AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kq
September 09, 2011 - October 06, 2011
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>> fail
>> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is
>> the
>> major use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>> ramped
>> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
>> primary
>> cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow
>> that
>> ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around
> it
>>
>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
I am getting a loud hiss on both aircraft radios whenever my LED
position lights are turned on. In fact, any FM radio in the vicinity
gets the hiss too.
I have "Jeff's LED lights for RVs" installed in the wing tips along
with Bob Archer antennas. Though it may be worth noting that the SL30
Comm antenna is a standard belly mounted bent whip.
I know the RF is coming from the radios because if I turn the volume
down on the radios, the noise disappears (in other words, the intercom
is not affected).
The archives have some discussion of filters, resistors and capacitors
but I'm not sure where to start.
My first inclination is to disconnect one at a time to see if the noise
is coming from both lights. Then I don't know where to start.
Please help.
Bill "falling in love with his first George" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
David;
In automotive use halogen bulb life is adversely affected by low voltage,
high resistance connections, poor grounds etc etc. "Dimming" a halogen bulb
(at least certain types) is deadly for it. A bulb operated on low voltage
will very rapidly darken as the filament material which evaporates is
deposited on the quartz envelope and the lamp will rapidly fail as the
filament cross section is reduced. I'm told, but don't quite understand why
or how, that operating these bulbs at full or even slightly increased
voltage somehow keeps the quartz hot enough that the filament material does
not "plate out" or coat the inside of the envelope and instead migrates back
to the filament keeping the filament intact and extending its life. That
apparently is part of the purpose behind the halogen gas filling the
envelope.
I don't fully understand how this process works but anecdotally have proven
it to be correct. I had a van with H4 halogen headlamps which used to "eat"
bulbs. Couldn't keep bulbs in it for love nor money until I discovered that
the voltage regulator was faulty and was barely keeping a charge in the
battery. Upon replacing the regulator, thus getting the voltage back up to
spec, the battery was noticeably healthier, starting was much quicker and
easier, the lights were significantly brighter and they lasted for several
years rather than the couple of months I'd been getting from them before.
Your "pulsed" circuit may have the effect of appearing to be a reduced
voltage source for the bulbs causing a similar situation to what I
experienced first hand in my old van.
Or this may be totally out to lunch and Bob's theory of heat cycling may be
the answer, but because I've first hand knowledge of reduced voltage killing
halogen bulbs I'll put the theory forward for whatever it's worth.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen bulbs,
> i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>
> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
> modes.
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
recognition.
> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
OFF-ON-PULSED.
> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
primary
> cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow that
> ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
> would be greatly appreciated. David
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
I used inrush current limiters on my halogens (450+ hours so far). Since
this also causes the lamps to take more time to reach full brightness, I
modified the B&C flasher to slow it down by doubling the capacitance of the
electrolytic capacitor inside the can. Double the resistor value would also
work.
V
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
Bob,
I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle being
the stress failure mode.
When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal and
intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are broken
at the very end.
Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal life.
And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress. I
wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet proof
filament structure.
I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have a
similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
Thanks, David
___________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
> recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
> OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
> primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would
> slow that ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>
> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>
> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>
> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
> sticking with it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Zimmer" <stickandrudder1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Low Cost WigWag Alternatives |
Bob, of the alternatives presented in your article 'Low Cost Wigwag
Alternatives', which would be most appropriate for a HID Taxi and Landing
Light implementation, given that the HID lights need to be warmed up prior
to flashing (assuming a manual warmup perior prior to switching to
flashing)? Also being unfamiliar with the B&C WigWag, do both switches need
to be in the wigwag position in order for wigwag to work, or is it an either
or situation?. I'm referring to the to switch drawing on P.5 of the
article.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
I bought a 55W HID kit on Ebay for $55 + shipping ($70 total) as other have.
Most HID's are 35 watt. I'm expecting these to be about twice as bright as
100watt incandescent, but haven't powered them up yet. I don't consider
this to be an expensive upgrade.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
-->
Bruce,
...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive when one
needs a really bright recognition lamp.
I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
reduction.... Thanks, David
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> OK, how about LED?
>
> 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
> David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
> sets.....
> David
>
> ____________________________________________________
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>> Switch to HID.
>>
>> 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
> David
>> Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>
>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>> bulbs, i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>
>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
>> failure modes.
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>> recognition.
>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>> fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
>> recognition is the major use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up
>> is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
>> (induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
>> these devices.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around
> it
>>
>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig |
wag relay
Check out the Show Me units - Their a Wig-Wag flasher unit like used
on emergency vehicles like police cars. I have one of these on my
plane which drives a pair of driving lights for the purpose of
recognition lights and it works good. The unit I have allows you to
select flash both, alternate flash, or both lights on. Also check
the wattage of your landing lights and what a unit can handle. They
can be purchased with wire pig tails or screw terminals, I got the
one with screw terminals. Also there is flash rate, I got the
slowest I could get which comes out to be a second on, a second
off. I think mine cost me around $45 dollars a few years back - I
use it for switching recognition (driving) lights on my ultralight.
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/bcssales/shomranheadf.html
Do a search on Google.com for Able 2 & Show ME wig wag flashers.
There is a lot of price variation between places that sell them, I
got mine from the manufacturer - they had the best price.
The problem you may be experiencing with the LED lights is the low
current load if the unit using a thermo-switch much like a
turn-signal flash unit. I don't think you would have a problem with
the unit above.
I now had the units and the driving lights running for over 10
years. My how time flys . . . .
jerb
At 08:13 AM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>At 07:56 AM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>I purchased the B&C wig wag relay and wired it according to the
>>schematic for an off-on-on switch and B&C diode assembly. The
>>wig-wag is in the middle position. I included the
>>resistors between the relay and ground shown in the updated
>>schematic. The system works fine with incandecent nav lights but
>>not with the LED landing lights. Only one LED light turns on in wig
>>wag mode and both lights turn on in continuous on mode. The nav
>>lights draw about 3.2 amps, the LED lights about 3.7 amp. Anyone
>>know what is going on here and how to fix it. Should I just
>>purchase an electronic wig wag unit designed for LED's?
>
> I modified that drawing for B&C based on testing I
> did using one of the flashers from their inventory.
> The resistors were added to emulate the fixed load
> offered by incandescent lamps. You are the second
> individual who was unable to duplicate the behavior
> I was getting on the bench. I have a pair of Whelen
> LED landing lights loaned to me by another reader
> and I plotted their current draw vs. voltage curve
> which I posted on the List a few days ago.
>
> I'm somewhat tied up with some family matters and
> can't get back to the bench right now to figure out
> what's going on . . . but the solution will not
> be difficult. Sit tight for the moment . . . watch
> this space.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bevan,
I think that I have viewed some of those on eBay. But, I came away with the
idea that they were not a complete kit; power supply, harness, bulb/lamp
combo, etc. I will take a better review of the offerings. Please let me
know if you receive a complete operational system.
David
===============================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> I bought a 55W HID kit on Ebay for $55 + shipping ($70 total) as other
> have.
> Most HID's are 35 watt. I'm expecting these to be about twice as bright
> as
> 100watt incandescent, but haven't powered them up yet. I don't consider
> this to be an expensive upgrade.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:51 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
> -->
>
> Bruce,
> ...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive when
> one
> needs a really bright recognition lamp.
> I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
> reduction.... Thanks, David
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>> OK, how about LED?
>>
>> 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
>> David Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>
>> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
>> sets.....
>> David
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Switch to HID.
>>>
>>> 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
>> David
>>> Lloyd
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>>> bulbs, i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>>
>>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
>>> failure modes.
>>>
>>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>>> recognition.
>>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>>
>>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>>> fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
>>> recognition is the major use.
>>>
>>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up
>>> is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
>>> (induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
>>> these devices.
>>>
>>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around
>> it
>>>
>>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Vern,
I am unfamiliar with the "current limiters" that you mention.
Your solution looks great. Please give a bit more detail...
I will check for my solid state flasher model and if it can be
modified...(not potted, etc.)
It was part of the RMD wing tip system.
David
===========================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
> <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
>
> I used inrush current limiters on my halogens (450+ hours so far). Since
> this also causes the lamps to take more time to reach full brightness, I
> modified the B&C flasher to slow it down by doubling the capacitance of
> the electrolytic capacitor inside the can. Double the resistor value
> would also work.
>
> V
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> Bob,
> I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle
> being
> the stress failure mode.
>
> When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal
> and
> intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are
> broken
> at the very end.
>
> Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
> these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
>
> I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal
> life.
> And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress.
> I
> wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet
> proof
> filament structure.
>
> I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have
> a
> similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
> Thanks, David
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>> recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>> OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>> fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition
>> is the major use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is
>> the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction)
>> would slow that ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>>
>> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
>> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
>> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
>> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>>
>> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
>> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
>> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
>> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
>> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
>> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
>> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
>> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
>> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
>> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
>> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
>> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
>> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
>> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>>
>> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
>> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
>> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
>> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
>> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
>> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
>> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>>
>> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
>> sticking with it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Thanks Bob for giving me other possible answers. When I carefully
looked at the halogen bulb inside the lamp, they did not appear to have
any darkness that I could see. Appeared crystal clear. I will look
again...
David
===================
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob McCallum
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
David;
In automotive use halogen bulb life is adversely affected by low
voltage, high resistance connections, poor grounds etc etc. "Dimming" a
halogen bulb (at least certain types) is deadly for it. A bulb operated
on low voltage will very rapidly darken as the filament material which
evaporates is deposited on the quartz envelope and the lamp will rapidly
fail as the filament cross section is reduced. I'm told, but don't quite
understand why or how, that operating these bulbs at full or even
slightly increased voltage somehow keeps the quartz hot enough that the
filament material does not "plate out" or coat the inside of the
envelope and instead migrates back to the filament keeping the filament
intact and extending its life. That apparently is part of the purpose
behind the halogen gas filling the envelope.
I don't fully understand how this process works but anecdotally have
proven it to be correct. I had a van with H4 halogen headlamps which
used to "eat" bulbs. Couldn't keep bulbs in it for love nor money until
I discovered that the voltage regulator was faulty and was barely
keeping a charge in the battery. Upon replacing the regulator, thus
getting the voltage back up to spec, the battery was noticeably
healthier, starting was much quicker and easier, the lights were
significantly brighter and they lasted for several years rather than the
couple of months I'd been getting from them before.
Your "pulsed" circuit may have the effect of appearing to be a reduced
voltage source for the bulbs causing a similar situation to what I
experienced first hand in my old van.
Or this may be totally out to lunch and Bob's theory of heat cycling
may be the answer, but because I've first hand knowledge of reduced
voltage killing halogen bulbs I'll put the theory forward for whatever
it's worth.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
bulbs,
> i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>
> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
failure
> modes.
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
recognition.
> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
OFF-ON-PULSED.
> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem
to fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition
is the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
primary
> cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow
that
> ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work
around it
> would be greatly appreciated. David
>
>
> _-
> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - The AeroElectric-List Email
Forum -
>
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> _-
> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> _-
> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - List Contribution Web Site
-
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Thank you for your generous support!
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -->
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> _-
> ==
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
Awhile back, I did a post about this exact modification. http://n999za.com/2010/11/07/hacking-the-wig-wag-flasher/
Of course, I was only successful because if this list's gracious help and advice.
Hoping the pictures assist the discussion...
__
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
On Sep 9, 2011, at 10:57 PM, "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com> wrote:
>
> I used inrush current limiters on my halogens (450+ hours so far). Since this
also causes the lamps to take more time to reach full brightness, I modified
the B&C flasher to slow it down by doubling the capacitance of the electrolytic
capacitor inside the can. Double the resistor value would also work.
>
> V
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure
mode
>
>
> Bob,
> I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle being
> the stress failure mode.
>
> When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal and
> intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are broken
> at the very end.
>
> Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
> these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
>
> I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal life.
> And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress. I
> wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet proof
> filament structure.
>
> I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have a
> similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
> Thanks, David
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic recognition.
They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either OFF-ON-PULSED. (
I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to fail nearly
at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is the major
use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or ramped up
too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the primary cause,
I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow that ramping
down and return normal life to these devices.
>>
>> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
>> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
>> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
>> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>>
>> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
>> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
>> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
>> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
>> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
>> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
>> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
>> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
>> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
>> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
>> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it would
be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
>> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
>> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
>> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>>
>> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
>> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
>> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
>> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
>> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
>> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
>> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>>
>> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
>> sticking with it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder troubles |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
check. Any other thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder troubles |
| From: | Ed Gilroy <egilroy(at)gmail.com> |
I had something similar happen to me only a few weeks ago arriving at
Lancaster, PA. I was on a discrete code from prior flight following services
and the tower said I was squawking 1200. A quick right turn followed by a
look down revealed a VERY close VFR aircraft underneath me on my exact
original course which was the runway heading for a straight in to the
active. Was he blanketing my signal in some manner? unknown. Once I had
diverged a bit the tower began seeing my signal and correct discrete code.
I wonder how long we had been flying in "un-intentional formation"?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
> when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
> Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
> assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
> and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
> departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
> equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
> giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
> how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
> something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
> see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
> think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
> was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
> unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
> unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
> been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
> check. Any other thoughts?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder troubles |
At 09:52 AM 9/10/2011, you wrote:
Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
check. Any other thoughts?
Don't worry about it . . . yet. Aviation electronics, transponders
in particular are prime examples of what CAN happen when one agency
with no particular expertise has the power to mandate behaviors
to others without regard or responsibility for the unintended
consequences.
Modern transponders are descendants of the WWII IFF (identification,
friend or foe) systems that helped avoid shooting down our own
airplanes. The Mode A (identification only) systems of the 1960's
were relatively simple pulse generators tide to an almost stable
high power oscillator that would, most of the time, let the guy
on the ground sort your primary radar return from perhaps hundreds
of other returns.
Then they added altitude reporting by making this little bitty
change to the pattern of pulses . . . that were supposed to let
the system on the ground tell the difference between two closely
spaced string of pulses . . . first being I.D. the second being
altitude. Of course, there were volumes of specifications written
to which willing players complied so that they could play in the
avionics sand-box.
When some transponders failed to deliver a flavor of pulses
distasteful to the ground systems, it was discovered that the
agency in question 'made a mistake' in writing the specifications.
The cost of a work-around nearly sank Terra. This is but one
of many examples for how our avionics and the efficiency to which
they perform has be regulated into inept antiquity . . .
While the rest of the universe is communicating in digital
spread spectrum, we still talk on radios that suck for air
(VHF AM). This is but a hand-full of examples of system
evolution that has been subject to administrative retardation.
Yeah, it's getting "better" . . . but only by stacking band-aid
on top of band-aid to a system that should have been trashed
and replaced decades ago. You've got more capability, flexibility
and utility in the computer upon which you're reading these words
than the FAA has in their radar systems they depend on to tell
other folks what to do . . . ostensibly to keep them from running
into each other. It's sorta like sending a one armed man blind
in one eye into a sword fight with a atomic powered table knife.
If he's VERY talented, he'll be okay most of the time.
So when somebody on the ground says there's something wrong
with your radios, do your own due diligence but don't be surprised
if the difficulty cannot be identified or repeated. His
perceptions are altered by systematic retardation and may
not always be accurate.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
David,
The HID kit I bought included two ballasts, H3 bulbs, and harnesses. I have
yet to make a way to mount the ballasts but shouldn't be difficult. The
ballasts are the newer slim (lighter?) version. The whole assembly is
heavier than regular halogens.
The solid state flasher I bought has a max rating of 55W per bulb, so this
was the original reason to go away from the 100w halogens I was originally
planning. The benefit will be more light, less power, and longer lasting I
hope.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
-->
Bevan,
I think that I have viewed some of those on eBay. But, I came away with the
idea that they were not a complete kit; power supply, harness, bulb/lamp
combo, etc. I will take a better review of the offerings. Please let me
know if you receive a complete operational system.
David
===============================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
> -->
>
> I bought a 55W HID kit on Ebay for $55 + shipping ($70 total) as other
> have.
> Most HID's are 35 watt. I'm expecting these to be about twice as
> bright as 100watt incandescent, but haven't powered them up yet. I
> don't consider this to be an expensive upgrade.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:51 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
> -->
>
> Bruce,
> ...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive
> when one needs a really bright recognition lamp.
> I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
> reduction.... Thanks, David
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>> OK, how about LED?
>>
>> 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
>> David Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>
>> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
>> sets.....
>> David
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Switch to HID.
>>>
>>> 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
>> David
>>> Lloyd
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>>> bulbs, i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>>
>>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
>>> failure modes.
>>>
>>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>>> recognition.
>>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>>
>>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem
>>> to fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
>>> recognition is the major use.
>>>
>>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up
>>> is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
>>> (induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
>>> these devices.
>>>
>>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work
>>> around
>> it
>>>
>>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Steube" <at6c(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles |
It's ATC problem. I have had the same issue with ATC on a number of
occasions, if one radar site has a problem and nobody else does I wouldn't
be in a hurry to get to the repair shop.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
check. Any other thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
I used the CL-21 from
www.ge-mcs.com/download/temperature/920_325a.pdf
Available at Digi-Key
Thanks, V
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
Vern,
I am unfamiliar with the "current limiters" that you mention.
Your solution looks great. Please give a bit more detail...
I will check for my solid state flasher model and if it can be
modified...(not potted, etc.)
It was part of the RMD wing tip system.
David
===========================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
> <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
>
> I used inrush current limiters on my halogens (450+ hours so far). Since
> this also causes the lamps to take more time to reach full brightness, I
> modified the B&C flasher to slow it down by doubling the capacitance of
> the electrolytic capacitor inside the can. Double the resistor value
> would also work.
>
> V
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> Bob,
> I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle
> being
> the stress failure mode.
>
> When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal
> and
> intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are
> broken
> at the very end.
>
> Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
> these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
>
> I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal
> life.
> And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress. I
> wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet
> proof
> filament structure.
>
> I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have
> a
> similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
> Thanks, David
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>> recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>> OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>> fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition
>> is the major use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is
>> the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction)
>> would slow that ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>>
>> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
>> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
>> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
>> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>>
>> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
>> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
>> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
>> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
>> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
>> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
>> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
>> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
>> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
>> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
>> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
>> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
>> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
>> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>>
>> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
>> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
>> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
>> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
>> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
>> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
>> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>>
>> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
>> sticking with it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
... this is a circular reference... your quoting my own posts on your site!
Nice to see you documented it properly.
Cheers, V
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Zachar
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
Awhile back, I did a post about this exact modification.
http://n999za.com/2010/11/07/hacking-the-wig-wag-flasher/
Of course, I was only successful because if this list's gracious help and
advice. Hoping the pictures assist the discussion...
__
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
On Sep 9, 2011, at 10:57 PM, "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com> wrote:
> <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
>
> I used inrush current limiters on my halogens (450+ hours so far). Since
> this also causes the lamps to take more time to reach full brightness, I
> modified the B&C flasher to slow it down by doubling the capacitance of
> the electrolytic capacitor inside the can. Double the resistor value
> would also work.
>
> V
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> Bob,
> I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle
> being
> the stress failure mode.
>
> When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal
> and
> intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are
> broken
> at the very end.
>
> Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
> these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
>
> I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal
> life.
> And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress.
> I
> wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet
> proof
> filament structure.
>
> I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have
> a
> similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
> Thanks, David
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>> recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>> OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>
>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
>> fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition
>> is the major use.
>>
>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is
>> the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction)
>> would slow that ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>>
>> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
>> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
>> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
>> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>>
>> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
>> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
>> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
>> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
>> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
>> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
>> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
>> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
>> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
>> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
>> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>>
>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
>> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
>> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
>> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>>
>> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
>> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
>> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
>> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
>> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
>> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
>> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>>
>> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
>> sticking with it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder troubles |
interference from something else?
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>
> Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
> when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
> Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
> assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
> and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
> departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
> equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
> giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
> how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
> something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
> see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
> think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
> was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
> unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
> unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
> been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
> check. Any other thoughts?
>
>
>
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I've been selling Wig-wags for many years. Our wig-wags do not depend on lamp resistance.
They consist of two big mosfets driven by a mosfet driver and some
simple internal timer. They cost more than the automotive type, and they are 100%
solid state, so in theory that will last forever.
Early on, it was discovered that HIDs would destroy them for two reasons: 1) the
starting current surge on an HID is very large (okay, short but tall), and the
lamp and the + line sees a HV pulse at the same time. The solution to these
issues was to supply a surge arrestor and an HV suppressor for those who wanted
to wig-wag their HIDs. There are additional issues--these vary by lamp and
ballast manufacturer--but people seem to be having few problems.
Wig-wagging LEDs is trivial, but some LEDs require a Voltage booster or constant
current supply to function well. These employ littel switch-mode power supplies
that frequently make noise on the audio or HF transmitter lines.
Wig-wagging really big halogen lamps is also easy providing a current surge protector
is used. I have demonstrated 2X 250 watt lamps wig-wagging happily with
our WW(c) or WW(d).
After using these on my white LED tail lights, I finally had to give up and return
to a simple, reliable (but not as efficient) LM317 current regulator (which
I offer as a free design if you want to roll your own).
One final note: BMW is now testing white LASER auto headlamps. No, the lasers won't
poke holes in things--lasers are used because they can be made to be several
times more efficient (Lumens/Watt) than LEDs.
But LEDs are not slacking either...Cree has demonstrated a white LED of 231 Lumens
Per Watt.
--------
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=351901#351901
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles |
On 09/10/2011 08:52 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>
> Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
> when they said they couldn't see my transponder, I had a reply light.
> Then they said they could see a 1200 code from it, not the 0363
> assigned that I had dialed in. A bit later they saw the correct code,
> and it continued to be okay until out of their airspace. Now I
> departed the Phoenix area the day before, communicating with 2 radar
> equipped towers that had no complaints on my transponder and were
> giving me radar traffic callouts, so I know it was working. Not sure
> how a transponder could possibly put out a 1200 code when set to
> something else, and then revert to sending the selected code. I could
> see one or two digits being wrong, but the whole code? I could only
> think they had a weak signal, but checked after I landed and antenna
> was clean. I guess I can check the coax connection, and reseat the
> unit in its tray, but would rather not have to spend for an
> unnecessary bench check. It is an old model with cavity tube, but has
> been rock solid since it was aligned 8 yrs ago, passing every biennial
> check. Any other thoughts?
Another + for it being an ATC problem. One of my neighbors used to fly
all over the central & southeast USA, & whenever he (and others) would
fly through Memphis airspace ATC would tell them that their transponder
wasn't working properly (no altitude, incorrect altitude, etc etc). The
various transponders seemed to work fine around other class B/C
airspace, & all had problems whenever they entered Memphis airspace.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bevan,
Thanks again for details. I note that the HID bulbs are just that... "a
bulb" made to twist into a reflector.
What did you use as reflector that could mounted in the same hold-down mount
that would normally contain the typical halogen lamp assembly like a GE
H7604 50W lamp used in landing lights, etc..?
david
===============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> David,
>
> The HID kit I bought included two ballasts, H3 bulbs, and harnesses. I
> have
> yet to make a way to mount the ballasts but shouldn't be difficult. The
> ballasts are the newer slim (lighter?) version. The whole assembly is
> heavier than regular halogens.
>
> The solid state flasher I bought has a max rating of 55W per bulb, so this
> was the original reason to go away from the 100w halogens I was originally
> planning. The benefit will be more light, less power, and longer lasting
> I
> hope.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 10:55 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
> -->
>
> Bevan,
> I think that I have viewed some of those on eBay. But, I came away with
> the
> idea that they were not a complete kit; power supply, harness, bulb/lamp
> combo, etc. I will take a better review of the offerings. Please let me
> know if you receive a complete operational system.
> David
>
> ===============================================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:20 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>> -->
>>
>> I bought a 55W HID kit on Ebay for $55 + shipping ($70 total) as other
>> have.
>> Most HID's are 35 watt. I'm expecting these to be about twice as
>> bright as 100watt incandescent, but haven't powered them up yet. I
>> don't consider this to be an expensive upgrade.
>>
>> Bevan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> David Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:51 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Bruce,
>> ...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive
>> when one needs a really bright recognition lamp.
>> I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
>> reduction.... Thanks, David
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OK, how about LED?
>>>
>>> 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
>>> David Lloyd
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
>>> sets.....
>>> David
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
>>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Switch to HID.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> David
>>>> Lloyd
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>>>> bulbs, i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
>>>> failure modes.
>>>>
>>>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>>>> recognition.
>>>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>>>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>>>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>>>
>>>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem
>>>> to fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
>>>> recognition is the major use.
>>>>
>>>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>>>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up
>>>> is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
>>>> (induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
>>>> these devices.
>>>>
>>>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work
>>>> around
>>> it
>>>>
>>>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A couple more things:
1) I have a note from GE that says that wig-wagging lamps extends their life. (I
have no dog in this fight, that's just what GE says.)
2) I have noticed a degrading of quality in incandescent lamp manufacturing generally.
It is typical that a big company will just transfer...for example...their
line of filament lamps to Elbonia, or wherever, instead of where they had
been making them for 30 years. Welcome to the new world order.
--------
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=351918#351918
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
I had originally bought the duckworth kits from vans. You could just buy
the lenses from Vans and make your own bracket, and scrounge a reflector
from somewhere or buy an auto fog lamp assembly as a source for the
reflector.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
-->
Bevan,
Thanks again for details. I note that the HID bulbs are just that... "a
bulb" made to twist into a reflector.
What did you use as reflector that could mounted in the same hold-down mount
that would normally contain the typical halogen lamp assembly like a GE
H7604 50W lamp used in landing lights, etc..?
david
===============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
> -->
>
> David,
>
> The HID kit I bought included two ballasts, H3 bulbs, and harnesses.
> I have yet to make a way to mount the ballasts but shouldn't be
> difficult. The ballasts are the newer slim (lighter?) version. The
> whole assembly is heavier than regular halogens.
>
> The solid state flasher I bought has a max rating of 55W per bulb, so
> this was the original reason to go away from the 100w halogens I was
> originally planning. The benefit will be more light, less power, and
> longer lasting I hope.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> David Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 10:55 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
> -->
>
> Bevan,
> I think that I have viewed some of those on eBay. But, I came away
> with the idea that they were not a complete kit; power supply,
> harness, bulb/lamp combo, etc. I will take a better review of the
> offerings. Please let me know if you receive a complete operational
> system.
> David
>
> ===============================================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:20 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>> -->
>>
>> I bought a 55W HID kit on Ebay for $55 + shipping ($70 total) as
>> other have.
>> Most HID's are 35 watt. I'm expecting these to be about twice as
>> bright as 100watt incandescent, but haven't powered them up yet. I
>> don't consider this to be an expensive upgrade.
>>
>> Bevan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> David Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:51 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Bruce,
>> ...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive
>> when one needs a really bright recognition lamp.
>> I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
>> reduction.... Thanks, David
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OK, how about LED?
>>>
>>> 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
>>> David Lloyd
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
>>> sets.....
>>> David
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
>>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>
>>>
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> Switch to HID.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> David
>>>> Lloyd
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>>>> circuitry....failure mode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>>>> bulbs, i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb
>>>> failure modes.
>>>>
>>>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>>>> recognition.
>>>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>>>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>>>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>>>>
>>>> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem
>>>> to fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
>>>> recognition is the major use.
>>>>
>>>> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
>>>> ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp
>>>> up is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
>>>> (induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
>>>> these devices.
>>>>
>>>> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work
>>>> around
>>> it
>>>>
>>>> would be greatly appreciated. David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
>Wig-wagging really big halogen lamps is also easy providing a
>current surge protector is used. I have demonstrated 2X 250 watt
>lamps wig-wagging happily with our WW(c) or WW(d).
Inrush current beyond the initial cold
start is not an issue for incandescent lamps.
The reason I plotted the this data . . .
Emacs!
was to show that while the first, cold start inrush was the typical
30+ amps, subsequent start up currents were quite nominal. The lamp
being tested had a nominal on current of 4A (55w) but as you can see here,
the average start up current in the wig-wag mode was a tad above 5A.
This is because the filament doesn't cool off enough between flashes
to push the inrush even close to a cold-start value.
It isn't inrush killing these lamps by flashing them, it has to
be temperature cycling . . . for which there is no mitigating 'fix'.
After all, the reason these filaments produce white light is because
they've been elevated from below a dull red glow to the white light
produced by a metal glowing at 5000 degrees F. THATS a big temperature
shift.
I need to re-plot that trace above. There was some very strong
noise source going on at the time that produced the fuzzy spikes
on my data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
At 08:05 PM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>I am getting a loud hiss on both aircraft radios whenever my LED
>position lights are turned on. In fact, any FM radio in the
>vicinity gets the hiss too.
>
>I have "Jeff's LED lights for RVs" installed in the wing tips along
>with Bob Archer antennas. Though it may be worth noting that the
>SL30 Comm antenna is a standard belly mounted bent whip.
>
>I know the RF is coming from the radios because if I turn the volume
>down on the radios, the noise disappears (in other words, the
>intercom is not affected).
>
>The archives have some discussion of filters, resistors and
>capacitors but I'm not sure where to start.
>
>My first inclination is to disconnect one at a time to see if the
>noise is coming from both lights. Then I don't know where to start.
Some years ago, folks were building their own
nav lights that utilized a "Buck Puck" constant
current driver. They were experiencing similar
noise problems. I proposed and fabricated a
filtered version of the Buck Puck
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/
We also offered a filter-board that builders
could use to quiet Buck Pucks they already owned.
The instructions above describe a line noise filter
that proved useful on the Buck Puck. If your
fixtures use the same power supply then values
for a filter are given in the document. You might
be able to use one of our filter boards . . . or
substitute a fully assembled power supply.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Inrush current beyond the initial cold
> start is not an issue for incandescent lamps.
> The reason I plotted the this data . . .
Quite true Bob, however I tried not having a first cycle, but it never seemed to
work. You ALWAYS have a first pulse.
Also, most timers using a 555 have an initial 1.5X times longer pulse than the
second pulse. I no longer use the 555 for this reason. What I do now is have a
faster r/c oscillator and a divider to get the correct timing. I'd be glad to
share the schematic with interested parties.
Nice graph of the pulses.
I'd still bet that many halogen lamps have declined in quality. I've seen this
first-hand. There are many variables in the making of halogen lamps.
--------
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=351971#351971
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual. The peak inrush
current is basically current limited to the power supply and wiring and
switcher resistance. He shows one sample at over 30 amps and who knows what
the peak current is. HID do have issues with wig wag and below I got info
from a pilot who solved it.
Your current limiter as you mentioned would limit this way down and produce
a great increase in lifetime.
However if one uses the H3 bulbs there is one type of HID supply that works
well with wig wag while most do not. The H3 is a drop in for most Vans and
other wing mountes aircraft. There is also a replacement bulb for the round
lights using the same ballast that should work well.. Then you need to use a
specific toroid filter on the lines and a no bounce switch contact (solid
state).
I got the info from a suscessful fligher months ago and the parts are cheep
also Like at the time 30 for a system. NOT all hid systems will work wig wag
as the supply simply dies soon
I can go back and try to find the link if you are interested. I will not
post to Bob's list ever!!!!
Pardon the smelling but my chkr is off as comp[uter crash and ng backup is
back and running but word is the spel checker and its not reinstalled
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
>> Inrush current beyond the initial cold
>> start is not an issue for incandescent lamps.
>> The reason I plotted the this data . . .
>
>
> Quite true Bob, however I tried not having a first cycle, but it never
> seemed to work. You ALWAYS have a first pulse.
>
> Also, most timers using a 555 have an initial 1.5X times longer pulse than
> the second pulse. I no longer use the 555 for this reason. What I do now
> is have a faster r/c oscillator and a divider to get the correct timing.
> I'd be glad to share the schematic with interested parties.
>
> Nice graph of the pulses.
>
> I'd still bet that many halogen lamps have declined in quality. I've seen
> this first-hand. There are many variables in the making of halogen lamps.
>
> --------
> 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=351971#351971
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode//sorry posted in error |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:29 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure mode
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | building a batter capacity tester |
I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have a
couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had meant for them
to sit. You know how construction goes.
I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf)
This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all the
components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy on is the 10 V.
Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used these, are they sold by
voltage or amperage or what. Specifically, how do I make sure I get the
correct component?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 9/11/2011 12:09:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
paulm(at)olypen.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:29 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure mode
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: building a batter capacity tester |
Pretty much any 10V zener diode will work there. Zeners are sold by voltage since
that is their purpose (to control the voltage across their terminals). The
other thing that is important is the
wattage rating, although in this case the power dissipated by the zener is so low
(50mW) that any 10V zener you can buy will work.
Dick Tasker
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
> I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have a couple
for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had meant for them to sit.
You know how construction goes.
> I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
> This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all the components
from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy on is the 10 V. Zener
diode in the schematic. Never having used
> these, are they sold by voltage or amperage or what. Specifically, how do I
make sure I get the correct component?
> Thanks,
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Wiring
> San Ramon, CA
> In a message dated 9/11/2011 12:09:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, paulm(at)olypen.com
writes:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:29 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure = Use ilities ay
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available from you.
What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks" producing
700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in your link but
look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd like
to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks installed.
How much? How can I get them?
Thanks!
On 9/11/2011 12:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:05 PM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am getting a loud hiss on both aircraft radios whenever my LED
>> position lights are turned on. In fact, any FM radio in the vicinity
>> gets the hiss too.
>>
>> I have "Jeff's LED lights for RVs" installed in the wing tips along
>> with Bob Archer antennas. Though it may be worth noting that the
>> SL30 Comm antenna is a standard belly mounted bent whip.
>>
>> I know the RF is coming from the radios because if I turn the volume
>> down on the radios, the noise disappears (in other words, the
>> intercom is not affected).
>>
>> The archives have some discussion of filters, resistors and
>> capacitors but I'm not sure where to start.
>>
>> My first inclination is to disconnect one at a time to see if the
>> noise is coming from both lights. Then I don't know where to start.
>
> Some years ago, folks were building their own
> nav lights that utilized a "Buck Puck" constant
> current driver. They were experiencing similar
> noise problems. I proposed and fabricated a
> filtered version of the Buck Puck
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/
>
> We also offered a filter-board that builders
> could use to quiet Buck Pucks they already owned.
> The instructions above describe a line noise filter
> that proved useful on the Buck Puck. If your
> fixtures use the same power supply then values
> for a filter are given in the document. You might
> be able to use one of our filter boards . . . or
> substitute a fully assembled power supply.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles |
To share some experience.
I have a Cherokee 6 . On a regular basis on V16 over Deer park, heading tow
ards JFK ATC reports my transponder is not working.
It comes back shortly. The consensus was there are some angles that are
blocked by my fixed gear.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sat, Sep 10, 2011 1:50 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles
th.net>
On 09/10/2011 08:52 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>
> Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
Another + for it being an ATC problem. One of my neighbors used to fly
all over the central & southeast USA, & whenever he (and others) would
fly through Memphis airspace ATC would tell them that their transponder
wasn't working properly (no altitude, incorrect altitude, etc etc). The
various transponders seemed to work fine around other class B/C
airspace, & all had problems whenever they entered Memphis airspace.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building a batter capacity tester |
Just a quick update on my PC680 odyssey.... while 1 battery was beyond
hope, 2 that I had removed for poor performance recovered enough to pass
the minimum test as defined by the manufacturer -
>12.65 volts with no load,
> 9.6 volts @70F with 120amp load for 15 seconds
My oldest battery, a3+ year old Odyssey PC680 that has only been
trickled charged, tests at 12.89volts with no load and 10.8 volts at end
of load test.
A 'new' battery a neighbor gave me, the certified version of the PC680,
13.18 with no load and 10.0 volts at end of test
How did they recover? A couple of charges/discharges with a 10amp
Schumacher charger (model XC10).
The 2 batteries I have installed in my '10 have 'recovered' too. Though
I haven't had a chance to test them with the HF tester recently, batt1
has been discharged with extensive panel work and batt2 has given me 10+
starts. They've been charged on a number of 1 & 2 hour flights. They
now both perform almost as desired, i.e. batt1 will run my panel for
extended periods without losing the 3 GRTs due to low voltage, batt2
gets thru the first compression stroke on the first try... sometimes
just barely and it is certainly not 'snappy'.
I can run with what I have for now. Cold weather may change things. My
sense is that 1 or 2 fresh batteries will give me what I want in the
end. A different starter may still be desirable for better starts in
cold conditions.
PS - the certified version of the 680 labled "PowerSafe - SBS J16 from
Enersys" seems to perform differently. Though it is physically
identical except for color, it appears to have different characteristics
under load. Not necessarily better.
Bill "smiling ear to ear with the new OBAM plane" Watson
On 9/11/2011 5:50 PM, MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
> I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have a
> couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had
> meant for them to sit. You know how construction goes.
> I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
> This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all the
> components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy on is
> the 10 V. Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used these, are
> they sold by voltage or amperage or what. Specifically, how do I make
> sure I get the correct component?
> Thanks,
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Wiring
> San Ramon, CA
> In a message dated 9/11/2011 12:09:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> paulm(at)olypen.com writes:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:29 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure = Use ilities ay
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web
> Site p;
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: static check |
9/12/2011
Hello Corky, Now you have asked a new question and it has two parts to it.
1) The first part of your question is: "...can i as IA PERFORM STATIC
CHECKS......"
The answer to that part of the question is YES, and the details of that YES
answer are found in my previously posted answer of Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:43
AM.
2) The second part of your question is: ".... can i as IA PERFORM ALTIMETER
CERTS."
By "ALTIMETER CERTS" I believe that you must be referring to ALL of the
tests required by 14 CFR 91.411 (a). ALL of those required tests (with the
exception of the static pressure system tests and inspections) must be
conducted by the one of the organizations listed in 91.411 (b). See here:
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
(1) The manufacturer** of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests
and inspections are to be performed;
(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those
functions and holding-
(i) An instrument rating, Class I;
(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of
appliance to be tested;
(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be
tested;"
Since a normal A&P Mechanic, even one possessing IA (Inspection Authority),
does not meet any one of the qualifications listed above then he CAN NOT
PERFORM all of the 91.411 (a) required tests on either type certificated or
experimental amateur built aircraft.##
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Every once in a while the builder of an experimental amateur built
aircraft decides that he is the "manufacturer" of that aircraft and
therefore under paragraph 91.411 (b) (1) is permitted to perform the tests
required by 91.411 (a). That is not correct -- he is not considered the
"manufacturer" of his experimental amateur built aircraft by the FAA.
##PS: It is very unfortunate that the tests required every two years by 14
CFR 91.411 and 91.413 are routinely referred to as ".... pitot static system
checks ...". That is a very misleading and confusing term for the tests that
are required.
===============================================================
From: "corky childs" <corkyabc(at)charter.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: static check
my question is can i as IA PERFORM STATIC CHECKS AND PERFORM ALTIMETER
CERTS
=================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
9/11/2011
Hello Corky, I'd like to respond by cutting and pasting a previous posting
of mine. Let's start with a look at 14 CFR 91.411:
"91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-**
(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves,
following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system
has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a),
appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and....."
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
{several different qualification requirements listed including:}
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system
tests and inspections only)."##
Being a certificated A&P mechanic I turned to Appendix E, of part 43 which
reads in part:
"Appendix E to Part 43-Altimeter System Test and Inspection
Each person performing the altimeter system tests and inspections required
by 91.411 shall comply with the following:
(a) Static pressure system:
(2) Determine that leakage is within the tolerances established in 23.1325
or 25.1325, whichever is applicable."
So I then needed to go on to PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL,
UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES to find out how to
perform the test and what the leakage tolerances were.
Here is what 23.1325 says in part:
"23.1325 Static pressure system.
(b) If a static pressure system is necessary for the functioning of
instruments, systems, or devices, it must comply with the provisions of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(2) A proof test must be conducted to demonstrate the integrity of the
static pressure system in the following manner:
(i) Unpressurized airplanes. Evacuate the static pressure system to a
pressure differential of approximately 1 inch of mercury or to a reading on
the altimeter, 1,000 feet above the aircraft elevation at the time of the
test. Without additional pumping for a period of 1 minute, the loss of
indicated altitude must not exceed 100 feet on the altimeter."
So how to evacuate the static pressure system? After plugging up the two
static ports I opened the system drain connection in my static system and
plumbed in this MixMizer syringe:
http://www.hopkinsmfg.com/10111.html
This device readily evacuated the system and the static system passed the
leak test. After closing up the system drain connection and making the
required log book entry I was good to go.
What did we learn from this exercise?
A) For some mandatory regulatory requirements there are some provisions of
14 CFR that do apply to our experimental amateur built aircraft even if at
first glance some of them (Part 43 and Part 23 for example) do not appear to
apply.
B) Even though anyone can work on, repair, modify, inspect, and maintain an
amateur built experimental aircraft there are certain items that require
action by specially qualified individuals. The annual condition inspection
is one item requiring performance by either the holder of the Repairman
Certificate for that specific aircraft or the holder of an A&P certificate.
Another is the requirement for either the holder of an Airframe certificate
or one of the other entities identified in 91.411 (b) in order to conduct a
regulatory acceptable static system check.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks,
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: Note that while this section pertains to "..operate (ing) ... in
controlled airspace under IFR ...." a careful reading of the FAR's (see
sections 91.215 and 91.413) will show that a VFR only airplane with an
integrated altitude encoder and transponder system (which is just about
everyone) will also require a static system check under certain
circumstances.
##PS: Note that being the builder and designated repairman for this specific
experimental amateur built airplane did not qualify me to perform the static
system test and inspection.
====================================================
From: corky childs
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:09 PM
Subject: static check
if i had a ap and ia what else would i need to static test experminital anc
certified aircraft thanks corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
At 01:29 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>The peak inrush current is basically current limited to the power
>supply and wiring and switcher resistance. He shows one sample at
>over 30 amps and who knows what the peak current is.
Is that the point? The purpose for producing that plot
was to demonstrate that the incandescent lamp under study
(I think it was an automotive halogen) does not cool
sufficiently between wig-wag flashes to produce a series
of inrush currents even close to what is produced by
the first, cold start.
>I got the info from a suscessful fligher months ago and the parts
>are cheep also Like at the time 30 for a system. NOT all hid systems
>will work wig wag as the supply simply dies soon
>
>I can go back and try to find the link if you are interested. I will
>not post to Bob's list ever!!!!
. . . yet here you are!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
At 05:08 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available from you.
>
>What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks"
>producing 700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in
>your link but look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
>
>If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd
>like to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks installed.
>How much? How can I get them?
They're in the catalog at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
AEC9051 at the bottom of the page
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CHARLES T BECKER" <ctbecker(at)atlanticbb.net> |
| Subject: | External Battery Plug |
Can someone point me to the diagram for wiring in an
external power plug for connecting a sustainer? I've got
an 8A, two rear mounted batteries, subie, all electric.
used a switched buss, as opposed to a diode, for managing
the two busses.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building a batter capacity tester |
At 04:50 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have
>a couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had
>meant for them to sit. You know how construction goes.
>
>I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
>
>This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all
>the components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy
>on is the 10 V. Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used
>these, are they sold by voltage or amperage or what. Specifically,
>how do I make sure I get the correct component?
Keep in mind that this is more of a battery
bench-marker as opposed to a quantitative
tester.
A battery's ability to deliver energy depends
on size, condition, temperature and load. A
battery 'rated' at 20AH will deliver that amount
of output when new and generally under a very
light load compared to how you intend to used it.
Consider the exemplar plot below
Emacs!
This battery is 'rated' at 17 a.h. But it will
deliver that output only when loaded at .85A x
20 hours = 17 a.h. Your airplane's endurance
loads are more likely to be on the order of 4A
so you can expect about 3 hours of service or
12.75 a.h. of output. Of course, this is an as-new
performance value. You'll want to size and maintain
your battery to meed design goals when the battery
has just degraded to the point of needing replacement.
For most folks this is at 75 or 80% of new capacity.
So this particular battery could be used in a system
where endurance expectations are for 2 hours of
service at 4.25A.
The battery cap tester depicted in the book is
not intended to give you an accurate reading of
the battery's capacity. What it will do is let
you know when the battery has fallen so far below
its as-new condition as to require replacement.
If your new battery ran your exemplar load for say
200 minutes, then you would benchmark the replacement
at 150 minutes.
If you'd like to get real numbers at loads matching
your system's requirements, you'll need something like
http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode=/cbaLink1
I've got a couple of these critters. They were used
to produce the plots like these
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test_3.jpg
The device can also be used as a voltage versus time
data acquisition system and get you information like
this.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
I would not discourage you from building the po' boy's
cap-checker. It's a useful tool within its limitations.
Radio Shack won't have a 10v zener. You'll have to get
it from a supplier with a broader range of product offerings.
I'll be back in my shop later today. Let me see if I've
got one in drawer I can send you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
At 12:27 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> > Inrush current beyond the initial cold
> > start is not an issue for incandescent lamps.
> > The reason I plotted the this data . . .
>
>
>Quite true Bob, however I tried not having a first cycle, but it
>never seemed to work. You ALWAYS have a first pulse.
Sure . . . The purpose of study was to support a
discussion about the NTC thermistor style current limiters.
These things 'work' when allowed to heat up past the
resistance vs. temperature break point where the
device's resistance falls to some low, tolerable value
of series resistance.
I think we were talking about the CL series limiters
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=KC023L-ND
http://www.ge-mcs.com/download/temperature/920_325a.pdf
These stay in a low resistance state by a sustained
current flow and have a 'cool down' requirement of
2 to 20 seconds for them to 'reset' and be capable
of limited the next inrush event.
The discussion concluded that the thermistor style
device would perform as needed for the initial cold-
start transient but was too slow to help for closely
space repeat transients. The data plot showed that
second and subsequent events in an incandescent wig-wag
system were insignificant.
>Also, most timers using a 555 have an initial 1.5X times longer
>pulse than the second pulse. I no longer use the 555 for this
>reason. What I do now is have a faster r/c oscillator and a divider
>to get the correct timing. I'd be glad to share the schematic with
>interested parties.
Yeah, my favorite is the CD4060 oscillator/divider.
Hope these don't go obsolete soon. I'm putting one
into a high school electronics class project. The
critters are 40 years old and still great ol' work
horses.
An alternative (if you can live in a 5v world) is
a PIC microcontroller. I keep the 8-pin flash devices
around to emulate more complex logic and timing
functions. It's a jelly bean part at about 75 cents
and capable of dropping into a bunch of applications
with the right code. I used one to generate a pair
of 17 Khz outputs to drive a push-pull, dc/dc converter
design. The single chip replaced 4 parts in the next-best
choice and was more stable to boot.
> Nice graph of the pulses.
That's a plotting feature of even the low cost lines
of most 'scopes these days. I can plug a thumbdrive
into my TEK TDS220 scope and dump the screen to a
.jpg file. I can also get a dump of the numbers for
use in other analysis.
>I'd still bet that many halogen lamps have declined in quality. I've
>seen this first-hand. There are many variables in the making of halogen lamps.
You got that right. But I'll bet it's cyclical too.
Suppliers are always wrestling for contracts but
price cannot be the sole driver. I think the value
trends are generally upward.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
Thanks, I ordered a couple.
FYI, Had a heck of a time finding your catalog page before you sent this
link. No matter how hard I hit Google or fooled around with my other AE
bookmarks, I just couldn't find it.
Bill
On 9/12/2011 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 05:08 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available
>> from you.
>>
>> What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks" producing
>> 700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in your link
>> but look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
>>
>> If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd
>> like to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks
>> installed.
>> How much? How can I get them?
>
> They're in the catalog at:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
>
> AEC9051 at the bottom of the page
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
At 09:13 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>Thanks, I ordered a couple.
>
>FYI, Had a heck of a time finding your catalog page before you sent
>this link. No matter how hard I hit Google or fooled around with my
>other AE bookmarks, I just couldn't find it.
Hmmm . . . one could start at the home page
http://aeroelectric.com and select the
"Catalog of Products and Services" link.
But how you get there is not so important
as getting there. I'm pleased that we can
help move your project forward.
By the way, did you see the link to the
installation manual?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
Check this over and make sure it looks like
a doable and useful experiment . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
| From: | N992DN <n992dn(at)gmail.com> |
On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the charger
rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is located here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some ??????
beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse engineering"?
The problem I am trying to solve however is intermittent false indication
of the charge warning light. The light will come on from time to time or
just flicker while the charge is on, I can verify it on the voltmeter
installed on the instrument panel. I am trying to locate the source
of problem by looking for any loose connection between the trio of R, B and
C of the rectifier terminals.
The airplane is RANS 6S6
Nati Niv
Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure mode
>
>
> At 01:29 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>>
My comments were intended to be private and addressed what I understood was
the suggested cause of short Halogen auto lights. The data you showed and my
personal experience is the initial ON spike does NOT shorten the life and
your data shows wig wag surely does NOT have a significant effect based on
heating and cooling from wig wag vs no wig wag after the initial ON pulse as
there is no significant inrush on later ON pulses.
>>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
> Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
> for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
Well Bob surely you know. You say its a TDS 220 which is advertised as a 2
channel 100 mhz with sampling rates AS FAST AS 1GS/s; But that applies only
for a fast sweep speed as the line buffer is limited to 2500 samples per
line or one sample every MS (in the above sample) far below what is needed
to determine the initial surge current width and peak to get the energy
produced into the bulb. Further there is HUGE NOISE on top of the signal
from apparently a defective setup. Further it (Sampling) is too slow to
characterize the wig wag ON inrush current spikes but it does imply the
inrush is small negating wig wag as a factor in bulb life
Its generally accepted in the industry one needs a MINIMUM sample rate of 10
times the expected pulse width to characterize a repetitive pulse and higher
for a one shot event. In digital sampling scopes the line buffer is critical
in determing the true sampling rate NOT the advertised sampling rate for
slower sweep rates
Thus we can determine the inrush pulse is between 1 and 2 MS with a peak of
at least 31+ amps Who knows how much the true peak current might be but that
info is not known as the detailed setup is not discussed. Further the next 1
MS sample is at least 15 amps followed by a 10 amp sample.
While there is no significant repeating inrush an inrush limiter would stop
the initial inrush and extens lamp life a point not noticed in the
discussion as I recall.
Note sampling rate is not the average value during the sample time its a
very short time period every 1 MS as the value must be captured and
processed before the next sample period. Basically what you see is a very
small sample time period being taken every 1 MS The tek data sheet for the
scope suggests the sample period is a very small part of 1 MS in this case
thus perhaps 99+% of the time the data value being sampled could be far away
from the sample snap shot on average.
Sadly sampling scopes are easilly misunderstood when it comes to
specifications and what is implied is often far from general truth for other
than the specificaed setup conditions
After the initial pulse ther is so much "NOISE" on the data its basically
impossible to determine if there is any following peaks in the ON current.
Not only is there 4-5 amps of noise but there is a lower frequency of noise
implied suggestion low frequenct ripple even in the ground along with high
frequency noise. This suggests a bad setup coupled with perhaps a switching
power supply VS a batttery as the source of power.
>>The peak inrush current is basically current limited to the power supply
>>and wiring and switcher resistance. He shows one sample at over 30 amps
>>and who knows what the peak current is.
>
> . . . yet here you are!
AS you would have known if you read my next message before replying to this
one you would have known it was posted in error. Many groups I belong to
default to the poster not the group. My mistake
I have replied to a question you know the answer to and it would have been
helpful to the group (at large) to simply state how the scope shows data and
how sampling scopes wotrk and when and where they should be used. In
addition how they can decieve. related comment try to trouble shoot your
turn signal with a $5 digital meter where it samples one or twice per
second. :-)
Further I am suprised your posting the subject scope pix with all the noise
as its not typical of your generally high quality work
Have at it! as I will not post again unless I make another mistake in
addressing posts. Nor will I reply to any further comments
Paul
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | maybe OT: need help identifying pinouts on dvd drive |
I have a car navigation dvd drive system and the internal dvd drive has
died. I finally found another system to replace it but would very much
like to identify the pinouts on this beast. The ATAPI (IDE) dvd drive
connects to the system via a 50 pin flat flex cable. The only tools I
have to help with this are
1. multimeter - not helpful because if you put one probe on say, pin 1,
of the cable, many of the connectors on the board give solid beep and
some give intermittent beeps! (of course, no power is going to the
board or drive.)
2. cheapo logic analyzer, usb and pc/laptop based, but it only has 16
pins. very difficult to use.
3. 4 channel analog (non storage) o'scope, 150 mhz.
I would like to replace this dvd drive with a solid state drive, like an
SDHC card or USB thumb drive but must identify the pinouts first to
know how to connect it to the adapters.
In the future, I may use this system in my OBAM Mustang II.
Thanks!
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
N992DN a crit :
>
> On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the charger
> rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is located here:
>
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
>
>
>
> My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some
> ?????? beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse
> engineering"?
>
>
>
Nati and all,
The diagram on the left was provided by a fellow builder. I redrew the
diagram after some study of the rectifier regulator :
http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php
As you say it is indeed a case of reverse engineering.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
>My comments were intended to be private and addressed what I
>understood was the suggested cause of short Halogen auto lights. The
>data you showed and my personal experience is the initial ON spike
>does NOT shorten the life and your data shows wig wag surely does
>NOT have a significant effect based on heating and cooling from wig
>wag vs no wig wag after the initial ON pulse as there is no
>significant inrush on later ON pulses.
My data shows the cold-start transient is typical
of incandescent lamps. The data further shows that
the initial current draw on subsequent on-cyles is
absent that transient because the filament doesn't
have time to cool down between cycles. The data
says nothing about heating and cooling cycles.
Heating and cooling cycles are directly related to
light output which ranges from very dim to full bright
which must be a transition of several thousand degrees
and is totally unrelated to the presence or lack of
an inrush event.
>>>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
> > Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
>> for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>Well Bob surely you know. You say its a TDS 220 which is advertised
>as a 2 channel 100 mhz with sampling rates AS FAST AS 1GS/s; But
>that applies only for a fast sweep speed as the line buffer is
>limited to 2500 samples per line or one sample every MS (in the
>above sample) far below what is needed to determine the initial
>surge current width and peak to get the energy produced into the
>bulb. Further there is HUGE NOISE on top of the signal from
>apparently a defective setup. Further it (Sampling) is too slow to
>characterize the wig wag ON inrush current spikes but it does imply
>the inrush is small negating wig wag as a factor in bulb life.
But during the discussions which accompanied the
plot in question, we weren't really concerned
with specifics of the inrush transients which
by the way, were measured at other sweep settings
but not included as not being germane to the
discussion.
And yes, I noted the noise present but didn't have
time to clean it up as again, the point being made
was to show the huge differences in lamp switching
transients between cold start and subsequent flashes.
>Its generally accepted in the industry one needs a MINIMUM sample
>rate of 10 times the expected pulse width to characterize a
>repetitive pulse and higher for a one shot event. In digital
>sampling scopes the line buffer is critical in determing the true
>sampling rate NOT the advertised sampling rate for slower sweep rates
No claims are being made to the contrary.
I think I've got the fast plots in the
archives. If you want to discuss transient
specifics, we can do that too. As I recall,
the fast plots also carried the signature
of flasher relay contact bounce and were
not even useful to the discussion du jour.
>Thus we can determine the inrush pulse is between 1 and 2 MS with a
>peak of at least 31+ amps Who knows how much the true peak current
>might be but that info is not known as the detailed setup is not
>discussed. Further the next 1 MS sample is at least 15 amps followed
>by a 10 amp sample.
Yes . . . but no claims were made as to the
inrush specifics . . . either when that plot
was published nor in the discussions that
started this tread.
>While there is no significant repeating inrush an inrush limiter
>would stop the initial inrush and extens lamp life a point not
>noticed in the discussion as I recall.
Possibly . . . but I'm unaware of any commercially
produced vehicle that includes such inrush limiters
on headlights . . . but I don't follow that market
closely. I believe I was the first designer in Wichita
to include an inrush limiter on an airplane. I put one
on the nose gear mounted taxi light of the GP180. It went
onto the first three prototypes but was removed when no
definitive data could be offered as to return on investment.
The only thing we could demonstrate is a reduction in the flashing
of other lights when the nose gear light was turned on.
Same thing happened with landing lights. The reliability
guys didn't want inrush limiters on those either due to
lack of data for return on investment and suppression of
reliability due to added parts.
Later I discovered that keep-warm circuits for tungsten
filaments on high vibration mounts had a far greater benefit
for bulb life than inrush limiting. Never had an opportunity
to explore that in a T/C aircraft as my job moved out of that
arena when I went to the Targets Group.
>Note sampling rate is not the average value during the sample time
>its a very short time period every 1 MS as the value must be
>captured and processed before the next sample period. Basically what
>you see is a very small sample time period being taken every 1 MS
>The tek data sheet for the scope suggests the sample period is a
>very small part of 1 MS in this case thus perhaps 99+% of the time
>the data value being sampled could be far away from the sample snap
>shot on average.
>
>Sadly sampling scopes are easilly misunderstood when it comes to
>specifications and what is implied is often far from general truth
>for other than the specificaed setup conditions
>
>After the initial pulse ther is so much "NOISE" on the data its
>basically impossible to determine if there is any following peaks in
>the ON current.
>
>Not only is there 4-5 amps of noise but there is a lower frequency
>of noise implied suggestion low frequenct ripple even in the ground
>along with high frequency noise. This suggests a bad setup coupled
>with perhaps a switching power supply VS a batttery as the source of power.
No, it was just an RG battery. There's a 5KW AM
broadcast station 1 mile from the Wichita house
that is never entirely absent from test data.
I've suffered both the effects of 1.3Mhz carrier
and demodulated program material.
I didn't have time to chase it out that day
but my lab in Medicine Lodge is entirely clean
of such interference. I'll re-plot and publish both
the fast and slow data for the website archive.
It is not good that data be mis-interpreted as
to significance or the point being made.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
At 11:37 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the
>charger rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is
>located here:
>
>
>
><http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf>http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
>
>
>My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some
>?????? beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse
>engineering"?
It's a deduced diagram somebody sent us that was based
on their dissection of the product by carving out the
potting compound.
>
>
>The problem I am trying to solve however is intermittent false
>indication of the charge warning light. The light will come on from
>time to time or just flicker while the charge is on, I can verify it
>on the voltmeter installed on the instrument panel. I am trying to
>locate the source of problem by looking for any loose connection
>between the trio of R, B and C of the rectifier terminals.
I can't vouch for the diagrams accuracy . . . only that
it is typical of such single-phase rectifier/regulators
on small engines.
Recommend you disconnect the light and use an active
notification of low voltage that is independent
of the charging system. That light is sorta like
the alternator warning light on cars. Tells a limited
story.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
>
>The diagram on the left was provided by a fellow builder. I redrew
>the diagram after some study of the rectifier regulator :
>http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php
>As you say it is indeed a case of reverse engineering.
>
>Best regards,
>--
>Gilles
Yeah, I'd forgotten who sent me that. How are you
my friend. Long time no hear!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
>
>I will double check the specs against what I think I have in the way
>of LEDs in my current "Jeff's LED position lights" installation. I
>really like the product... except for the noise.
Good to hear. When you get your system up and
running to design goals, how about some pictures
and a narrative of your experience and findings.
We can post it to the articles section of the
website . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
Bob's filters will work just fine with Jeff's lights.
They will completely eliminate your noise issues.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352107#352107
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
Promises, promises.
Have at it! as I will not post again unless I make another mistake in
addressing posts. Nor will I reply to any further comments
Paul
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag |
relay
| From: | "Helidesigner" <mwscott2(at)comcast.net> |
The Aeroled units with wig wag were an additional $100 each. It was a lot cheaper
to buy a simple flasher unit. I have a light in each wing tip. The wiring is
also easier with the flasher unit behind the panel. The Aeroled units need to
be connect by a few wires that would have to run tip to tip.
--------
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352124#352124
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
Another schematic attached - also without correctness guarantee.
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost WigWag Alternatives |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
The cheap NAPA relay will not work to wig-wag HID's even if you do heat them up
manually.
I use this solid state wig-wagger and it works great with em!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352162#352162
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost WigWag Alternatives |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
The cheap NAPA relay will not work to wig-wag HID's even if you do heat them up
manually.
I use this solid state wig-wagger and it works great with em!
.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352164#352164
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
| From: | Nati Niv <n992dn(at)gmail.com> |
Jan
Thanks so much, I think the diagram you provided is accurate, the
replacement part number for the SCR (2N6504) help verifying that these are
SCR'S. by looking at your diagram I was able to understand the principal of
operation of the charger. The two SCRs are used to connect to ground each
one of the G terminals during its negative part of the cycle making
it referenced to ground so the other G terminal can charge the battery thru
the in line diode. (the G leads coming from the engine are not referenced t
o
ground otherwise).
With regards to my charging problem, the way I read the diagram is the
charge light on/off control is related only to the existing of AC energy
between the two G terminals, not to anything else, it=92s a bit surprising.
My
understanding of the charge light logic did not help me at all to Identify
the source of the incorrect indication problem I am facing with.
Bob,
I suggest that you replace the diagram currently published on your web sit
e
with the one Jan has provided
Thanks and regards
Nati
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Jan de Jong wrote
:
> Another schematic attached - also without correctness guarantee.
>
> Jan de Jong
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Report on New Power Supply |
A few weeks ago I reported that I had bought this 12 volt power supply:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183
I wanted it to power my instrument panel while doing navigation data
updates, cycling the wing flaps, and other tasks that would otherwise
take power from the airplane's battery. I have one that appeared
similar to this one that works perfectly.
However, the new one seems pretty close to useless for my needs. If I
adjust the output voltage higher than about 12.4 volts DC, the power
supply goes into overload and makes a quiet snapping sound about once
per second and the output amps go to zero (while it's connected to my
airplane's battery).
The literature claims the output voltage is adjustable from 10.8 to 13.2
volts and that the input voltage is from 100 to 264 VAC. However, the
one I received is labeled 176 - 264 volts AC. My guess is that since my
input is 120 volts, the power supply cannot achieve the stated
performance.
I only paid $15 for it, including shipping, so I'm not all that unhappy.
I'm sure I'll find a use for it somewhere. I just wanted to pass along
that the power supply I received doesn't seem to be suitable for 12 volt
airplanes. I could complain to the seller, but when I emailed them to
ask how to connect it, since it came without instructions, my emails was
never answered and it's now worth my time to fight for $15.
I might look at battery maintainers at Wal Mart instead. Since I'm done
building, I don't ground test heavy loads (like raising and lowering the
landing gear) that often. A battery maintainer is probably all I need
anyway.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
>Bob,
>
>I suggest that you replace the diagram currently published on your
>web site with the one Jan has provided
>
>Thanks and regards
>
>Nati
>
Good idea sir. I'll do it right now.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
Interestingly, if you look closely at the photo on the eBay listing you can see
printed on the top of the supply "AC 176-264V". Not that anyone would notice
that when bidding...
You should at least give feedback to eBay about this. How many others will purchase
this supply just like you did and discover the same thing as you did?
Dick Tasker
Dennis Johnson wrote:
> A few weeks ago I reported that I had bought this 12 volt power supply:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183
> I wanted it to power my instrument panel while doing navigation data updates,
cycling the wing flaps, and other tasks that would otherwise take power from
the airplane's battery. I have one that
> appeared similar to this one that works perfectly.
> However, the new one seems pretty close to useless for my needs. If I adjust
the output voltage higher than about 12.4 volts DC, the power supply goes into
overload and makes a quiet snapping sound
> about once per second and the output amps go to zero (while it's connected to
my airplane's battery).
> The literature claims the output voltage is adjustable from 10.8 to 13.2 volts
and that the input voltage is from 100 to 264 VAC. However, the one I received
is labeled 176 - 264 volts AC. My
> guess is that since my input is 120 volts, the power supply cannot achieve the
stated performance.
> I only paid $15 for it, including shipping, so I'm not all that unhappy. I'm
sure I'll find a use for it somewhere. I just wanted to pass along that the
power supply I received doesn't seem to be
> suitable for 12 volt airplanes. I could complain to the seller, but when I emailed
them to ask how to connect it, since it came without instructions, my emails
was never answered and it's now worth
> my time to fight for $15.
> I might look at battery maintainers at Wal Mart instead. Since I'm done building,
I don't ground test heavy loads (like raising and lowering the landing gear)
that often. A battery maintainer is
> probably all I need anyway.
> Dennis
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Report on New Power Supply |
Interestingly, if you look closely at the photo on the eBay listing you can
see printed on the top of the supply "AC 176-264V". Not that anyone would
notice that when bidding...
Yes, I noticed this when it was posted a couple of weeks ago
and I sent a question to the seller. The answer back was 100 - 264V input.
If you look at their spec sheet on eBay it does say 100 -
264V even though the pic shows 176 - 264V.
If you have 220VAC available in your shop you might try
running it at the higher voltage.
There is a lot of Chinese "junk" out there. You just have
to weigh the risk to the reward.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
At 03:24 PM 9/13/2011, you wrote:
>A few weeks ago I reported that I had bought this 12 volt power supply:
>
><http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183
When shopping for an AC mains power supply to
ground run your project, consider the following:
Ideally, you're wanting to emulated an alternator,
not a battery. A supply rated at 15 volts instead
of 12 volts is likely to be adjustable down to the
14.2 to 14.6 volt range typical of most systems.
Also, go for the biggest supply you can get within
your means. This supply
http://tinyurl.com/43yuvhl
is a 15v, 350 Watt device with a cooling fan. I've
used a number of supplies from this company for other
projects and found them to be of good value.
Finally, consider adding an output isolation diode to
disconnect the supply from the battery when it is not
being powered. I believe this was suggested and illustrated
in the form of a relay or contactor by another AEC_Lister a
some days ago. Either works.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
> Also, go for the biggest supply you can get within
> your means. This supply
>
>http://tinyurl.com/43yuvhl
>
> is a 15v, 350 Watt device with a cooling fan. I've
> used a number of supplies from this company for other
> projects and found them to be of good value.
An AE-List member reminded me that these are "switchmode"
power supplies with a not quite zero risk of interference.
These are probably designed and tested to FCC Part 15
performance rules. FCC15 allows the device to be a 'minor'
problem but the user is responsible for discontinuing use
if it interferes with other, protected services.
The OBAM aircraft is not likely to have a problem. The
greatest potential victims are ADF and LORAN which are
essentially extinct. But be aware that some systems
may object to power produced by these devices. The
easy test is to momentarily unplug the power supply
and run battery only to see if the problem goes away.
They're not going to have a conducted emissions problem,
only radiated and that's very low risk.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Report on New Power Supply |
Hi Bob,
Several months ago I too purchased one of these units (or similar) as it
seemed like a great method to power up the panel when working on the
electrical problems, changes, etc. Rated at 13.5 v., 350W, the first
unit I received (they come from China) would not hold voltage when
loaded with about 5-6 amps of panel load. It started at about 13.4 v.
and dropped to 12.4 when the panel was powered up. I contacted the
seller and he said to return it and he would replace it.
I did and about 4 wks later he sent me a replacement. It is functioning
in a similar fashion. No load about 13.4 and mild load drops to 12.75.
Still Ok for panel work, etc., but, I believe the spec indicate that it
should be holding a tighter regulation.
Any thoughts on what maybe going on...?
David
PS: ...voltage measurement being done with a cheap digital DVM and I do
not know if the switching power supply would cause errors that I have
not considered.....
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Report on New Power Supply
At 03:24 PM 9/13/2011, you wrote:
A few weeks ago I reported that I had bought this 12 volt power
supply:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183
When shopping for an AC mains power supply to
ground run your project, consider the following:
Ideally, you're wanting to emulated an alternator,
not a battery. A supply rated at 15 volts instead
of 12 volts is likely to be adjustable down to the
14.2 to 14.6 volt range typical of most systems.
Also, go for the biggest supply you can get within
your means. This supply
http://tinyurl.com/43yuvhl
is a 15v, 350 Watt device with a cooling fan. I've
used a number of supplies from this company for other
projects and found them to be of good value.
Finally, consider adding an output isolation diode to
disconnect the supply from the battery when it is not
being powered. I believe this was suggested and illustrated
in the form of a relay or contactor by another AEC_Lister a
some days ago. Either works.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
=
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Zimmer" <stickandrudder1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost WigWag Alternatives |
Thanks. I bought one following your recommendation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brantel
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low Cost WigWag Alternatives
The cheap NAPA relay will not work to wig-wag HID's even if you do heat them
up manually.
I use this solid state wig-wagger and it works great with em!
.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352164#352164
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: building a batter capacity tester |
Hey Bob,
I was looking over the specs on the West Mountain battery analyzer you
mentioned:
_http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode
/cbaLink1_
(http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode=/cbaLink1)
This is a very elegant piece of equipment. The information that it
provides is certainly several magnitudes of more exact than the poor man's bench
tester I was thinking to build. Further, it seems like something that my
EAA chapter could put to more regular use than I would on my own. It is
more than it would cost me to build the other, but not ridiculously expensive.
Thank you for the direction.
With this piece of equipment, would there be any reason to also have a
carbon pile load tester? Harbor Freight has one on sale for $49.95. It seems
to me that I would get much more useful data from the West Mountain unit
and could save on that expense.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 9/12/2011 6:32:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 04:50 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have a
couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had meant for
them to sit. You know how construction goes.
I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf)
This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all the
components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy on is the 10 V.
Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used these, are they sold by
voltage or amperage or what. Specifically, how do I make sure I get the
correct component?
Keep in mind that this is more of a battery
bench-marker as opposed to a quantitative
tester.
A battery's ability to deliver energy depends
on size, condition, temperature and load. A
battery 'rated' at 20AH will deliver that amount
of output when new and generally under a very
light load compared to how you intend to used it.
Consider the exemplar plot below
This battery is 'rated' at 17 a.h. But it will
deliver that output only when loaded at .85A x
20 hours = 17 a.h. Your airplane's endurance
loads are more likely to be on the order of 4A
so you can expect about 3 hours of service or
12.75 a.h. of output. Of course, this is an as-new
performance value. You'll want to size and maintain
your battery to meed design goals when the battery
has just degraded to the point of needing replacement.
For most folks this is at 75 or 80% of new capacity.
So this particular battery could be used in a system
where endurance expectations are for 2 hours of
service at 4.25A.
The battery cap tester depicted in the book is
not intended to give you an accurate reading of
the battery's capacity. What it will do is let
you know when the battery has fallen so far below
its as-new condition as to require replacement.
If your new battery ran your exemplar load for say
200 minutes, then you would benchmark the replacement
at 150 minutes.
If you'd like to get real numbers at loads matching
your system's requirements, you'll need something like
_http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode
/cbaLink1
_
(http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode=/cbaLink1) I've got a couple of these critters. They were used
to produce the plots like these
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg)
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test_3.jpg_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test_3.jpg)
The device can also be used as a voltage versus time
data acquisition system and get you information like
this.
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg)
I would not discourage you from building the po' boy's
cap-checker. It's a useful tool within its limitations.
Radio Shack won't have a 10v zener. You'll have to get
it from a supplier with a broader range of product offerings.
I'll be back in my shop later today. Let me see if I've
got one in drawer I can send you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
At 06:49 PM 9/14/2011, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Several months ago I too purchased one of these units (or similar) as
it seemed like a great method to power up the panel when working on
the electrical problems, changes, etc. Rated at 13.5 v., 350W, the
first unit I received (they come from China) would not hold voltage
when loaded with about 5-6 amps of panel load. It started at about
13.4 v. and dropped to 12.4 when the panel was powered up. I
contacted the seller and he said to return it and he would replace it.
I did and about 4 wks later he sent me a replacement. It is
functioning in a similar fashion. No load about 13.4 and mild load
drops to 12.75. Still Ok for panel work, etc., but, I believe the
spec indicate that it should be holding a tighter regulation.
Any thoughts on what maybe going on...?
You got me my friend. I've had first-hand contact with
four power supplies from the source I linked. Two are
already out the door, two more are waiting installation in a
project. I just went to the bench and hooked up one
out of the box. It was set for 13.5 zero load. Put
a 1.0 ohm resistor across it (13.5A) and got maybe
0.05 volts drop.
David
PS: ...voltage measurement being done with a cheap digital DVM and I
do not know if the switching power supply would cause errors that I
have not considered.....
I wouldn't think so . . . but there IS a reason for
what you have observed. The mission is to figure out
what it is. Cross checking with another instrument
is a good first step.
Forgive the potential for insult by asking whether you've
accounted for wire drops? The test I just made measured
voltage right at the V+ and V- terminals on the supply.
The 1 ohm resistor was connected to adjacent V+ and
V- terminals.
A tech at HBC built what he thought was a handy
load tester where his power resistor was in a nice
box that plugged onto the front of his multimeter.
The test leads plugged into the front of his load
box. Of course, the meter was making measurements
a the ends of test leads while loaded with significant
current.
Like the 4-wire low-ohms adapter, an accurate
high-loads adapter begs for the same 4-wire
measurement where the instrument and load paths
are not shared. We modified his box to add separate
banana jacks for load and measurement and subsequent
measurements were much more meaningful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building a batter capacity tester |
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: building a batter capacity tester
Hey Bob,
I was looking over the specs on the West Mountain battery analyzer
you mentioned:
http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode=/cbaLink1
This is a very elegant piece of equipment. The information that it
provides is certainly several magnitudes of more exact than the poor
man's bench tester I was thinking to build. Further, it seems like
something that my EAA chapter could put to more regular use than I
would on my own. It is more than it would cost me to build the
other, but not ridiculously expensive. Thank you for the direction.
Yeah, those are a really good value. I have two
of them. I wish they were a little more robust . . .
say good for 10+ amps while testing a 12v battery
but I HAVE used them to gather a lot of good data.
It was a couple of years into my ownership that it
suddenly occurred to me that they could be used for
long term voltage monitoring and plotting.
Set it up to 'test' a battery with a 0.01 amp
load and a very low 'cutoff voltage' then hook
the test leads to the source being monitored.
With this piece of equipment, would there be any reason to also have
a carbon pile load tester? Harbor Freight has one on sale for
$49.95. It seems to me that I would get much more useful data from
the West Mountain unit and could save on that expense.
BOTH devices are useful for different reasons. But
they can be used together too.
LOAD testing is measure of a battery's internal
impedance . . . I.e. ability to carry a large load.
CAP testing is a measure of available energy at
the terminals under various loads . . . where
we know that useful energy is adversely influenced
by internal impedance. There's more than enough
ENERGY in a couple of alkaline lantern batteries
to start an engine and the West Mountain Radio
device would confirm that assertion. Problem is
that a string of "F-cells" wont dump that energy
at 200+ amps.
Your load tester can be used to check your car's
alternator too. Hook a voltmeter to the alternator's
b-lead terminal while putting a load on the battery
equal to the alternator's rated output with the engine
rpms above 2000 or so. The drop should be nominal . . .
perhaps 0.5 volts max. It might even go UP a bit!
The WMR cap tester will characterize your battery's
ability to support endurance loads for an interval
set my your design goals. The load tester cannot
measure or even help predict that.
I considered doing a kit product consisting of a
USB linked micro-controller and a really FAT mos-fet
but with no heat-sink. Modern computers have a really
great CPU heatsink and fan assembly that one can acquire
from dead computers. A bill of materials for the
hardware is about $15.00.
The hardware is simple . . . the software for
a graphical user interface and data plotting
is a significant task that I just don't have
time to address. If anyone out there is really
whippy in Visual C or some similarly capable
language, we might consider a joint venture
to offer a kit for a DIY cap meter with some
really nice features.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Taming the wiley coax . . . |
A few weeks ago we were talking about getting a hand-held
transceiver connected to the ship's external antenna.
Modern coax like RG141 is pretty stiff . . . RG142 less
so but still . . .
When you extend the ship's coax directly to the hand-held,
the result can look like this . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/HandHeld-Ant1.jpg
When the radio mounts a 'rubber duck' antenna, it's
very much like a microphone. Sticking that coax directly
into the top-mounted BNC connector makes the radio
a bit awkward.
Consider this approach . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/HandHeld-Ant2.jpg
A couple of right angle adapters and a rubber band
will route the coax down tight against the back of
the radio.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Barber <cbarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | one sensor, two gages? |
I regret my lack of knowledge, but could someone enlighten me, in a very la
yman's manner, why you could not hook up a sensor to provide readings to tw
o instruments. No, I am not planning to do it as it is my understanding it
does not work, but what is the reason it does not work. Is it that too li
ttle power is generated to signal two gages, does one interfere with the ot
her. It would seem that the same data would be sent, such as if two people
are looking at the same color and both seeing it as red and then saying it
is red. I have been curious about this for a while and as I wait for my n
ew Dynon engine monitor to supplement my rotary RWS engine monitor I though
t I would ask. Thanks.
Chris Barber
Houston
EFD - Ellington Airport
Velocity N17010
Turbo Rotary 13b
Z-14
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: one sensor, two gages? |
| From: | Nati Niv <n992dn(at)gmail.com> |
Chris
To start answering your question it would be interesting to know what gauge
you are referring to because the answer will differ from one gauge to the
other. For some you can actually monitor the same signal with two gauges
(some RPM gouges are just good example)
What exact type of gauge you are referring to?
Nati
Champaign, IL
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Chris Barber wrote:
> I regret my lack of knowledge, but could someone enlighten me, in a
> very layman's manner, why you could not hook up a sensor to provide
> readings to two instruments. No, I am not planning to do it as it is my
> understanding it does not work, but what is the reason it does not work. Is
> it that too little power is generated to signal two gages, does
> one interfere with the other. It would seem that the same data would be
> sent, such as if two people are looking at the same color and both seeing it
> as red and then saying it is red. I have been curious about this for a
> while and as I wait for my new Dynon engine monitor to supplement my
> rotary RWS engine monitor I thought I would ask. Thanks.
>
>
> Chris Barber
>
> Houston
>
> EFD - Ellington Airport
>
> Velocity N17010
>
> Turbo Rotary 13b
>
> Z-14
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Barber <cbarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | one sensor, two gages? |
Nati,
Not any one particular because I don't know that much about it except I hav
e been told that you just can't do it. I guess the ones I was most curious
about would be temps, ie oil and in my rotary, coolant and pressure, oil,
coolant and fuel. The one I have on there now are VDO that were provided b
y the engine monitor from RWS (Tracy Crooks aviation rotary business). I a
m not sure what will be provided with the Dynon, which should be in transit
as I type.
Thanks for the interest.
Chris
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-aeroelectric-list
-server(at)matronics.com] on behalf of Nati Niv [n992dn(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: one sensor, two gages?
Chris
To start answering your question it would be interesting to know what gauge
you are referring to because the answer will differ from one gauge to the
other. For some you can actually monitor the same signal with two gauges (s
ome RPM gouges are just good example)
What exact type of gauge you are referring to?
Nati
Champaign, IL
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Chris Barber > wrote:
I regret my lack of knowledge, but could someone enlighten me, in a very la
yman's manner, why you could not hook up a sensor to provide readings to tw
o instruments. No, I am not planning to do it as it is my understanding it
does not work, but what is the reason it does not work. Is it that too li
ttle power is generated to signal two gages, does one interfere with the ot
her. It would seem that the same data would be sent, such as if two people
are looking at the same color and both seeing it as red and then saying it
is red. I have been curious about this for a while and as I wait for my n
ew Dynon engine monitor to supplement my rotary RWS engine monitor I though
t I would ask. Thanks.
Chris Barber
Houston
EFD - Ellington Airport
Velocity N17010
Turbo Rotary 13b
Z-14
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: one sensor, two gages? |
Some you can easily, some you cannot (depends on the gauge and the monitors), some
you can do with a bit of finagling.
Let me know exactly what you will be using for the sensor and the two instruments
and I can give you suggestions.
I have a number of sensors that I share between my Blue Mountain EFISOne and a
Grand Rapids 4000. Most were pretty easy to share.
Dick Tasker
Chris Barber wrote:
>
> I regret my lack of knowledge, but could someone enlighten me, in a very layman's
manner, why you could not hook up a sensor to provide readings to two instruments.
No, I am not planning to do it
> as it is my understanding it does not work, but what is the reason it does not
work. Is it that too little power is generated to signal two gages, does one
interfere with the other. It would seem
> that the same data would be sent, such as if two people are looking at the same
color and both seeing it as red and then saying it is red. I have been curious
about this for a while and as I wait
> for my new Dynon engine monitor to supplement my rotary RWS engine monitor I
thought I would ask. Thanks.
>
> Chris Barber
>
> Houston
>
> EFD - Ellington Airport
>
> Velocity N17010
>
> Turbo Rotary 13b
>
> Z-14
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY comm antenna . . . |
On several occasions I've cited a commonly
marketed insulated feed-thru mounting for CB
antennas as suitable for doing your own
comm antenna. I've seen this part in blister
packs in lots of stores for prices ranging from
8 to 12 dollars.
Here's an offering I just spotted on Ebay
http://tinyurl.com/3bq5uhv
Emacs!
The price is right.
You can put a UHF connector on your feedline and
it will connect directly to this mounting. Alternatively,
a UHF-M/BNC-F adapter will let you use the more
common BNC-CM connector on your coax.
The other end of the adapter is 3/8-24 thread hole.
Silver solder your stainless antenna whisker into a hole
drilled in a stainless 3/8-24 hex bolt. Bugger
the threads on the bolt pretty good (poor boy's lock
screw). Chisel works good, just leave first three threads
untouched so you can get it to start. Coat the threads with
grease and screw it into the adapter.
The internal tooth lock washer goes inside between the
doubler and the connector. The skin+doubler thickness
should be .09" or better and braced against stringers
and/or bulkheads if possible. Make your antenna 22 inches
long (base to tip of whisker).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY comm antenna . . . OOPS |
Sent this before I was finished . . . here's the whole
message . . .
---------------------------------------------------
On several occasions I've cited a commonly
marketed insulated feed-thru mounting for CB
antennas as suitable for doing your own
comm antenna. I've seen this part in blister
packs in lots of stores for prices ranging from
8 to 12 dollars.
Here's an offering I just spotted on Ebay
http://tinyurl.com/3bq5uhv
Emacs!
The price is right.
You can put a UHF connector on your feedline and
it will connect directly to this mounting. Alternatively,
a UHF-M/BNC-F adapter will let you use the more
common BNC-CM connector on your coax.
The other end of the adapter is 3/8-24 thread hole.
Silver solder your stainless antenna whisker into a hole
drilled in a stainless 3/8-24 hex bolt. Bugger
the threads on the bolt pretty good (poor boy's lock
screw). Chisel works good, just leave first three threads
untouched so you can get it to start. Coat the threads with
grease and screw it into the adapter.
The internal tooth lock washer goes inside between the
doubler and the connector. The skin+doubler thickness
should be .09" or better and braced against stringers
and/or bulkheads if possible. Make your antenna 22 inches
long (base to tip of whisker).
Before you mount the antenna in the hole, you need to make
sure the lockwasher doen't migrate and short the antenna
whisker to ground.
Emacs!
Assemble to this configuration, center the washer up on the
hex and then use spot of super-glue to stick the washer to
the adapter. Not too much. You don't want it to wick under and
run into the theads.
After the glue is set, disassemble and install in the hole.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY comm antenna . . . Plan-B |
A reader asked if there was enough 'meat' in the connector
base to cut an indexing relief for the lockwasher . . . as
opposed to using glue to fixture the washer. The
answer is 'yes'. See Plan-B version below. Thanks Bill!
---------------------------------------------------
On several occasions I've cited a commonly
marketed insulated feed-thru mounting for CB
antennas as suitable for doing your own
comm antenna. I've seen this part in blister
packs in lots of stores for prices ranging from
8 to 12 dollars.
Here's an offering I just spotted on Ebay
http://tinyurl.com/3bq5uhv
Emacs!
The price is right.
You can put a UHF connector on your feedline and
it will connect directly to this mounting. Alternatively,
a UHF-M/BNC-F adapter will let you use the more
common BNC-CM connector on your coax.
The other end of the adapter is 3/8-24 thread hole.
Silver solder your stainless antenna whisker into a hole
drilled in a stainless 3/8-24 hex bolt. Bugger
the threads on the bolt pretty good (poor boy's lock
screw). Chisel works good, just leave first three threads
untouched so you can get it to start. Coat the threads with
grease and screw it into the adapter.
The internal tooth lock washer goes inside between the
doubler and the connector. The skin+doubler thickness
should be .09" or better and braced against stringers
and/or bulkheads if possible. Make your antenna 22 inches
long (total length of base+whisker).
An improved methodology for keeping the lockwasher centered
on the connector is to cut away .015 to .020" of material
off the face of the hex down to a diameter of .500" as shown
here. You can grip the part in a 3-jaw chuck directly onto the
threads. Don't mash 'em and take very light cuts. A couple of
.005" passes produced this end result with no damage to threads.
Emacs!
This modification of the base will keep the lockwasher centered
while you bolt everything up. After all is said and done, here's
what your ready-to-install antenna looks like.
Emacs!
Here's the order of installation on your airplane.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY comm antenna . . . Plan-B |
A reader asked if there was enough 'meat' in the connector
base to cut an indexing relief for the lockwasher . . . as
opposed to using glue to fixture the washer. The
answer is 'yes'. See Plan-B version below. Thanks Bill!
---------------------------------------------------
On several occasions I've cited a commonly
marketed insulated feed-thru mounting for CB
antennas as suitable for doing your own
comm antenna. I've seen this part in blister
packs in lots of stores for prices ranging from
8 to 12 dollars.
Here's an offering I spotted on Ebay
http://tinyurl.com/3bq5uhv
Emacs!
The price is right.
You can put a UHF connector on your feed line and
it will connect directly to this mounting. Alternatively,
a UHF-M/BNC-F adapter will let you use the user friendly
BNC-CM connector on your coax.
The other end of the adapter is 3/8-24 thread hole.
Silver solder your stainless antenna whisker into a hole
drilled in a stainless 3/8-24 hex bolt. You can purchase
a 3' chunk of 'piano wire' at many hardware stores. 3/16"
diameter is a good size. Bugger the bolt threads pretty good
(poor boy's lock screw). A chisel works good, just leave first
three threads untouched so you can get it to start. Coat the
threads with grease and screw it into the adapter.
The internal tooth lock washer goes inside between the
doubler and the connector. The skin+doubler thickness
should be .09" or better and braced against stringers
and/or bulkheads if possible. Make your antenna 22 inches
long (total length of base+whisker).
An improved methodology for keeping the lockwasher centered
on the connector is to cut away .015 to .020" of material
off the face of the hex down to a diameter of .500" as shown
here. You can grip the part in a 3-jaw chuck directly onto the
threads. Don't mash 'em and take very light cuts. A couple of
.005" passes produced this end result with no damage to threads.
Emacs!
This modification of the base will keep the lockwasher centered
while you bolt everything up. After all is said and done, here's
what your ready-to-install antenna looks like.
Emacs!
Here's the order of installation on your airplane.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Bad day at the airport. . . |
A friend of mine has been tracking the Reno accident. There's
a picture circulating that shows what appears to be a detached
elevator trim tap on the accident aircraft . . .
That's never a good thing . . . and can be really bad at
400 kts.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Bad day at the airport. . . |
Tragic ... my wild guess is flutter ... given only 60% of the left trim tab
appears to be separating.
Cheers, 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: Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bad day at the airport. . .
A friend of mine has been tracking the Reno accident. There's
a picture circulating that shows what appears to be a detached
elevator trim tap on the accident aircraft . . .
That's never a good thing . . . and can be really bad at
400 kts.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Bad day at the airport. . . |
At 05:01 AM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
>Tragic ... my wild guess is flutter ... given only 60% of the left
>trim tab appears to be separating.
Don't know about this airplane but I do know that a Beechjet
trimmed for cruise is trimmed at or near full nose down.
In fact, some pilots complain that they can't achieve book-values
for cruise speeds when their trim actuator hits the full nose
down stop before they've achieved the last few knots of
speed. This is common when the airplane is loaded heavier
by the tail.
When Beechjet trim systems fail in cruise, it takes a LOT
of nose up force on the stick to handle the airplane at
lower speeds and particularly in the approach to landing
and flare. Something on the order of 170 pounds.
Suppose this airplane trimmed for high speed suddenly
lost a substantial portion of it's nose-down trim.
It seems likely that the airplane would pitch up with
some vigor. After that, it's a mater of pilot awareness
and reaction to make the right moves on the stick . . .
assuming the forces encountered are even manageable.
The structural robustness of this airplane may be the
only reason it didn't pull the wings off in pitch-up.
The rash of v-tail bonanza accidents some years back
demonstrated many incidences where the leading edge
of the stabilizer failed downward thus causing the
airplane to pitch up followed by failure of one or
both spars.
No doubt others more informed as to this airplane's
handling characteristics will be along to help connect
the dots of information as they surface.
I understand the NTSB/FAA guys are mumbling something about
re-constructing the pieces which are numerous and quite small.
I saw video of an airframe deliberately crashed into a reactor
containment wall at dive speeds. It looked as if the airframe
had been run through a tub grinder and spit out in bite-sized
pieces. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere.
If tab failure was the initiating event . . .and given that
the airplane hit the ground in essentially one piece . . .
it seems that re-assembly, even if possible, would only
show that the airplane had no other failures before impact.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Two wires in one d-sub pin |
| From: | "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com> |
Is it ok to crimp two wires in one d-sub pin, as long as the two wires fit into
the socket ok.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352572#352572
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two wires in one d-sub pin |
At 08:35 AM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
>
>Is it ok to crimp two wires in one d-sub pin, as long as the two
>wires fit into the socket ok.
Sure . . . but those must be very tiny wires.
What's the situation?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two wires in one d-sub pin |
| From: | "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com> |
I am installing an ADSB box and I need to daisy chain three ground pins with #24
wire. Two #24 wires fit into my pins ok, so instead of splices I wanted to use
the pins as the splice. Thanks much Barry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352575#352575
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two Radios, One Antenna |
Hi Bob.
I like this design. One suggestion that I have is to provide an interlock
on the PTT function. For example, tie the common pole of the #2 PTT switch
(currently tied to ground) to the top pole of the #1 PTT switch (currently
not connected). This makes the #1 PTT the 'master'. This will prevent both
transmitters from attempting to transmit simultaneously.
Your switch makes it easy to add a portable comm into an existing
installation.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:03 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Two Radios, One Antenna
Here's a refined concept of the device I was talking
about yesterday. The bill of materials for this gizmo
would be on the order of $50. It would have to sell
for $100 to $125 with mating connectors as a kit.
Seems like a lot of fuss to avoid putting a second
antenna on the airplane.
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY Comm antenna |
The missive I've been massaging for the DIY Comm
Antenna has be molded into a "shop notes" publication
and published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/DIY_Comm_Ant/DIY_Comm.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two wires in one d-sub pin |
Another solution would be to use a solder sleeve. They come in a variety of
sizes. You can get them from SteinAir, ACS, and a variety of other places.
Description: main Image
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Two wires in one d-sub pin
--> < blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com>
I am installing an ADSB box and I need to daisy chain three ground pins with
#24 wire. Two #24 wires fit into my pins ok, so instead of splices I wanted
to use the pins as the splice. Thanks much Barry
Read this topic online here:
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352575#352575>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352575#352575
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Radios, One Antenna |
At 11:02 AM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
><sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
>
>Hi Bob.
>
>I like this design. One suggestion that I have is to provide an
>interlock on the PTT function. For example, tie the common pole of
>the #2 PTT switch (currently tied to ground) to the top pole of the
>#1 PTT switch (currently not connected). This makes the #1 PTT the
>'master'. This will prevent both transmitters from attempting to
>transmit simultaneously.
>
>Your switch makes it easy to add a portable comm into an existing
>installation.
Yeah, I'm debating whether or not to productionize
this design. It's really a really-quick-n-simple.
But I've got a lot of more important projects on
the back burners already . . .
Not sure about the portable comm . . . you'd need
to extend a ptt line to the antenna switch. It's certainly
applicable to dual panel-comms but a pain in
the you-know-what for a hand-held.
I toyed with a solid-state, pin-diode switch
that would switch by extended ptt lines . . .or
perhaps one channel could do it with a transmit
power detector. There's a number of amateur radio
boosters for hand-helds that simply hook into the
antenna feedline. In the receive mode, the booster
offers front end filtering and pre-amp to improve
receive functions . . . when you hit the hand-held's
ptt, the booster detects the strong RF and switches
to a transmitter boost mode.
A similar technique could be applied to either a
hard-contact relay version or a pin-diode version.
I have the equipment to develop and test a solid
state version but time to market for that task
is much longer. I think I'd stay with relays for
the quick-turn project.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: DIY Comm antenna |
would be nice if those files could be saved in PDF format
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 9/18/2011 11:10:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
The missive I've been massaging for the DIY Comm
Antenna has be molded into a "shop notes" publication
and published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/DIY_Comm_Ant/DIY_Comm.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY Comm antenna |
At 04:52 PM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
>would be nice if those files could be saved in PDF format
>Thanks
>Dick
That's easy . . .
http://tinyurl.com/3t3nyq6
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: DIY Comm antenna |
Thank you
Dick
In a message dated 9/18/2011 9:50:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 04:52 PM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
would be nice if those files could be saved in PDF format
Thanks
Dick
That's easy . . .
_http://tinyurl.com/3t3nyq6_ (http://tinyurl.com/3t3nyq6)
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two wires in one d-sub pin |
At 11:30 AM 9/18/2011, you wrote:
>Another solution would be to use a solder sleeve. They come in a
>variety of sizes. You can get them from SteinAir, ACS, and a
>variety of other places.
>Description: main Image
Agreed. In fact it's preferable. Here's another
approach.
Emacs!
This technique is pretty much standard practice
in the TC aircraft industry. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Using the shield as conductor |
My audio panel (PS 8000) does not have a pin for "Mic Key Lo" but my com
radio (Garmin 430W) requires one. The Garmin install manual says to use
a connection to the audio panel ground lug. "Mic Audio Hi and Mic Audio
Lo" are in a 2 conductor shielded cable. The Garmin shows a 3 conductor
cable with one wire connected to the ground lug on the audio panel .The
shield is grounded at the audio panel. Is there any reason I can't
connect a wire to the radio end of the shield and use it for the "Mic
Key Lo" input on the 430? It would save me from having to redo the cable
and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the shield as conductor |
At 09:37 PM 9/19/2011, you wrote:
My audio panel (PS 8000) does not have a pin for "Mic Key Lo" but my
com radio (Garmin 430W) requires one. The Garmin install manual says
to use a connection to the audio panel ground lug. "Mic Audio Hi and
Mic Audio Lo" are in a 2 conductor shielded cable. The Garmin shows a
3 conductor cable with one wire connected to the ground lug on the
audio panel .The shield is grounded at the audio panel. Is there any
reason I can't connect a wire to the radio end of the shield and use
it for the "Mic Key Lo" input on the 430? It would save me from
having to redo the cable and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.
Works good . . . lasts a long time . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the shield as conductor |
On 9/19/2011 6:37 PM, John Grosse wrote:
>
>
> My audio panel (PS 8000) does not have a pin for "Mic Key Lo" but my
> com radio (Garmin 430W) requires one. The Garmin install manual says
> to use a connection to the audio panel ground lug. "Mic Audio Hi and
> Mic Audio Lo" are in a 2 conductor shielded cable. The Garmin shows a
> 3 conductor cable with one wire connected to the ground lug on the
> audio panel .The shield is grounded at the audio panel. Is there any
> reason I can't connect a wire to the radio end of the shield and use
> it for the "Mic Key Lo" input on the 430? It would save me from having
> to redo the cable and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.
>
> John Grosse
>
John, you simply tie (tee) into the Com audio low. Use the same method
you use for tying the shields together ala' BK's web site if you like.
Worked fine for me with a 430W and a different PSE audio panel.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the shield as conductor |
On 9/19/2011 8:34 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
>
>
> On 9/19/2011 6:37 PM, John Grosse wrote:
>>
>>
>> My audio panel (PS 8000) does not have a pin for "Mic Key Lo" but my
>> com radio (Garmin 430W) requires one. The Garmin install manual says
>> to use a connection to the audio panel ground lug. "Mic Audio Hi and
>> Mic Audio Lo" are in a 2 conductor shielded cable. The Garmin shows a
>> 3 conductor cable with one wire connected to the ground lug on the
>> audio panel .The shield is grounded at the audio panel. Is there any
>> reason I can't connect a wire to the radio end of the shield and use
>> it for the "Mic Key Lo" input on the 430? It would save me from
>> having to redo the cable and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't
>> work.
>>
>> John Grosse
>>
> John, you simply tie (tee) into the Com audio low. Use the same method
> you use for tying the shields together ala' BK's web site if you like.
> Worked fine for me with a 430W and a different PSE audio panel.
> Tim
Sorry John I didnt read your mssg well. I see now you know what to do,
just had a question on how to do it.....
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Comm antenna in search of an airplane |
The DIY comm antenna featured in the recently published
DIY article is looking for an airplane. First order entered
to the website catalog and order form at
http://aeroelectric.com
gets it. Enter your request in the comments box at the
bottom of the form "VHF Comm antenna @ $35.00"
After your order is accepted by the website, post
a note to the List letting others know
that the inventory-of-one is spoken for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Fashion Handbags in 2011 |
Thanks Matt,
You are doing a fantastic job with keeping the spam out of the forum.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fashion Handbags in 2011
I have already removed them and blocked their email address.
Matt Dralle
Matronics List Administrator
At 08:55 AM 9/20/2011 Tuesday, you wrote:
>Get off this sight ya D bag
>
>On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:15 AM, yaya2323
<sf535jhgggf(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
<sf535jhgggf(at)hotmail.com>
>
>Fashion Handbags in 2011 (snip)...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Fashion Handbags in 2011 |
Yes, I certainly agree. That was so unusual it made me wonder just how it
got through.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fashion Handbags in 2011
Thanks Matt,
You are doing a fantastic job with keeping the spam out of the forum.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fashion Handbags in 2011
I have already removed them and blocked their email address.
Matt Dralle
Matronics List Administrator
At 08:55 AM 9/20/2011 Tuesday, you wrote:
>Get off this sight ya D bag
>
>On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:15 AM, yaya2323
<sf535jhgggf(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
<sf535jhgggf(at)hotmail.com>
>
>Fashion Handbags in 2011 (snip)...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fashion Handbags in 2011 |
Obviously, someone has broken into the server.
david
yaya2323 wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "yaya2323"
>
> Fashion Handbags in 2011
>
> Emma Watson has stepped into the adult glamour Coach Handbags (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com/catalogues/bags+handbags+187/all.html) world by bagging her first American Vogue cover. Gucci Handbags (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com/catalogues/bags+handbags+194/all.html)
> The 21-year-old 'Harry Potter' actress, who is constantly on theetch her name as a style icon, graced the July publication of the American style bible, headed by editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. discount Handbags online (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com) and discount Louis Vuitton Purse (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com/catalogues/bags+purse+196/all.html)
> Her flawless skin was accentuated by a slick hairstyle, which was scarped back,
as Mario Testino photographed her in sophisticated creations by designers Tom
Ford, Alexander McQueen, Prada, Calvin Klein and Dolce and Gabbana.Monogram
Canvas
> In the interview, she talked about her deliberate championing of emerging designers such as Juicy Purse (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com/catalogues/bags+purse+195/all.html) and Coach Purse (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com/catalogues/bags+purse+187/all.html).
> "I thought if people are going to write about what I'm wearing, then I would wear young British designers who need the publicity," the Telegraph quoted her as saying. cheapest Handbags (http://www.shoptshirtfashion.com).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352746#352746
>
>
>
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fashion Handbags in 2011 |
Well, no. They didn't break in. What they did was sign up for a Matronics Forums
account. This requires my approval, but if the username and email don't look
too nefarious and they don't put any obvious advertisement links in the signature,
I really don't know if they're a spammer or not. They even have to answer
some aviation related questions correctly to even request an account.
The perhaps more pathetic take away from this whole thing, however, is that some
REAL PERSON took the time to sign up for an account, waited for the approval,
then spent more time to manually post the links for their sponsor's useless
handbags. This wasn't an automated spambot. It was a real, misguided person
that spent real time to post to a list of predominately Type-A males trying to
sell accessories for predominately not Type-A females.
In more irony, someone was actually PAYING this person to totally miss the target
market. It would be nice to be able to enlighten them on the misappropriation
of their advertising budget. Maybe we should all email the company and let
them know... Or not. Build your airplane, instead.
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
At 03:09 PM 9/20/2011 Tuesday, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Obviously, someone has broken into the server.
>
>david
>
>
>yaya2323 wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "yaya2323"
>>
>>Fashion Handbags in 2011
>>
>>
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352746#352746
>>
>>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | davidbf(at)centurytel.net |
| Subject: | egt splicing--chromel and alumel pins |
Long story short---I have an Aerosance FADEC system in my RV6, I need to replace
an egt probe which right now is intermittent. Aerosance has sold out or dissolved
to Teledyne Continental Motors. In the past have gotten probes and splice
kit from Aerosance, now TCM wants $450 for one egt probe and a splicing kit.
I think I can do better looking for a type K probe but presently don't know
of a source for alumel and chromel pins/sockets to create a splice in the harness.
Also there is a 4 inch piece of braided crimp/heat shrink that goes over
the splicing point. I've not found anything yet--anyone got any ideas?
Dave Ford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: egt splicing--chromel and alumel pins |
Unless you have a very high temperature difference across the connector/splice
(unlikely), regular pins and sockets will work just fine. Any error caused by
the different materials is non-existent
unless the two ends of the pin/socket connection are at significantly different
temperatures.
Dick Tasker
davidbf(at)centurytel.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: davidbf(at)centurytel.net
>
> Long story short---I have an Aerosance FADEC system in my RV6, I need to replace
an egt probe which right now is intermittent. Aerosance has sold out or dissolved
to Teledyne Continental Motors. In the past have gotten probes and splice
kit from Aerosance, now TCM wants $450 for one egt probe and a splicing
kit. I think I can do better looking for a type K probe but presently don't know
of a source for alumel and chromel pins/sockets to create a splice in the
harness. Also there is a 4 inch piece of braided crimp/heat shrink that goes
over the splicing point. I've not found anything yet--anyone got any ideas?
>
> Dave Ford
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: egt splicing--chromel and alumel pins |
Dave,
I have some chromel and alumel pins and sockets for standard serial port
type connectors (DB25 etc.) which I would be happy to send you. You can
also buy other connector types, probes etc. from Omega. If, however,
you are just doing a splice and don't need the connector (and want to do
better than std. connector pins) you can silver solder the wires.
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fashion Handbags in 2011 |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
The whole Internet is going to hell in a handbag. *ducks*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall(at)member.afa.org> |
| Subject: | TKM/Michel Radios |
I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC com/nav in his
C150 is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM makes a slide-in
replacement for it.
My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have any
experience with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money? Any
problems with putting them in aging airplanes?
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TKM/Michel Radios |
| From: | Ed Gilroy <egilroy(at)gmail.com> |
I recently put two of these in place of a pair of original King KX-170C's in
a Cessna 172N.
I had two different problems with three different Michel radios over the
last few months since install. Never any problem with getting them replaced
under warranty BUT they are the slowest company I have ever dealt with.
There is always a minimum one month wait (remember this is on 3 radio
replacements, not insignificant experience) to get the warranty replacement.
Even the company warns you about how slow they are.
I am not sure what the issue is with the factory but they are very friendly,
acknowledge problems quickly, but take forever to replace them. I was warned
by our avionics shop about this issue with them but they felt they were fine
radios, I would have to agree.
I would not do it again. I ordered the radios through Aircraft Spruce, who
were always very helpful and fast.
Ed
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Chuck Birdsall wrote:
> cbirdsall(at)member.afa.org>
>
> I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC com/nav in his
> C150 is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM makes a slide-in
> replacement for it.
>
> My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have any
> experience with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money? Any problems
> with putting them in aging airplanes?
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TKM/Michel Radios |
I used Michel radios in a 182 I had. I felt they had good audio quality. They
were reliable. I was told one possible problem guys could have was with worn
out racks the new radios were put into. If the radio rack contacts are still
in good shape these radios should be ok.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:57, Chuck Birdsall wrote:
>
> I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC com/nav in his C150
is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM makes a slide-in replacement for
it.
>
> My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have any experience
with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money? Any problems with putting
them in aging airplanes?
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TKM/Michel Radios |
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Chuck,
Years ago, ( around 14) I changed out my old King KX170B for the Michel MX170.
It was a GREAT radio, and personally, I'd highly recommend the Michel brand
products.
As a side note, I had some kind of problem with the radio several months after
I got. IIRC, I bought it used on eBay, and it didn't come with a warranty.
At any rate, I had to send it back to the factory. They fixed it, free of
charge, and even shipped it back to me at no charge.
The repair guy told me it was a common shortcoming of the radio, and the factory
felt obligated to correct the problem at no charge to the consumer.......whether
it was under warranty or not.
Good radio, good people!!
BTW, when installing the newer radio, my avionics guy had to remove the old power
supply that the KX170B used, plus the related wiring harness. Not an easy
job, either!
The removal of the old radio and related parts, plus the appropriate FAA Paperwork
cost a total of 8 hours shop time. (read that to mean 'expensive', just
like any other brand of newer radio replacement). AFTER the initial installation,
yes, the MX170 was a direct slide-in replacement, but you have to remove
the old stuff first.
Hope this helps,
Mike Welch
On Sep 23, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Chuck Birdsall wrote:
>
> I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC com/nav in his C150
is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM makes a slide-in replacement for
it.
>
> My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have any experience
with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money? Any problems with putting
them in aging airplanes?
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TKM/Michel Radios |
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Chuck,
I was a member of a flying club in Richmond, Virginia. We bought a
replacement Michel radio for our Cessna 150L. It was excellent. We also own
a Cessna 172 that had a replacement Michel radio. Works find.
Dee
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Mike Welch wrote:
> mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Chuck,
>
> Years ago, ( around 14) I changed out my old King KX170B for the Michel
> MX170. It was a GREAT radio, and personally, I'd highly recommend the
> Michel brand products.
>
> As a side note, I had some kind of problem with the radio several months
> after I got. IIRC, I bought it used on eBay, and it didn't come with a
> warranty. At any rate, I had to send it back to the factory. They fixed
> it, free of charge, and even shipped it back to me at no charge.
> The repair guy told me it was a common shortcoming of the radio, and the
> factory felt obligated to correct the problem at no charge to the
> consumer.......whether it was under warranty or not.
>
> Good radio, good people!!
>
> BTW, when installing the newer radio, my avionics guy had to remove the
> old power supply that the KX170B used, plus the related wiring harness. Not
> an easy job, either!
> The removal of the old radio and related parts, plus the appropriate FAA
> Paperwork cost a total of 8 hours shop time. (read that to mean
> 'expensive', just like any other brand of newer radio replacement). AFTER
> the initial installation, yes, the MX170 was a direct slide-in replacement,
> but you have to remove the old stuff first.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Chuck Birdsall
> wrote:
>
> cbirdsall(at)member.afa.org>
> >
> > I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC com/nav in his
> C150 is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM makes a slide-in
> replacement for it.
> >
> > My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have any
> experience with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money? Any problems
> with putting them in aging airplanes?
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
At 06:49 PM 9/14/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>Several months ago I too purchased one of these units (or similar)
>as it seemed like a great method to power up the panel when working
>on the electrical problems, changes, etc. Rated at 13.5 v.,
>350W, the first unit I received (they come from China) would not
>hold voltage when loaded with about 5-6 amps of panel load. It
>started at about 13.4 v. and dropped to 12.4 when the panel was
>powered up.
Dave, did you run the reasons for your observations
to ground?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall(at)member.afa.org> |
| Subject: | Re: TKM/Michel Radios |
Thanks guys, 'preciate the responses.
Chuck
On 9/24/2011 2:09 PM, DeWitt (Dee) Whittington wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I was a member of a flying club in Richmond, Virginia. We bought a
> replacement Michel radio for our Cessna 150L. It was excellent. We
> also own a Cessna 172 that had a replacement Michel radio. Works find.
>
> Dee
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Mike Welch > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Chuck,
>
> Years ago, ( around 14) I changed out my old King KX170B for the
> Michel MX170. It was a GREAT radio, and personally, I'd highly
> recommend the Michel brand products.
>
> As a side note, I had some kind of problem with the radio several
> months after I got. IIRC, I bought it used on eBay, and it didn't
> come with a warranty. At any rate, I had to send it back to the
> factory. They fixed it, free of charge, and even shipped it
> back to me at no charge.
> The repair guy told me it was a common shortcoming of the radio,
> and the factory felt obligated to correct the problem at no charge
> to the consumer.......whether it was under warranty or not.
>
> Good radio, good people!!
>
> BTW, when installing the newer radio, my avionics guy had to
> remove the old power supply that the KX170B used, plus the related
> wiring harness. Not an easy job, either!
> The removal of the old radio and related parts, plus the
> appropriate FAA Paperwork cost a total of 8 hours shop time.
> (read that to mean 'expensive', just like any other brand of
> newer radio replacement). AFTER the initial installation, yes,
> the MX170 was a direct slide-in replacement, but you have to
> remove the old stuff first.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Chuck Birdsall
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I was talking with an acquaintance about radios - his ARC
> com/nav in his C150 is dying (fades away when it gets warm). TKM
> makes a slide-in replacement for it.
> >
> > My experience is limited to Collins/King/Garmin. Anybody have
> any experience with a TKM? Are they decent radios for the money?
> Any problems with putting them in aging airplanes?
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==========
> -List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> --
> DeWitt Whittington
> www.VirginiaFlyIn.org <http://www.VirginiaFlyIn.org>
> Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L." <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on New Power Supply |
Bob,
...I am on an extended trip with limited email, etc.
No, I have not run further tests nor tried anything to find the reason
for poor regulation on the power supply.
....more later, David
______________________________________________________
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 06:49 PM 9/14/2011, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Several months ago I too purchased one of these units (or similar) as it
seemed like a great method to power up the panel when working on the
electrical problems, changes, etc. Rated at 13.5 v., 350W, the first
unit I received (they come from China) would not hold voltage when
loaded with about 5-6 amps of panel load. It started at about 13.4 v.
and dropped to 12.4 when the panel was powered up.
Dave, did you run the reasons for your observations
to ground?
Bob . . .
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | A refresher question about switching for the battery |
and "alternator."
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)GMAIL.COM> |
Good afternoon, everyone.
I need a little refresher on the latest guidance on DC Power Master
switches. (Quoting from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf,
which quotes another article...)
"The alternator switch turns the voltage regulator on and off, not
the alternator output. The voltage to the alternator switch comes from
the alternator field circuit breaker, which is tied directly to the aircraft
battery through the master switch." (I think I'm correct in pointing out
that the field circuit is from the bus, and whether the bus is getting it's
electrons from the battery or alternator is another matter...)
One of the larger discussions is with reference to the split rocker: "1)
Leave the alternator switch OFF BEFORE starting the engine," and "2) Turn
the alternator switch ON AFTER the engine is running." Mr. Nuckolls responds
to this by pointing out there is "there is no demonstration in the physics
of how alternators work that will support this notion...[that starting the
engine with both sides powered somehow overloads the alternator, causing
failure.]" Okay. I understand.
Mr. Nuckolls also points out that even if you WANTED to sit on the ground
without the engine running listening to the radio, why would one turn on
both sides of the DC power master switch?) Also, "Yes, any truly qualified
mechanic will conduct ground tests of electrical system components with only
the battery side of the switch closed.")
Okay, so while I won't hurt the alternator by cranking with both sides
powered, you shouldn't sit around (with the engine not running) with them
both on for fun...
Here's the actual question. I see in Figure 11-20 of AEC (page 8-98), the
example DC Power master is a DPST switch (same with Z-10/8 and Z-13/8), but
some of the other diagrams show a DPDT with OFF-BATT-BATT/ALT. Why the
difference?
I'd rather use a DPST, but is there a good reason to use the DPDT? If I have
a DPST, will pulling the ALT FLD breaker be the same as leaving the ALT side
of the split rocker OFF in the few cases I'll be "sitting around listening
to the radio?" I think the answer is no (removing field circuit power
instead of voltage regulator power), but then how do I mitigate against the
scenarios above?
As always, thanks in advance.
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Position Lights/Strobes |
Hi all
-
I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project.- I've looked at Ave
o Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman.- The Aveo & Aero leds look lik
e great products but pricey. The Whelen products also look-nice but again
pricey.
-
I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3 position lights
(led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system which,-when
you add all the componets up,-starts to approach the Kuntzleman price of
$620.- The homemade system also carries a posible issue with the LED posi
tion lights not having the proper 110/140 degree beams.
-
My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3 strobes
with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
-
Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products?- Sounds like they've been
arounf for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.-
-
All opinions welcomed.
-
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A refresher question about switching for the |
battery and "alternator."
At 01:50 PM 9/27/2011, you wrote:
Good afternoon, everyone.
Okay, so while I won't hurt the alternator by cranking with both
sides powered, you shouldn't sit around (with the engine not running)
with them both on for fun...
Correct. When the alternator field is ON but the shaft not
turning, the field draws full-up excitation current that
only serves to waste battery energy.
Here's the actual question. I see in Figure 11-20 of AEC (page 8-98),
the example DC Power master is a DPST switch (same with Z-10/8 and
Z-13/8), but some of the other diagrams show a DPDT with
OFF-BATT-BATT/ALT. Why the difference?
I'd rather use a DPST, but is there a good reason to use the DPDT? If
I have a DPST, will pulling the ALT FLD breaker be the same as
leaving the ALT side of the split rocker OFF in the few cases I'll be
"sitting around listening to the radio?" I think the answer is no
(removing field circuit power instead of voltage regulator power),
but then how do I mitigate against the scenarios above?
What ever means you choose to used for removing
field excitation during battery-only ops is up
to you. If you opt for crowbar ov protection,
then the CB offers a convenient means for accomplishing
the task with a simpler switch. You choose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Position Lights/Strobes |
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
I got the Aveoflash Powerburst and am very happy with them. They are only $4
00 for the pair at Wicks.
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=12541/index.htm
l
Bob Meyers
Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Rick Lark wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project. I've looked at Aveo
Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman. The Aveo & Aero leds look like gr
eat products but pricey. The Whelen products also look nice but again pricey
.
>
> I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3 position lights
(led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system which, when yo
u add all the componets up, starts to approach the Kuntzleman price of $620.
The homemade system also carries a posible issue with the LED position lig
hts not having the proper 110/140 degree beams.
>
> My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3 strobes
with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
>
> Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products? Sounds like they've been a
rounf for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.
>
> All opinions welcomed.
>
> Rick
> #40956
> Southampton, Ont
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Position Lights/Strobes |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Rick
PITA Noise!
I ended up having to put two strobe power supplies in the wingtips
instead of one in the fuse. Follow links how I wired to keep noise down.
:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=31409
Kunzleman not too much a help, just kept reminding me how inexpensive
their unit was and insinuating that not all have noise issues. Do a
search and you can find others with the exact same noise issues as I
had.
After talking to Bob, he kept reminding me that strobes should have been
designed to not make noise in the first place. Bob offered to help
Kunzleman make them less noisy but they were not interested.
Twisted power leads to strobe are much better than shielded power leads
to strobe. As a matter of fact straight run power leads are better than
shielded!
Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project.
I've looked at Aveo
> Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman. The Aveo & Aero
leds look like
> great products but pricey. The Whelen products also looknice
but again
> pricey.
>
> I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3
position lights
> (led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system
which,when
> you add all the componets up,starts to approach the Kuntzleman
price of
> $620. The homemade system also carries a posable issue with
the LED
> position lights not having the proper 110/140 degree beams.
>
> My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3
strobes
> with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
>
> Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products? Sounds like
they've been
> arounf for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.
>
> All opinions welcomed.
>
> Rick
> #40956
> Southampton, Ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Position Lights/Strobes |
The same product is $396 from Spruce. Just depends on where you are for
shipping and which vendor you prefer.
However, they are not a good choice for the RV-10 which has enclosed
wingtips. Aveo does offer an embedded and more powerful version for
about double the money.
On 9/27/2011 2:22 PM, Bob Meyers wrote:
> I got the Aveoflash Powerburst and am very happy with them. They are
> only $400 for the pair at Wicks.
>
> http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=12541/index.html
>
> Bob Meyers
>
> Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Rick Lark > wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>> I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project. I've looked at
>> Aveo Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman. The Aveo & Aero leds
>> look like great products but pricey. The Whelen products also
>> look nice but again pricey.
>> I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3 position
>> lights (led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system
>> which, when you add all the componets up, starts to approach the
>> Kuntzleman price of $620. The homemade system also carries a posible
>> issue with the LED position lights not having the proper 110/140
>> degree beams.
>> My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3
>> strobes with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
>> Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products? Sounds like they've
>> been arounf for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.
>> All opinions welcomed.
>> Rick
>> #40956
>> Southampton, Ont
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Position Lights/Strobes |
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
Kelly,
Yes, I got my lists mixed up. I thought I was responding to a fellow Sonex builder
on a Sonex list. The lights I highlighted are not for an RV 10. I am very
happy with Aveo as a user of one of their products for what that is worth.
I promise to pay closer attention next time.
Bob Meyers
Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> The same product is $396 from Spruce. Just depends on where you are for shipping
and which vendor you prefer.
> However, they are not a good choice for the RV-10 which has enclosed wingtips.
Aveo does offer an embedded and more powerful version for about double the
money.
>
> On 9/27/2011 2:22 PM, Bob Meyers wrote:
>> I got the Aveoflash Powerburst and am very happy with them. They are only $400
for the pair at Wicks.
>>
>> http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=12541/index.html
>>
>> Bob Meyers
>>
>> Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Rick Lark > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>> I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project. I've looked at Aveo
Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman. The Aveo & Aero leds look like great
products but pricey. The Whelen products also look nice but again pricey.
>>> I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3 position lights
(led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system which, when you add
all the componets up, starts to approach the Kuntzleman price of $620. The
homemade system also carries a posible issue with the LED position lights not
having the proper 110/140 degree beams.
>>> My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3 strobes
with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
>>> Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products? Sounds like they've been arounf
for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.
>>> All opinions welcomed.
>>> Rick
>>> #40956
>>> Southampton, Ont
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Position Lights/Strobes |
G'day Rick,
I liked the Aveo range and I already have several of their products, but I
wouldn't recommend them to anyone. If first sought sponsorship and the
answer was no, but I nevertheless went ahead and bought Aveo products
because I liked the gear. I then discovered a broken return wire in my new
AveoMaxx landing light module earlier this year. There was no strain relief
for the wires, no chafe protection where they passed through the anodised
metal body and no beam angle adjustment. There were also a raft of errors
and omissions in the advertising for the product itself and they refused to
honour the warranty when I said that I removed three ordinary screws holding
the lens in place (to see what was wrong). I expected a replacement light
because I had already cut my wingtips to suit the larger lights, but they
insisted a refund was the only option. I experienced one helpful,
constructive person at Aveo USA, but customer service at the decision-level
was abysmal and insulting.
Cheers, Stu
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lark
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Position Lights/Strobes
Hi all
I'm researching lighting options for my RV10 project. I've looked at Aveo
Leds, Aero Leds, Whelen, and Kuntzleman. The Aveo & Aero leds look like
great products but pricey. The Whelen products also look nice but again
pricey.
I'm leaning towards the Kuntzlemean package that has the 3 position lights
(led), with integrated Xe flash tubes, or a home made system which, when you
add all the componets up, starts to approach the Kuntzleman price of $620.
The homemade system also carries a posible issue with the LED position
lights not having the proper 110/140 degree beams.
My goal is to have red, green and white led position lights, and 3 strobes
with at least the wing tips strobes synchronized.
Anyone have an opinion on Kuntzlemman products? Sounds like they've been
arounf for about 20 years, but I know nothing about them.
All opinions welcomed.
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A refresher question about switching for the battery |
and "al
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
I would have thought that starting the engine on with the alternator field powered
would load the engine, not the alternator. And with a marginal battery, in
cold weather, it might make a difference as to whether the engine started or
not.
> One of the larger discussions is with reference to the split rocker: "1) Leave
the alternator switch OFF BEFORE starting the engine," and "2) Turn the alternator
switch ON AFTER the engine is running." Mr. Nuckolls responds to this by
pointing out there is "there is no demonstration in the physics of how alternators
workthat will support this notion...[that starting the engine with both
sides powered somehow overloads the alternator, causing failure.]" Okay. I understand.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353396#353396
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A refresher question about switching for the battery |
and "alternator."
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for your quick response, Mr. Nuckolls.
So I'll need a way to remove excitation current for battery only ops (either
crowbar cb or 3-position switch).
Makes sense. With one more question, I think I'll have my path. (Whoops! It
turned into two!)
Knowing that I won't damage anything while cranking with the excitation
current there, does a 3-position switch (so I can crank
without excitation current) help with cranking ability? (I guess the same
question goes for various other electrical equipment/avionics; I know
cranking with avionics ON won't hurt the avionics, but will turning
electrical equipment off during cranking provide better cranking
performance? I think we're talking 200 to 300 amps versus just a couple
amps...maybe I have more issues if those few extra amps are making a big
difference.)
Thanks again.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:50 PM 9/27/2011, you wrote:
> Good afternoon, everyone.
>
>
>
>
> Okay, so while I won't hurt the alternator by cranking with both sides
> powered, you shouldn't sit around (with the engine not running) with them
> both on for fun...
>
> * Correct. When the alternator field is ON but the shaft not
> turning, the field draws full-up excitation current that
> only serves to waste battery energy.
>
> *
> Here's the actual question. I see in Figure 11-20 of AEC (page 8-98), the
> example DC Power master is a DPST switch (same with Z-10/8 and Z-13/8), but
> some of the other diagrams show a DPDT with OFF-BATT-BATT/ALT. Why the
> difference?
>
> I'd rather use a DPST, but is there a good reason to use the DPDT? If I
> have a DPST, will pulling the ALT FLD breaker be the same as leaving the ALT
> side of the split rocker OFF in the few cases I'll be "sitting around
> listening to the radio?" I think the answer is no (removing field circuit
> power instead of voltage regulator power), but then how do I mitigate
> against the scenarios above?
>
> * What ever means you choose to used for removing
> field excitation during battery-only ops is up
> to you. If you opt for crowbar ov protection,
> then the CB offers a convenient means for accomplishing
> the task with a simpler switch. You choose.
>
> ***
>
> ** Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hildebrand" <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com> |
I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
Philip Hildebrand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the coax - which
should also be electrically connected to the ground-side of the electrical
system via the radio.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>Philip Hildebrand
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a minimum
diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground, size
would not matter. (no puns please)
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 Ralph
E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the
coax - which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side of
the electrical system via the radio.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>Philip Hildebrand
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder Ground Plane |
| From: | "Phil Hildebrand" <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com> |
The Lancair belly is E glass. What is the proper method of attaching the coax
shield to the ground plane. At the present time my BNC connector to the antenna
is isolated from the ground plane.
Philip Hildebrand, CET
TPG The Pritchard Group
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the coax - which
should also be electrically connected to the ground-side of the electrical
system via the radio.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>Philip Hildebrand
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
The ground plane of minimum diameter provides for the reflection of the RF energy
at the antenna - specifically for non metallic airframes. I think there is
at least one Berkut out there that is set up this way.
In my case, I have my transponder antenna mounted inside my engine cowl pointing
downward with an aluminum circle providing the ground plane. It is isolated
from physical grounding by the mount and is electrically 'bonded' to the ground
system.
Bob could probably explain the theory better - I took it in to practice and it
works well for me.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 10:43 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a minimum
>diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground, size
>would not matter. (no puns please)
>
>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 Ralph
>E. Capen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:13 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>
>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>
>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the
>coax - which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side of
>the electrical system via the radio.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Philip Hildebrand
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Ground Plane |
The coax shield should be attached to the connector thereby physically connecting
it to the ground plane - that's how mine is....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 11:14 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ground Plane
>
>
> The Lancair belly is E glass. What is the proper method of attaching the coax
shield to the ground plane. At the present time my BNC connector to the antenna
is isolated from the ground plane.
>
>Philip Hildebrand, CET
>TPG The Pritchard Group
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:13 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>
>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the coax -
which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side of the electrical
system via the radio.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Philip Hildebrand
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
I believe that the minimum size of the ground plane is related to the
wave length of the radio.
John Grosse
Bruce wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce"
>
> Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a minimum
> diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground, size
> would not matter. (no puns please)
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Ground Plane |
I would attach a jumper wire to the to the shield (preferably under the
crimp) and then attach that to the ground plane with a screw or bolt.
John Grosse
Phil Hildebrand wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Hildebrand"
>
> The Lancair belly is E glass. What is the proper method of attaching the coax
shield to the ground plane. At the present time my BNC connector to the antenna
is isolated from the ground plane.
>
> Philip Hildebrand, CET
> TPG The Pritchard Group
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
Then why does my WX-500 require a 12 inch ground plane? It only receives
RF.
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 Ralph
E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
The ground plane of minimum diameter provides for the reflection of the
RF energy at the antenna - specifically for non metallic airframes. I
think there is at least one Berkut out there that is set up this way.
In my case, I have my transponder antenna mounted inside my engine cowl
pointing downward with an aluminum circle providing the ground plane.
It is isolated from physical grounding by the mount and is electrically
'bonded' to the ground system.
Bob could probably explain the theory better - I took it in to practice
and it works well for me.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 10:43 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a
minimum
>diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground,
size
>would not matter. (no puns please)
>
>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
Ralph
>E. Capen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:13 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>
>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>
>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the
>coax - which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side
of
>the electrical system via the radio.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Philip Hildebrand
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Tiethoff <j.e.tiethoff(at)gmail.com> |
Try it without the groundplane and you will find out why you need the
thing...
Met vriendelijke groet en
verzonden vanaf de bijna
illegale Samsung Galaxy S2,
Eric Tiethoff.
Op 28 sep. 2011 18:36 schreef "Bruce" het volgende:
>
> Then why does my WX-500 require a 12 inch ground plane? It only receives
> RF.
>
> 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 Ralph
> E. Capen
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:31 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>
> The ground plane of minimum diameter provides for the reflection of the
> RF energy at the antenna - specifically for non metallic airframes. I
> think there is at least one Berkut out there that is set up this way.
>
> In my case, I have my transponder antenna mounted inside my engine cowl
> pointing downward with an aluminum circle providing the ground plane.
> It is isolated from physical grounding by the mount and is electrically
> 'bonded' to the ground system.
>
> Bob could probably explain the theory better - I took it in to practice
> and it works well for me.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 10:43 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>>
>>Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a
> minimum
>>diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground,
> size
>>would not matter. (no puns please)
>>
>>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
> Ralph
>>E. Capen
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:13 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>>
>>
>>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>>
>>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the
>>coax - which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side
> of
>>the electrical system via the radio.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>>>
>>> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>>>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Philip Hildebrand
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Not the expert on the theory - but I think RF exhibits the same behaviour relative
to the antenna regardless of being transmitted or received.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 12:24 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>Then why does my WX-500 require a 12 inch ground plane? It only receives
>RF.
>
>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 Ralph
>E. Capen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:31 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>
>The ground plane of minimum diameter provides for the reflection of the
>RF energy at the antenna - specifically for non metallic airframes. I
>think there is at least one Berkut out there that is set up this way.
>
>In my case, I have my transponder antenna mounted inside my engine cowl
>pointing downward with an aluminum circle providing the ground plane.
>It is isolated from physical grounding by the mount and is electrically
>'bonded' to the ground system.
>
>Bob could probably explain the theory better - I took it in to practice
>and it works well for me.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 10:43 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>>
>>Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a
>minimum
>>diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground,
>size
>>would not matter. (no puns please)
>>
>>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
>Ralph
>>E. Capen
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:13 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>>
>>
>>
>>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>>
>>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of the
>>coax - which should also be electrically connected to the ground-side
>of
>>the electrical system via the radio.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Phil Hildebrand <Philh(at)thepritchardgroup.com>
>>>Sent: Sep 28, 2011 9:49 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>>>
>>> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder issues.
>>>Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Philip Hildebrand
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
I need a design for an easy to build, low parts count and inexpensive constant
current circuit to charge 3,000mA AA NiMh batteries (~300mA rate C/10 for 14 to
16 hours) from a 12 volt lead acid battery that could have the input voltage
ranging anywhere from ~ 12.2 to 14.5volts.
I would prefer to have as many cells in series as possible when charging.
I have the charge stick figured out to hold cells in series by using 1/2" PVC water
pipe that's a pretty good fit for AA cells.
Thanking you in advance.
Ron Parigoris
BTW I just ordered 50 AA NiMh supposedly 3,000mA batteries from E-bay including
shipping for $25.85 (~$.52 each) Buy it now. I will report on self discharge
rate, ability to dump amps and capacity once I get them.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353455#353455
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A refresher question about switching for |
the battery and "al
At 05:49 AM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>I would have thought that starting the engine on with the alternator
>field powered would load the engine, not the alternator.
Don't think anyone said it loaded the alternator.
It's the battery that has to supply 3 or so amps
alternator field excitation when the alternator
is not spinning. Hence it is the battery that
is 'loaded'.
> And with a marginal battery, in cold weather, it might make a
> difference as to whether the engine started or not.
The mechanical 'load' is not zero but it's so tiny
a percentage of what's necessary to crank
the engine that adding it to the mix is
insignificant.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A refresher question about switching for the |
battery and "alternator."
>Knowing that I won't damage anything while cranking with the
>excitation current there, does a 3-position switch (so I can crank
>without excitation current) help with cranking ability?
Yes . . . but by so small a value as to make
it unobservable without precision measurements.
> (I guess the same question goes for various other electrical
> equipment/avionics; I know cranking with avionics ON won't hurt the
> avionics, but will turning electrical equipment off during cranking
> provide better cranking performance? I think we're talking 200 to
> 300 amps versus just a couple amps...maybe I have more issues if
> those few extra amps are making a big difference.)
A few percent reduction in battery load for
cranking will have no significant impact on
how well the engine starts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:49 AM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
> I have a Lancair ES and am having Transponder
> issues. Should the ground plane be grounded or does it matter.
>
The ground plane is a ground for the antenna.
No other grounds are needed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
At 09:13 AM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>IIRC the Lancair is not metal-skinned....
>
>The ground-plane should be electrically connected to the shield of
>the coax - which should also be electrically connected to the
>ground-side of the electrical system via the radio.
I think he was asking if the ground plane needed
some extra conductor from the metal over to
the electrical system ground.
There is no value in adding such wires from
an RF perspective. I've seen such bonding
conductors added for lightning strike issues
on composite aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:43 AM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>Then why do some radio manufacturers require a ground plane of a minimum
>diameter? If the ground plane was connected to the aircraft ground, size
>would not matter. (no puns please)
The ideal ground plane is an infinite number
of radial conductors having the same length
as the antenna itself. In other words, a 22"
comm antenna would ideally sit on a 44" diameter
disk.
The 2.6" transponder antenna sits on a 5.2" disk.
Since the ideal, 'tuned' disk is impractical
for most aircraft installations, the next best
thing is to have 4-8, 22" radials fan out from the
base of the comm antenna and conform to the inside
surface of the aircraft.
Aircraft power ground and antenna RF ground are
completely separate, unrelated systems. See chapter
on antennas and feedlines in the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Ground Plane |
At 10:14 AM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> The Lancair belly is E glass. What is the proper method of
> attaching the coax shield to the ground plane. At the present time
> my BNC connector to the antenna is isolated from the ground plane.
What kind of antenna? If it's like
this
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Transponder_1.jpg
or a shark fin style antenna, then the act of mounting
the antenna to the ground plane takes care of the
connection between BNC connector shell and the
ground plane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
At 03:10 PM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Group
>
>I need a design for an easy to build, low parts count and
>inexpensive constant current circuit to charge 3,000mA AA NiMh
>batteries (~300mA rate C/10 for 14 to 16 hours) from a 12 volt lead
>acid battery that could have the input voltage ranging anywhere from
>~ 12.2 to 14.5volts.
>
>I would prefer to have as many cells in series as possible when charging.
The simplest is an LM317 wired as shown here
http://diyparadise.com/yhlmccs.html
The resistor would be 1.25/.3 or 39 ohms.
The CC Gen will need at least 3 volts
of 'headroom' so 12.5 - 3.0 leaves
9.5 volts worth of cells. This means
you can charge 6 cells in series.
This charge rate will heat the cells.
Plastic pipe may not be the best holder
for allowing the string of cells to
reject heat.
If you like, I could take a few of those
cells and discharge them on the system I
used to produce this article:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
** First off if you don't mind I can send you some AA NiMh cells to test once they
arrive. How many would you like for testing?
** I like the simplicity of the circuit you pointed me to. The first question is
would Allied part number 248-0718 LM317P be OK to use? This is not a National
Semiconductor part, I like the TO220 style and didn't see one offered by National.
** Instead of a LM317, would Allied 288-0963 LM1117T-ADJ Low dropout be an OK choice
with only a 1.2 volt drop out? This should allow a cell count increase?
** You mention that putting cells in a PVC plastic pipe may not be a good idea
because it can aid in heat build up. You mention that this charger will heat the
cells. I am questioning this because in my past experience charging NiMh cells
at a one tenth capacity rate for 14 to 16 hours doesn't seem to develop too
much heat. Has your experience proved in the past that a 1/10C charge rate for
14 to 16 hours warms up the cells? The cells are AA with a 3,000mA capacity,
so 300mAs is 1/10 capacity.
** I would love for this simple circuit to accomplish the task of providing a constant
300mA charge rate. I don't have too much experience working with LM317s.
I can kind of see where if you have a constant supply voltage and a constant
load how the circuit should be OK. In my application where the supply voltage
may be as low as 12.2 volts, or if the motor is running then up to 14.5 volts
do you think it will still maintain a constant 300mAs?
Also we know that when NiMh cells when discharged have a lower resistance. As the
cells begin to charge, the resistance begins to go up thus you need to begin
increasing the voltage in order to maintain a constant 300ma charge rate. Then
when the cells become fully charged the resistance begins to go down again,
thus you need to begin lowering the voltage to maintain a constant current. If
you put too much current into a fully charged cell this is where you can get
them warm or downright hot (IE 1C or more).
Anyway do you think this circuit could do an OK job of maintaining 300mA charge
rate with input voltage fluctuating between 12.2 and 14.5 volts, and the NiMh
cells changing their internal resistance?
** I kinda had an eyeball on this circuit #2:
http://talkingelectronics.com/projects/ChargingNiMH/ChargingNiMH.html
But they are using a constant current 500mA charger that is kinda regulated (because
of transformer coupling?) and wasn't sure how it would work with a source
that could provide a gazillion mAs of current.
I was thinking of trying both the regulators I mentioned above and since Allied
doesn't sell BC338 NPN transistors (Digikey BC338ND), I was thinking of giving
a Allied TIP122G 568-0402 a try. I would rather keep it simple, but if just
the regulator and resistor proves unacceptable results, do you think this would
work OK?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353497#353497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
At 04:13 AM 9/29/2011, you wrote:
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
** First off if you don't mind I can send you some AA NiMh cells to
test once they arrive. How many would you like for testing?
Four. No hurry, that fixture is packed away
somewhere from the move. I'll have to dig it
out and dust it off. I've been thinking about
repeating some of the tests done earlier and
adding a few more 'house brands' of AA-alkalines
to the study. But I'm up to my eyeballs in a
project for Hawker-Beech and it will be a
couple months before I can 'play'.
** I like the simplicity of the circuit you pointed me to. The first
question is would Allied part number 248-0718 LM317P be OK to use?
This is not a National Semiconductor part, I like the TO220 style and
didn't see one offered by National.
** Instead of a LM317, would Allied 288-0963 LM1117T-ADJ Low dropout
be an OK choice with only a 1.2 volt drop out? This should allow a
cell count increase?
ANY of the 117/217/317 series parts will do.
You just need to make sure it's heat-sinked
well enough to dissipate the power. The low
dropout part is only a portion of the voltage
drop . . . the 39 ohm resistor has 1.25 volts
across it too which boosts your head-room
requirements.
** You mention that putting cells in a PVC plastic pipe may not be a
good idea because it can aid in heat build up. You mention that this
charger will heat the cells. I am questioning this because in my past
experience charging NiMh cells at a one tenth capacity rate for 14 to
16 hours doesn't seem to develop too much heat. Has your experience
proved in the past that a 1/10C charge rate for 14 to 16 hours warms
up the cells? The cells are AA with a 3,000mA capacity, so 300mAs is
1/10 capacity.
'Too much heat' is non-quantified. Further,
small surface area parts wrapped in an
low heat transfer media will experience
a greater temperature rise than when
operated in still air. Just a point to
ponder and explore.
** I would love for this simple circuit to accomplish the task of
providing a constant 300mA charge rate. I don't have too much
experience working with LM317s. I can kind of see where if you have a
constant supply voltage and a constant load how the circuit should be
OK. In my application where the supply voltage may be as low as 12.2
volts, or if the motor is running then up to 14.5 volts do you think
it will still maintain a constant 300mAs?
The LMx17 series devices are a fixed calibration
voltage regulator with a factory adjustment of
1.25 volts. Higher voltages can be achieved by
addition of the voltage divider shown in the
data sheets. But when wired with the single resistor
as suggested, the device works to maintain a
constant voltage of 1.25 volts across the series
resistor. 1.25 ohms yields 1 amp, 125 ohms yields
10 milliamps, etc. So yes, this is a true constant
current generator with an upper limit equal to the
design point. It will fall off only if the device
looses operating head-room discussed above.
Also we know that when NiMh cells when discharged have a lower
resistance. As the cells begin to charge, the resistance begins to go
up thus you need to begin increasing the voltage in order to maintain
a constant 300ma charge rate. Then when the cells become fully
charged the resistance begins to go down again, thus you need to
begin lowering the voltage to maintain a constant current. If you put
too much current into a fully charged cell this is where you can get
them warm or downright hot (IE 1C or more).
Anyway do you think this circuit could do an OK job of maintaining
300mA charge rate with input voltage fluctuating between 12.2 and
14.5 volts, and the NiMh cells changing their internal resistance?
Absolutely.
** I kinda had an eyeball on this circuit #2:
http://talkingelectronics.com/projects/ChargingNiMH/ChargingNiMH.html
But they are using a constant current 500mA charger that is kinda
regulated (because of transformer coupling?) and wasn't sure how it
would work with a source that could provide a gazillion mAs of current.
The circuit depicted are variations on a theme and
all will probably function as advertised.
I was thinking of trying both the regulators I mentioned above and
since Allied doesn't sell BC338 NPN transistors (Digikey BC338ND), I
was thinking of giving a Allied TIP122G 568-0402 a try. I would
rather keep it simple, but if just the regulator and resistor proves
unacceptable results, do you think this would work OK?
Yes. The transistor style is not critical. Go get
an LM317 and TIP31 at Radio Shack and do the
experiments.
LM317
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62601&numProdsPerPage=60
TIP31
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62610&numProdsPerPage=60
This is the simplest approach. If you want something
'fancier' with lower heat dissipation, some sort
of active constant current generator like the LED
drivers we offer
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
can be used. With a single resistor to adjust
output current, you can set your charging level
at any value up to 1000 mA. Further, this particular
device has a boost output capability. I think it would
charge a longer string of cells.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
To Bob and All,
At my age, I know it is only a matter of time before I forget to latch the canopy
before takeoff on a hot sunny day. I have learned from the mistakes of others
and will fly the plane and latch the canopy after landing. But I would rather
not forget to latch the canopy. I want to install an audio and visual alarm
that will only go off when the canopy is unlatched AND the engine is at takeoff
RPM. The easy part of the project will be installing a limit switch on
the canopy latch. My plan is to use a PIC12F509 microprocessor that will monitor
the limit switch and also count the engine RPM. There is a tachometer coil
on the engine that sends an AC signal to the Dynon D-180 through a 30K resistor.
I want to tap into that signal for my project but am worried about loading
down the circuit and affecting the Dynon tach readout. My first question is,
can the tach signal be fed directly into a microprocessor input or should I
use some type of buffer? If a buffer circuit is needed, can I use Bob's transistor
squaring circuit above or will it load down the circuit to the Dynon?
I found this circuit on the internet: http://www.redcircuits.com//Page17.htm
If I used that circuit, I would eliminate the voltage doubler components (C1, C2,
D1, D2) and power the Hex Inverter from a separate supply. Using an op-amp
or FET are possibilities if I could find a schematic. I am open to any comments
or suggestions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353522#353522
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
What about using a second limit switch hooked up to your throttle
lever/knob?
That might be simpler...
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:01 PM, user9253 wrote:
> >
>
> To Bob and All,
> At my age, I know it is only a matter of time before I forget to latch the
> canopy before takeoff on a hot sunny day. I have learned from the mistakes
> of others and will fly the plane and latch the canopy after landing. But I
> would rather not forget to latch the canopy. I want to install an audio and
> visual alarm that will only go off when the canopy is unlatched AND the
> engine is at takeoff RPM. The easy part of the project will be installing a
> limit switch on the canopy latch. My plan is to use a PIC12F509
> microprocessor that will monitor the limit switch and also count the engine
> RPM. There is a tachometer coil on the engine that sends an AC signal to
> the Dynon D-180 through a 30K resistor. I want to tap into that signal for
> my project but am worried about loading down the circuit and affecting the
> Dynon tach readout. My first question is, can the tach signal be fed
> directly into a microprocessor input or should I use some type of buffer?
> If a buffer circuit is ne!
> eded, can I use Bob's transistor squaring circuit above or will it load
> down the circuit to the Dynon?
> I found this circuit on the internet:
> http://www.redcircuits.com//Page17.htm
> If I used that circuit, I would eliminate the voltage doubler components
> (C1, C2, D1, D2) and power the Hex Inverter from a separate supply. Using
> an op-amp or FET are possibilities if I could find a schematic. I am open
> to any comments or suggestions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353522#353522
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
Joe=3B
Another simple solution would be a second limit switch in series with the o
ne on the latch attached to the throttle in such a way that at takeoff powe
r setting it closes and if the one on the latch is also closed (latch open)
then the alarms sound.
Bob McC
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring
> From: fran4sew(at)banyanol.com
> Date: Thu=2C 29 Sep 2011 09:01:29 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
m>
>
> To Bob and All=2C
> At my age=2C I know it is only a matter of time before I forget to latch
the canopy before takeoff on a hot sunny day. I have learned from the mist
akes of others and will fly the plane and latch the canopy after landing.
But I would rather not forget to latch the canopy. I want to install an au
dio and visual alarm that will only go off when the canopy is unlatched AND
the engine is at takeoff RPM. The easy part of the project will be instal
ling a limit switch on the canopy latch. My plan is to use a PIC12F509 mic
roprocessor that will monitor the limit switch and also count the engine RP
M. There is a tachometer coil on the engine that sends an AC signal to the
Dynon D-180 through a 30K resistor. I want to tap into that signal for my
project but am worried about loading down the circuit and affecting the Dy
non tach readout. My first question is=2C can the tach signal be fed direc
tly into a microprocessor input or should I use some type of buffer? If a
buffer circuit is ne!
> eded=2C can I use Bob's transistor squaring circuit above or will it loa
d down the circuit to the Dynon?
> I found this circuit on the internet: http://www.redcircuits.com//Page
17.htm
> If I used that circuit=2C I would eliminate the voltage doubler component
s (C1=2C C2=2C D1=2C D2) and power the Hex Inverter from a separate supply
. Using an op-amp or FET are possibilities if I could find a schematic. I
am open to any comments or suggestions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353522#353522
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Thanks Bob McC & Andrew for the throttle switch ideas. Trouble is, I can not think
of any way to install a switch on the throttle knob. There is a knurled
locking disk in the way. I could install a limit switch on the other end of the
throttle linkage at the carburetor. But that will require fabricating some
type of bracket to hold the switch and figuring out how to mount it to the engine
without interfering with the throttle operation. And the wiring and switch
will be subject to heat and vibration. I would rather monitor the RPM electronically
because making electronic circuits is fun for me.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353531#353531
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Short in E-Bus Feed Circuit? |
| From: | "jvolkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
Situation - I am using Z-12. I have a diode, which tests ok, between the main
buss and the e-buss. I have the e-bus wired to a switch and then to the battery
bus per the diagram. For the wire from the e-bus to the switch, with the switch
in the off position, I detect no short to ground. Same for the wire from
the switch to the e-bus. With the switch on I blow the fuse (10amps fuse with
no load on the e-bus). If I detach the wire from the e-bus to the diode between
the e-buss and the main bus, the fuse remains intact. It appears that the
problem is with this circuit, yet the diode tests ok. What am I missing?
(All wiring has been triple checked to conforms with z-12.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353533#353533
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerry van Dyk" <gerry.vandyk(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
Joe, just a thought...
How about having the canopy warning come on at run-up RPM rather than
take-off RPM. I'd think it'd be best to pick this up before taking the
runway.
Gerry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: September 29, 2011 10:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring
To Bob and All,
At my age, I know it is only a matter of time before I forget to latch the
canopy before takeoff on a hot sunny day. I have learned from the mistakes
of others and will fly the plane and latch the canopy after landing. But I
would rather not forget to latch the canopy. I want to install an audio and
visual alarm that will only go off when the canopy is unlatched AND the
engine is at takeoff RPM. The easy part of the project will be installing a
limit switch on the canopy latch. My plan is to use a PIC12F509
microprocessor that will monitor the limit switch and also count the engine
RPM. There is a tachometer coil on the engine that sends an AC signal to
the Dynon D-180 through a 30K resistor. I want to tap into that signal for
my project but am worried about loading down the circuit and affecting the
Dynon tach readout. My first question is, can the tach signal be fed
directly into a microprocessor input or should I use some type of buffer?
If a buffer circuit is ne!
eded, can I use Bob's transistor squaring circuit above or will it load
down the circuit to the Dynon?
I found this circuit on the internet:
http://www.redcircuits.com//Page17.htm
If I used that circuit, I would eliminate the voltage doubler components
(C1, C2, D1, D2) and power the Hex Inverter from a separate supply. Using
an op-amp or FET are possibilities if I could find a schematic. I am open
to any comments or suggestions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353522#353522
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> How about having the canopy warning come on at run-up RPM rather than
> take-off RPM.
Gerry,
That is a good idea. I could get into the habit of latching the canopy before
run-up. In the event that the takeoff is delayed and I unlatch the canopy, the
alarm will still go off on the takeoff roll, but at a lower RPM.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353560#353560
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
At 11:01 AM 9/29/2011, you wrote:
>
>To Bob and All,
>At my age, I know it is only a matter of time before I forget to
>latch the canopy before takeoff on a hot sunny day.My plan is to use
>a PIC12F509 microprocessor that will monitor the limit switch and
>also count the engine RPM.
Is this a Dynon sensor? Call the factory and see
what the characteristics of this signal are. It
may already be a 5 or 12v square wave. If so,
you can tie it to a PIC input through a suitable
series resistor, a capacitor and perhaps a clamp diode.
Use one of edge sensitive inputs. But the first
question to answer is what does the signal look
like? If you can run the engine now, the a 'scope
would get you this information too.
I have a little "do everything" board and enclosure
that might be suited to your task. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Do-Much_Board.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/A15_Package.jpg
Depending on what parts are installed on the board, what
parts are left off, and what code goes into the
8-pin PIC, you can do a whole lot of neat things.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
Bob, your calculations are off by a factor of ten relative to the resistor needed
to get 300 mA.
The 317 series has a reference voltage of 1.25V as you noted. But to get 300 mA
you would need 1.25V/0.3A = 4.17ohms. A value of 3.9 ohms is the closest 5%
resistor value and it would give you 320
mA - likely close enough. You would need at least a 1/2 W resistor for this application
and a 1W would keep the temperature rise in the resistor more reasonable.
Other than that everything else you say is fine.
It should be noted that using a charger like this is fine as long as one removes
it shortly after the batteries are fully charged. Otherwise, the overcharging
will shorten their useful lives.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 03:10 PM 9/28/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Hi Group
>>
>> I need a design for an easy to build, low parts count and inexpensive constant
current circuit to charge 3,000mA AA NiMh batteries (~300mA rate C/10 for 14
to 16 hours) from a 12 volt lead acid
>> battery that could have the input voltage ranging anywhere from ~ 12.2 to 14.5volts.
>>
>> I would prefer to have as many cells in series as possible when charging.
>
> The simplest is an LM317 wired as shown here
>
> http://diyparadise.com/yhlmccs.html
>
> The resistor would be 1.25/.3 or 39 ohms.
> The CC Gen will need at least 3 volts
> of 'headroom' so 12.5 - 3.0 leaves
> 9.5 volts worth of cells. This means
> you can charge 6 cells in series.
>
> This charge rate will heat the cells.
> Plastic pipe may not be the best holder
> for allowing the string of cells to
> reject heat.
>
> If you like, I could take a few of those
> cells and discharge them on the system I
> used to produce this article:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
I have a little "do everything" board and enclosure
that might be suited to your task. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Do-Much_Board.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/A15_Package.jpg
Depending on what parts are installed on the board, what
parts are left off, and what code goes into the
8-pin PIC, you can do a whole lot of neat things.
Bob . . .
I noticed that this was just posted yesterday on your
website. Is there any documentation available? What things do you
anticipate it to be used for?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
At 10:38 PM 9/29/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob, your calculations are off by a factor of ten relative to the
>resistor needed to get 300 mA.
>
>The 317 series has a reference voltage of 1.25V as you noted. But
>to get 300 mA you would need 1.25V/0.3A = 4.17ohms. A value of 3.9
>ohms is the closest 5% resistor value and it would give you 320 mA -
>likely close enough. You would need at least a 1/2 W resistor for
>this application and a 1W would keep the temperature rise in the
>resistor more reasonable.
>
>Other than that everything else you say is fine.
>
>It should be noted that using a charger like this is fine as long as
>one removes it shortly after the batteries are fully
>charged. Otherwise, the overcharging will shorten their useful lives.
Yes! Thank you my friend!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
>
> I noticed that this was just posted yesterday on your
>website. Is there any documentation available? What things do you
>anticipate it to be used for?
It's the core board for about a dozen different
products with the notion of having 90% common bill
of materials and differing only by what software
is installed. AEC9011 is but one example.
> Roger
>
>
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Thanks for the response Bob N.
This is an RV-12. The RPM sensor is part of the Rotax 912 engine. The tach trigger coil sends a small AC voltage signal to the tach once every revolution of the crankshaft, according to page 8 of this document: http://flymall.org/aircraft/docs/FAQs-on-Rotax.pdf
I do not have a portable scope. But my Fluke meter shows an AC voltage.
Does your "do everything" board come with ASM code for the various functions or
do we have to write our own?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353638#353638
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Short in E-Bus Feed Circuit? |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
It sounds to me that the polarity of the diode is reversed. Have you double checked
that?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353644#353644
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Short in E-Bus Feed Circuit? |
| From: | "jvolkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
It turns out that the rectifier diode was defective. I probable shorted it out
or something as I was installing and testing wiring over the past several months.
At one point it worked and I thought that I checked it yesterday. I ran
down to my local electronics parts store and pick up a replacement and everything
checks out now.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353653#353653
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag |
relay
| From: | "Helidesigner" <mwscott2(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Bob,
I received the updated wiring diagram from B&C that has the 2W 75 ohm resister
across the light terminals. I gave it a try and had the same result. Any idea
what is going on? Are the Aeroled lights different than the Whelens I saw in the
picture?
--------
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353692#353692
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and strobes,
and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with the strobes
turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying to trouble
shoot this, and don't have a clue.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig |
wag relay
At 08:34 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I received the updated wiring diagram from B&C that has the 2W 75
>ohm resister across the light terminals. I gave it a try and had the
>same result. Any idea what is going on? Are the Aeroled lights
>different than the Whelens I saw in the picture?
I can't imagine how they would be different
in any significant way. You can ship your
lights to me and I can see.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:17 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and
>strobes, and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with
>the strobes turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying
>to trouble shoot this, and don't have a clue.
Are these products qualified for type certificated
aircraft . . . i.e. are there STC's for installation
on factory machines?
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:17 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and
>strobes, and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with
>the strobes turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying
>to trouble shoot this, and don't have a clue.
Do I presume correctly that the noise happens with the
position lights on, strobes off but the noise disappears
with the position lights off?
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tachometer Generator Wiring |
At 11:35 AM 9/30/2011, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the response Bob N.
>This is an RV-12. The RPM sensor is part of the Rotax 912
>engine. The tach trigger coil sends a small AC voltage signal to
>the tach once every revolution of the crankshaft, according to page
>8 of this document: http://flymall.org/aircraft/docs/FAQs-on-Rotax.pdf
>I do not have a portable scope. But my Fluke meter shows an AC voltage.
Hmmmm . . . once per revolution makes for a challenging
tachometer design. We still need to know if the transducer
is a hall effect device or a inductive pickup. In any case,
the output is a very low duty cycle pulse. At 5500 cruise
you'll have 91 Hz tach signals the drop to about 1/5th that
for idle or 18 Hz. It would be very helpful to know the
style of transducer along with the amplitude and duration
of output pulse.
>Does your "do everything" board come with ASM code for the various
>functions or do we have to write our own?
You gotta do your own code and your own components
selection tailored to the task. Not all components
shown in the schematic are installed together for
a single project. But with the layout shown, values
of parts put in and parts left off offer a huge combination
of options for inputs, outputs and tasks.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | 300mA AA NiMh charger design needed |
Hi Bob,
Snip
" The resistor would be 1.25/.3 or 39 ohms..."
I'm no electron herder but...isn't 1.25/.3 about 4 ohms?
Still learning about all this stuff...
Tony Babb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:17 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and
>> strobes, and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with
>> the strobes turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying
>> to trouble shoot this, and don't have a clue.
>
> Do I presume correctly that the noise happens with the
> position lights on, strobes off but the noise disappears
> with the position lights off?
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
No, it's all the time, but worse with the strobes on. And no this is not
an STC'ed or TSO'ed product.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Noisey Power Supplies. |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I sell some LED tail lights and used to supply them with commercial constant current
supplies--Power Pucks from Luxdrive. But making them quiet was another matter.
I know Bob N. put together a fix for these. It would be interesting to
see how they worked in the field...I frankly never had any luck, but I did autopsy
a unit to see why it was so noiseyand found it was simply a matter of poor
design. For a while I considered re-engineering them and selling the identical
product, but there was no profit in it.
So I changed them all to tomb-silent LM317-based constant current supplies and
never heard another peep. I will send you the documentation for a Roll Your Own
version (attached), and am considering making a slicker version later (also
attached).
For the beginner who might wonder why one doesn't use a simple resistor, here's
why:
The tiny LEDs used as indicators use 20 milliamps. So running them on 14.5V requires
a R=(14.5V-2Vf)/0.020=~625 ohm resistor. The resistor power is .020 x 0.020
x 625=W=0.25 or a 1/4W resistor (minimum).
But the numbers start getting difficult with a 1 Amp LED: R=(14.5-3.2Vf)/1
11.3 ohm resistor. So far so good. The resistor power is 1 x 1 x 11.3=11.3 Watts
(minimum). (you can use 10 or 12 and recalculate. You should use a higher wattage
resistor, too). The resistor is the size of your finger, not cheap, requires
mechanical mounting and gets hot. You could still do it, but this is the
limit of the olde-current limiting resistor technique.
The LM317 current-controller technique is in fact more expensive and larger and
heavier than using a switching power supply, but not much, and it has the great
advantage of being as quiet as a resistor...and you can build it yourself easily.
--------
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=353791#353791
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/current_regulator_194.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/canopy_latches_for_bipolar_leds_876.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig |
wag relay
At 08:34 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I received the updated wiring diagram from B&C that has the 2W 75
>ohm resister across the light terminals. I gave it a try and had the
>same result. Any idea what is going on? Are the Aeroled lights
>different than the Whelens I saw in the picture?
I checked out the AeroLed website . . . seems that
at least some models of landing light have wig-wag
features built in. Are you sure you need the B&C
flasher to implement your installation?
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Tiethoff <j.e.tiethoff(at)gmail.com> |
*The green and the red led's are driven by a switched power supply. This
gives a hum in the system. The only solution is to build a filter (choke and
condensator) at the 12v input of the led's.
*
2011/10/2 Sam Marlow
> sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>>
>> At 09:17 AM 10/1/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>> sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com>
>>>
>>> I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and strobes,
>>> and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with the strobes
>>> turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying to trouble shoot
>>> this, and don't have a clue.
>>>
>>
>> Do I presume correctly that the noise happens with the
>> position lights on, strobes off but the noise disappears
>> with the position lights off?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>> ////
>> (o o)
>> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======**==
>> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
>> < show me where I'm wrong. >
>> ==============================**==
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's all the time, but worse with the strobes on. And no this is not
> an STC'ed or TSO'ed product.
>
>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Eric Tiethoff
mail: eric(at)tiethoff.nl
web: http://tiethoff.nl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed noises |
At 11:13 AM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>
>I sell some LED tail lights and used to supply them with commercial
>constant current supplies--Power Pucks from Luxdrive. But making
>them quiet was another matter. I know Bob N. put together a fix for
>these. It would be interesting to see how they worked in the field...
We've just about used up the initial stocking order of
filter boards for the AEC9051 filtered driver boards.
Individuals who ordered boards to add to their existing
BukPucks never got back to me . . . further, I've not
had any complaints/returns from customers who ordered the
fully assembled devices. It's a fair assumption that
the product is producing the expected result in the
field. I did get into the RFI lab to take a peek at
DO160 conducted emissions for the AEC9051 and found it
to be well within limits.
The reason I asked about TSO/STC on the AeroLED products
is because a holy-watered product would have been tested
to DO-160 requirements.
Sam Marlow wrote:
No, it's all the time, but worse with the strobes on. And no this is not
an STC'ed or TSO'ed product.
I'm mystified as to why anyone might offer a non-qualified
device that is any less capable than their qualified device.
The delta-dollars to manufacture two different products
is pretty small . . . further, the risks of having an unhappy
customer due to "cutting of corners" can be hard on business.
Nothing travels faster than "bad news" about a product or
the services of the company that made it.
Having offered that, the question to be asked and answered
by AeroLed is, "Is there a difference in electromagnetic
compatibility between your certificated and non-certificated
products?" If the answer is yes, the next question is, "How
was it determined that the owner of an OBAM aircraft would
be any more tolerant of noise in the radios than the owner
of a TC aircraft?"
Sam, I'm not sure I asked my question of you clearly. You
spoke of landing lights and strobes. I understand that the
noise increased with strobes on versus off. But if there
is some form of noise with the strobes off . . . does this
noise go away when the landing lights are off? We need
to be REALLY sure that the offending noises are coming from
both products.
In the unfathomable wisdom of HBC management, they sold
all their investigative and qualification test facilities
to Wichita State University. I used to be able to sneak in
and get a quick look-see on the EMC performance of various
devices. Now, even though the cost of doing a 5 minute test
is quite reasonable, the cost and time delays for doing a
purchase order, awaiting a quote, exercising a contract
and getting on a schedule has built a very effective
barrier between WSU as a supplier and myself as a potential
customer.
I've got a broad-band receiver and conductive emissions
pickup transformers to do the work on my bench . . . but
no time in the foreseeable future to get the setup
calibrated.
So tackling the problem before us is reduced to cut-n-try
processes on the airplane. Fortunately, after 45 years
of shepherding various products through the labs . . . we're
not operating completely in the dark. Let's work to identify
the players first, then the propagation paths, and finally
some first-pass experiments to identify a solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:56 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>The green and the red led's are driven by a switched power supply.
>This gives a hum in the system. The only solution is to build a
>filter (choke and condensator) at the 12v input of the led's.
Do you have access to a proven 'recipe for success'
as to the size and placement of the components?
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Tiethoff <j.e.tiethoff(at)gmail.com> |
*The problem is that you have to use long powerlines from the main switch to
the wingtips. So in the wingtips are the "transmitters" (the switched power
supply's to make the led's working). These long powerlines act as an antenna
and dirty-up your system. In order to surpress this transmission you have to
block it with a choke (i guess 20-30 turns of 22awg wire and a condensator
of 10 micro farad). See drawing...good luck.
*
2011/10/2 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> At 12:56 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>
> *The green and the red led's are driven by a switched power supply. This
> gives a hum in the system. The only solution is to build a filter (choke and
> condensator) at the 12v input of the led's.*
>
>
> Do you have access to a proven 'recipe for success'
> as to the size and placement of the components?
>
> **
>
> ** Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Eric Tiethoff
mail: eric(at)tiethoff.nl
web: http://tiethoff.nl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed noises |
Sam,
We also need to know what the conditions are for hearing
the noise in the headsets. Does the noise level go up and down
as the VOLUME on a radio is adjusted?
. . . when the intercom volume is adjusted?
. . . when the radios are all OFF?
This will give us clues as to whether the noise
problem is RADIATED or CONDUCTED noise. Filters for
these two conditions are different.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Staton <pj260(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | AeroLED lights - and an alternative |
I have followed the thread on these lights for a while, and thought
I would toss my .02 in - take a look at Ztron Labs (www.ztronlabs.com).
They have a suite of excellent LED lights that will be a world beater,
in my opinion. The tail light is $89.00 and the pair of wingtip lights
is $249.00 (all LED and sun-bright). The real killer as far as I am
concerned is this - the wig-wag is built in and programmable with a
button push. Each light has 3 wires - pwr, grd, and sync. Taking the
sync wire to grd disables the strobes, leaving the position lights on.
Very reponsive company. Definitely worth a look IMHO.
Sam Staton
Jacksonville, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | AeroLED lights - and an alternative |
I am also interested in any thoughts, they claim to meet brightness
requirements for night flight, and their pricing is very attractive.
Bill Greenley
RV-10 wing stage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Staton
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AeroLED lights - and an alternative
I have followed the thread on these lights for a while, and thought
I would toss my .02 in - take a look at Ztron Labs (www.ztronlabs.com).
They have a suite of excellent LED lights that will be a world beater,
in my opinion. The tail light is $89.00 and the pair of wingtip lights
is $249.00 (all LED and sun-bright). The real killer as far as I am
concerned is this - the wig-wag is built in and programmable with a
button push. Each light has 3 wires - pwr, grd, and sync. Taking the
sync wire to grd disables the strobes, leaving the position lights on.
Very reponsive company. Definitely worth a look IMHO.
Sam Staton
Jacksonville, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 01:37 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>The problem is that you have to use long powerlines from the main
>switch to the wingtips. So in the wingtips are the "transmitters"
>(the switched power supply's to make the led's working). These long
>powerlines act as an antenna and dirty-up your system. In order to
>surpress this transmission you have to block it with a choke (i
>guess 20-30 turns of 22awg wire and a condensator of 10 micro
>farad). See drawing...good luck.
Electrolytic capacitors are almost never a part
of a solution for reducing attenuation at radio
frequencies. The value of inductance for what
I presume is an air-wound, helix of wire is only
useful as an attenuator at radio frequencies.
I'm not suggesting that this approach did not
work for somebody . . . they were on the right
track for a practical filter. But without knowing
the spectrum of energy for the offending noise,
this filter was far from optimal to the task.
In the instance where a filter was added to the
Buck Pucks . . . see
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
the components were selected to attenuate radio
frequency noise reported by disappointed users
of the Buck Pucks. A hand-held transceiver held
close to an operating LED driven by a Buck Puck
was bombarded by a substantial noise sorce.
The capacitors used in this case are rather small
as is the inductor. The inductor was not selected
for it's ability to function as a high quality
resonance but as a lossy impedance. It was desirable
that any VHF+ RF appearing across the terminals
was converted to heat!
It seems likely that the AeroLED study will
produce a similar finding. But until that
finding is verified, moving forward with any
filter experiments could be a poor use of time
or offer a risk of less than optimal performance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLED lights - and an alternative |
At 04:10 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>
> I have followed the thread on these lights for a while, and
> thought I would toss my .02 in - take a look at Ztron Labs
> (www.ztronlabs.com). They have a suite of excellent LED lights that
> will be a world beater, in my opinion. The tail light is $89.00 and
> the pair of wingtip lights is $249.00 (all LED and sun-bright). The
> real killer as far as I am concerned is this - the wig-wag is built
> in and programmable with a button push. Each light has 3 wires -
> pwr, grd, and sync. Taking the sync wire to grd disables the
> strobes, leaving the position lights on. Very reponsive company.
> Definitely worth a look IMHO.
Good news . . . but be sure to ask if the devices
contain active electrics (a pretty sure bet) and if
so, have they been investigated for potential emissions
above those allowed under DO-160 qualifications for
TC aircraft?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
Yes. I have a composite aircraft and installed the units using an old
wiring diagram that came in the box - I too had lots of noise in the
headsets and radio reception.
There is a NEW wiring diagram on the website that the tech guys at AeroLEDs
pointed out...sure enough, the radio transmitted noise went away. Problem
one solved.
However, (after LOTS of hunting) the rest of the line transmitted noise was
being picked up somewhere in the XM audio output of the Garmin 396 GPS that
was being fed into the intercom. This even happened with the GPS on battery
power...it was very weird.
I tried power filters on all ends (LED end, GPS, and intercom) - no luck.
the only thing that fixed the problem was upgrading to the Garmin 496. It
seems that the audio output grounding is different on the 496 and is not
susceptible to the noise, or floating ground issue, or whatever that real
problem was.
Noise free and loving it...and the LEDs.
Hope that helps!
-James
Berkut/Race13
www.berkut13.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Marlow
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aero LED'S
I have 2 friends that have installed the new Aero Led Nav and strobes,
and both have noise in the headset at all times, even with the strobes
turned off. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying to trouble
shoot this, and don't have a clue.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed noises |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:13 AM 10/2/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I sell some LED tail lights and used to supply them with commercial
>> constant current supplies--Power Pucks from Luxdrive. But making them
>> quiet was another matter. I know Bob N. put together a fix for these.
>> It would be interesting to see how they worked in the field...
>
> We've just about used up the initial stocking order of
> filter boards for the AEC9051 filtered driver boards.
> Individuals who ordered boards to add to their existing
> BukPucks never got back to me . . . further, I've not
> had any complaints/returns from customers who ordered the
> fully assembled devices. It's a fair assumption that
> the product is producing the expected result in the
> field. I did get into the RFI lab to take a peek at
> DO160 conducted emissions for the AEC9051 and found it
> to be well within limits.
>
> The reason I asked about TSO/STC on the AeroLED products
> is because a holy-watered product would have been tested
> to DO-160 requirements.
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>
> No, it's all the time, but worse with the strobes on. And no this is not
> an STC'ed or TSO'ed product.
>
> I'm mystified as to why anyone might offer a non-qualified
> device that is any less capable than their qualified device.
> The delta-dollars to manufacture two different products
> is pretty small . . . further, the risks of having an unhappy
> customer due to "cutting of corners" can be hard on business.
> Nothing travels faster than "bad news" about a product or
> the services of the company that made it.
>
> Having offered that, the question to be asked and answered
> by AeroLed is, "Is there a difference in electromagnetic
> compatibility between your certificated and non-certificated
> products?" If the answer is yes, the next question is, "How
> was it determined that the owner of an OBAM aircraft would
> be any more tolerant of noise in the radios than the owner
> of a TC aircraft?"
>
> Sam, I'm not sure I asked my question of you clearly. You
> spoke of landing lights and strobes. I understand that the
> noise increased with strobes on versus off. But if there
> is some form of noise with the strobes off . . . does this
> noise go away when the landing lights are off? We need
> to be REALLY sure that the offending noises are coming from
> both products.
>
> In the unfathomable wisdom of HBC management, they sold
> all their investigative and qualification test facilities
> to Wichita State University. I used to be able to sneak in
> and get a quick look-see on the EMC performance of various
> devices. Now, even though the cost of doing a 5 minute test
> is quite reasonable, the cost and time delays for doing a
> purchase order, awaiting a quote, exercising a contract
> and getting on a schedule has built a very effective
> barrier between WSU as a supplier and myself as a potential
> customer.
>
> I've got a broad-band receiver and conductive emissions
> pickup transformers to do the work on my bench . . . but
> no time in the foreseeable future to get the setup
> calibrated.
>
> So tackling the problem before us is reduced to cut-n-try
> processes on the airplane. Fortunately, after 45 years
> of shepherding various products through the labs . . . we're
> not operating completely in the dark. Let's work to identify
> the players first, then the propagation paths, and finally
> some first-pass experiments to identify a solution.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
I'll research further, and get back to you. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Review of LEDs for aircraft lighting |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I see dozens of newbies patching together LEDs for aircraft lighting and am frequently
mortified. Remember, when your family gets called and told that another
plane with homemade night-lighting killed you, everybody carries some blame
for letting it happen.
Item: It is theoretically impossible to build a tail light using LEDs that draws
200 mA and cost $89. Strobe too! And it won't even be possible when my now preschool
grand-kid graduates from MIT.
Item: It is theoretically impossible to adjust 26 tiny LEDs to form a position
light, even if the peak candelas times 26 comes out to some kind of legal-sounding
number.
Item: I quit selling LED position lights (but still sell a few tail lights), that
really are legal. I just could not compete with the claims of the poor quality
stuff. In fact one of my customers, having lost his regular landing lights,
landed at night using ONLY the LED position lights for illumination. This might
have been a historic landing.
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=353875#353875
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/led_lighting_article_draft_13may08_182.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Noisey Power Supplies. |
So I changed them all to tomb-silent LM317-based constant current supplies
and never heard another peep. I will send you the documentation for a Roll
Your Own version (attached), and am considering making a slicker version
later (also attached).
Eric M. Jones
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/current_regulator_194.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/canopy_latches_for_bipolar_leds_876.pdf
The second attachment does not open for me!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of LEDs for aircraft lighting |
Did you ever take a look at "Jeff's" LED wing tip position lights (and
regular strobe) for RVs? If so, what did you think?
http://www.jeffsrv-7a.com/LEDPROJECT.htm
No specs here. "Jeff's lights are no longer available as far as I know.
On 10/3/2011 10:02 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
> I see dozens of newbies patching together LEDs for aircraft lighting and am frequently
mortified. Remember, when your family gets called and told that another
plane with homemade night-lighting killed you, everybody carries some blame
for letting it happen.
>
> Item: It is theoretically impossible to build a tail light using LEDs that draws
200 mA and cost $89. Strobe too! And it won't even be possible when my now
preschool grand-kid graduates from MIT.
>
> Item: It is theoretically impossible to adjust 26 tiny LEDs to form a position
light, even if the peak candelas times 26 comes out to some kind of legal-sounding
number.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ROGER& JEAN CURTIS"
>
>
> So I changed them all to tomb-silent LM317-based constant current supplies
> and never heard another peep. I will send you the documentation for a Roll
> Your Own version (attached), and am considering making a slicker version
> later (also attached).
> Eric M. Jones
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/current_regulator_194.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/canopy_latches_for_bipolar_leds_876.pdf
>
>
> The second attachment does not open for me!
>
>
Won't open for me either!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Sorry, the second attachment was supposed to be deleted because I never referred
to it. But here it is anyway. It is self explanatory.
--------
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=353924#353924
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/canopy_latches_for_bipolar_leds_291.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Review of LEDs for aircraft lighting |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Jeff's look very nice--they probably are per FAA specs position lights. I'm less
sure of the strobes, but they could be okay. Exquisite workmanship.
Can't tell more without closer inspection and specs. Some images don't want to
load on my computer from his website.
--------
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=353926#353926
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of LEDs for aircraft lighting |
Thanks. I know there wasn't much info there but appreciate the reply.
Those images don't load on mine either. I think these pages have been
un-maintained for awhile.
I'm happy with them except for the noise from the pucks. Will be
installing Bob's quiet power supplies to fix the noise.
On 10/3/2011 4:49 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
> Jeff's look very nice--they probably are per FAA specs position lights. I'm less
sure of the strobes, but they could be okay. Exquisite workmanship.
>
> Can't tell more without closer inspection and specs. Some images don't want to
load on my computer from his website.
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Audio systems and "output impedance" |
At 10:53 PM 10/3/2011, a reader wrote:
>Bob, the audio out on this beast is rated at 500 ohms. I don't
>think my Bose headsets are the same? What's the best way of tying
>this into my audio system, I have a cheap aviar intercom I was
>planning on using but open to suggestions? I also have your Audio
>Isolation amplifier.
See the description of audio systems and the concept
of 'output impedance' in the audio chapter of The
Connection.
There's not a single audio device with a real
output impedance of 500 ohms . . . or any
similar value.
By definition, a source of energy with an output
impedance of 500 ohms would see a drop in output
by 50% when loaded with a 500 ohm headset. Two
such headsets in parallel would drop the output
further to 33%.
So when an audio output is 'rated' for 100 mW
into 500 ohms, they're only speaking to the
ability of the amplifier to deliver a VOLTAGE
along with a citation as to POWER delivered
into a typical load. Interestingly enough, the
same output, when presented with TWO headsets
of load would deliver 200 mW.
My audio isolation amplifier has an output
impedance of less than 1 ohm . . . but it's
capable of delivering about 8 volts pk-pk into
what ever load you wish to tie onto it. The
smaller the resistance . . . the higher the
current . . . the higher the power.
Further, because the true output impedance is
so low, you can drive 1, 2 or 10 headsets with
no perceivable drop in ouput.
Your radio(s) and intercom are similarly configured.
Just know that the term "output impedance" is
quite often used in a manner that does not
contribute to understanding.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Headsets Redux-was "Warning - New Bose Line Power Cable |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bought 2 pairs of Beyerdynamic HS 800 headsets by 8/31/11 to make it through the
$200/set trade-in window they offered. Got the BD's and they are a very nice
German-built headset. In the back of my mind, I figured that I would go through
the motions of due diligence comparison and probably buy Bose, then return
the BD HS 800's in the 30 day trial period.
I went to a Bose store to compare headsets with the Bose display simulating cockpit
noise in a single engine piston plane. First, the Bose earcups were not as
generous as the BD cups and were more difficult to get a good seal. I did manage
to get them on correctly. I felt that the Bose head band was awkward in using
a multi-segment, pivoting mechanism and it didn't feel secure on my noggin,
and caused doubt about it's ability to stay on if encountering heavy turbulence
or rapid head movement. The BD uses a traditional spring steel type band,
with slightly more clamp pressure than Bose and felt very secure on my head.
Inspite of Bose specs claiming lighter weight by an ounce, the BD felt lighter
when wearing it. The BD earcup seals also seem to seal around my wire frame sunglasses
more effectively than the Bose.
The actual noise reduction comparison was interesting. When switching back and
forth between brands with the simulated noise on, the Bose was obviously quieter...initially.
After doing this a few times, I noticed that when the BD's were
on for about 3-4 seconds, the noise attenuation would increase from the initial
covering of my ears. BD calls their system Digital Adaptive NR and I attribute
the attenuation lag to that "adaptive" feature. Once internal earcup sensors
adapted to the particular frequencies being sensed and subsequently reduced
the sound level, I found the sound of the BD's more natural than the Bose. The
Bose had less sound, but I found that I prefer a little aural feedback. The
sound level difference between the two is pretty minor, but detectable and in
favor of Bose.
To explain what I mean by aural feedback, I can give you the analog of my choice
in cars. When I was deciding brand and model the last time I bought one, I chose
one that gave me more road feel at the expense of minor cabin noise. I found
that driving a car that isolated me from the road, both in feel through the
steering wheel and tomb-like quiet in the cabin, made me slightly nauseous,
and imparted the feeling of a slight lack of control over the car.
Moving on, the BD electrical cording is high quality and about 6' long. The audio
box is about the same size as Bose but much simpler and BD provides the various
adapters for music players and cellphones to plug right in to the audio box.
I confess that I don't use a cell phone much and I hardly think of an aircraft
cockpit as a concert hall, so having Bluetooth is not much of a selling point
for me.
After my brief comparison, I'd opt for the BD's even without the $200/headset trade-in
for my 24 year old DC's. With it, it was a no-brainer.
Thanks to Gerry Van Dyk for turning me on to the BD's
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354062#354062
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets Redux-was "Warning - New Bose Line Power |
Cable
John,
I concur with all of your comments.
Stan Sutterfield
Long time Bose user
In a message dated 10/5/2011 3:01:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Bought 2 pairs of Beyerdynamic HS 800 headsets by 8/31/11 to make it
through the
$200/set trade-in window they offered. Got the BD's and they are a very
nice
German-built headset. In the back of my mind, I figured that I would go
through
the motions of due diligence comparison and probably buy Bose, then return
the BD HS 800's in the 30 day trial period.
I went to a Bose store to compare headsets with the Bose display
simulating cockpit
noise in a single engine piston plane. First, the Bose earcups were not as
generous as the BD cups and were more difficult to get a good seal. I did
manage
to get them on correctly. I felt that the Bose head band was awkward in
using
a multi-segment, pivoting mechanism and it didn't feel secure on my noggin,
and caused doubt about it's ability to stay on if encountering heavy
turbulence
or rapid head movement. The BD uses a traditional spring steel type band,
with slightly more clamp pressure than Bose and felt very secure on my
head.
Inspite of Bose specs claiming lighter weight by an ounce, the BD felt
lighter
when wearing it. The BD earcup seals also seem to seal around my wire
frame sunglasses
more effectively than the Bose.
The actual noise reduction comparison was interesting. When switching back
and
forth between brands with the simulated noise on, the Bose was obviously
quieter...initially.
After doing this a few times, I noticed that when the BD's were
on for about 3-4 seconds, the noise attenuation would increase from the
initial
covering of my ears. BD calls their system Digital Adaptive NR and I
attribute
the attenuation lag to that "adaptive" feature. Once internal earcup
sensors
adapted to the particular frequencies being sensed and subsequently reduced
the sound level, I found the sound of the BD's more natural than the Bose.
The
Bose had less sound, but I found that I prefer a little aural feedback.
The
sound level difference between the two is pretty minor, but detectable and
in
favor of Bose.
To explain what I mean by aural feedback, I can give you the analog of my
choice
in cars. When I was deciding brand and model the last time I bought one, I
chose
one that gave me more road feel at the expense of minor cabin noise. I
found
that driving a car that isolated me from the road, both in feel through the
steering wheel and tomb-like quiet in the cabin, made me slightly nauseous,
and imparted the feeling of a slight lack of control over the car.
Moving on, the BD electrical cording is high quality and about 6' long.
The audio
box is about the same size as Bose but much simpler and BD provides the
various
adapters for music players and cellphones to plug right in to the audio
box.
I confess that I don't use a cell phone much and I hardly think of an
aircraft
cockpit as a concert hall, so having Bluetooth is not much of a selling
point
for me.
After my brief comparison, I'd opt for the BD's even without the
$200/headset trade-in
for my 24 year old DC's. With it, it was a no-brainer.
Thanks to Gerry Van Dyk for turning me on to the BD's
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | UMA fuel pressure sender wiring |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello!
I just got a UMA N1EU07G fuel pressure sender. I am mounting this on the firewall,
about 6" away from the MGL RDAC (where the signal wires from all the FWF probes
connect) and about 18" away from the firewall ground. I will split off
the power wire at ~6" from the sender, leaving the other two wires and braid (if
needed) to run until they are 16" away from the sender. At that point, the
signal wire will separate from the ground and shield and connect to the RDAC.
The ground and shield would go the final 2" to the firewall ground.
The easiest thing for me to do is to remove the insulated cover over the braid
(and 3 wires) to the point where the power wire needs to separate. I imagine the
braid will be a bit tight around the wires, so I could cut it off at the point
where the power wire separates and splice a separate ground wire to it. Or
does it need to shield the signal wire for that extra 10"?
Lemme know how this sounds to you.
Cheers,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354153#354153
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/uma_fuel_pressure_sender_wiring_625.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | UMA fuel pressure sender wiring |
Hello Dan,
Why do you need to bring the power wire out so soon- I imagine that it is to
be able to connect to your positive bus? I don't think that that should be
a problem, however, instead of cutting the braid try this method. Hold the
braid tightly around the cores just behind (towards the sensor) where you
want to bring the wire out, say in your left hand. Lightly grasp the shield
about 1 inch to the right with your right hand and slide the braid to the
left like a sock. The braid should 'balloon' up between your fingers. Now
take a sharp pencil and use the tip to work open one of the holes formed
between the braiding. Work it open enough to be able to get the tip in
under the wire that must come out. Now pull a loop of the wire out through
the hole in the braid and then pull the whole wire out of the braid. Once
its out pull the ballooned part of braid flat along the remaining wires.
Voila! Now you have the wire out and no damage to the braid.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of messydeer
Sent: 06 October 2011 04:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: UMA fuel pressure sender wiring
Hello!
I just got a UMA N1EU07G fuel pressure sender. I am mounting this on the
firewall, about 6" away from the MGL RDAC (where the signal wires from all
the FWF probes connect) and about 18" away from the firewall ground. I will
split off the power wire at ~6" from the sender, leaving the other two wires
and braid (if needed) to run until they are 16" away from the sender. At
that point, the signal wire will separate from the ground and shield and
connect to the RDAC. The ground and shield would go the final 2" to the
September 09, 2011 - October 06, 2011
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kq