! See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Homeless/Homeless_Components.htm I began to wonder how much heat would be generated and if I need to protect this from other wires. I wouldn't think there would be much heat since there is little current in a sensor. Correct. If there's a reason for selecting larger than necessary for electrical performance, it's for mechanical robustness. Consider 1/2 watt resistors for this task. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
Subject: Re: Mechanics of adding resistors
From: Christopher SeaStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com>
Hello Michael, Just finished a similar install on a Dynon D180 and Rotax with multiple resistors for current loop sensors. Choose a point in-line for the resistors that you can mechanically support the wire bundle. Trim the resistor leads to about 1/2" slip multiple layers of heat shrink tubing onto the wires before assembly if unable to add heatshrink post assembly. I soldered all connections. Heatshrink tubing over each resistor, then bundle and larger heatshrink tubing. Be sure to extend the heatshrink tubing 1" or further beyond the connection for mechanical support. The current the resistors is limiting is in the 10s of milliamps range and thus almost no power (heat) is dissapated. Chris Stone RV-8 Oregon On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:41 AM, wrote: > ** > > Hi all, > > I am wiring a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 into my RV 8. The unit has a 4.8V > "exciter" circuit. Two auxiliary inputs are for fuel tank sensors. I > understand from the wiring diagram here > > > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0H4ITpn8XkreroJCKrbKAiMAAupS245hbJv750-QGDWR_sM4xYTe_rS3WbvLLocO9yHTwpDwbZCoOirg3wW5zJBdnGsGgN0/File0002.pdf > > that I wire a 470 ohm resistor between the 4.8V exciter circuit and the > wire to the fuel tank sensor. The other end of the fuel tank sensor goes to > ground. > > Since there are two circuits, one to each fuel tank, I had thought to > solder or crimp the two resistors to the exciter wire and then strip a half > inch of the wire from the EIS unit to the fuel sensor. The ends of the > resistors would be soldered into the sensor wire and the joint covered in > heat shrink. > > I began to wonder how much heat would be generated and if I need to protect > this from other wires. I wouldn't think there would be much heat since > there is little current in a sensor. > > Can anyone shed some light on the mechanics of how I should set this up? > > Regards > > Michael Wynn > RV 8 Wiring > San Ramon, CA > > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Diodes on Relays
Date: Jun 27, 2011
I=99ve successfully used these automotive types with built-in supression (resistors): http://search.digikey.com/scripts/dksearch/dksus.dll?Keywords=255-2161- ND&site=US&WT.mc_id=tbr_srch&WT.mc_ev=click Also available with diodes, but the resistor type is polarity insensitive. Vern From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 10:21 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Diodes on Relays At 08:57 PM 6/26/2011, you wrote: Bevan; MOST small relays are NOT polarity sensitive. For the most part, the only ones that are, are the ones containing spike suppression diodes or LED indicators. The relay coil itself doesn=C2=92t care about polarity. The B&C relays are most likely generic basic relays without any sort of diodes such as the ones linked to by John at the start of this thread. Correct. The only relay I used to sell that did have the built in diode was a starter contactor . . . and it was available either way. There was some notation like 'coil suppression' stamped on the bottom of the one with a diode. I'm aware of no relays other than mil-spec devices and a few 'upper crust' industrial relays that commonly sport the built in suppression. This one clearly does not . . . While the schematic on the enclosure for this one shows a diode and clear (+) mark for the coil polarity. If the relay you have in hand DOES include coil suppression, then it will be clearly marked as such in some manner on the outside. Otherwise, relay coils are not polarity sensitive. Bob . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: An icon and teacher of teachers has left us . . .
See: http://www.edn.com/article/print/518496-Analog_guru_Jim_Williams_dies_after_stroke.php Would that we all achieve 1/10th of what this man has accomplished both as a creator of new ideas and as teacher of how those ideas work . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: An icon and teacher of teachers has left us . .
. Actually, we lost two analog icons... http://www.edn.com/article/518568-Analog_engineering_legend_Bob_Pease_killed_in_car_crash.php Dick Tasker Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > See: > > http://www.edn.com/article/print/518496-Analog_guru_Jim_Williams_dies_after_stroke.php > > Would that we all achieve 1/10th of what this man has > accomplished both as a creator of new ideas and as > teacher of how those ideas work . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: An icon and teacher of teachers has left us .
. . At 03:33 PM 6/27/2011, you wrote: > > >Actually, we lost two analog icons... > >http://www.edn.com/article/518568-Analog_engineering_legend_Bob_Pease_killed_in_car_crash.php > >Dick Tasker Just damn . . . the gods are not smiling on us these days. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanics of adding resistors
At 04:21 PM 6/27/2011, you wrote: >Thanks, Bob > >You are right on top of everything, as usual. It's worthy of note that others had the same advice. If more than one individual has been-there- done-that, it MUST be a practical recipe for success. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Tiny solder tab
Date: Jun 29, 2011
G'day Bob, I have a tiny soldering job to do because the return wire shown in the photo has separated from the LED solder tab. The LED OEM (Luminus) data sheet says that the used and spare cathode (just visible at the top of the LED base) are interconnected, but there would be more strain on the main wire to reach the spare solder tab. Perhaps a small jumper between the first and second cathode (and same for the anodes) would be smart too, but I need to re-attach the wire without damaging the LED. I have some ideas about how to provide strain relief and protection for the wires Bob, but what do you think is the best way to prepare and re-solder to this tiny solder tab, which is only about 1/16 x 1/8" in size? For reference, the screws are M3. Cheers, Stu ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Tiny solder tab
At 09:32 AM 6/28/2011, you wrote: >G'day Bob, > >I have a tiny soldering job to do because the return wire shown in >the photo has separated from the LED solder tab. The LED OEM >(Luminus) data sheet says that the used and spare cathode (just >visible at the top of the LED base) are interconnected, but there >would be more strain on the main wire to reach the spare solder >tab. Perhaps a small jumper between the first and second cathode >(and same for the anodes) would be smart too, but I need to >re-attach the wire without damaging the LED. I have some ideas >about how to provide strain relief and protection for the wires Bob, >but what do you think is the best way to prepare and re-solder to >this tiny solder tab, which is only about 1/16 x 1/8" in size? For >reference, the screws are M3. What AWG are these wires? How much current does the LED draw? The first idea that comes to mind is replacing the wires with smaller gage still sufficient to the current. I'd bet you can go down to 24 or perhaps 26AWG. Remove all the existing 'fat' wires and bring smaller leads to the outside of the enclosure. Use some form of adhesive/sealant to secure the wires as they pass through the housing. Once in the more robust, outside world, figure out some form of connector . . . or perhaps splice to more robust leads and secure the joint mechanically under a band-clamp. You need a soldering iron with a small tip and some 63/37 solder. I'd clean off the pads with a piece of solder-wick, re-tin the pads with small dots of solder. Tin the ends of wires to be attached. Then 'tack' the wires onto the pads. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2011
Subject: Re: Tiny solder tab
From: Christopher SeeStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com>
Stu, If that's a MCPCB (metal core printed circuit bard, typically aluminum) you will need to preheat the board (and LED) on a hot plate to properly solder to the pad. Without heating the board you will never get the solder to flo w on the pad. At work we build hundreds of these type of LED assemblies. We set our hotplate to 150=B0 C and use 63/37 Pb/Sn solder. Place the MCPCB o n the hotplate. Place a small piece of solder on the pad. Bring the tinned wire and soldering iron tip in contact with the pad. The solder should flo w freely. Remove the solder iron and the solder should re-solidify on the pa d with the wire embedded. Remove the assembly from the hotplate. Chris Stone RV-8 OR On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Stuart Hutchison < stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> wrote: > ** > G'day Bob, > > I have a tiny soldering job to do because the return wire shown in the > photo has separated from the LED solder tab. The LED OEM (Luminus) data > sheet says that the used and spare cathode (just visible at the top of th e > LED base) are interconnected, but there would be more strain on the > main wire to reach the spare solder tab. Perhaps a small jumper between the > first and second cathode (and same for the anodes) would be smart too, bu t I > need to re-attach the wire without damaging the LED. I have some ideas > about how to provide strain relief and protection for the wires Bob, but > what do you think is the best way to prepare and re-solder to this tiny > solder tab, which is only about 1/16 x 1/8" in size? For reference, the > screws are M3. > > Cheers, Stu > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Tiny solder tab
Date: Jun 29, 2011
Thanks Bob and Chris. Yes, I reckon the wires are about 16 AWG and the current draw is said to be about 3.15A for the landing light part of the new AveoMaxx 6-in-1. I would return it for repair under warranty, but Aveo voided that because I removed three screws holding the front lens in place. I was trying to look for an obvious fault and also see how the 'beam angle adjustment' works, but there is none. After exiting the body, the wires are soldered to the control circuit board, which is embedded in epoxy. I'll put some thought into how to heat the board as Chris suggested and give it a go. Mouser Electronics sell the LEDS for about $50 each if I screw it up. Cheers, Stu _____ 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, June 29, 2011 1:07 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tiny solder tab At 09:32 AM 6/28/2011, you wrote: G'day Bob, I have a tiny soldering job to do because the return wire shown in the photo has separated from the LED solder tab. The LED OEM (Luminus) data sheet says that the used and spare cathode (just visible at the top of the LED base) are interconnected, but there would be more strain on the main wire to reach the spare solder tab. Perhaps a small jumper between the first and second cathode (and same for the anodes) would be smart too, but I need to re-attach the wire without damaging the LED. I have some ideas about how to provide strain relief and protection for the wires Bob, but what do you think is the best way to prepare and re-solder to this tiny solder tab, which is only about 1/16 x 1/8" in size? For reference, the screws are M3. What AWG are these wires? How much current does the LED draw? The first idea that comes to mind is replacing the wires with smaller gage still sufficient to the current. I'd bet you can go down to 24 or perhaps 26AWG. Remove all the existing 'fat' wires and bring smaller leads to the outside of the enclosure. Use some form of adhesive/sealant to secure the wires as they pass through the housing. Once in the more robust, outside world, figure out some form of connector . . . or perhaps splice to more robust leads and secure the joint mechanically under a band-clamp. You need a soldering iron with a small tip and some 63/37 solder. I'd clean off the pads with a piece of solder-wick, re-tin the pads with small dots of solder. Tin the ends of wires to be attached. Then 'tack' the wires onto the pads. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Tiny solder tab
At 07:53 AM 6/29/2011, you wrote: >Thanks Bob and Chris. > >Yes, I reckon the wires are about 16 AWG and the current draw is >said to be about 3.15A for the landing light part of the new AveoMaxx 6-in-1. Okay, you can drop the wire to 22AWG and make the job MUCH easier. To have come from the factory with such fat wire is mystifying . . . > I would return it for repair under warranty, but Aveo voided that > because I removed three screws holding the front lens in place. I > was trying to look for an obvious fault and also see how the 'beam > angle adjustment' works, but there is none. After exiting the > body, the wires are soldered to the control circuit board, which is > embedded in epoxy. I'll put some thought into how to heat the > board as Chris suggested and give it a go. Mouser Electronics sell > the LEDS for about $50 each if I screw it up. Okay, you've not bounded your risks. $50 + time to do the experiment is not the upper limit . . . if you 'screw it up' it may be because you don't have the tools and techniques which the factory does have. An out-of-warranty repair might be cheaper than a new LED assy and the risks for lack of tools and process go to zero. I'd sure talk to the factory first . . . and ask them, "why 16AWG lead wires?" in a 5A or less circuit. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Engstad, Kai" <kengstad(at)orclinic.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2011
Subject: Alternators
As a electrical dunce I've got what is probably a simple question. What is the advantage of buying a an alternator, alternator controller, overvoltage protection and wiring it up as opposed to a "self contained" unit. For exa mple one made by Planepower. On the face of it this would seem simpler? Kai ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III [nuckolls.bob(at)a eroelectric.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:35 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tiny solder tab At 07:53 AM 6/29/2011, you wrote: Thanks Bob and Chris. Yes, I reckon the wires are about 16 AWG and the current draw is said to be about 3.15A for the landing light part of the new AveoMaxx 6-in-1. Okay, you can drop the wire to 22AWG and make the job MUCH easier. To have come from the factory with such fat wire is mystifying . . . I would return it for repair under warranty, but Aveo voided that because I removed three screws holding the front lens in place. I was trying to l ook for an obvious fault and also see how the 'beam angle adjustment' works , but there is none. After exiting the body, the wires are soldered to the control circuit board, which is embedded in epoxy. I'll put some thought into how to heat the board as Chris suggested and give it a go. Mouser Ele ctronics sell the LEDS for about $50 each if I screw it up. Okay, you've not bounded your risks. $50 + time to do the experiment is not the upper limit . . . if you 'screw it up' it may be because you don't have the tools and techniques which the factory does have. An out-of-warranty repair might be cheaper than a new LED assy and the risks for lack of tools and process go to zero. I'd sure talk to the factory first . . . and ask them, "why 16AWG lead wires?" in a 5A or less circuit. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Alternators
At 11:53 AM 6/29/2011, you wrote: >As a electrical dunce I've got what is probably a simple question. >What is the advantage of buying a an alternator, alternator >controller, overvoltage protection and wiring it up as opposed to a >"self contained" unit. For example one made by Planepower. On the >face of it this would seem simpler? It is. The legacy components approach pre-dates all-in-one by 70 years or so. The B&C LR-series regulators include active notification of LOW VOLTAGE which is generally not included in the all-in-one products and should be part of your planning. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OT - power supply
At 12:52 AM 6/30/2011, you wrote: > >I am looking for any type of manual for a Gould MG 5-60C power supply. Here's a company that claims to repair them. They mgiht sell you a copy of the manual.\ http://www.electricalcalibrations.com/product-detail.asp?search=77890 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2011
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds
The Aircraft Electronics Association did not sit out on this one... LEE'S SUMMIT, MO, June 29, 2011 -- On behalf of its membership representing more than 1,300 aviation businesses, Aircraft Electronics Association President Paula Derks took issue with President Barack Obama's criticism of the general aviation industry during his remarks at a White House press co. See Below http://aea.net/aeatoday.asp?ID=120 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2011
Clearly you distorted what President Obama said. He was referring to tax breaks for corporate jets. To distort this into a general bomb throwing at general aviation is silly, or worse--plain dishonest. Every child growing up has to decide: Whether it is better to be his brothers' keeper or not. Or shall we just watch out for our own selfish interests and to hell with everyone who can't take care of themselves. Many have obviously chosen the latter. Right now 2% of the population owns 50% of EVERYTHING and 50% of the population (Half the population!) owns just 2% of everything. The conservatives' statement that "We don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem: is just disingenuous. See attached. And please pass it on to your friends and representatives. When the Federal Reserve releases the figures for 2010, There will be a revolution. And sorry for the politics. -------- 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=344562#344562 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/us_wealth_distribution_update_2007_590.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds
At 07:39 AM 7/1/2011, you wrote: > >Clearly you distorted what President Obama said. . . . which misses the fundamental point entirely. It's not about people having more or less "stuff" being treated differently from folks who have a different amounts of "stuff." It's about the abuse of law. The law is simply the collective manifestation of our individual right to self defense. See Bastiat, "The Law": http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/The_Law.pdf In a civilized society the law is not a tool of plunder, oppression or class warfare. As soon as a politician utters a word personal to any citizen, they have violated the founding fathers spirit and intent for crafting a civilized society. This isn't a conservative, liberal, republican, or democratic thing. All of those entities are pitting one group against another with arguments that go into the most trivial of details while ignoring the "elephant in the room." Liberty is a fundamental right to be left alone. The founding fathers were not interested in groups but in individuals. Not for their beliefs but for their behaviors. The honorable citizen protects the liberty of himself and his neighbors. The citizen capable of heroism will do so at personal risk. The premise of the AEA response was dead on. The idea that anyone should single out a group of individuals for special attention under the law completely ignores the far reaching ramifications for that attack upon liberty of millions. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/I_Pencil.pdf An airplane, yacht, luxury home in the mountains, or the lowly pencil are the sum totals of work-product for millions of people. The idea that corporate jets are separate and isolated from the constellation of self-interested providers of value all over the planet is misguided. It's certainly not in keeping with First Principals upon which this country was founded. >And sorry for the politics. Class warfare, plunder and oppression ARE indeed political. The fundamentals for creation and maintenance of a civilized society are not. Like rivets, aluminum, and oil for the Tefzel insulation, they are ingredients that go into a recipe for success. The fact liberty and honorable endeavors are behaviors as opposed to hard goods is what makes them unique to humans. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I can crank up another list-server engine on matronics.com for that purpose. I have a couple of them that are not in service at the present time. Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2011
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds
At 09:39 AM 7/1/2011, you wrote: > > > >And sorry for the politics. > >-------- >Eric M. Jones > >Take your "Twisted" Political views to a political website. This is NOT the >place!! Gently, gently my friend. It is difficult to champion honorable behaviors with excited pejoratives. Please let me deal with it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2011
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds
Bob, I'm afraid that you've missed the point, as well. It isn't about jet owners, or oil companies; it's about fairness in application of the law. When an exec (employee, not owner) can have a company helicopter pick him up for work and the company is allowed a tax deduction for that, and at the same time I'm allowed no tax deduction as an employee for my transportation to work, the law isn't applied equitably. If the Pres had listed every offending individual, he'd never finish. He was obviously just offering examples, as I just did. Everybody hates paying taxes, but it astounds me when I hear hard working people who have no way out of paying more than their fair share, defending those who lobby (euphemism for *bribe*) their way into paying little or none of their share. What Eric's post doesn't mention is that the 50% of us who own 2% of everything, pay more than 50% of the taxes to support everything. Warren Buffet has said that his housekeeper pays taxes at a higher tax rate than Buffet. There's something very wrong with that. Dan, Throwing out your political opinion & then saying 'oops, sorry, nothing more should be said', just doesn't cut it. Kinda like asking you, in public, how long it's been since you quit beating your wife. It distresses me greatly when I see posts that brazenly say, in effect, 'political posts I agree with "probably" have no place here, but anything I disagree with is "sick, and definitely has no place here." ' It really makes me wonder what country this is, where only opinions we agree with are allowed, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor. Charlie On 07/01/2011 09:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 07:39 AM 7/1/2011, you wrote: >> >> >> Clearly you distorted what President Obama said. > > . . . which misses the fundamental point > entirely. It's not about people having more or > less "stuff" being treated differently from > folks who have a different amounts of "stuff." > It's about the abuse of law. > > The law is simply the collective manifestation > of our individual right to self defense. > See Bastiat, "The Law": > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/The_Law.pdf > > In a civilized society the law is not a tool of > plunder, oppression or class warfare. > As soon as a politician utters a word > personal to any citizen, they have violated > the founding fathers spirit and intent for > crafting a civilized society. > > This isn't a conservative, liberal, republican, > or democratic thing. All of those entities > are pitting one group against another > with arguments that go into the most > trivial of details while ignoring > the "elephant in the room." Liberty is a > fundamental right to be left alone. > > The founding fathers were not interested > in groups but in individuals. Not for their > beliefs but for their behaviors. The honorable > citizen protects the liberty of himself and > his neighbors. The citizen capable of heroism > will do so at personal risk. > > The premise of the AEA response was dead on. > The idea that anyone should single out a > group of individuals for special attention > under the law completely ignores the far > reaching ramifications for that attack upon > liberty of millions. See: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/I_Pencil.pdf > > An airplane, yacht, luxury home in the mountains, > or the lowly pencil are the sum totals of > work-product for millions of people. The idea that > corporate jets are separate and isolated > from the constellation of self-interested > providers of value all over the planet is > misguided. It's certainly not in keeping > with First Principals upon which this > country was founded. > >> And sorry for the politics. > > Class warfare, plunder and oppression ARE > indeed political. The fundamentals for creation > and maintenance of a civilized society are > not. Like rivets, aluminum, and oil for > the Tefzel insulation, they are ingredients > that go into a recipe for success. The fact > liberty and honorable endeavors are behaviors > as opposed to hard goods is what makes them > unique to humans. > > If you'd like to continue this discussion, > I can crank up another list-server engine > on matronics.com for that purpose. I have > a couple of them that are not in service > at the present time.


June 02, 2011 - July 01, 2011

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-km