AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mg
February 07, 2014 - March 12, 2014
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no
matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who lurk
on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Oh No! The dreaded downwind turn! Here we go....
On 2/7/2014 5:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
Not that I know much about aerodynamics, but it sounds like he's talking about
real stuff but using the wrong terminology. For example, you can change your momentum
but not your inertia (unless you're dumping luggage overboard!)
If you substitute 'momentum' for inertia and 'inertial frame' for ground speed,
I think what he says makes a lot more sense.
--Daniel
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Robert Borger wrote:
>
> Gents,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
On 2/7/2014 4:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
I've seen lots of comments about that article that say basically the
same thing you're saying, but I think that (because of his poor
phrasing), his point is being missed. I don't think that he really meant
that the ground is affecting airspeed. I think that he meant that in a
turn, the relative wind is shifting, which affects lift. In a normal
turn at normal speed, we never notice it because the change is so
gradual. But in a turn at very low airspeed (as in, turn to final), the
turn rate can be tighter due to low airspeed & there's more chance of
real airspeed being affected by the change in relative wind. Now, tying
inertia to gravity was just dumb, & makes the whole article vulnerable
to critical analysis.
What's not explicitly said is that if we're maneuvering close to the
ground, we're much more likely to use the ground as a reference for our
speed, which can cause us to land too fast or too slow, depending on
wind direction.
FWIW,
Charlie
(Not a fan of his writing appearing in an EAA mag)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
I think he's tried to simplify something that is actually quite complex,
and got all mixed up in the process.
I find it difficult to completely disagree with him, but its not how I
would have gone about describing what happens.
Peter
On 07/02/2014 22:26, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
> .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport
Aviation. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 02/07/2014 04:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
> I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level
turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain
altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.
I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity,
no matter its relative motion.
> This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart people who
lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to read their opinions.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
I agree Bob. As several others have pointed out, there are some big misunderstandings
in his article. I am very surprised Sport Aviation "printed" this article.
I'd like to point out that Mac doesn't understand what "wind velocity" is. He
says:
"In the classic wind shear encounter a strong wind changes velocity
or direction, or both, suddenly robbing the airplane of lift."
People who know what they're talking about know that velocity is a vector and includes
magnitude (speed) and direction; therefore, his terminology is incorrect.
When I detect these kind of errors, I have a tendency to think the author
doesn't know what he's talking about. I see this scenario happening at work
meetings frequently.
Henador Titzoff
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/7/14, Robert Borger wrote:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 2:55 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: Robert Borger
Gents,
I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe hes all
wet.
First, he bases his premise on a false assumption; that
ground speed affects air speed. Wrong. Ground
speed has zero effect on airspeed. Its just the
opposite. Airspeed is the operative mechanism and
ground speed just follows.
>From then on he wades into the age old down wind turn
and I dont even want to go there.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320
EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253
wrote:
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will
lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because
part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be
used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming
inertia. I think that the only force the earth exerts
on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some
pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.
It will be interesting to read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage as ground conductor |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob N., et al.:
When one builds an airplane with the starter and the battery some distance apart,
using the fuselage as a ground conductor is usually (?) done. What is the resistance
of a typical fuselage used in this way? Can it carry 200A or so for
the starter?
What are your thoughts?
--------
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=418319#418319
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
Bill,
I don't know what was available when you designed your system. Grand
Rapids recommends http://www.tcwtech.com/IBBS.htm for backup battery,
and TCW says it is also suitable for backup of G430.
Dynon offers its own backup battery managed by the EFIS software to
takeover at 12.3 volts.
Garmin 650 and 750 know airways, unlike their older brethern.
I get the need for airways and not wanting to re-enter flight plan after
start, or wait to after start to do it with the price of gas.
There is also a voice activated add on for the 430 for data entry that
Knows airways.
What I "get" is the desire to keep electrical system as simple as
possible as the primary means to reduce failure points. If reboot
becomes a problem with my GTN 650, I will add a TCW unit. I'm just not a
fan of dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery systems, but we are OBAM
so we can make our own choices and argue with anyone who chooses
differently. ;-)
Kelly
On 2/7/2014 3:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>
> Sorry about adding to this rather old discussion but I've been away
> for awhile.
>
> I finished my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical
> system and panel around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.
>
> I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aimed at the pilot, 1 at the passenger. They
> supply synthetic vision, moving map, weather, traffic and a complete
> suite of engine stats. No light weight backup batteries can be
> configured at the factory with these systems. These screens have no
> integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any switches or operable
> CBs. They come on with the master and will usually reboot when my
> IO540 cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.
>
> The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.
>
> I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight
> are on IFR plans. My normal routine for all flights is to file my
> plan using Foreflight on an iPad. Whenever at an airport with
> clearance delivery, or when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain my
> clearance on the ground, before engine start, and enter it into my
> iPad and then into my G430. Many times in congested areas, this entry
> is followed by no small amount of study. As my aging mind continues
> to fog over, I'm finding that the study time grows.
>
> Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses any entered flight
> plan when powered off. An engine start that reboots my GRTs, reboots
> my G430.
>
> An acute challenge on 430 based panels when used for flights around
> the Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's Atlantic coast is that
> the G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These are flights I
> make regularly and clearances in these areas typically still include
> Victor airways. So in the routine described above, entry into the
> iPad generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor airways.
> Accurate entry of these waypoints into the G430 is important and
> there's no way I want to redo the work.
>
> As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen sink' I choose to fly with.
> I think it's fantastic and works very very well for me. It's now a
> well grooved swing. The inability of some (e.g. Bob, not necessarily
> you Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to 'get' this
> requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an inability to see
> past old school experience or perhaps your current pleasure flying
> routines.
>
> I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY like it.
> I bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances, enter
> them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing complicated
> airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd battery bus,
> cross link them and start my engine. Everything stays up. Before
> takeoff I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and off I go.
>
> Per Bob, I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra
> switches or CBs. After a few operational adjustments and refinements
> (Thanks Bob!), the 'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I
> think I need.
>
> I need my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that
> takes care of the dishes just like I want them done. So can we please
> stop dismissing this approach to equipping and traveling in our very
> fine OBAM aircraft within the user fee free ATC system we have? Some
> of us do it every day because that's the way we choose to roll.
>
> PS: I've been out of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend it
> highly. What an adjustment flying VFR from place to place! However,
> I still used the same procedures because that's what standard
> procedures are for.
>
> Bill "It's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson
> N215TG
> On 2/2/2014 7:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Virtually all glass have their own light weight backup batteries so
>> do not have startup brown out issues unless no backup battery is
>> installed.
>> I see very little value in being able to turn on GPS prior to start.
>> While one needs engine instrumentation prior to and during start, one
>> does not need avionics on.
>> Of course newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans than
>> the 430 help, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before start.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Kelly McMullen <kelly
m(at)aviating.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Friday, Febr
uary 7, 2014 6:32 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Essential Bus questi
@aviating.com>=0A=0ABill,=0AI don't know what was available when you design
ed your system. Grand Rapids recommends http://www.tcwtech.com/IBBS.htm for
backup battery, and TCW says it is also suitable for backup of G430.=0ADyn
on offers its own backup battery managed by the EFIS software to takeover a
t 12.3 volts.=0AGarmin 650 and 750 know airways, unlike their older brether
n.=0AI get the need for airways and not wanting to re-enter flight plan aft
er start, or wait to after start to do it with the price of gas.=0AThere is
also a voice activated add on for the 430 for data entry that Knows airway
s.=0AWhat I "get" is the desire to keep electrical system as simple as poss
ible as the primary means to reduce failure points. If reboot becomes a pro
blem with my GTN 650, I will add a TCW unit. =0A=0AI'm just not a fan of du
al bus, dual alternator, dual battery systems, but we are OBAM so we can ma
ke our own choices and argue with anyone who chooses differently. ;-)=0A=0A
Exactly - That's why I drew the system that I posted about a week ago (see
attached PDF).- Single bus, single alternator, simpler...=0A=0A=0A=0AOn 2
/7/2014 3:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:=0A> --> AeroElectric-List message poste
d by: Bill Watson =0A> =0A> Sorry about adding to th
is rather old discussion but I've been away for awhile.=0A> =0A> I finished
my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical system and panel
around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.=0A> =0A> I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aime
d at the pilot, 1 at the passenger. They supply synthetic vision, moving ma
p, weather, traffic and a complete suite of engine stats.- No light weig
ht backup batteries can be configured- at the factory with these systems.
- These screens have no integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any s
witches or operable CBs.- They come on with the master and will usually r
eboot when my IO540 cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.=0A>
=0A> The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.=0A> =0A>
I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight are on
IFR plans.- My normal routine for all flights is to file my plan using F
oreflight on an iPad.- Whenever at an airport with clearance delivery, or
when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain my clearance on the ground, b
efore engine start, and enter it into my iPad and then into my G430.- Man
y times in congested areas, this entry is followed by no small amount of st
udy.- As my aging mind continues to fog over, I'm finding that the study
time grows.=0A> =0A> Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses an
y entered flight plan when powered off.- An engine start that reboots my
GRTs, reboots my G430.=0A> =0A> An acute challenge on 430 based panels when
used for flights around the Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's At
lantic coast is that the G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These
are flights I make regularly and clearances in these areas typically still
include Victor airways.- So in the routine described above, entry into th
e iPad generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor airways.- Accurate
entry of these waypoints into the G430 is important and there's no way I w
ant to redo the work.=0A> =0A> As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen si
nk' I choose to fly with.- I think it's fantastic and works very very wel
l for me. It's now a well grooved swing.- The inability of some (e.g. Bob
, not necessarily you Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to 'g
et' this requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an inability to se
e past old school experience or perhaps your current pleasure flying routin
es.=0A> =0A> I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY l
ike it.- I bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances,
enter them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing complicated
airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd battery bus, cros
s link them and start my engine.- Everything stays up.- Before takeoff
I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and off I go.=0A> =0A> Per Bob,
I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra switches or CBs.
- After a few operational adjustments and refinements (Thanks Bob!), the
'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I think I need.=0A> =0A> I n
eed my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that takes ca
re of the dishes just like I want them done.- So can we please stop dismi
ssing this approach to equipping and traveling in our very fine OBAM aircra
ft- within the user fee free ATC system we have?- Some of us do it ever
y day because that's the way we choose to roll.=0A> =0A> PS: I've been out
of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend it highly.- What an adj
ustment flying VFR from place to place!- However, I still used the same p
rocedures because that's what standard procedures are for.=0A> =0A> Bill "I
t's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson=0A> N215TG=0A> On 2/2/2014 7:14
lly McMullen =0A>> =0A>> Virtually all glass have thei
r own light weight backup batteries so do not have startup brown out issues
unless no backup battery is installed.=0A>> I see very little value in bei
ng able to turn on GPS prior to start.=0A>> While one needs engine instrume
ntation prior to and during start, one does not need avionics on.=0A>> Of c
ourse newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans than the 430 h
elp, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before start.=0A>> =0A> =0A>
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Analyze This |
Jeff,
I would like a little explanation of the basic operation. I'm assuming
both master switches on all the time, both batteries are the same, throw
one battery away each year.
If alternator fails no simple load shedding is available, pilot must
select items individually (or have a check-list of what to switch off).
You're now wasting 2 amps (1 or each battery contactor).
Think about the information you want the 2 shunts to provide, will the
do that, is there a better (simpler) way? As you already have the power
indicators, I would put the shunt in the alternator to bus feed. Agree
with comment about fusing (or current limiting) feed to batt B. I
thought a current limiter was better placed in the alternator output?
I'm unsure what the 'K-...' means
2 batteries will provide way more than 45 minutes operation on battery
power, even with a very full panel and no load shedding. Therefore
system grossly exceeds design goal resulting in more cost/weight than
required. Where does 45 minutes come from? FAR-23 requires 30 minutes,
alternatively assume half or full fuel endurance.
No simple load shedding appears available - meets goal 2 (but perhaps
goal 1 & 2 are actually, survive any failure for 45 minutes with no
pilot interaction)
System seems more complex/costly than a 2 bus system would be. Seems
that goals 1 & 2 are weighted much more highly than the others?
Its your airplane, build the system that meets your needs.
Regards, Peter
On 02/02/2014 23:38, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Listers,
>
> Attached find a schematic (some people call them ladder diagrams) of a
> design for the electrical system for my RV-7A. Below is a list of
> design goals, pros and cons. Please take a look and provide
> engineering feedback.
>
> TIA
>
>
> Electrical Systems Design Goals:
> 1. fault tolerant - able to tolerate failure of any single component
> and fly for 45 min.
> 2. easy to operate
> 3. no avionics brown-out on engine start
> 4. easy to repair
> 5. comprised of standard, readily-available components
> 6. cost effective
>
>
> Pros:
> 1. simplified operation - only 2 master switches
> 2. simplified design - single buss
> 3. no brown-out on engine start
> 4. automatic fail-over - no pilot interaction required; avionics won't
> reset
> In the event a battery system suffers a failure, either an open
> circuit or a ground fault, the faulty
> system simply stops providing power to the buss and the remaining good
> system continues to
> provide electricity without interruption.
>
> Cons:
> 1. buss-isolation power diodes may require heat sinks
> 2. some energy wasted as heat thru power diodes
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
I don't know if the TCW product was available when I was panel building
in the 2008-2010 timeframe but I never saw or heard any recommendation
from GRT about the TCW backup battery. They certainly were having
"brown out issues" with the HXs because we found that they don't like to
have their boot processes interrupted by loss of power incidents, which
in my case became every single start in low temps. They should have
bought TCW's unit and made it a recommended option but I think they were
busy working on the newer EFISs. In fact, I recently added TCW's IPS
(Power stabilizer) to my (3) units and the G430 and that did the trick
without adding any additional batteries to maintain.
Kelly, I apologize for jumping on your post and accept your statement
that you are not a fan of dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery
systems (though you don't exactly explain why). The simplicity and
symmetry of the Z-14 is what attracted me in the first place. I still
have trouble wrapping my mind around the essential bus and how I would
apply it to my 'kitchen sink' panel without having to add switches so I
could perform triage on my triad of GRT EFISs. Or adding a little Dynon
or something as a backup. Just what I needed was another brand of EFIS
to learn to operate. To me, those approaches add operational complexity
and additional failure points but I could be wrong.
But what got me is that you didn't express a distaste for the Z-14,
which I accept. Instead your post inadvertently dismissed the very way
I operate my aircraft by saying:
Virtually all glass have their own light weight backup batteries so
do not have startup brown out issues unless no backup battery is
installed. (not GRT HXs)
I see very little value in being able to turn on GPS prior to start.
(I need the G430 prior to start, perhaps independent of the GPS. I
need at least one EFIS to see my engine instruments. Having the
Navworx ADSB up for weather is nice too so I can time my departure
around those Gulf Coast thunder bumpers, but the G430 is the problem)
While one needs engine instrumentation prior to and during start,
one does not need avionics on. (I do unless I want to switch out 1
or all of my 3 EFISs - talk about a additional points of failure on
a critical instrument)
Of course newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans
than the 430 help, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before
start. (It is but perhaps I should upgrade or at least get Siri
(!!??) for my G430)
I guess you can see my feathers remain ruffled. Sorry for continuing
the 'argument' but as you said we make our own choices and can argue
with anyone who does differently.
Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with the
"kitchen sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me to
design and build my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to defend
all that has been enabled. Bob, I love you man! I value your advice,
counsel and guidance above all others. This list and the people on it,
especially folks like Kelly, are to die for. Just please stop calling
my panel a "kitchen sink". I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down
and streamline it with some excess $$$$ the next time I see the
opportunity to do it.
But I'll probably keep the Z-14 so when someone runs across the ramp to
tell me I left my master on, I can shrug my shoulders and say "no
problem, I've got a Z-14 and enough juice to run it for another 20
minutes and still start it up and get out of here". Not a requirement
but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Thanks for letting me vent... feel free to return the favor. And thanks
for taking the time to respond.
Bill "I REALLY like my panel" Watson
On 2/7/2014 9:32 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Bill,
> I don't know what was available when you designed your system. Grand
> Rapids recommends http://www.tcwtech.com/IBBS.htm for backup battery,
> and TCW says it is also suitable for backup of G430.
> Dynon offers its own backup battery managed by the EFIS software to
> takeover at 12.3 volts.
> Garmin 650 and 750 know airways, unlike their older brethern.
> I get the need for airways and not wanting to re-enter flight plan
> after start, or wait to after start to do it with the price of gas.
> There is also a voice activated add on for the 430 for data entry that
> Knows airways.
> What I "get" is the desire to keep electrical system as simple as
> possible as the primary means to reduce failure points. If reboot
> becomes a problem with my GTN 650, I will add a TCW unit. I'm just not
> a fan of dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery systems, but we are
> OBAM so we can make our own choices and argue with anyone who chooses
> differently. ;-)
> Kelly
> On 2/7/2014 3:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry about adding to this rather old discussion but I've been away
>> for awhile.
>>
>> I finished my RV10 in 2011 which means that I designed my electrical
>> system and panel around 2008 for a 2009-2010 build.
>>
>> I have 3 GRT HX EFISs - 2 aimed at the pilot, 1 at the passenger.
>> They supply synthetic vision, moving map, weather, traffic and a
>> complete suite of engine stats. No light weight backup batteries
>> can be configured at the factory with these systems. These screens
>> have no integral on/off switch. I chose not to add any switches or
>> operable CBs. They come on with the master and will usually reboot
>> when my IO540 cold starts with a single, fresh PC 680 battery.
>>
>> The GPS WAAS smarts for this system are supplied by a G430W.
>>
>> I am a serious traveler with this machine and practically all flight
>> are on IFR plans. My normal routine for all flights is to file my
>> plan using Foreflight on an iPad. Whenever at an airport with
>> clearance delivery, or when departing into IMC conditions, I obtain
>> my clearance on the ground, before engine start, and enter it into my
>> iPad and then into my G430. Many times in congested areas, this
>> entry is followed by no small amount of study. As my aging mind
>> continues to fog over, I'm finding that the study time grows.
>>
>> Here's the challenge on G430 based panels; it loses any entered
>> flight plan when powered off. An engine start that reboots my GRTs,
>> reboots my G430.
>>
>> An acute challenge on 430 based panels when used for flights around
>> the Wash DC area or for flights along Florida's Atlantic coast is
>> that the G430 does not know what a Victor airway is. These are
>> flights I make regularly and clearances in these areas typically
>> still include Victor airways. So in the routine described above,
>> entry into the iPad generates the necessary waypoints to any Victor
>> airways. Accurate entry of these waypoints into the G430 is
>> important and there's no way I want to redo the work.
>>
>> As Bob would put it, this is the 'kitchen sink' I choose to fly
>> with. I think it's fantastic and works very very well for me. It's
>> now a well grooved swing. The inability of some (e.g. Bob, not
>> necessarily you Kelly but I did choose to respond to your post) to
>> 'get' this requirement for this pilot, seems to me is just an
>> inability to see past old school experience or perhaps your current
>> pleasure flying routines.
>>
>> I have a Z-14 with 2 batts, 2 alts, and 2 buses and I REALLY like
>> it. I bring up the 'kitchen sink' on one battery, get my clearances,
>> enter them into my systems, study my departure plan when doing
>> complicated airspace or low IMC departures and then bring up the 2nd
>> battery bus, cross link them and start my engine. Everything stays
>> up. Before takeoff I've learned, per Bob, to de-link the buses and
>> off I go.
>>
>> Per Bob, I've eliminated any semblance of an avionics bus, extra
>> switches or CBs. After a few operational adjustments and refinements
>> (Thanks Bob!), the 'overkill' of a Z-14 has given me exactly what I
>> think I need.
>>
>> I need my avionics on before start and I have a big kitchen sink that
>> takes care of the dishes just like I want them done. So can we
>> please stop dismissing this approach to equipping and traveling in
>> our very fine OBAM aircraft within the user fee free ATC system we
>> have? Some of us do it every day because that's the way we choose to
>> roll.
>>
>> PS: I've been out of the loop island hopping the Bahamas. Recommend
>> it highly. What an adjustment flying VFR from place to place!
>> However, I still used the same procedures because that's what
>> standard procedures are for.
>>
>> Bill "It's pretty darn good in the Bahamas" Watson
>> N215TG
>> On 2/2/2014 7:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Virtually all glass have their own light weight backup batteries so
>>> do not have startup brown out issues unless no backup battery is
>>> installed.
>>> I see very little value in being able to turn on GPS prior to start.
>>> While one needs engine instrumentation prior to and during start,
>>> one does not need avionics on.
>>> Of course newer avionics that allow faster input of flight plans
>>> than the 430 help, if that is the reason for turning on 430 before
>>> start.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
At 05:44 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:
>Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport
>Aviation. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
>
>
>Raymond Julian
>Kettle River, MN.
Yup, we discussed that article here on the List
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
At 04:55 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:
>
>Gents,
>
>I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe he's all wet.
Agreed. The physics of the 'dreaded downwind turn' are firmly
rooted in the anecdotal but sad observation that so many
accidents have occurred while trying to accomplish this
maneuver.
But if one studies the motion of a winged body during
a maneuver intended to reverse direction quickly and
return to the airport, acceleration of the airplane's
mass in a new direction is a smooth, continuous activity
promoted by the horizontal component of lift that MUST
be present in the coordinated turn.
We explored this line of reasoning last October during
which I posted this response . . .
<http://www.matronics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=410032&sid=9abe17fa4ce84e6cddd740c511baa93a#410032>
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:15 pm Post subject: The dreaded
downwind turn . . .
<http://www.matronics.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=410032&sid=9abe17fa4ce84e6cddd740c511baa93a>
Reply with quote
----------
At 10:48 AM 10/7/2013, I wrote:
Quote:
When he started talking about the the wind accelerating to aircraft
during the turn, he lost me.
As soon as he says "a lighter aircraft will
accelerate faster than a heavier aircraft"
and bases the statement on an analysis of
"square feet of sail" . . . he blew it.
I sat next to a guy for several years who wrote
heavy duty software for autopilots that flew UAV's of all
stripe from 80Kts to 500 Kts. He tapped simple-ideas
to from my high school physics to describe how
the airplane flies.
I've been meaning to do an article on the
physics of this maneuver and have some drawings
done . . . somewhere on the hard drive. I'll
see if I can dig them up and perhaps finish
the article.
But while you read the words of folks wrestling with
the 'dreaded downwind turn' go to the POH data for
your airplane and get one number. Target IAS for
best glide angle. This is the speed at which your
distance over the ground versus altitude lost is
at a maximum.
When folks are talking about the physics of flight,
they're talking about airplanes that are being
'flown' . . . in other being controlled to conditions
that maximize performance. This generally calls for
a speed well above best rate of climb combined with
a 270 degree turn at 45 degrees of bank into the crosswind to
get pointed back toward the runway.
When the engine quits with a runway close behind
you, its easy for those performance numbers get obscured
by other things running around in your head. It takes
a Bob Hoover like attitude to first get the nose down
to achieve best glide angle whether you are turning
or not; stack in a 45-degree banked turn on top of
really adds pucker factor.
At speeds below best glide, lift/drag ratios can go
into the toilet in a hurry. On of my most cherished
flight instructors was checking me out in a Beech
Flying Club A36 one day. After three or four
by-the-book touch and goes he said "let me show you
something."
"Stay at pattern altitude until you're on final."
"Uh, okay . . ."
As I turned final I reached for the throttle . . .
"Nope, not yet . . ."
The runway disappeared under the nose and I reached
for the throttle . . .
"Nope, not yet . . . "
A few seconds later he said, "Okay. Close the throttle
and give me 75 MPH."
I set it up and was amazed. Sink rate went to something
around 1200 ft/min. A few seconds later I acquired a better
short-final view of the runway and he said, "Power up to
arrest your descent, push the nose down and give me 90
MPH over the numbers."
After that, the landing proceeded normally.
The point being that maneuvering around at speeds
below best glide is where the airplane sinks fast
even if you're not turning . . . faster still if
you turn. Best glide is well above those speeds
at which perturbations in IAS due to gusting can
begin to eat into your energy margins for maneuvering.
Best rate and particularly best angle of climb
speeds have the nose really high with a commensurate
boat-load of drag. Whether the airplane remains
controllable just before contact with the ground isn't
a matter of winds, it's a matter of altitude and
the pilot's willingness/ability to EXCHANGE energy
stored on that altitude for controllable airspeeds.
Airspeeds that will bring you to the ground with energy
to flare and keep the wheels attached to the airplane.
The alternative is a 1000+ feet per minute descent rate,
no energy to flare and a probability of having to eat
your wheels.
There are two magic numbers that drive your decision
to turn around best glide speed and ground clearance
KNOWN to be sufficient to the airplane's demands as
determined by experiment and practice.
Barry Schiff tells us how in this article.
<http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/April/1/Technique-Unconventional-Wisdom>http://tinyurl.com/mo8wux4
Note that Barry mentions nothing about controllability
hazards for having made a downwind turn. That's because
the target approach speed for greatest probability of
success is well above that where perturbations in wind
velocity make any difference at all. See:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QvO7lgRqHs>http://tinyurl.com/kzr95lk
http://tinyurl.com/m29yg5y
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLWN2zvb8c>http://tinyurl.com/k9y3z4y
http://tinyurl.com/mmgmojr
It's all about lift/drag ratios and energy budgets.
If your choice of pitch angle is poor (IAS) or your
stored energy (altitude) is lacking then it's a bit
specious to drag 'hazards of downwind turns' into the
discussion . . . things were probably not going to
go well anyhow. You become a passenger in your airplane
doing experiments with the controls.
Bottom line is that EAA, of ALL organizations, should
have folks with talents on a par with the honorable
Mr. Schiff to vet their articles.
<http://www.barryschiff.com/schiff_info.htm>http://tinyurl.com/mtn32qf
--------------------------------------------------------------
The stall-spin outcome for attempting this
maneuver comes from the natural unwillingness to
push the nose down immediately upon loss of power.
If you don't do that, the airplane slows, the
controls go sloppy, sinkrate jumps up and the
pilot succumbs to a powerful desire to raise
the nose some more. A marginal energy budget (altitude
and present velocity) is quickly squandered
and has nothing to do with wind.
As Barry mentions in the first article cited
above, "The difference between success and failure is not
only having sufficient altitude, but knowing how and when
the turnaround maneuver can be performed with relative safety."
I would add to that thought with the notion that
few people will read Barry's article and become
magically prepared to deal with the situation
in real life. Practice, practice and a bit
more practice goes a long way toward proficiency.
In my early days of flying I spent hours in a
Beech Skipper doing landings at the various
and many grass strips around ICT during periods
of adverse winds and turbulence. This was based
on a comment by my instructor who said, "Someday
you're going to find yourself over the airport
down to less than ideal reserves for fuel and
the task will be to deal with the winds you're
given. Through those hours of getting to know
my limits and those of my airplane, I lost my
irrational fear of less than graceful landings
and became more attentive to the physics of the
task. The "dreaded downwind turn" is no different
than "15 knots across the runway gusting to 25 with
the thermals pounding the wings." If you don't
set out to learn it then you'll be poorly equipped
when you need it.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage as ground conductor |
At 07:04 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:
>
>Bob N., et al.:
>
>When one builds an airplane with the starter and the battery some
>distance apart, using the fuselage as a ground conductor is usually
>(?) done. What is the resistance of a typical fuselage used in this
>way? Can it carry 200A or so for the starter?
>
>What are your thoughts?
The fuselage of a metal airplane taken as a whole
is entirely capable of carrying and/all electrical system
ground loads. As a rule of thumb, we used to consider
the tip-to-tail resistance of an airplane like the Beechjet
to be on the order of 0.001 ohms.
How about attaching a high current conductor to the
airframe? Imagine a 1" diameter disk of .032 aluminum
being approached radially from all directions by an
array of 0.032" square aluminum wires (roughly 20AWG
equivalent). You can attach 3.14/.032 numbers of
these wires to the edge of the disc for a total of
100 such wires. What's the current carrying capacity/
resistance of 100 strands of 20AWG in either aluminum or copper?
The point of this exercise is to support the notion
that the sheet resistance of just about any part
of an airframe is very low; assuming all the pieces
are well attached to each other, point-to-point
resistance between any two locations on the airframe
is also very low.
Airplanes that get into conductor troubles with
grounding over time are instances where a particular
contiguous piece of aluminum has experienced the
effects of moisture and high density electron
flow at the joints where gas-tightness is lost.
You can ground batteries at the tail to about any
mechanically robust feature that is protected from
the weather and stays dry.
http://tinyurl.com/mcv3c9j
I would ground a crankcase to the firewall
sheet at a centralize grounding location like the
B&C ground bus and not depend on engine mount
for ground.
Other than that, the only caveats for airframe
grounding are the potential for injecting
electrical system noise into vulnerable appliances
by injudicious choices for grounding the
victim . . . ground loops.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
This article purports to be a discussion of the physics, but ends up
being a hand-waving exercise full of hokum.
It suffers from a problem with changing frames of reference... the air,
then the ground and tries to rationalize the effects. The best way to
analyze the aircraft dynamics is with a single point of reference, the
ground. When this is done, one can see *three* types of total energy at
play.
Two of the three energy types are obvious: kinetic energy due to the
speed of the aircraft (over ground), potential energy due to the height
of the aircraft in the gravitational field of the earth. What=99s
the third one, you ask.....? Well, the moving mass of air (wind)
appears in the calculations sort of like a horizontal gravitational
field. Flying into the wind increases =98wind potential=99
energy with respect to the ground, flying downwind then converts this
=98wind potential=99 into kinetic energy, just like
descending converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy.
Vern
From: rayj
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics
Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport
Aviation. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On
02/07/2014 04:26 PM, user9253 wrote:
mailto:fransew(at)gmail.com
Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics:
http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS
I think that he is wrong. Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a
level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used
to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn,
overcoming inertia. I think that the only force the earth exerts on an
airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.
This is not electrically related. But there are some pretty smart
people who lurk on the AeroElectric List. It will be interesting to
read their opinions.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
02/07/14
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Maybe the chief editor could review the articles. Oh, wait...
> Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviatio
n. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
I found a Samsung 4 led ultrabrite strip that allegedly consumes 800 ma
continuous. sounds high. Anyway, does anyone have a really simple circuit
for pulsing this device. I am thinking of an array of 4 pulsing at the same
time.
Best....
Bob Verwey
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 10:32 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>I found a Samsung 4 led ultrabrite strip that allegedly consumes 800
>ma continuous. sounds high. Anyway, does anyone have a really simple
>circuit for pulsing this device. I am thinking of an array of 4
>pulsing at the same time.
Let's see if I've interpreted your
description correctly. 4 leds (I preseume
white) to simply be pulsed in unison.
Are they wired in series? Is there a current
limiting resistor on the assembly (doubtful
at that current level). What's the application?
Landing light with attention-getting feature?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with
the "kitchen sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me
to design and build my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to
defend all that has been enabled. Bob, I love you man! I value your
advice, counsel and guidance above all others. This list and the
people on it, especially folks like Kelly, are to die for. Just
please stop calling my panel a "kitchen sink".
Did I use that term . . . can you cite the posting?
I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down and streamline it with some
excess $$$$ the next time I see the opportunity to do it.
I'm sorry if you've found my contributions trying . . .
but my friend . . . it's my job.
I'll tell you a story . . .
About 30 years ago I was enjoying attendance at one
of Wichita's signature community events every fall;
the annual chili cook-off. These were (and I think
still are) vigorously contested events. The winners
are chosen by counting the chill beans in a jar
on the table at their cook-site in the park.
Everyone who buys a ticket for the event is given
a little bowl, an official tasting spoon and access
to all the crackers they want. They also receive 10
beans to be dropped in what ever combination they
choose into the contestant's jars as a means of
voting by the tasting public.
The caveat was that the top three winners had to
post their recipes. I think the idea was that whoever
won the coveted slots next year were thus encouraged
not to have an identical or even largely similar
recipe.
I recall one winner's posting having probably the
most complex recipe for ingredients I had ever seen
. . . particularly in the range and ratio of spices.
I asked the chef how he arrived at the necessity/
value for the ingredients. I don't recall his answer
except that it wasn't very satisfying. I then
hypothesized about his perceived ability to sample
his work from two pots except that one ingredient
would be eliminated from one of the pots. Did he
think he could separate the altered batch from
the golden batch. He allowed as how he could.
I wish I had copied down the recipe. Needless to say
his assertion was the source of no small degree
of skepticism. I think it was Thomas Paine who
extolled the virtues of simplicity as being less
likely to become disordered and more easily set
right if it should become disordered.
I view my best contribution to the List in the
role not unlike that of my most cherished bosses
over the years who were also fond of Mr. Paine's
sentiments.
The simplest, lightest, least expensive solution
to meeting design goals was the watchword. I can't
tell you how many design reviews presented my
work in front of a half dozen or more of my peers
who were well armed with questions that produced
some combination of three answers (1) the feature
doesn't work, (2) the feature is unnecessary or (3)
there's too many parts that drive up cost of
ownership and dilutes value. All of the critics
were armed with the customer's specification
document.
Those were never an activity to be feared or
distrusted. What ever came out of the meeting was
either 'golden' or blessed with suggestions
for useful change.
So yes, I may well give you a 'bad time' asking
for justification and foundation for use of a
particular part or architecture . . . with the
same spirit and intent which I enjoyed over the
years . . . a spirit and intent that persists to
this day.
Woke up this morning at 5:30 with an epiphany
on a design problem I've been stirring in my head
for a couple of weeks. I'm pretty sure my colleagues
will approve . . . kicked a bunch of parts off the
bill of materials (and a few hundred lines of code
off the DO178 barge). I'll go see if they can poke
any holes in it next week.
If getting you little bent is a risk, I'll accept
that. In the final analysis, what ever you decide
to do poses little risk. You could produce an
architecture that's simply pleasing to look at and
fun to talk about. Used to see lots of those systems
at OSH every year. Jim Bede's electrical honcho on
the BD10J tried to enlist my services on such a
project. Everything that happens to your design
based on input from myself or others probably
moves toward minimizing disorder and maximizing
utility. That's a good thing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connectors and factories |
On 2/7/14 11:58 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> There are some folks who make very rugged yet
> tiny connectors suited to the task. One in
> particular is LEMO
Ha! Yes, we are at the moment wrestling with a LEMO for a multichannel
audio application. Some air carrier headsets also use LEMO. Remember,
those connectors are made in the same region of Switzerland where they
make watches. Very pretty and clever, but overkill for this.
> Is the airplane likely to be stuck in a condition
> so far out of trim that it's un-manageable with
> elevated risks to aluminum and bone?
I don't know that yet.
>
> How many times over the lifetime of the airplane
> do you expect to open this connection for maintenance
> or replacement of the actuator?
There will be some configuration changes in the tail that may require a
few removal/install cycles, and the tail trim is not the only place
where this is needed.
> By what
> percentage of total task would labor go up if
> those wires were simply soldered together and
> heat-shrinked?
That's the default, of course. One other alternative, that I have used
in certificated aircraft projects over the years, is to use a PIDG knife
disconnect connector per wire, each one in a vinyl sleeve and laced
together.
>
> How can we free up some hours for our readers
> to go buck a few more rivets as opposed to
> getting wrapped around the decision axle on
> the particular harness connector?
I asked for discussion about the more general case of the several
few-conductor breakaways in a small OBAM plane, such as for wing and
cowling removal. I don't think it's necessary to get wrapped around any
axle as many solutions will work, but thought there might be a consensus
or a better idea than the ones I've had. Never mind, dlj04 out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
Apologies for not properly defining the issue ....the unit consists of four
superbright LEds in a unit and is 12 v ready. So i want to take more than
one of these units and create a flashing beacon light.
Best ....
Bob verwey
On Saturday, February 8, 2014, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:32 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>
> I found a Samsung 4 led ultrabrite strip that allegedly consumes 800 ma
>> continuous. sounds high. Anyway, does anyone have a really simple circuit
>> for pulsing this device. I am thinking of an array of 4 pulsing at the same
>> time.
>>
>
> Let's see if I've interpreted your
> description correctly. 4 leds (I preseume
> white) to simply be pulsed in unison.
>
> Are they wired in series? Is there a current
> limiting resistor on the assembly (doubtful
> at that current level). What's the application?
> Landing light with attention-getting feature?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Analyze This |
Peter,=0A=0AThanks for taking the time to review the drawing.- I really a
ppreciate the insightful comments.=0A=0AMy responses are mixed-in with you
questions.=0A=0AThx again,=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A__________________________
______=0A From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-
list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:08 AM=0ASubject: R
e: AeroElectric-List: Analyze This=0A =0A=0A=0AJeff,=0A=0AI would like a li
ttle explanation of the basic operation. I'm=0A assuming both master swi
tches on all the time, both batteries are=0A the same, throw one battery
away each year. =0A=0AYes - both masters on for normal ops.- In addition
,=0Aat start-up by turning-on each master individually and=0Awatching the p
ower indicators & volt meter you can=0Aconfirm that isolation diodes are fu
nctioning properly.=0A=0A=0AIf alternator fails no simple load shedding is
available, pilot must=0A select items individually (or have a check-list
of what to switch=0A off). You're now wasting 2 amps (1 or each battery
contactor).=0A=0ASee comment re load shedding below. My master =0Arelays d
raw 200 mA each.=0A=0A=0AThink about the information you want the 2 shunts
to provide, will=0A the do that, is there a better (simpler) way? As you
already have=0A the power indicators, I would put the shunt in the alte
rnator to bus=0A feed. Agree with comment about fusing (or current limit
ing) feed to=0A batt B. I thought a current limiter was better placed in
the=0A alternator output?=0A=0AI'm using a zero-center ammeter. With th
e shunt in =0Aits current location it providesinfo on the health of =0Athe
battery charging system when everything is=0Aworking properly.=0A=0AWhen th
e alternator fails, it automatically becomes=0Aa load meter to aid the pilo
t in load-shedding.- Exactly=0Athe info you want, exactly when you need i
t.=0A=0AThere are fuses in alternator output leads. =0AAn over-voltage prot
ection module will prevent alternator=0Arun-away.=0A=0AWith the shunt in th
e alternator output, in the case that the=0Aalternator fails, you get no in
formation about system load and =0Athat's when you need it the most in orde
r to do=0Aeffective load-shedding.=0A=0A=0AI'm unsure what the 'K-...' mean
s=0A=0A'K' is an industry standard abbreviation for relay/contactor=0A=0A
=0A2 batteries will provide way more than 45 minutes operation on=0A bat
tery power, even with a very full panel and no load shedding.=0A Therefo
re system grossly exceeds design goal resulting in more=0A cost/weight t
han required. Where does 45 minutes come from? FAR-23=0A requires 30 min
utes, alternatively assume half or full fuel=0A endurance.=0A=0AThat wou
ld depend upon battery selection and system load.=0AI did not provide any i
nfo on this for my airplane.=0A45 minutes is my personal preference.=0A=0A
=0ANo simple load shedding appears available - meets goal 2 (but=0A perh
aps goal 1 & 2 are actually, survive any failure for 45=0A minutes with
no pilot interaction)=0A=0A=0AI prefer to be in control of load-shedding ba
sed upon the=0Asituation. I don't like the idea of having it predetermined
=0Aby what is wired to an E-buss.=0A=0AIf I'm day VFR I may want to turn-of
f lots of things.- If=0AI'm preparing for an Instrument approach, I may d
ecide=0Anot to turn-off anything.=0A=0A =0ASystem seems more complex/costly
than a 2 bus system would be. Seems=0A that goals 1 & 2 are weighted mu
ch more highly than the others?=0A=0APerhaps simplicity/complexity is in th
e eye of the beholder.=0AI think a single buss is simpler than multiple bus
ses with =0Ainter-connection/bypass relays.=0A=0AThe buss-isolation diode u
nits cost ~$20 each.- I'm willing=0Ato spend the extra $40.=0A=0A=0AIts y
our airplane, build the system that meets your needs.=0A=0ARegards, Peter
=0A=0A=0A=0AOn 02/02/2014 23:38, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A=0AListers,=0A>=0A>At
tached find a schematic (some people call them ladder=0A dia
grams) of a design for the electrical system for my=0A RV-7A
.- Below is a list of design goals, pros and cons.=0A Plea
se take a look and provide engineering feedback.=0A>=0A>TIA=0A>=0A>=0A>Elec
trical Systems Design Goals:=0A>1. fault tolerant - able to tolerate failur
e of any=0A single component and fly for 45 min.=0A>2. easy
to operate=0A>3. no avionics brown-out on engine start=0A>4. easy to repair
=0A>5. comprised of standard, readily-available components =0A>6. cost effe
ctive=0A>=0A>=0A>Pros:=0A>1. simplified operation - only 2 master switches
=0A>2. simplified design - single buss=0A>=0A>3. no brown-out on engine sta
rt=0A>4. automatic fail-over - no pilot interaction required; avionics won'
t reset=0A>=0A>--- In the event a battery system suffers a failure, e
ither an open circuit or a ground fault, the faulty=0A>--- system sim
ply stops providing power to the buss and the remaining good system continu
es to =0A>=0A>--- provide electricity without interruption.=0A>=0A>
=0A>=0A>Cons:=0A>1. buss-isolation power diodes may require heat sinks=0A>2
================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage as ground conductor |
Good Afternoon Bob,
Obviously, I am getting into this a bit late, but what about airplanes like
the newer Bonanzas where all skins and stringers were painted prior to
assembly? No doubt that the rivets when driven would spread to contact each
joined skin, but would that be sufficient area to carry the current?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 2/8/2014 8:17:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 07:04 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:
>
>Bob N., et al.:
>
>When one builds an airplane with the starter and the battery some
>distance apart, using the fuselage as a ground conductor is usually
>(?) done. What is the resistance of a typical fuselage used in this
>way? Can it carry 200A or so for the starter?
>
>What are your thoughts?
The fuselage of a metal airplane taken as a whole
is entirely capable of carrying and/all electrical system
ground loads. As a rule of thumb, we used to consider
the tip-to-tail resistance of an airplane like the Beechjet
to be on the order of 0.001 ohms.
How about attaching a high current conductor to the
airframe? Imagine a 1" diameter disk of .032 aluminum
being approached radially from all directions by an
array of 0.032" square aluminum wires (roughly 20AWG
equivalent). You can attach 3.14/.032 numbers of
these wires to the edge of the disc for a total of
100 such wires. What's the current carrying capacity/
resistance of 100 strands of 20AWG in either aluminum or copper?
The point of this exercise is to support the notion
that the sheet resistance of just about any part
of an airframe is very low; assuming all the pieces
are well attached to each other, point-to-point
resistance between any two locations on the airframe
is also very low.
Airplanes that get into conductor troubles with
grounding over time are instances where a particular
contiguous piece of aluminum has experienced the
effects of moisture and high density electron
flow at the joints where gas-tightness is lost.
You can ground batteries at the tail to about any
mechanically robust feature that is protected from
the weather and stays dry.
http://tinyurl.com/mcv3c9j
I would ground a crankcase to the firewall
sheet at a centralize grounding location like the
B&C ground bus and not depend on engine mount
for ground.
Other than that, the only caveats for airframe
grounding are the potential for injecting
electrical system noise into vulnerable appliances
by injudicious choices for grounding the
victim . . . ground loops.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
On 2/8/2014 12:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with the
> "kitchen sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me to
> design and build my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to defend
> all that has been enabled. Bob, I love you man! I value your advice,
> counsel and guidance above all others. This list and the people on
> it, especially folks like Kelly, are to die for. Just please stop
> calling my panel a "kitchen sink".
>
> Did I use that term . . . can you cite the posting?
Well here is the one I remember:
*
*Match:* */#6/*
*Message:* */#58841/*
*Date:* */Jul 08, 2013/*
*From:* */"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" /*
*Subject:* /*Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators
<http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=115279638?KEYS=kitchen_sink?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=6?SERIAL=15121118825?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>*/
*(snip)
*
> >However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I
go >parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot. How much
'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine start? On the Beech
products we used to offer a mini-ebus switch that would let you fire
up a comm radio directly from the battery. Your comm radio probably
needs 0.2A receive, and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long winded
pre-flight activity might need 1000 watt-seconds. I'm thinking that
the bus from which all your 'kitchen sink' accessories is powered
also powers the comm radio and you have no way to power up the comm
radio independently? You might want to consider moving a comm radio
to a battery bus and adding . . .
*I hesitate to point out that you use the term generally to describe
electro-whiz intensive panels but no matter.
>
> I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down and streamline it with some
> excess $$$$ the next time I see the opportunity to do it.
>
> I'm sorry if you've found my contributions trying . . .
> but my friend . . . it's my job.
And I'm on this list because you do it so well. No harm, no foul Mr
Nuckolls!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics |
At 09:55 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>Maybe the chief editor could review the articles. Oh, wait...
>
>>Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport
>>Aviation. Doesn't anyone review these articles?
It seems that Mr. McCellan has skipped across
the wave-tops on an incident we discussed here
on the List as I recall . . .
http://tinyurl.com/o3j2bxh
I've maintained that the incident and several
others like it
http://tinyurl.com/ky7szec
were absolutely not electrical system failures
but instead failures on the part of owner/operator
to assemble and maintain the system components
within the limits of their performance.
A car that goes over the edge of a cliff after
blowout of a bald tire did not suffer that
end due to 'tire failure' . . . yes the
tire demonstrated it's inability to meet
design goals after being neglected/abused
by its owner . . . but it was simply the
inevitable icing on a cake that was baked
hours, days even perhaps months earlier.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
I don't know about a GNS-430, but the GTN-650 I have uses around 2.8
amps for the nav side and maybe .8 for the com side when in receive mode.
My Dynon Skyview screens use about 3 amps each. My SL-30 is under 2 amps
in receive mode for com and nav together. So the governing draw will be
how much current the EFIS needs and how much the certified GPS needs.
It seems odd that a certified GPS doesn't let you program and save a
flight plan in non-volatile
memory as most portable GPS units allow. If it doesn't, then an
isolated backup battery powering just the essential items would seem to
be required.
My antique Northstar M3 GPS allows storing flight plans as long as the
soldered in keep alive battery is good. (no longer is).
On 2/8/2014 4:23 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> On 2/8/2014 12:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>> Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with
>> the "kitchen sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me
>> to design and build my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to
>> defend all that has been enabled. Bob, I love you man! I value your
>> advice, counsel and guidance above all others. This list and the
>> people on it, especially folks like Kelly, are to die for. Just
>> please stop calling my panel a "kitchen sink".
>>
>> Did I use that term . . . can you cite the posting?
> Well here is the one I remember:
> *
> *Match:* */#6/*
> *Message:* */#58841/*
>
> *Date:* */Jul 08, 2013/*
>
> *From:* */"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" /*
>
> *Subject:* /*Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=115279638?KEYS=kitchen_sink?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=6?SERIAL=15121118825?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>*/
>
> *(snip)
> *
>
> > >However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I
> go >parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot. How
> much 'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine start? On the
> Beech products we used to offer a mini-ebus switch that would let
> you fire up a comm radio directly from the battery. Your comm
> radio probably needs 0.2A receive, and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long
> winded pre-flight activity might need 1000 watt-seconds. I'm
> thinking that the bus from which all your 'kitchen sink'
> accessories is powered also powers the comm radio and you have no
> way to power up the comm radio independently? You might want to
> consider moving a comm radio to a battery bus and adding . . .
> *I hesitate to point out that you use the term generally to describe
> electro-whiz intensive panels but no matter.
>>
>> I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down and streamline it with some
>> excess $$$$ the next time I see the opportunity to do it.
>>
>> I'm sorry if you've found my contributions trying . . .
>> but my friend . . . it's my job.
> And I'm on this list because you do it so well. No harm, no foul Mr
> Nuckolls!
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
The 430w will allow storing a limited number of flight plans, IIRC 10, but if not
using it again I hesitate to replace one of the ones I do use frequently with
one I won't use again.
Tim
> On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I don't know about a GNS-430, but the GTN-650 I have uses around 2.8 amps for
the nav side and maybe .8 for the com side when in receive mode.
> My Dynon Skyview screens use about 3 amps each. My SL-30 is under 2 amps in receive
mode for com and nav together. So the governing draw will be how much current
the EFIS needs and how much the certified GPS needs.
> It seems odd that a certified GPS doesn't let you program and save a flight plan
in non-volatile
> memory as most portable GPS units allow. If it doesn't, then an isolated backup
battery powering just the essential items would seem to be required.
> My antique Northstar M3 GPS allows storing flight plans as long as the soldered
in keep alive battery is good. (no longer is).
>
>> On 2/8/2014 4:23 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2014 12:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>
>>> Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with the "kitchen
sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me to design and build
my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to defend all that has been enabled.
Bob, I love you man! I value your advice, counsel and guidance above all
others. This list and the people on it, especially folks like Kelly, are to
die for. Just please stop calling my panel a "kitchen sink".
>>>
>>> Did I use that term . . . can you cite the posting?
>> Well here is the one I remember:
>> *
>> *Match:* */#6/*
>> *Message:* */#58841/*
>>
>> *Date:* */Jul 08, 2013/*
>>
>> *From:* */"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" /*
>>
>> *Subject:* /*Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators <http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=115279638?KEYS=kitchen_sink?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=6?SERIAL=15121118825?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>*/
>>
>> *(snip)
>> *
>>
>> > >However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I
>> go >parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot. How
>> much 'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine start? On the
>> Beech products we used to offer a mini-ebus switch that would let
>> you fire up a comm radio directly from the battery. Your comm
>> radio probably needs 0.2A receive, and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long
>> winded pre-flight activity might need 1000 watt-seconds. I'm
>> thinking that the bus from which all your 'kitchen sink'
>> accessories is powered also powers the comm radio and you have no
>> way to power up the comm radio independently? You might want to
>> consider moving a comm radio to a battery bus and adding . . . *I hesitate
to point out that you use the term generally to describe electro-whiz intensive
panels but no matter.
>>>
>>> I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down and streamline it with some excess
$$$$ the next time I see the opportunity to do it.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry if you've found my contributions trying . . .
>>> but my friend . . . it's my job.
>> And I'm on this list because you do it so well. No harm, no foul Mr Nuckolls!
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
I found a Samsung 4 led ultrabrite strip that allegedly consumes 800 ma
continuous. sounds high. Anyway, does anyone have a really simple circuit
for pulsing this device. I am thinking of an array of 4 pulsing at the same
time.
Best....
Bob Verwey
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connectors and factories |
>I asked for discussion about the more general case of the several
>few-conductor breakaways in a small OBAM plane, such as for wing and
>cowling removal. I don't think it's necessary to get wrapped around
>any axle as many solutions will work, but thought there might be a
>consensus or a better idea than the ones I've had. Never mind, dlj04 out.
I'm sorry you didn't receive the response you were
seeking . . . but I don't think there's any 'axle
wrapping' going on here either.
Trim systems are, as a general rule, simply a convenience
to the pilot. I flew an ultra-light hangared at our
airport back about 1990. Fun machine. But I was initially
appalled at the forces I had to hold on the controls to
maintain the desired approach configuration for landing.
Inputs were light in 'cruise' but it took quite a bit
of stick and rudder input to put the little machine down
where I intended.
I asked the owner if there were any instructions for
'trimming' the airplane for better handling qualities
and he was surprised. The 'out of trim' condition of
his particular choice of flying enjoyment was transparent
to him . . . he had learned how to make the airplane
do what he wanted and the awareness of demands on him
as a pilot disappeared into automatic responses.
So in the grand scheme of things, the value of a trim
system for any axis goes to reducing pilot workloads
to free up concentration on other things. Except for
the risks posed by a runaway trim system that has
too much aerodynamic authority, those little plastic
boxes with motors in them do not warrant great
concern for system reliability. Should a trim actuator
become inoperative during some phase of otherwise
controlled and trimmed flight, loss of said actuator
does not represent a significant threat to aluminum and
bones.
This is generally a design goal for TC aircraft that
must be demonstrated during qualification. The Beechjet
was demonstrated to be manageable all the way to
the runway with the trim system stuck at full
nose down trim (general position for cruise
a Mach airspeeds and altitudes).
We can use that information to guide decisions
in the selection of components for those little
black plastic boxes. The generally controlling desire
for most installations has been compactness. The
wires need to route though small holes in structure.
There's also been no demonstrated need for
environmental robustness. Consider the
manner in which these actuators are built.
The connectors need be no more robust
than the actuator on the other end of a 6-inch
wire bundle.
With the above points in mind, we can begin
to consider connector styles and methods. It
appears that this thread has run the spectrum
of choices . . . as it has on several other
occasions over the years. The only really
elegant, small and robust connectors identified
to date are Lemo products. At the same time,
our conversation has failed to identify any
operational or risk-reducing need to do anything
fancier than 'lectric Bob's chopped down
d-sub or even knife-splices under heat-shrink.
It is useful to review these questions in open
forum from time to time. Newcomers haven't
participated or read past discussions and they
just may be aware of an alternative, heretofore
un-known solution. The electronics business is
dynamic and it's quite likely that any new
and exciting solution will be tossed in from
out in left field by someone who may be surprised
at how exciting his/her contribution is to the
rest of us.
Old timers on the List may fine these repeats
boring but this is a class-room with a constantly
rotating clientele. Let us be mindful of our
role as teachers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus question |
> The 430w will allow storing a limited number of flight plans, IIRC 10,
> but if not using it again I hesitate to replace one of the ones I do
> use frequently with one I won't use again.
... And it's kind of awkward to store, retrieve and managed stored plans on them.
I tried doing that to get around the problems I was having but I kept screwing
the button pushing up. Now I don't use the feature at all.
I'm thinking that the GNS-430 is getting a bit long in the tooth and
clearly doesn't have some features that one would want though I'm happy
that it doesn't have an internal battery. I had an old Becker comm
radio with an internal battery for saved frequency storage and all it
means is that periodic shop service is required. G430s will be laying
around some panels for a very long time....
To the G430s credit, it doesn't consume a lot of power and is tolerant
of low voltage during starts and such. It takes a lot to get it to
re-boot. I used 2.1 amps for planning purposes with 6.0 amps when
transmitting.
But my 3 EFIS screens were power hogs. I assumed 4.5 amps in aggregate
plus 1 amp for the dual AHRS. I chose to have them come on with the
master and not have a separate switch or switches.
Bill "thanks to Bob and the list the panel works as desired now" Watson
>> On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know about a GNS-430, but the GTN-650 I have uses around 2.8 amps for
the nav side and maybe .8 for the com side when in receive mode.
>> My Dynon Skyview screens use about 3 amps each. My SL-30 is under 2 amps in
receive mode for com and nav together. So the governing draw will be how much
current the EFIS needs and how much the certified GPS needs.
>> It seems odd that a certified GPS doesn't let you program and save a flight
plan in non-volatile
>> memory as most portable GPS units allow. If it doesn't, then an isolated backup
battery powering just the essential items would seem to be required.
>> My antique Northstar M3 GPS allows storing flight plans as long as the soldered
in keep alive battery is good. (no longer is).
>>
>>> On 2/8/2014 4:23 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2014 12:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Honestly Mr Nuckolls is the guy who puts my nose out of joint with the "kitchen
sink" stuff. Just as Bob and this list has enabled me to design and build
my dream traveling machine, I feel the need to defend all that has been enabled.
Bob, I love you man! I value your advice, counsel and guidance above
all others. This list and the people on it, especially folks like Kelly, are
to die for. Just please stop calling my panel a "kitchen sink".
>>>>
>>>> Did I use that term . . . can you cite the posting?
>>> Well here is the one I remember:
>>> *
>>> *Match:* */#6/*
>>> *Message:* */#58841/*
>>>
>>> *Date:* */Jul 08, 2013/*
>>>
>>> *From:* */"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" /*
>>>
>>> *Subject:* /*Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators <http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=115279638?KEYS=kitchen_sink?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=6?SERIAL=15121118825?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>*/
>>>
>>> *(snip)
>>> *
>>>
>>> > >However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I
>>> go >parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot. How
>>> much 'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine start? On the
>>> Beech products we used to offer a mini-ebus switch that would let
>>> you fire up a comm radio directly from the battery. Your comm
>>> radio probably needs 0.2A receive, and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long
>>> winded pre-flight activity might need 1000 watt-seconds. I'm
>>> thinking that the bus from which all your 'kitchen sink'
>>> accessories is powered also powers the comm radio and you have no
>>> way to power up the comm radio independently? You might want to
>>> consider moving a comm radio to a battery bus and adding . . . *I hesitate
to point out that you use the term generally to describe electro-whiz intensive
panels but no matter.
>>>> I promise I'll upgrade it, pare it down and streamline it with some excess
$$$$ the next time I see the opportunity to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if you've found my contributions trying . . .
>>>> but my friend . . . it's my job.
>>> And I'm on this list because you do it so well. No harm, no foul Mr Nuckolls!
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltage/Current Measurement & Logging |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob & Listers,
There's been some talk on here in recent weeks about measuring and logging v
oltage and current in aircraft buses for diagnostic purposes. I came across
a crowd-funding campaign for an interesting device that looks like it might
be just the ticket for this kind of measurement, so I thought I'd pass it a
long:
https://www.dragoninnovation.com/projects/34-mooshimeter
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage/Current Measurement & Logging |
very cool
On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Eric Page wrote:
> Bob & Listers,
>
> There's been some talk on here in recent weeks about measuring and
logging voltage and current in aircraft buses for diagnostic purposes.
I came across a crowd-funding campaign for an interesting device that
looks like it might be just the ticket for this kind of measurement, so
I thought I'd pass it along:
>
> https://www.dragoninnovation.com/projects/34-mooshimeter
>
> Eric
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Analyze This |
Its not me who needs the answers ...
On 08/02/2014 18:50, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review the drawing. I really appreciate
> the insightful comments.
>
> My responses are mixed-in with you questions.
>
> Thx again,
>
> -Jeff
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Peter Pengilly
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Analyze This
>
> Jeff,
>
> I would like a little explanation of the basic operation. I'm assuming
> both master switches on all the time, both batteries are the same,
> throw one battery away each year.
>
> Yes - both masters on for normal ops. In addition,
> at start-up by turning-on each master individually and
> watching the power indicators & volt meter you can
> confirm that isolation diodes are functioning properly.
>
>
> If alternator fails no simple load shedding is available, pilot must
> select items individually (or have a check-list of what to switch
> off). You're now wasting 2 amps (1 or each battery contactor).
>
> See comment re load shedding below. My master
> relays draw 200 mA each.
>
>
> Think about the information you want the 2 shunts to provide, will the
> do that, is there a better (simpler) way? As you already have the
> power indicators, I would put the shunt in the alternator to bus feed.
> Agree with comment about fusing (or current limiting) feed to batt B.
> I thought a current limiter was better placed in the alternator output?
>
> I'm using a zero-center ammeter. With the shunt in
> its current location it provides info on the health of
> the battery charging system when everything is
> working properly.
>
> When the alternator fails, it automatically becomes
> a load meter to aid the pilot in load-shedding. Exactly
> the info you want, exactly when you need it.
>
> There are fuses in alternator output leads.
> An over-voltage protection module will prevent alternator
> run-away.
>
> With the shunt in the alternator output, in the case that the
> alternator fails, you get no information about system load and
> that's when you need it the most in order to do
> effective load-shedding.
>
>
> I'm unsure what the 'K-...' means
>
> 'K' is an industry standard abbreviation for relay/contactor
>
>
> 2 batteries will provide way more than 45 minutes operation on battery
> power, even with a very full panel and no load shedding. Therefore
> system grossly exceeds design goal resulting in more cost/weight than
> required. Where does 45 minutes come from? FAR-23 requires 30 minutes,
> alternatively assume half or full fuel endurance.
>
> That would depend upon battery selection and system load.
> I did not provide any info on this for my airplane.
> 45 minutes is my personal preference.
>
>
> No simple load shedding appears available - meets goal 2 (but perhaps
> goal 1 & 2 are actually, survive any failure for 45 minutes with no
> pilot interaction)
>
>
> I prefer to be in control of load-shedding based upon the
> situation. I don't like the idea of having it predetermined
> by what is wired to an E-buss.
>
> If I'm day VFR I may want to turn-off lots of things. If
> I'm preparing for an Instrument approach, I may decide
> not to turn-off anything.
>
>
> System seems more complex/costly than a 2 bus system would be. Seems
> that goals 1 & 2 are weighted much more highly than the others?
>
> Perhaps simplicity/complexity is in the eye of the beholder.
> I think a single buss is simpler than multiple busses with
> inter-connection/bypass relays.
>
> The buss-isolation diode units cost ~$20 each. I'm willing
> to spend the extra $40.
>
>
> Its your airplane, build the system that meets your needs.
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>
> On 02/02/2014 23:38, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>> Listers,
>>
>> Attached find a schematic (some people call them ladder diagrams) of
>> a design for the electrical system for my RV-7A. Below is a list of
>> design goals, pros and cons. Please take a look and provide
>> engineering feedback.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>>
>> Electrical Systems Design Goals:
>> 1. fault tolerant - able to tolerate failure of any single component
>> and fly for 45 min.
>> 2. easy to operate
>> 3. no avionics brown-out on engine start
>> 4. easy to repair
>> 5. comprised of standard, readily-available components
>> 6. cost effective
>>
>>
>> Pros:
>> 1. simplified operation - only 2 master switches
>> 2. simplified design - single buss
>> 3. no brown-out on engine start
>> 4. automatic fail-over - no pilot interaction required; avionics
>> won't reset
>> In the event a battery system suffers a failure, either an open
>> circuit or a ground fault, the faulty
>> system simply stops providing power to the buss and the remaining
>> good system continues to
>> provide electricity without interruption.
>>
>> Cons:
>> 1. buss-isolation power diodes may require heat sinks
>> 2. some energy wasted as heat thru power diodes
>>
>>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage/Current Measurement & Logging |
At 06:08 PM 2/9/2014, you wrote:
>very cool
>
>On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Eric Page wrote:
>
>>Bob & Listers,
>>
>>There's been some talk on here in recent weeks about measuring and
>>logging voltage and current in aircraft buses for diagnostic
>>purposes. I came across a crowd-funding campaign for an
>>interesting device that looks like it might be just the ticket for
>>this kind of measurement, so I thought I'd pass it along:
>>
>>https://www.dragoninnovation.com/projects/34-mooshimeter
>>
>>Eric
There's been an explosion in recent years for
low cost data acquisition products. I bought
my first computer driven measuring tool back
in '99 and used it to gather 8, 12-bit
channels of data at 1000 samples per second.
The thing ran off the parallel printer port
of my laptop. It cost me about $100 and
I used it substitute for a multi-killobuck
instrumentation package on a jog I was
doing at Beech.
The thing had NO graphical user interface,
I had to plot data with autocad and analyze
data with programs I wrote.
You can see the critter hanging off the back
of my laptop in this article . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kjuhl67
The price of hardware has continued to fall
while the utility of user interfaces has
grown. I ordered two of these guys a couple
weeks ago.
http://tinyurl.com/m68rbdl
The hardware is simple and easily adapted to
the task of characterizing current draw of
strobes that like to burn switches. But the
major driver for buying this was the GUI that
appears to be quite capable.
We're all going to learn more about this
product with some hands-on gathering of
data off List-member airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Northstar M-3 GPS internal battery |
Does anyone have a part number and source for this battery?
Thanks,
Kelly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltage/Current Measurement & Logging |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
That Mooshimeter is sweet.
My own two cents:
You could get just about the same thing with a tiny digital camera set to record
video, and the actual meter. This has an additional advantage of being able
to put yourself in odd places to see non-electrical events as well.
Let's say you want to figure out where a fuel leak is that only occurs at certain
times or flight attitudes, etc., or you want to look under the cowling in flight,
or you want a totally visual fuel gauge. Video and data recording that
used to take big bux is now available to everyone for cheap money.
Black box? An over-the shoulder camera watching the panel (and windscreen), might
be a great investment...Hell, you might even sell the video.
Every pilot remember things he would have loved a video of.
--------
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=418528#418528
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage/Current Measurement & Logging |
At 08:04 AM 2/11/2014, you wrote:
>
>That Mooshimeter is sweet.
>
>My own two cents:
>
>You could get just about the same thing with a tiny digital camera
>set to record video, and the actual meter. This has an additional
>advantage of being able to put yourself in odd places to see
>non-electrical events as well.
I've had similar thoughts over the years.
I proposed a stand-alone, das with precision
time-off day clock to remotely gather data
out in the wing of a Lear. I offered to write
the software if the instrumentation guys would
hammer the hardware together. Figured we could
have it running in a couple days.
They decided to go the classic hard-wired instrumentation
route that kept the airplane down for several install-remove
days . . . sigh.
There's a constellation of self-contained, large
memory video recorders out there now. Here's
one of dozens . . .
http://tinyurl.com/lzg8kaf
One could jig something like this into place
for recording physical events . . . maybe jig
a pocket watch in the same view to help tie
video to real time elsewhere.
Lots of fun toys out there . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IVO Prop current limiter |
| From: | "kfav8r" <kfav8r(at)outlook.com> |
Bob,
My problem board is in the mail to you.
Thanks again!
--------
Doug
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418558#418558
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Analyze This |
Great Peter.- If you have any further questions, I'm happy to provide ans
wers...=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Peter Pengi
lly =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent:
Monday, February 10, 2014 1:54 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Analyz
e This=0A =0A=0A=0AIts not me who needs the answers ...=0A=0A=0AOn 08/02/20
14 18:50, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A=0APeter,=0A>=0A>=0A>Thanks for taking the t
ime to review the drawing.- I really appreciate the insightful comments.
=0A>=0A>=0A>My responses are mixed-in with you questions.=0A>=0A>=0A>Thx ag
ain,=0A>=0A>=0A>-Jeff=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>________________________________
=0A> From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list
@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:08 AM=0A>Subject: Re:
AeroElectric-List: Analyze This=0A> =0A>=0A>=0A>Jeff,=0A>=0A>I would like
a little explanation of the basic=0A operation. I'm assumi
ng both master switches on all=0A the time, both batteries
are the same, throw one=0A battery away each year. =0A>
=0A>Yes - both masters on for normal ops.- In addition,=0A>at start-up by
turning-on each master individually=0A and=0A>watching
the power indicators & volt meter you=0A can=0A>confirm
that isolation diodes are functioning=0A properly.=0A>
=0A>=0A>If alternator fails no simple load shedding is=0A
available, pilot must select items individually (or=0A hav
e a check-list of what to switch off). You're now=0A wasti
ng 2 amps (1 or each battery contactor).=0A>=0A>See comment re load sheddin
g below. My master =0A>relays draw 200 mA each.=0A>=0A>=0A>Think about the
information you want the 2 shunts to=0A provide, will the
do that, is there a better (simpler)=0A way? As you alread
y have the power indicators, I would=0A put the shunt in t
he alternator to bus feed. Agree=0A with comment about fus
ing (or current limiting) feed=0A to batt B. I thought a c
urrent limiter was better=0A placed in the alternator outp
ut?=0A>=0A>I'm using a zero-center ammeter. With the shunt in =0A>its curre
nt location it provides info on the health=0A of =0A>the
battery charging system when everything is=0A>working properly.=0A>=0A>Whe
n the alternator fails, it automatically becomes=0A>a load meter to aid the
pilot in load-shedding.-=0A Exactly=0A>the info you w
ant, exactly when you need it.=0A>=0A>There are fuses in alternator output
leads. =0A>An over-voltage protection module will prevent=0A
alternator=0A>run-away.=0A>=0A>With the shunt in the alternator output
, in the case that the=0A>alternator fails, you get no information about=0A
system load and =0A>that's when you need it the most in
order to do=0A>effective load-shedding.=0A>=0A>=0A>I'm unsure what the 'K-
...' means=0A>=0A>'K' is an industry standard abbreviation for relay/contac
tor=0A>=0A>=0A>2 batteries will provide way more than 45 minutes=0A
operation on battery power, even with a very full=0A
panel and no load shedding. Therefore system grossly=0A
exceeds design goal resulting in more cost/weight than=0A
required. Where does 45 minutes come from? FAR-23=0A re
quires 30 minutes, alternatively assume half or full=0A fu
el endurance.=0A>=0A>That would depend upon battery selection and system lo
ad.=0A>I did not provide any info on this for my airplane.=0A>45 minutes is
my personal preference.=0A>=0A>=0A>No simple load shedding appears availab
le - meets goal=0A 2 (but perhaps goal 1 & 2 are actually,
survive=0A any failure for 45 minutes with no pilot inter
action)=0A>=0A>=0A>I prefer to be in control of load-shedding based upon th
e=0A>situation. I don't like the idea of having it=0A pr
edetermined=0A>by what is wired to an E-buss.=0A>=0A>If I'm day VFR I may w
ant to turn-off lots of=0A things.- If=0A>I'm preparin
g for an Instrument approach, I may=0A decide=0A>not to
turn-off anything.=0A>=0A> =0A>System seems more complex/costly than a 2 bu
s system=0A would be. Seems that goals 1 & 2 are weighted
much=0A more highly than the others?=0A>=0A>Perhaps simpli
city/complexity is in the eye of the beholder.=0A>I think a single buss is
simpler than multiple=0A busses with =0A>inter-connectio
n/bypass relays.=0A>=0A>The buss-isolation diode units cost ~$20 each.- I
'm=0A willing=0A>to spend the extra $40.=0A>=0A>=0A>Its
your airplane, build the system that meets your=0A needs.
=0A>=0A>Regards, Peter=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On 02/02/2014 23:38, Jeff Luckey wrot
e:=0A>=0A>Listers,=0A>>=0A>>Attached find a schematic (some people=0A
call them ladder diagrams) of a design for=0A
the electrical system for my RV-7A.- Below=0A
is a list of design goals, pros and cons.=0A
Please take a look and provide engineering=0A
feedback.=0A>>=0A>>TIA=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Electrical Sy
stems Design Goals:=0A>>1. fault tolerant - able to tolerate=0A
failure of any single component and fly=0A
for 45 min.=0A>>2. easy to operate=0A>>3. no avionics brown-
out on engine start=0A>>4. easy to repair=0A>>5. comprised of standard,=0A
readily-available components =0A>>6. cost effe
ctive=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Pros:=0A>>1. simplified operation - only 2 master switc
hes=0A>>2. simplified design - single buss=0A>>=0A>>3. no brown-out on engi
ne start=0A>>4. automatic fail-over - no pilot interaction required; avioni
cs won't reset=0A>>=0A>>--- In the event a battery system suffers a f
ailure, either an open circuit or a ground fault, the faulty=0A>>---
system simply stops providing power to the buss and the remaining good syst
em continues to =0A>>=0A>>--- provide electricity without interruptio
n.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Cons:=0A>>1. buss-isolation power diodes may require
heat sinks=0A>>2. some energy wasted as heat thru power diodes=0A>>=0A>>=0A
=========================0A
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Molex 638190100A crimper |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I have a 1x job that calls for this crimper, but it's almost $300. Anybody know
of a less expensive equivalent?
Anybody have one that they would loan or rent for 2-3 days?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418613#418613
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | pins for audio panel |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
I bought a used PS Engineering PMA7000MS audio panel. I have some pins
for it, but I would like to buy more. They fit into a card edge
connector, take a mini molex crimper, and look like this:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/SL15M-pin1.jpg
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/SL15M-pin2.jpg
I found some at Digikey that look similar:
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/350011-1/350011-1-ND/292950
Does anyone know if these would work?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pins for audio panel |
| From: | Gordon Parker <gptailwind(at)gmail.com> |
Steinair has lots of them
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> I bought a used PS Engineering PMA7000MS audio panel. I have some pins
> for it, but I would like to buy more. They fit into a card edge connector,
> take a mini molex crimper, and look like this:
>
> http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/SL15M-pin1.jpg
>
> http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/SL15M-pin2.jpg
>
> I found some at Digikey that look similar:
>
> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/350011-1/350011-1-ND/292950
>
> Does anyone know if these would work?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex 638190100A crimper |
At 10:54 AM 2/12/2014, you wrote:
>
>I have a 1x job that calls for this crimper, but it's almost $300.
>Anybody know of a less expensive equivalent?
>Anybody have one that they would loan or rent for 2-3 days?
Molex b-crimp pins?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
| From: | Matthew Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com> |
Nice set of photos Bob.. I wonder if you also went back and provided strain relief
for the hose. I believe strain relief for the hose might be more important
than remote mounting the sender.
Regards,
Matt-
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Robert Borger wrote:
>
>
> Carlos,
>
> You can see how I did it at: http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=67636
>
> The first 11 pictures show how I did a remote mount of the oil pressure sender.
>
> Blue skies & tailwinds,
> Bob Borger
> Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
> Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
> Corinth, TX 76208-5331
> Cel: 817-992-1117
> rlborger(at)mac.com
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
>
> Tim
>
> So, what is the way to mount engine pressure senders not cantilevered?
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
I'm curious. How many pressure senders have broken *when directly
mounted to the engine*? I see a lot of reports of failures when there's
an extension, adapter, T fitting, etc, but there are thousands (hundreds
of thousands? millions?) of those sensors that live while directly
mounted on all types of automotive, industrial and a/c engines.
I might be wrong, but these are the questions I'd ask: How stiff is a
braided oil line when it's fully pressurized while the engine is
running? What does it weigh? How much vibration gets transmitted up the
fairly stiff pressurized line? How does that weight & vibration affect
the cantilevered *aluminum* adapters connecting it to the pressure
sensor? I suspect that the cantilevered weight of the hose is more than
the weight of the sensor, on its steel mounting threads, and there will
still be a lot of vibration transmitted to the fittings.
Am I mistaken?
Charlie
On 2/12/2014 11:58 PM, Matthew Prather wrote:
>
> Nice set of photos Bob.. I wonder if you also went back and provided strain
relief for the hose. I believe strain relief for the hose might be more important
than remote mounting the sender.
>
> Regards,
> Matt-
>
>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Robert Borger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Carlos,
>>
>> You can see how I did it at: http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=67636
>>
>> The first 11 pictures show how I did a remote mount of the oil pressure sender.
>>
>> Blue skies & tailwinds,
>> Bob Borger
>> Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
>> Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
>> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
>> Corinth, TX 76208-5331
>> Cel: 817-992-1117
>> rlborger(at)mac.com
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> So, what is the way to mount engine pressure senders not cantilevered?
>>
>> Carlos
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
At 09:12 AM 2/13/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm curious. How many pressure senders have broken *when directly
>mounted to the engine*? I see a lot of reports of failures when
>there's an extension, adapter, T fitting, etc, but there are
>thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of those sensors that
>live while directly mounted on all types of automotive, industrial
>and a/c engines.
We need to sift the simple ideas that drive
levels of concern for this thread. (1) non-ferrous
plumbing/attache hardware that has a finite
service life subjected to the as-installed,
vibration stress levels and (2) lever moments
which are product of mass x arm that produces
the leverage under vibratory acceleration.
There's nothing inherently risky about mounting
a sensor right to the engine. It's done on cars
all the time . . . and probably less vibration
stress. Consider this oil pressure transducer.
Emacs!
All steel structure, short moment arm, light
mass . . . risk approaching zero.
Consider this one . . .
Emacs!
Hmmm . . . fatter, longer, but still steel . . .
probably still okay plugged right into the engine.
But consider the installation that demands
multiple 'sensors' . . . say one of these
fat rascals, stuck into a brass tee-fitting opposite
a low oil pressure warning switch. Now put
a not-so-close brass nipple. The high risk
joint is where the brass screws into the
engine with all that stuff hung off the
end.
There's are ancillary concerns for deciding
whether or not to mount a sensor directly
to the engine . . . temperature and vibration
effects on the transducer itself . . .generally
low risk but a question to ask and answer.
>I might be wrong, but these are the questions I'd ask: How stiff is
>a braided oil line when it's fully pressurized while the engine is
>running? What does it weigh? How much vibration gets transmitted up
>the fairly stiff pressurized line? How does that weight & vibration
>affect the cantilevered *aluminum* adapters connecting it to the
>pressure sensor? I suspect that the cantilevered weight of the hose
>is more than the weight of the sensor, on its steel mounting
>threads, and there will still be a lot of vibration transmitted to
>the fittings.
>
>Am I mistaken?
Stresses that a flexible line would put on
the threads at the engine are minimal . . . if
the threads are steel . . . the risks are zero.
Risks risk sharply with high moment installations
on rigid, brass, pot-metal or aluminum, christmas-trees.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Molex 638190100A crimper |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Hi Bob,
The pins are tiny little buggers (photo) : Molex MicroBlade 50011 Series Crimp
pins Part# 50011-8000
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418658#418658
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/silver_machine4_005_large_208.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Hi Charlie,
My original concern for having the oil pressure sender mounted on the engine was
a result of a series short time of oil pressure sender failures which were reported
on the Rotax and Europa lists a number of years ago. Due to the placement
of the sender on the engine it was surmised that these were failures from
the sender being repeatedly shaken during engine start and stop. The recommendation
was made by someone on the list that the sender be removed from the engine
and remote mounted on the firewall to get it out of the vibrational environment
of the engine.
In my case I used a length of Aeroquip 666 1/8 hose which is braided stainless
steel over teflon with stainless steel fittings. I have never weighed the line
but it isnt very heavy. Just went out to the shop and weighed a similar length
of 666 with fittings and it weighs 2 oz. I doubt it is any stiffer pressurized
than it is unpressurized. There are no aluminum fittings connecting to
the engine. A steel AN fitting was used to connect the hose to the engine. The
weight of the hose as supported by the engine fitting is considerably less
than the weight of the sender ~16 oz. Considerably less than an ounce on the
fitting. I have confirmed that there are no vibrations being transmitted through
the hose back to the sender or its fittings. The hose seems to do a good
job of absorbing rather than transmitting vibrations.
Hope this helps.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Charlie England wrote:
I'm curious. How many pressure senders have broken *when directly mounted to the
engine*? I see a lot of reports of failures when there's an extension, adapter,
T fitting, etc, but there are thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?)
of those sensors that live while directly mounted on all types of automotive,
industrial and a/c engines.
I might be wrong, but these are the questions I'd ask: How stiff is a braided oil
line when it's fully pressurized while the engine is running? What does it
weigh? How much vibration gets transmitted up the fairly stiff pressurized line?
How does that weight & vibration affect the cantilevered *aluminum* adapters
connecting it to the pressure sensor? I suspect that the cantilevered weight
of the hose is more than the weight of the sensor, on its steel mounting threads,
and there will still be a lot of vibration transmitted to the fittings.
Am I mistaken?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about Z-19 |
| From: | Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Hello Bob
I salute your passion and am in awe and amazement at the collection of
information and knowledge that you have shared.
Z-19 mentions about different notes in several places, after spending
several hours looking through all the documents and the book, somehow I am
unable to locate these notes. Could you please help with this?
Thanks
Hari
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex 638190100A crimper |
http://www.walmart.com/ip/30-Watt-Soldering-Iron/16539504
;-)
On 2/13/2014 10:35 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> The pins are tiny little buggers (photo) : Molex MicroBlade 50011 Series Crimp
pins Part# 50011-8000
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418658#418658
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/silver_machine4_005_large_208.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
Hi Bob,
I do understand worrying about stress & vibration issues. What caught my
attention was what appeared to be aluminum adapters on the pressure
sensor itself, cantilevering the right angle adapter and hose away from
the sensor's mount. I could imagine the aluminum adapters being at risk
more than the steel threaded sensor.
What was the nature of the failures? I was envisioning the sender
breaking off at the threads. Was it some sort of internal failure,
instead? Most current RV-x builders do remote mount the sensor, but they
seem to survive on a lot of motors when they are direct- mounted. If
there is a high percentage of failures on the Rotax, I wonder if it's
caused by the very different frequency of vibration from the Rotax,
compared to most other engines running at constant-RPM.
Charlie
On 2/13/2014 10:57 AM, Robert Borger wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> My original concern for having the oil pressure sender mounted on the engine
was a result of a series short time of oil pressure sender failures which were
reported on the Rotax and Europa lists a number of years ago. Due to the placement
of the sender on the engine it was surmised that these were failures from
the sender being repeatedly shaken during engine start and stop. The recommendation
was made by someone on the list that the sender be removed from the
engine and remote mounted on the firewall to get it out of the vibrational environment
of the engine.
>
> In my case I used a length of Aeroquip 666 1/8 hose which is braided stainless
steel over teflon with stainless steel fittings. I have never weighed the line
but it isnt very heavy. Just went out to the shop and weighed a similar length
of 666 with fittings and it weighs 2 oz. I doubt it is any stiffer pressurized
than it is unpressurized. There are no aluminum fittings connecting to
the engine. A steel AN fitting was used to connect the hose to the engine.
The weight of the hose as supported by the engine fitting is considerably less
than the weight of the sender ~16 oz. Considerably less than an ounce on the
fitting. I have confirmed that there are no vibrations being transmitted through
the hose back to the sender or its fittings. The hose seems to do a good
job of absorbing rather than transmitting vibrations.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Blue skies & tailwinds,
> Bob Borger
> Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
> Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
> Corinth, TX 76208-5331
> Cel: 817-992-1117
> rlborger(at)mac.com
>
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious. How many pressure senders have broken *when directly mounted to
the engine*? I see a lot of reports of failures when there's an extension, adapter,
T fitting, etc, but there are thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?)
of those sensors that live while directly mounted on all types of automotive,
industrial and a/c engines.
>
> I might be wrong, but these are the questions I'd ask: How stiff is a braided
oil line when it's fully pressurized while the engine is running? What does it
weigh? How much vibration gets transmitted up the fairly stiff pressurized line?
How does that weight & vibration affect the cantilevered *aluminum* adapters
connecting it to the pressure sensor? I suspect that the cantilevered weight
of the hose is more than the weight of the sensor, on its steel mounting threads,
and there will still be a lot of vibration transmitted to the fittings.
>
> Am I mistaken?
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about Z-19 |
| From: | Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Please ignore my request for details on the notes, I did find it in the
book.
Thanks
Hari
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Hariharan Gopalan wrote:
> Hello Bob
>
> I salute your passion and am in awe and amazement at the collection of
> information and knowledge that you have shared.
>
> Z-19 mentions about different notes in several places, after spending
> several hours looking through all the documents and the book, somehow I am
> unable to locate these notes. Could you please help with this?
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Charlie,
Yes, there are Al fittings on the sender in the pictures. They were
only for test fitting purposes. Matter of fact, the installation ended
up quite different from the build pictures. I ended up using a longer
length of 666 which was routed over the engine to the sensor. It was
covered in firesleeve & heat shield and tied off a couple times along
the way. I also used steel fittings on the sensor. The aircraft is
down for some repair work and Annual Condition Inspection so I was able
to take some pictures today.
Vibration transmitted to the sensor is pretty close to zero.
The oil pressure senders died from internal failures. The either
stopped sending or sent invalid readings. There were no physical
failures of the attachment to the engine. Those only seemed to occur
when additional fittings were installed between the sender and oil pump.
As was pointed out in another e-mail, a brass weight ring was added to
the sender to modify the harmonic frequency and reduce vibration issues.
I don=92t know if this was effective or not. Haven=92t seen any
complaints of oil pressure sender failures for a couple year.
Yes, there are much different vibration issues with the Rotax. Cruise
RPM in a 91X is 5000 to 5500 RPM. There=92s a 2.43:1 gearbox to the
prop so it is turning at .41 of the engine speed. All these things make
for a challenging vibrational environment.
I=92m presently building a Little Toot Sport Biplane and I will probably
direct mount the oil pressure sender to the engine as it is a Lycoming
IO-320.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
Hi Bob,
I do understand worrying about stress & vibration issues. What caught my
attention was what appeared to be aluminum adapters on the pressure
sensor itself, cantilevering the right angle adapter and hose away from
the sensor's mount. I could imagine the aluminum adapters being at risk
more than the steel threaded sensor.
What was the nature of the failures? I was envisioning the sender
breaking off at the threads. Was it some sort of internal failure,
instead? Most current RV-x builders do remote mount the sensor, but they
seem to survive on a lot of motors when they are direct- mounted. If
there is a high percentage of failures on the Rotax, I wonder if it's
caused by the very different frequency of vibration from the Rotax,
compared to most other engines running at constant-RPM.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Change of business model . . . |
| From: | "toddheffley" <public(at)toddheffley.com> |
Bob
We are in exactly the same situation.
We provide a small volume of test equipment into a ultra specialized market.
www.av-ts.com
I have so much respect for the quality of your past work I would like to talk to
you about your decision,
sales@av-ts.com if you would be interested in further conversation.
Todd
--------
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418688#418688
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | 430 Start-up Delay |
Bob,=0A=0AYou asked me to time the boot/start-up delay of my Garmin 430W.
- Here's what I found.=0A=0AThe short answer is 1 min 13 seconds to re-st
art.=0A=0AHere's the scenario:=0A=0A1. After the 430 initialized, I dialed-
in Clearance Delivery & got my clearance.=0A2. Entered my flight plan & sav
ed.=0A3. Started engine & 430 re-booted - it came back to the Nav screen in
1 min 13 sec=0A=0AI waited for that duration before I could see the freque
ncy display to tune Ground Control freq for taxi.- =0A=0AThe Comm part of
the 430 begins to operate in a few seconds after power-up.- It's the GPS
& display that take 1:13 to initialize.- So, if I had remembered to swit
ch from CD to Ground before engine start, I could have used the radio (even
though I can't see the frequency display) and began my taxi much sooner.
- I remember that about 50% of the time.- It would be nice if it did no
t re-boot in the first place.=0A=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0APS - In a posting a few
weeks ago, someone thought that the 430 stored only 10 flight plans.- It
actually stores 19 flight plans plus the Active flight plan.=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine pressure senders installation |
At 12:56 PM 2/13/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>
>What was the nature of the failures? I was envisioning the sender
>breaking off at the threads.
Yes . . . that's the bottom end of the moment arm
upon which mass of the attached hardware is vibrated.
>Was it some sort of internal failure, instead? Most current RV-x
>builders do remote mount the sensor, but they seem to survive on a
>lot of motors when they are direct- mounted. If there is a high
>percentage of failures on the Rotax, I wonder if it's caused by the
>very different frequency of vibration from the Rotax, compared to
>most other engines running at constant-RPM.
The short, low mass sensor is just fine threaded into
it's designated port on the engine. It's the extension
with non-ferrous materials and adding more mass on the
end that sets up the scenario for failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Z-19 |
At 02:08 PM 2/13/2014, you wrote:
>Please ignore my request for details on the notes, I did find it in the book.
Good. I was going to point you there. If you're pondering
a Z-19 installation, consider also Z-07
http://tinyurl.com/my9u3ud
. . . the work in progress. Much simpler and, I belive,
capable of equal or better reliability for the electrically
dependent auto derivative engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Change of business model . . . |
At 07:28 AM 2/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob
>
>We are in exactly the same situation.
>
>We provide a small volume of test equipment into a ultra specialized market.
>
>www.av-ts.com
>
>I have so much respect for the quality of your past work I would
>like to talk to you about your decision,
>
>sales@av-ts.com if you would be interested in further conversation.
>
>Todd
Sure! What do you have in mind?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Fat wires and plumber's solder |
Bob,
I am in the process of integrating a power input module (Cole Hersee 11041)
see http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/248/11041/ and am wondering
about the best method for connecting a heavy wire to it. The power port is
sized for "up to" 0 AWG wire but the biggest I want to connect to it is 4 or
maybe 2 AWG. The 11041 uses a brass solder socket and is way too big for 2
awg wire. What is the best way to fill up excess space in the socket? I
don't want to simply fill it with solder. Maybe some short wire segments
same length as the depth of the socket?
The second question comes to solder. Normally we don't solder much on
aircraft (at least I haven't) and all of my solder rolls at work are very
small diameter for electronics with flux inside. If I was to use this
solder, I would probably use a ton to tin and drown the heavy wire into the
brass cup. So I had a look at some plumbing solder that I had left over
from a plumbing project. I recall that plumbing solder is not to be used
for electrical connections (corrosive?) but it is nice and thick (maybe
3/16ths) and the label says "LEAD FREE" and "SILVER". I can understand that
for potable water systems, lead free is a good idea but is it really lead
free and is it really silver solder? Most importantly, can this be used for
a beefy electrical solder job?
It might be a good time to have a discussion on plumbing solder and why it
should or should not be used for electrical stuff.
Thanks
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
On 2/14/2014 5:48 PM, B Tomm wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I am in the process of integrating a power input module (Cole Hersee 11041)
> see http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/248/11041/ and am wondering
> about the best method for connecting a heavy wire to it. The power port is
> sized for "up to" 0 AWG wire but the biggest I want to connect to it is 4 or
> maybe 2 AWG. The 11041 uses a brass solder socket and is way too big for 2
> awg wire. What is the best way to fill up excess space in the socket? I
> don't want to simply fill it with solder. Maybe some short wire segments
> same length as the depth of the socket?
>
> The second question comes to solder. Normally we don't solder much on
> aircraft (at least I haven't) and all of my solder rolls at work are very
> small diameter for electronics with flux inside. If I was to use this
> solder, I would probably use a ton to tin and drown the heavy wire into the
> brass cup. So I had a look at some plumbing solder that I had left over
> from a plumbing project. I recall that plumbing solder is not to be used
> for electrical connections (corrosive?) but it is nice and thick (maybe
> 3/16ths) and the label says "LEAD FREE" and "SILVER". I can understand that
> for potable water systems, lead free is a good idea but is it really lead
> free and is it really silver solder? Most importantly, can this be used for
> a beefy electrical solder job?
>
> It might be a good time to have a discussion on plumbing solder and why it
> should or should not be used for electrical stuff.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bevan
>
Before you use it, you might want to price what it will cost you to
replace it. :-) Real silver solder does have a significant percentage of
silver in it.
Bob has a 'comic book' showing how to fill out the space in the crimp
ring with short lengths of copper wire. Basically, cut short (~1/2")
pieces of #12 or #14 solid wire (cut it from household 'romex' wiring),
sharpen one end, & drive it into the strands of your cable in the open
end of the connector until it's filled tight with copper. Then solder.
It's usually plumbing flux that's corrosive, not the solder itself,
unless you have some with flux made into the solder (unlikely with
plumbing solder). However, one issue besides the price of silver solder
is that it usually requires a higher temperature, so you're more likely
to melt your insulation.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
My experience with lead/tin plumbing solder is that it is frequently
available in "acid core" configuration in 1 and 5 lb. spools. The lead
free plumbing solder, which is typically solid wire, is a 95% tin/ 5%
antimony alloy. It does have a higher melting point than the typical
lead/ tin alloys, with or without an "acid core". How it's melting
point compares with silver bearing solder, I don't know. I don't know
what it's electrical properties are either.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 02/14/2014 07:32 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/2014 5:48 PM, B Tomm wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I am in the process of integrating a power input module (Cole Hersee
>> 11041)
>> see http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/248/11041/ and am wondering
>> about the best method for connecting a heavy wire to it. The power
>> port is
>> sized for "up to" 0 AWG wire but the biggest I want to connect to it
>> is 4 or
>> maybe 2 AWG. The 11041 uses a brass solder socket and is way too big
>> for 2
>> awg wire. What is the best way to fill up excess space in the
>> socket? I
>> don't want to simply fill it with solder. Maybe some short wire
>> segments
>> same length as the depth of the socket?
>>
>> The second question comes to solder. Normally we don't solder much on
>> aircraft (at least I haven't) and all of my solder rolls at work are
>> very
>> small diameter for electronics with flux inside. If I was to use this
>> solder, I would probably use a ton to tin and drown the heavy wire
>> into the
>> brass cup. So I had a look at some plumbing solder that I had left over
>> from a plumbing project. I recall that plumbing solder is not to be
>> used
>> for electrical connections (corrosive?) but it is nice and thick (maybe
>> 3/16ths) and the label says "LEAD FREE" and "SILVER". I can
>> understand that
>> for potable water systems, lead free is a good idea but is it really
>> lead
>> free and is it really silver solder? Most importantly, can this be
>> used for
>> a beefy electrical solder job?
>>
>> It might be a good time to have a discussion on plumbing solder and
>> why it
>> should or should not be used for electrical stuff.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bevan
>>
> Before you use it, you might want to price what it will cost you to
> replace it. :-) Real silver solder does have a significant percentage
> of silver in it.
>
> Bob has a 'comic book' showing how to fill out the space in the crimp
> ring with short lengths of copper wire. Basically, cut short (~1/2")
> pieces of #12 or #14 solid wire (cut it from household 'romex'
> wiring), sharpen one end, & drive it into the strands of your cable in
> the open end of the connector until it's filled tight with copper.
> Then solder.
>
> It's usually plumbing flux that's corrosive, not the solder itself,
> unless you have some with flux made into the solder (unlikely with
> plumbing solder). However, one issue besides the price of silver
> solder is that it usually requires a higher temperature, so you're
> more likely to melt your insulation.
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
At 05:48 PM 2/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I am in the process of integrating a power input module (Cole Hersee 11041)
>see http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/248/11041/ and am wondering
>about the best method for connecting a heavy wire to it.
See http://tinyurl.com/m85ohwx
>It might be a good time to have a discussion on plumbing solder and why it
>should or should not be used for electrical stuff.
"Plumbing" solder is not a very definitive
term. Solders come in all sorts of alloys
including the modern lead-free versions. They
each have a unique set of behaviors for joining
parts.
The best-we-know-how-to-do solders are 63/37
Tin-Lead alloys popular with the electronics
industry among others.
63/37 is, perhaps not the optimum structural
alloy but it has some over-riding properties
that make it the joining material of choice
for the things we do.
Lowest melting point of all tin-lead ratios
known as 'eutectic'. This property promotes
joining with the least possible heat stress
on parts and their surrounding insulators.
Nearly zero plastic range . . . it moves
quickly between solid and liquid phases
during temperature excursions. Hence, you
have to work at it to get a 'cold' solder
joint. See Chapter 8 of The 'Connection.
When the occasional task calls for soldering
fat wires to equally fat terminals, I pull off
6 feet or so of my fine-wire, 63/37 and
fold it into a 6-8 strand, twisted bundle.
This offers a nice does of flux into the
joint while increasing the delivery rate
of solder into the melt.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
Nearly zero plastic range . . . it moves
quickly between solid and liquid phases
during temperature excursions. Hence, you
have to work at it to get a 'cold' solder
joint. See Chapter 8 of The 'Connection.
CORRECTION: CHAPTER 9
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Fat wires and plumber's solder |
Thanks Bob and all,
I was concerned that 63/37 may add too much flux causing undesirable
effects. Twisting is together is an excellent idea.
Thanks
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fat wires and plumber's solder
At 05:48 PM 2/14/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
I am in the process of integrating a power input module (Cole Hersee 11041)
see http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/248/11041/ and am wondering
about the best method for connecting a heavy wire to it.
See http://tinyurl.com/m85ohwx
It might be a good time to have a discussion on plumbing solder and why it
should or should not be used for electrical stuff.
"Plumbing" solder is not a very definitive
term. Solders come in all sorts of alloys
including the modern lead-free versions. They
each have a unique set of behaviors for joining
parts.
The best-we-know-how-to-do solders are 63/37
Tin-Lead alloys popular with the electronics
industry among others.
63/37 is, perhaps not the optimum structural
alloy but it has some over-riding properties
that make it the joining material of choice
for the things we do.
Lowest melting point of all tin-lead ratios
known as 'eutectic'. This property promotes
joining with the least possible heat stress
on parts and their surrounding insulators.
Nearly zero plastic range . . . it moves
quickly between solid and liquid phases
during temperature excursions. Hence, you
have to work at it to get a 'cold' solder
joint. See Chapter 8 of The 'Connection.
When the occasional task calls for soldering
fat wires to equally fat terminals, I pull off
6 feet or so of my fine-wire, 63/37 and
fold it into a 6-8 strand, twisted bundle.
This offers a nice does of flux into the
joint while increasing the delivery rate
of solder into the melt.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Fat wires and plumber's solder |
At 10:46 AM 2/15/2014, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob and all,
>
>I was concerned that 63/37 may add too much flux causing undesirable
>effects. Twisting is together is an excellent idea.
>
>Thanks
>
>Bevan
The 'service life' of flux in electronic
solder is measured in seconds. The active
features in the chemistry evaporate pretty
quickly as they dissolve the products of
corrosion from surfaces to be joined. The
residuals do not add to the appearance
of the finished joint but it'a all on
the surface. It wipes off with a rag wetted
with lacquer thinner or acetone. I keep
cans of "carburetor cleaner" around for
spray de-greasing and de-fluxing of work
product.
But there's no risk of deleterious effects
for having left it in place . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerry van Dyk" <gerry.vandyk(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Fat wires and plumber's solder |
However the acid core of structural solder would have a lasting
corrosive
effect on electronics. By all means be sure you use electrical solder.
The specific alloy percentages have little bearing on weather it's
electronic or structural solder, the application determines what flux
you
need to use.
Gerry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: February 15, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fat wires and plumber's solder
At 10:46 AM 2/15/2014, you wrote:
Thanks Bob and all,
I was concerned that 63/37 may add too much flux causing undesirable
effects. Twisting is together is an excellent idea.
Thanks
Bevan
The 'service life' of flux in electronic
solder is measured in seconds. The active
features in the chemistry evaporate pretty
quickly as they dissolve the products of
corrosion from surfaces to be joined. The
residuals do not add to the appearance
of the finished joint but it'a all on
the surface. It wipes off with a rag wetted
with lacquer thinner or acetone. I keep
cans of "carburetor cleaner" around for
spray de-greasing and de-fluxing of work
product.
But there's no risk of deleterious effects
for having left it in place . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
The 'service life' of flux in electronic
solder is measured in seconds. The active
features in the chemistry evaporate pretty
quickly as they dissolve the products of
corrosion from surfaces to be joined. The
residuals do not add to the appearance
of the finished joint but it'a all on
the surface. It wipes off with a rag wetted
with lacquer thinner or acetone. I keep
cans of "carburetor cleaner" around for
spray de-greasing and de-fluxing of work
product.
But there's no risk of deleterious effects
for having left it in place . . .
Question: If one were to use plumbers solder and plumbers flux on a join
t and thouroughly cleaned it with acetone or lacquor thinner, would this be
acceptable? I am just not aware of the chemistry involved, or if anyone h
as done any experimentation with this process.
Roger
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protec
tion is active.
http://www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ & Marilyn" <rmkeith(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
One thing to remember with the 95-5 Tin / Antimony Solder is that it does
not fill gaps well. It was common practice when using 95/5 to flood the
joint with 50/50 solder after first adding the 95/5. Another point is that
real "Silver Solder" AKA "Silver Braze" has 35 of 45 % silver with the
remainder being bronze and melts typically around 1100 degrees f or more.
Plumbers "silver solder" is basically a 95/5 solder with a little silver so
it will fill gaps better and melts around 450 f. I have used rosin core
solder to tin a joint then add the plumbers silver solder to complete the
connection.
Russ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
>
>Question: If one were to use plumbers solder and plumbers flux on a
>joint and thouroughly cleaned it with acetone or lacquor thinner,
>would this be acceptable? I am just not aware of the chemistry
>involved, or if anyone has done any experimentation with this process.
My sense is that the chemistry that promotes
corrosion in the "perfect joint" is all on
the outside and easily neutralized and/or
cleaned. The biggest risk to joint longevity
probably has more to do with alloy than with
removal of residual flux.
>
>Roger
>
>
>----------
><http://www.avast.com/>
>[]
><http://www.avast.com/>
>
>This email is free from viruses and malware because
><http://www.avast.com/>avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Getting the numbers . . . |
We have long and often lamented a lack of
good data to assist in the resolution of certain
performance issues on the AeroElectric-List over the years.
A few weeks ago I ordered some USB based,
analog and digital data acquisition modules off
eBay.
http://tinyurl.com/m68rbdl
Emacs!
Received them yesterday. I downloaded the
companion software and did a quick look-see
at the graphical user interface and confirmed
that the hardware were all talking to each
other.
This is a real bargain . . . not so much for
the DAS module . . . that's easy to duplicate.
The GUI and the data management is a very
non-trivial task and at first blush, these folks
have done a good job.
The eBay listing says 'limited quantities remaining'
after having sold 438 of the things. My guess is that
they're working down a batch of 500.
But even if they run out of hardware, ALL the software
for both the USB DAS module and the GUI is down-loadable
and can be used with your own incarnation of a
USB DAS module.
I've got a lap-top that will become part of a
system I can mail out to AeroElectric-List readers who are willing
to hook it to their airplanes and record some data.
I've mounted the bare-foot module on a prototype
board so I can add an instrumentation amplifier
to the assembly for the purpose of measuring millivolt
shut levels.
This is moving forward nicely but if anyone on
the List even thinks they'd like to possess such
capabilities, they might want to pick up one or
two of the USB-DAS modules.
If this experiment produces pleasing results, it
may become the topic for a Kitplanes article.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Getting the numbers . . . |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
Just noticed this posting. Would this module and the software be useful for
our Egg Subaru 3.6L engine with EGT probes added? Or is it just for
Lycoming and Continentals? We also have a Vertical Power VP-200 and, of
course, the GRT EIS engine monitor with the ability to record to a memory
stick.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> We have long and often lamented a lack of
> good data to assist in the resolution of certain
> performance issues on the AeroElectric-List over the years.
>
> A few weeks ago I ordered some USB based,
> analog and digital data acquisition modules off
> eBay.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m68rbdl
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Received them yesterday. I downloaded the
> companion software and did a quick look-see
> at the graphical user interface and confirmed
> that the hardware were all talking to each
> other.
>
> This is a real bargain . . . not so much for
> the DAS module . . . that's easy to duplicate.
> The GUI and the data management is a very
> non-trivial task and at first blush, these folks
> have done a good job.
>
> The eBay listing says 'limited quantities remaining'
> after having sold 438 of the things. My guess is that
> they're working down a batch of 500.
>
> But even if they run out of hardware, ALL the software
> for both the USB DAS module and the GUI is down-loadable
> and can be used with your own incarnation of a
> USB DAS module.
>
> I've got a lap-top that will become part of a
> system I can mail out to AeroElectric-List readers who are willing
> to hook it to their airplanes and record some data.
>
> I've mounted the bare-foot module on a prototype
> board so I can add an instrumentation amplifier
> to the assembly for the purpose of measuring millivolt
> shut levels.
>
> This is moving forward nicely but if anyone on
> the List even thinks they'd like to possess such
> capabilities, they might want to pick up one or
> two of the USB-DAS modules.
>
> If this experiment produces pleasing results, it
> may become the topic for a Kitplanes article.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting the numbers . . . |
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Just noticed this posting. Would this module and the software be
>useful for our Egg Subaru 3.6L engine with EGT probes added? Or is
>it just for Lycoming and Continentals? We also have a Vertical
>Power VP-200 and, of course, the GRT EIS engine monitor with the
>ability to record to a memory stick.
>
>Dee
This is a stand-alone measurement and recording system.
You might call the USB-DAS module a 5 channel voltmeter
with an input of 0-5v for each channel.
In the investigation of strobe system current profiles
I need to add a shunt to measure current (50 millivolt
drop at 20A), an instrumentation amplifier with a gain
of 100 to boost that 50mV to 5.0v, and an 3:1 attenuator
to drop the 14v bus down to 14/3 to attache to one of
the 5v voltage inputs.
The combination of USB-DAS, laptop and the right
cables, we attach it to the system to be explored . . .
in this case, the strobes that seem to be really
hard on wiring. Turn the strobe on and then get
a few seconds of data. We'll want to get data from
a number of systems . . . both problem and civil
children.
The DYNAMIC voltage-current profiles will, I
hypothesize, give us some insight as to why the problem
children are so hard on switches and other wiring.
If you wanted to use it to gather engine data,
you'd have to craft the same sort of interface between
data points to be recorded and the USB-DAS.
Look at this device as if it were a really dumb
voltmeter with the ability to gather 1000 samples
per second on fast moving data and plot it on a
graph.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting the numbers . . . |
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Just noticed this posting. Would this module and the software be useful
Oops . . . didn't finish. Don't know about the
software. The software OUTPUTS excel or column
delimited text files for the data and will display
the data it gathers on a oscilloscope-like plot.
I don't know yet if it will suck in data
from other sources for graphical observation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 02/15/14 |
On 2/15/14 11:58 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Question: If one were to use plumbers solder and plumbers flux on a
> joint and thouroughly cleaned it with acetone or lacquor thinner,
> would this be acceptable? I am just not aware of the chemistry
> involved, or if anyone has done any experimentation with this process.
> My sense is that the chemistry that promotes
> corrosion in the "perfect joint" is all on
> the outside and easily neutralized and/or
> cleaned. The biggest risk to joint longevity
> probably has more to do with alloy than with
> removal of residual flux.
The problem is that people don't sufficiently neutralize and/or clean
(how would they have known to test that they did?) and stray bits of
flux remain on surfaces that are not protected by solder. Acetone or
hydrocarbon solvents don't help, use water. Alkaline mineral water helps
get to the point where you can't detect any acid on the surface (battery
terminal cleaner spray with phenolphthalein indicator.) A failure mode
I've seen is on copper terminal lugs where the flux has penetrated into
small gaps between clamped surfaces and continues to attack the metal
from there, very similar to what happens when battery acid gets between
a terminal lug and the terminal. Rosin "electrical" flux is only really
active when it's hot; acid "plumbers" flux (primarily hydrochloric acid
or some metal chloride) continues to work when cold. The alloy doesn't
really matter, in my experience, so long as the joint cooled without
movement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Evens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat wires and plumber's solder |
I believe that one thing to keep in mind is that if the solder you're
using is truly 95-5 alloy, it is not advisable to use it with brass.
There is a chemical reaction in the presence of moisture that causes
long-term porosity & pitting of the joint. I'm not sure, but that may
be due to the antimony reacting with something in the brass.
How about the "high-tech" silver-bearing electrical solder, available
from Radio Shack? I've been using it for a few years, believing it to
be superior to the 60-40 standard. I'm sure many of us have seen older
radios or other electronic equipment that suffered multiple
deteriorated solder joints. I had a nice S.A.E. amp at one time that I
had to re-solder just about all of the capacitor leads after it
started having "issues". I'm not sure why that happened, and it
probably had more to do with the soldering technique used in
manufacture rather than the solder itself. That probably doesn't have
much to do with the current discussion, but I wonder if the
"high-tech" stuff might ultimately be more stable.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Joining multiple wires |
I'm certain that I've seen this covered, but after searching, I can't find it.
:(
What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple destinations?
Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
In my case, I've got four different lighting circuits (cabin, panel, annunicators
and map light). I'm not sure if the best practice is them to be individually
fused, but if something goes awry with one lighting circuit, it would be nice
not to lose all the lights, right? [Wink]
But even if it's okay to put all the lights on the same fuse, I've got a couple
other situations where I need to distribute a wire to two or three destinations.
So what's the best approach for doing this?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418865#418865
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
In my case, I've got four different lighting circuits (cabin, panel,
annunicators and map light). I'm not sure if the best practice is
them to be individually fused, but if something goes awry with one
lighting circuit, it would be nice not to lose all the lights, right? [Wink]
Yes, you've articulated the fundamental purpose
for a 'bus' and multiple feeders each enjoying
its own protection. The simple-idea is that such
bus/protection structures prevent catastrophic
damage to wires while keeping faults isolated
to one system. I.e. no single fault propagates across
to other systems.
But even if it's okay to put all the lights on the same fuse, I've
got a couple other situations where I need to distribute a wire to
two or three destinations.
So what's the best approach for doing this?
The mechanics are easy. The value of doing such
a thing is part of your failure mode effects
analysis (FMEA) for YOUR project and how you plan
to use it. If you carry a flashlight in the flight
bag along with your hand-held COMM and GPS radios,
then your FMEA says "Plan C is a considered path
to comfortable termination of flight . . . and ALL
your lighting can be on one fuse.
If the products of your deliberation are not quite
so relaxed, how about half your 'minimal lighting'
on one fuse, other half on second fuse? Maybe you
would find it useful to mount a couple of these guys
http://tinyurl.com/lyeaonf
in brackets on each side of panel as minimalist
flood lighting. Hooked in series and controlled with
a simple dimmer, you could power them from the
bus through a resistor that offers inherent protection
for wiring . . . i.e. no fuse needed. This unique set
of lights would be available if every fuse was popped!
The short answer to your question is: Joining multiple
feeders is easy. Deciding WHICH ones to join and evaluating
the risks during an FMEA takes a bit more thought . . .
something we can assist with but ultimately your
task alone . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
>
> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the multiple wires
at the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply
is a pin on a VPX and there may not be space in the connector housing. I'm
not certain because I haven't thought about doing it like this.
If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing a single
wire to multiple destinations?
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418876#418876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Don;
Did you read to the very bottom of the page in the link??
The section called "practical example"??
It shows multiple wires originating from a single wire attached to a single
terminal which is, I think, what you're asking to do. (the single wire would
go to your single pin on VPX, the multiple wires to your multiple lights.)
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of donjohnston
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 11:22 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
>
<don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> > What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
> > destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each
fuse.
> >
> > Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
>
>
> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the
multiple wires at the
> supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply is a
pin on a VPX and
> there may not be space in the connector housing. I'm not certain because
I haven't
> thought about doing it like this.
>
> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing
a single wire to
> multiple destinations?
>
> -Don
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418876#418876
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Contactor recommendation |
| From: | Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Hello group
Wondering if I can use a 28V cutler hammer 6041 series contactor in a 12V
system?
New Type II contactors are way too expensive and exploring good condition
used ones.
Question is, is it better to use a new inexpensive Type I contactor or a
used Type II.
Are there recommendations for good quality Type I?
TIA
Hari
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Change of business model . . . |
| From: | "toddheffley" <public(at)toddheffley.com> |
Hmmm.
First of all, what are the items we are talking about?
The Open Source WigWag, Overvolage/Lowvoltage Module, a ground module that ties
DSUB pins to a ground plane?
Such care has gone into these products that it seems a shame to let them die.
I would like to propose a Heath Kit - ish approach to saving these projects.
It seems that the real value is enabling "hands on" type builders to stretch their
skill set by learning to solder/troubleshoot their own electronic hardware.
The final outcome of, for example, having a working WigWag is only slightly
valuable. The skill-set is what is actually the desired outcome.
I have no intention of taking on a labor of love, so this will need to generate
a small amount of income per transaction. I am thinking a markup on complete
kits including circuit boards, cases etcetera.
All data Open Source data, of course. Hopefully supported by some nice How-to videos....
Doesn't exactly sound like a get rich quick scheme.....
Also Bob, do I recall a glancing mention of a all-in-one SERVO/IMU/PROCESSOR for
a wing leveler? Is there any development material there?
Todd
--------
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418882#418882
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
[quote="Bob McC"]Don;
Did you read to the very bottom of the page in the link??
The section called "practical example"??
It shows multiple wires originating from a single wire attached to a single
terminal which is, I think, what you're asking to do. (the single wire would
go to your single pin on VPX, the multiple wires to your multiple lights.)
Bob McC
> --
Yes, I did.
And I wrote:
"that could be a problem since the supply is a pin on a VPX and there may not be
space in the connector housing (for 4 wires).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418885#418885
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
On 2/17/2014 10:21 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
>> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
>>
>> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
>
> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the multiple
wires at the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply
is a pin on a VPX and there may not be space in the connector housing. I'm
not certain because I haven't thought about doing it like this.
>
> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing a single
wire to multiple destinations?
>
> -Don
For multiple non-critical low power items that you're going to power
from a single fuse, you can always just 'daisy chain' the supply wire.
One wire in the terminal at the VPX, then at the 1st load, insert the
power source wire and a 2nd wire in the terminal. Run that wire to the
2nd load, repeat. This assumes that the total of all loads is lower than
the capacity of the wire, which should be the case anyway if you're
putting them all on the same fuse. (Fuse should always be sized to
protect the smallest wire connected to it.)
Depending on the location of the loads, this can save a bit of wire (and
weight, if you obsess over weight).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
I guess I am a dumb cluck, but following this thread, I do NOT understand the problem, and I am a lurker trying to learn before I tackle my panel. From Bob's posting the very last display on his http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8hre reference shows a very elegant way to connect, by my count (8 wires) to a single one wire connector on a permanent basis. But this post from Don seems to take us back to the initial problem - not enough space in the original connector to the device for 7 or 8 wires? Am I correct? Why is that last display not a very elegant solution to that problem....what am I missing here? Or am I just stupid? One wire goes into the connector, just like it was designed. At some point in the run of that wire, where ever it is appropriate, then you execute the connection as Bob displayed, and the problem is solved. If not, what am I missing? I keep trying to follow along with these wiring discussions about the proper ways to make connections and route wiring, and I just get lost with the on and on discussion, because I MUST NOT understand the problem since I believe I saw a very elegant answer several posts before either by Bob or others on the group. I have just let it go as a fact that I am just stupid, but this discussion is a good example, and I would appreciate someone explaining to me what I am missing so I can finally alleviate my perpetual "stupidity" condition!
M. Haught
>
> On 2/17/2014 10:21 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>>
>>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>>> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
>>> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
>>>
>>> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
>>
>> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the multiple
wires at the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply
is a pin on a VPX and there may not be space in the connector housing. I'm
not certain because I haven't thought about doing it like this.
>>
>> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing a
single wire to multiple destinations?
>>
>> -Don
> For multiple non-critical low power items that you're going to power from a single
fuse, you can always just 'daisy chain' the supply wire. One wire in the
terminal at the VPX, then at the 1st load, insert the power source wire and a
2nd wire in the terminal. Run that wire to the 2nd load, repeat. This assumes
that the total of all loads is lower than the capacity of the wire, which should
be the case anyway if you're putting them all on the same fuse. (Fuse should
always be sized to protect the smallest wire connected to it.)
>
> Depending on the location of the loads, this can save a bit of wire (and weight,
if you obsess over weight).
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John W Livingston <livingjw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
I saw what you saw. The last picture of Bob's post would solve the
problem. I suspect someone missed the last picture.
John
On 2/17/2014 2:05 PM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>
> I guess I am a dumb cluck, but following this thread, I do NOT understand the problem, and I am a lurker trying to learn before I tackle my panel. From Bob's posting the very last display on his http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8hre reference shows a very elegant way to connect, by my count (8 wires) to a single one wire connector on a permanent basis. But this post from Don seems to take us back to the initial problem - not enough space in the original connector to the device for 7 or 8 wires? Am I correct? Why is that last display not a very elegant solution to that problem....what am I missing here? Or am I just stupid? One wire goes into the connector, just like it was designed. At some point in the run of that wire, where ever it is appropriate, then you execute the connection as Bob displayed, and the problem is solved. If not, what am I missing? I keep trying to follow along with these wiring discussions about the proper ways to make connections and route wiring, and !
> I just get lost with the on and on discussion, because I MUST NOT understand
the problem since I believe I saw a very elegant answer several posts before
either by Bob or others on the group. I have just let it go as a fact that
I am just stupid, but this discussion is a good example, and I would appreciate
someone explaining to me what I am missing so I can finally alleviate my perpetual
"stupidity" condition!
>
> M. Haught
>>
>> On 2/17/2014 10:21 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>>>> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
>>>> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
>>> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the multiple
wires at the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply
is a pin on a VPX and there may not be space in the connector housing.
I'm not certain because I haven't thought about doing it like this.
>>>
>>> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing a
single wire to multiple destinations?
>>>
>>> -Don
>> For multiple non-critical low power items that you're going to power from a
single fuse, you can always just 'daisy chain' the supply wire. One wire in the
terminal at the VPX, then at the 1st load, insert the power source wire and
a 2nd wire in the terminal. Run that wire to the 2nd load, repeat. This assumes
that the total of all loads is lower than the capacity of the wire, which should
be the case anyway if you're putting them all on the same fuse. (Fuse should
always be sized to protect the smallest wire connected to it.)
>>
>> Depending on the location of the loads, this can save a bit of wire (and weight,
if you obsess over weight).
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
Okay, that isn't fair! You just made a basic reply but didn't help alleviate the
"stupidity factor"!!! - Best practice is that last display for connection
to a single wire connector? Multiple components driven by that wire makes that
specific type of connection appropriate? Sorry, but I am trying to eliminate
some confusion on my part!
M. Haught
On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:47 PM, John W Livingston wrote:
>
> I saw what you saw. The last picture of Bob's post would solve the problem. I
suspect someone missed the last picture.
>
> John
>
> On 2/17/2014 2:05 PM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>>
>> I guess I am a dumb cluck, but following this thread, I do NOT understand the problem, and I am a lurker trying to learn before I tackle my panel. From Bob's posting the very last display on his http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8hre reference shows a very elegant way to connect, by my count (8 wires) to a single one wire connector on a permanent basis. But this post from Don seems to take us back to the initial problem - not enough space in the original connector to the device for 7 or 8 wires? Am I correct? Why is that last display not a very elegant solution to that problem....what am I missing here? Or am I just stupid? One wire goes into the connector, just like it was designed. At some point in the run of that wire, where ever it is appropriate, then you execute the connection as Bob displayed, and the problem is solved. If not, what am I missing? I keep trying to follow along with these wiring discussions about the proper ways to make connections and route wiring, an!
> d !
>> I just get lost with the on and on discussion, because I MUST NOT understand
the problem since I believe I saw a very elegant answer several posts before
either by Bob or others on the group. I have just let it go as a fact that
I am just stupid, but this discussion is a good example, and I would appreciate
someone explaining to me what I am missing so I can finally alleviate my perpetual
"stupidity" condition!
>>
>> M. Haught
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2014 10:21 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>>>>> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
>>>>> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for each fuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
>>>> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the multiple
wires at the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the
supply is a pin on a VPX and there may not be space in the connector housing.
I'm not certain because I haven't thought about doing it like this.
>>>>
>>>> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for distributing
a single wire to multiple destinations?
>>>>
>>>> -Don
>>> For multiple non-critical low power items that you're going to power from a
single fuse, you can always just 'daisy chain' the supply wire. One wire in the
terminal at the VPX, then at the 1st load, insert the power source wire and
a 2nd wire in the terminal. Run that wire to the 2nd load, repeat. This assumes
that the total of all loads is lower than the capacity of the wire, which should
be the case anyway if you're putting them all on the same fuse. (Fuse should
always be sized to protect the smallest wire connected to it.)
>>>
>>> Depending on the location of the loads, this can save a bit of wire (and weight,
if you obsess over weight).
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Don;
The last picture in the post (the "practical example")has ONE wire going to
ONE pin, just as designed. How do you feel the need to get 4 wires into the
housing??? I must be missing something in your question.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of donjohnston
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:30 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
>
<don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> [quote="Bob McC"]Don;
>
> Did you read to the very bottom of the page in the link??
> The section called "practical example"??
> It shows multiple wires originating from a single wire attached to a
single
> terminal which is, I think, what you're asking to do. (the single wire
would
> go to your single pin on VPX, the multiple wires to your multiple lights.)
>
> Bob McC
>
>
> > --
>
>
> Yes, I did.
>
> And I wrote:
>
> "that could be a problem since the supply is a pin on a VPX and there may
not be space
> in the connector housing (for 4 wires).
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418885#418885
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Marvin;
Yes. The last picture under "practical example" is one way to connect
multiple wires to a single source when space within the connector may be an
issue. It allows for a single wire into the connector, just as it was
designed for and is an acceptable way to take that single wire to multiple
devices. (assuming the fusing of that single source is properly protecting
the SMALLEST wire attached downstream of it)
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H. Marvin Haught
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:19 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
>
>
>
> Okay, that isn't fair! You just made a basic reply but didn't help
alleviate the "stupidity
> factor"!!! - Best practice is that last display for connection to a
single wire connector?
> Multiple components driven by that wire makes that specific type of
connection
> appropriate? Sorry, but I am trying to eliminate some confusion on my
part!
>
> M. Haught
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:47 PM, John W Livingston wrote:
>
> >
> > I saw what you saw. The last picture of Bob's post would solve the
problem. I suspect
> someone missed the last picture.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On 2/17/2014 2:05 PM, H. Marvin Haught wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I guess I am a dumb cluck, but following this thread, I do NOT
understand the
> problem, and I am a lurker trying to learn before I tackle my panel. From
Bob's posting
> the very last display on his http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8hre reference shows
a very
> elegant way to connect, by my count (8 wires) to a single one wire
connector on a
> permanent basis. But this post from Don seems to take us back to the
initial problem -
> not enough space in the original connector to the device for 7 or 8 wires?
Am I correct?
> Why is that last display not a very elegant solution to that
problem....what am I missing
> here? Or am I just stupid? One wire goes into the connector, just like it
was designed.
> At some point in the run of that wire, where ever it is appropriate, then
you execute the
> connection as Bob displayed, and the problem is solved. If not, what am I
missing? I
> keep trying to follow along with these wiring discussions about the proper
ways to make
> connections and route wiring, a!
> n!
> > d !
> >> I just get lost with the on and on discussion, because I MUST NOT
understand the
> problem since I believe I saw a very elegant answer several posts before
either by Bob
> or others on the group. I have just let it go as a fact that I am just
stupid, but this
> discussion is a good example, and I would appreciate someone explaining to
me what I
> am missing so I can finally alleviate my perpetual "stupidity" condition!
> >>
> >> M. Haught
>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/17/2014 10:21 AM, donjohnston wrote:
<don@velocity-xl.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >>>>> What's the preferred method for taking a single supply to multiple
> >>>>> destinations? Specifically, a fuse block with individual tabs for
each fuse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's a couple suggestions on the mechanics of the task . . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
> >>>> As I read this, my interpretation is that the answer is to join the
multiple wires at
> the supply. If that's correct, that could be a problem since the supply
is a pin on a VPX
> and there may not be space in the connector housing. I'm not certain
because I haven't
> thought about doing it like this.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this solution won't work, are there any other methods for
distributing a single
> wire to multiple destinations?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Don
> >>> For multiple non-critical low power items that you're going to power
from a single
> fuse, you can always just 'daisy chain' the supply wire. One wire in the
terminal at the
> VPX, then at the 1st load, insert the power source wire and a 2nd wire in
the terminal.
> Run that wire to the 2nd load, repeat. This assumes that the total of all
loads is lower
> than the capacity of the wire, which should be the case anyway if you're
putting them all
> on the same fuse. (Fuse should always be sized to protect the smallest
wire connected
> to it.)
> >>>
> >>> Depending on the location of the loads, this can save a bit of wire
(and weight, if
> you obsess over weight).
> >>>
> >>> Charlie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Change of business model . . . |
At 11:31 AM 2/17/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm.
>
>First of all, what are the items we are talking about?
All of the original AeroElectric Connection products and
about a dozen new ones will return. They just wont
be manufactured and shipped from here.
Discussions are in the works . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contactor recommendation |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Hari, we bought our contactors for our Subaru Eggenfellner 3.6L from B&C.
Doug, our electrical guru, said they were not expensive.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Hariharan Gopalan wrote:
> Hello group
>
> Wondering if I can use a 28V cutler hammer 6041 series contactor in a 12V
> system?
>
> New Type II contactors are way too expensive and exploring good condition
> used ones.
>
> Question is, is it better to use a new inexpensive Type I contactor or a
> used Type II.
>
> Are there recommendations for good quality Type I?
>
> TIA
>
> Hari
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Change of business model . . . |
| From: | "toddheffley" <public(at)toddheffley.com> |
Great Bob! Glad to hear you have something going.
Don't let them beat you down at Cessna!
Todd
--------
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418917#418917
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor recommendation |
At 11:30 AM 2/17/2014, you wrote:
>Hello group
>
>Wondering if I can use a 28V cutler hammer 6041 series contactor in
>a 12V system?
>
>New Type II contactors are way too expensive and exploring good
>condition used ones.
>
>Question is, is it better to use a new inexpensive Type I contactor
>or a used Type II.
>
>Are there recommendations for good quality Type I?
I'll suggest you update yourself on the
contactor discussions here on the List.
In particular, this thread in the archives . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kdkbhk7
"Good quality" is not a quantified term.
One might infer that the speaker's concerns
are for "reliability" in the sense that the
part has an attractively low demonstrated failure rate.
Or the speaker may be referring to service life
wherein the demonstrated effects of wear-and-
tear are not so great as to necessitate unduly
frequent replacement. But then, both gross
failure and wear-out will drive a remove and
replace event . . . so perhaps there is little
value in differentiating the root cause for
the replacement.
Contactor failure rooted in any cause is of
little safety concern for the failure tolerant
design (see chapter 17) . . . it should be only
a cost-of-ownership issue.
The beer-barrel contactors from White-Rogers/
Stancore and Cole-Hersee . . .
http://tinyurl.com/lomgmle
. . . have been around for a very long time. They
demonstrate low remove/replace rates and
are quite economical. One may embrace any
number of ideas for 'upgrading' a contactor
but in the final analysis, a positive return
on investment is exceedingly hard to demonstrate.
If it were my airplane . . .
Emacs!
. . . these can be purchased from a variety
of sources.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
[quote="Bob McC"]Don;
The last picture in the post (the "practical example")has ONE wire going to
ONE pin, just as designed. How do you feel the need to get 4 wires into the
housing??? I must be missing something in your question.
Bob McC
> --
Bob,
My apologies. I didn't see the very bottom image. I followed the sequence and
saw the multiple wires to a single ring terminal and figured that was the end
of the post.
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418935#418935
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Bob McC - For some reason, your last post did not come through on my
email, and I found it on the aeroelectric site. Thank you for the
affirmation - and you brought out a point that I have been
missing....fusing is to protect the SMALLEST wire in the downstream.
Could you provide a practical example?
Also, Bob, did you ever get the new edition of the manual completed? Is
it available? If so, I would like to make an order.
M. Haught
Marvin;
Yes. The last picture under "practical example" is one way to connect
multiple wires to a single source when space within the connector may be
an
issue. It allows for a single wire into the connector, just as it was
designed for and is an acceptable way to take that single wire to
multiple
devices. (assuming the fusing of that single source is properly
protecting
the SMALLEST wire attached downstream of it)
Bob McC
[quote] --
On Feb 17, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Bob McCallum wrote:
>
> Don;
>
> The last picture in the post (the "practical example")has ONE wire
going to
> ONE pin, just as designed. How do you feel the need to get 4 wires
into the
> housing??? I must be missing something in your question.
>
> Bob McC
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
>> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of donjohnston
>> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:30 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
>>
> <don@velocity-xl.com>
>>
>> [quote="Bob McC"]Don;
>>
>> Did you read to the very bottom of the page in the link??
>> The section called "practical example"??
>> It shows multiple wires originating from a single wire attached to a
> single
>> terminal which is, I think, what you're asking to do. (the single
wire
> would
>> go to your single pin on VPX, the multiple wires to your multiple
lights.)
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> Yes, I did.
>>
>> And I wrote:
>>
>> "that could be a problem since the supply is a pin on a VPX and there
may
> not be space
>> in the connector housing (for 4 wires).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418885#418885
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _-
>> ========================
====
>> =====
>> _-
>> ========================
====
>> =====
>> _-
>> ========================
====
>> =====
>> _-
>> ========================
====
>> =====
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
At 08:51 AM 2/18/2014, you wrote:
>Bob McC - For some reason, your last post did not come through on my
>email, and I found it on the aeroelectric site. Thank you for the
>affirmation - and you brought out a point that I have been
>missing....fusing is to protect the SMALLEST wire in the
>downstream. Could you provide a practical example?
>
>Also, Bob, did you ever get the new edition of the manual
>completed? Is it available? If so, I would like to make an order.
No, that's some time off yet. I'm having to shoe-horn
it into a single word processing application and
completely review all past words and illustrations.
Rev 12 will be with us for a bit yet . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Okay, where do I order Rev 12?
M. Haught
On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:51 AM 2/18/2014, you wrote:
>> Bob McC - For some reason, your last post did not come through on my
email, and I found it on the aeroelectric site. Thank you for the
affirmation - and you brought out a point that I have been
missing....fusing is to protect the SMALLEST wire in the downstream.
Could you provide a practical example?
>>
>> Also, Bob, did you ever get the new edition of the manual completed?
Is it available? If so, I would like to make an order.
>
> No, that's some time off yet. I'm having to shoe-horn
> it into a single word processing application and
> completely review all past words and illustrations.
>
> Rev 12 will be with us for a bit yet . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joining multiple wires |
Marvin=3B
Lets use Ron's example of several lighting circuits off of one fuse. Preten
d he chooses to use 18 gauge wire to run out to some "ice" lights at the en
ds of the wings and from the same fuse uses 22gauge wires to bring power to
some overhead panel flood lights and some 20 gauge wire leading to a map l
ight. The fuse installed would have to be sized to protect the 22gauge wire
. The SMALLEST wire downstream of the fuse. You wouldn't want to size the f
use for the 18 gauge wire because a short on the 22 gauge might melt the wi
re before the fuse blew. A very bad idea. Also keep in mind that the fuse a
nd thus SMALLEST wire must be capable of carrying the TOTAL load of ALL ite
ms attached to that one fuse. (Even though the loads have their own individ
ual wires and all the load isn't actually carried on the smallest wire. Rem
ember the fuse protects the wire=2C nothing else.)
Bob McC
From: handainc(at)madisoncounty.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
Date: Tue=2C 18 Feb 2014 08:51:10 -0600
Bob McC - For some reason=2C your last post did not come through on my emai
l=2C and I found it on the aeroelectric site. Thank you for the affirmatio
n - and you brought out a point that I have been missing....fusing is to pr
otect the SMALLEST wire in the downstream. Could you provide a practical e
xample?
Also=2C Bob=2C did you ever get the new edition of the manual completed? I
s it available? If so=2C I would like to make an order.
M. Haught
Marvin=3B=0A
=0A
Yes. The last picture under "practical example" is one way to connect=0A
multiple wires to a single source when space within the connector may be an
=0A
issue. It allows for a single wire into the connector=2C just as it was=0A
designed for and is an acceptable way to take that single wire to multiple
=0A
devices. (assuming the fusing of that single source is properly protecting
=0A
the SMALLEST wire attached downstream of it)=0A
=0A
Bob McC=0A
=0A
[quote] --
On Feb 17=2C 2014=2C at 2:23 PM=2C Bob McCallum wrote:--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: Bob McCallum
Don=3B
The last picture in the post (the "practical example")has ONE wire going to
ONE pin=2C just as designed. How do you feel the need to get 4 wires into t
he
housing??? I must be missing something in your question.
Bob McC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of donjohnston
Sent: Monday=2C February 17=2C 2014 1:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Joining multiple wires
<don@velocity-xl.com>
[quote="Bob McC"]Don=3B
Did you read to the very bottom of the page in the link??
The section called "practical example"??
It shows multiple wires originating from a single wire attached to a
single
terminal which is=2C I think=2C what you're asking to do. (the single wire
would
go to your single pin on VPX=2C the multiple wires to your multiple lights.
)
Bob McC
--
Yes=2C I did.
And I wrote:
"that could be a problem since the supply is a pin on a VPX and there may
not be space
in the connector housing (for 4 wires).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418885#418885
_-
===
=====
_-
===
=====
_-
===
=====
_-
===
=====
http://www.m &n - &nbs --> h
ttp://www.matronics.com/co================
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob's audio amplifier http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Iso_Amp_9009-700L.pdf has 10 microfarad capacitors connected to the LM386 input. Does the polarity matter in this circuit? If so, I assume that the curved part of the capacitor symbol is negative.
Are the values of the input capacitors and resistors critical? I have seen similar
circuits whose capacitors are 1 microfarad and whose resistors are 10K
or even 100K.
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418965#418965
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | PCB Mfg board house |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I recently designed a circuit board using Cadsoft Eagle. The program is not intuitive
and requires reading the directions or watching YouTube tutorials. Even
after learning the program, if not used regularly, it is soon forgotten and
requires watching the tutorial over again. I could have saved many hours by
using ExpressPCB which is very easy to learn. But I wanted to be able to use
a more competitive PCB board house. I sent my design to Elecrow in Hong Kong
and they made 5 boards 10 x 10 cm for $23 delivered. The boards are beautiful
and exactly like I ordered, including my mistakes. :-) The only disadvantage
is that it took a whole month from the time I ordered the boards until they
arrived in the mail.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418966#418966
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Amp input |
On 2/18/2014 7:28 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Bob's audio amplifier http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Iso_Amp_9009-700L.pdf has 10 microfarad capacitors connected to the LM386 input. Does the polarity matter in this circuit? If so, I assume that the curved part of the capacitor symbol is negative.
> Are the values of the input capacitors and resistors critical? I have seen
similar circuits whose capacitors are 1 microfarad and whose resistors are 10K
or even 100K.
> Thanks, Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
The straight line is the positive terminal of the capacitor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=electrolytic+capacitor+symbol&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aBEEU5SrG43ykQfX-YHQDQ&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=993
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Joe,
I agree with you re ExpressPCB, PCB123, and similar services. Their software isn't
anywhere near as competent as a commercial CAD package, your files are locked
into a format that's not portable, and you can only order boards from their
overpriced fab service.
I tried Eagle some years ago and found its interface impenetrable. I switched
to DipTrace and have never looked back. I found it much easier and more intuitive
to learn.
Take the time to set up the design rules for your board fab in DipTrace, and turn
on real-time Design Rules Checking. It will instantly show you if trace spacing
is too close, you have unconnected or cross-connected nets, etc. This reduces
board errors to zero (unless your source schematic contains errors, of
course).
Click "Buy" then "Non-Profit" to get a free license. The site also has a nice
video guided tour and PDF tutorial document.
http://www.diptrace.com/
For prototype or small run PCBs, I use OSH Park. They charge $5 per square inch
for three copies of your board, made in the USA, with free USPS First Class
Mail shipping. I've put dozens of orders through their system and been very pleased.
I had one order a year or so ago that had a manufacturing error in one
of the three boards, but they emailed to notify me before the boards even arrived.
It made no difference, as I only needed one board. The only time I use
a Chinese fab is if I need 2-ounce copper, which is very costly from domestic
fabs.
If you continue using Eagle, you can just upload your .BRD file to OSH Park. With
any other CAD package, you just upload a .ZIP containing your Gerber files.
The website shows you a rendering of what your board will look like, then you
can order. It's a very slick system. Boards typically arrive in less than
two weeks.
http://www.oshpark.com/
If you do surface mount designs and want to simplify assembly by using a solder
paste stencil, you can get them for very reasonable prices at OSH Stencils.
Like OSH Park, you just upload a .ZIP containing your board outline and top paste
Gerbers, and the site shows you a picture of your stencil before you order.
My last order for two stencils was produced the day after I ordered and arrived
in about four days.
http://www.oshstencils.com/
Eric
On Feb 18, 2014, at 8:51 PM, "user9253" wrote:
> I recently designed a circuit board using Cadsoft Eagle. The program is not
intuitive and requires reading the directions or watching YouTube tutorials.
Even after learning the program, if not used regularly, it is soon forgotten and
requires watching the tutorial over again. I could have saved many hours by
using ExpressPCB which is very easy to learn. But I wanted to be able to use
a more competitive PCB board house. I sent my design to Elecrow in Hong Kong
and they made 5 boards 10 x 10 cm for $23 delivered. The boards are beautiful
and exactly like I ordered, including my mistakes. :-) The only disadvantage
is that it took a whole month from the time I ordered the boards until they
arrived in the mail.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio Amp input |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Joe,
If you really want to split hairs, the symbol on Bob's schematic does mean polarized
capacitor, but many symbol guides use it interchangeably with the symbol
that uses two straight lines (unpolarized). For schematics drawn in the US,
unless you see a "+" on the straight line, it's generally safe to assume the cap
is unpolarized.
If you look at the photos of Bob's circuit board, you can see that he used unpolarized
ceramic capacitors across the board.
I'll leave it to Bob to handle your question about R and C values on the input.
I suspect he chose those values for reasons of impedance matching...
Eric
On Feb 18, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "user9253" wrote:
> Bob's audio amplifier http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Iso_Amp_9009-700L.pdf has 10 microfarad capacitors connected to the LM386 input. Does the polarity matter in this circuit? If so, I assume that the curved part of the capacitor symbol is negative.
> Are the values of the input capacitors and resistors critical? I have seen
similar circuits whose capacitors are 1 microfarad and whose resistors are 10K
or even 100K.
> Thanks, Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Eric,
Thanks for that information.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418976#418976
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
My two cents:
Eagle is a great program compared to many PCB design programs. It comes in several versions. It would be my first choice for boards that need autorouting. It's probably worth reviewing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAGLE_(program)
I use www.ExpressPCB.com exclusively now, since my PCBs are the size of postage stamps. Their great advantages are:
1) Lightning fast delivery. I can finish a design Tuesday am and get the PCBs Friday
am.
2) Stunning easy to learn. The learning curve is a "One Cup of Coffee to Expert"
experience.
3) Schematic Capture and Layout modules are FREE.
And yes, they will send you the Gerbers for a reasonable charge after your first
order (I think).
--------
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=418995#418995
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house |
At 09:07 AM 2/19/2014, you wrote:
>
>My two cents:
I use www.ExpressPCB.com exclusively now, since my PCBs are the size
of postage stamps. Their great advantages are:
1) Lightning fast delivery. I can finish a design Tuesday am and get
the PCBs Friday am.
2) Stunning easy to learn. The learning curve is a "One Cup of Coffee
to Expert" experience.
3) Schematic Capture and Layout modules are FREE.
I will echo Eric's sentiments. For the kinds of things
I do, time is often of the essence. I submitted an order
for proof of concept boards to Exp-PCB yesterday morning,
will have boards tomorrow morning and assembled samples
in my customer's hands Friday morning (or even late
tomorrow night if they so wish) . . . even tho I live
in cow-town KS . . .
The software is stunningly easy to learn, custom
components easily crafted, turn-around times difficult
to better. Their software also spits out .dxf files
of the board with holes and parts locations so that
creating an assembly drawing in any dxf friendly
cad program is greatly assisted.
Had one customer voice some amazement that holes
in the board I provided "lined up exactly" with
CAD/CNC holes in his target assembly. Don't know
where his previous disappointments came from but
the transitions from Exp-PCB -> cad -> g-code ->
aluminum are in solid lock-step with each other.
When you're charging my exorbitant fees for $time$,
the external costs for materials and services are
relatively insignificant. Most customers are interested
in shortest path to workable solutions. I think there
may be some services on a par with Exp-PCB but I've
used Exp-PCB for many years with no note-worthy
incentives to change.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house |
On 2/19/2014 10:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:07 AM 2/19/2014, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> My two cents:
> I use www.ExpressPCB.com exclusively now, since my PCBs are the size
> of postage stamps. Their great advantages are:
>
> 2) Stunning easy to learn. The learning curve is a "One Cup of Coffee
> to Expert" experience.
>
> The software is stunningly easy to learn, custom
> components easily crafted, turn-around times difficult
> to better.
On a somewhat unrelated note, the ExpressSCH software (free) is an
excellent tool for documenting aircraft electrical diagrams if one does
not already have skills with an appropriate drawing tool. Though
intended for use in designing custom circuit boards, it adapts well to
the task of drawing electrical diagrams for your project. Since it
'knows' circuits, it works in a way that is compatible with generalized
electrical diagram documentation. Not as good as Autocad/Turbocad but
much easier to learn for this simple task. I can pick it up after 6
months to make a change and am able to use it without relearning
anything. As Bob said above, "Stunning easy to learn". Great for 'one
time use'.
Thanks to whoever originally suggested this.
Here's my Z-14 drawn using ExpressSCH
Z-14 for RV10
(ExpressSCH is one of the two components of the ExpressPCB package. You
only need the ExpressSCH to draw diagrams for your aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Amp input |
At 07:28 PM 2/18/2014, you wrote:
Bob's audio amplifier
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Iso_Amp_9009-700L.pdf has 10
microfarad capacitors connected to the LM386 input. Does the
polarity matter in this circuit? If so, I assume that the curved
part of the capacitor symbol is negative.
Are the values of the input capacitors and resistors critical? I
have seen similar circuits whose capacitors are 1 microfarad and
whose resistors are 10K or even 100K.
Thanks, Joe
Those resistors were selected with two criteria in
mind
(1) the input impedance of the amplifier was crafted
to be in the same ballpark as the aviation headsets
150-600 ohms. Hence the suggested first-choice values
for resistors on the gain-selection sockets of 150 ohms.
(2) the 'amplifier' didn't really need to have any
gain . . . we're wanting to simply mix a combination
of headset audio values together into an output on
the same order. The LM386 chip as a minimum gain
of 20
http://tinyurl.com/ps3zj69
so the downstream resistor wanted to offer some
attenuation of the incoming signal. In this
case, 10 ohm resistors offered a 15:1 attenuation
ratio.
The figures on Page 8 of the assembly manual show
dipped tantalum capacitors in most of the slots, exceptions
being 120, 121 and 127 which are monolythic ceramics.
However, these three capacitors COULD also be tantalums
which is why the parts locator drawing has polarity dots
on the capacitor locations to denote the more positive
terminal.
Input coupling capacitor polarity is not critical . . .
if any DC differences are expected between the amplifier
and a signal source, it is supposed to be zero to very
small . . . there is little potential for undesired
performance should these capacitors be installed the
other way.
Most schematics will use the flat-plate/curved-plate
symbol for all capacitors. About the only time you'll
find flat/flat symbols is in the legacy literature.
If the bill of materials calls out electrolytic
for a particular capacitor, then the schematic will
often included a + adjacent to the positive terminal
but lacking specific instructions, the flat plate is
supposed to always be +.
http://tinyurl.com/ps3zj69
Flat/flat capacitor symbols didn't garner favor for
very long. Some of the oldest Heathkit and ARRL publications
went flat/curved for all variants of the capacitor
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio Amp input |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob and all, thanks for the explanations. Using a capacitor symbol with a curved
line avoids confusion with the symbol for relay contacts which has two straight
lines.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419005#419005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio - seems to be correlated to |
Autopilot being ON and Engine RPM
Hello listers,
I have a noise problem on my GNS430 COM radio that's mounted on my Rotax 912
powered Kitfox. The plane only has about 30 hours on it since it was
completely rebuilt. I had not noticed this noise problem initially, only
during the last 10 hours or so.
The noise is intermittent but seems to be strongly correlated to two things
- when the Autopilot (Trio Avionics ProPilot) is switched on I get much more
noise. This noise is present even when the engine is off. It's like the
squelch breaking. For some reason I've noticed that it happens more when I
move the stick back and forth... I have no idea why this may be.
- engine RPM - when I increase the throttle the noise becomes more and seems
to increase in pitch and intensity.
I'm suspecting at least one faulty ground connection. It's possible that it
could also be due to the fact that the magneto wires (well, I'm not sure
they are real magnetos, the engine is a Rotax 912UL) are not shielded as I
didn't know any better when I wired them the first time.
(Most of the wires that come from the panel go through connectors; in this
way, I can remove the panel from the aircraft by detaching three connectors
and the wire harness to the Autopilot.).
My question is: how do I go about isolating what the fault might be? I'm
dreading having to take apart every single wire in the avionics
interconnections.
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe? |
> I agree with you re ExpressPCB, PCB123, and similar services [...]
DipTrace [...] OSH Park
Does anyone know of any online PCB manufacturer that delivers to the
UK/Europe?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe? |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Yep... www.pcb-pool.com
I've used the South African incantation a number of times with great
success.
On 20 February 2014 23:36, Sacha wrote:
>
> > I agree with you re ExpressPCB, PCB123, and similar services [...]
> DipTrace [...] OSH Park
>
> Does anyone know of any online PCB manufacturer that delivers to the
> UK/Europe?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe? |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
On 20 February 2014 23:36, Sacha wrote:
> Does anyone know of any online PCB manufacturer that delivers to the UK/Eu
rope?
OSH Park ships international for free. See here: http://bit.ly/1cwmLTt
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: noise problem on radio - seems to be correlated |
to Autopilot being ON and Engine RPM
The noise is intermittent but seems to be strongly correlated to two things
- when the Autopilot (Trio Avionics ProPilot) is switched on I get much more
noise. This noise is present even when the engine is off. It's like the
squelch breaking.
The image (or sound) that pops to mind with the term
"squelch breaking" is the sort of white noise you
get from an receiver when no useful signal is present
but the volume is turned up. The noise is a combination
of atmospheric and internally generated noises. Is
this the kind of noise you're hearing?
For some reason I've noticed that it happens more when I
move the stick back and forth... I have no idea why this may be.
- engine RPM - when I increase the throttle the noise becomes more and seems
to increase in pitch and intensity.
But it's present even when the engine is not running?
I'm suspecting at least one faulty ground connection.
Not sure there is foundation for this supposition yet . . .
It's possible that it
could also be due to the fact that the magneto wires (well, I'm not sure
they are real magnetos, the engine is a Rotax 912UL) are not shielded as I
didn't know any better when I wired them the first time.
The 912 has a form of capacitor discharge ignition system.
See . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mmwemuu
The capacitors are charged via separate coils on
the PM alternator stator stack . . . the larger two
of ten coils visible here.
http://tinyurl.com/lndjw9n
The Rotax manual calls for shielded wire on the ignition control
lines . . . which is fine . . . but it also calls for the shields
to be grounded at both ends which is not fine . . . at the
engine end only and use the shield as a ground for the
ignition switch. See:
http://tinyurl.com/n3oy37f
However, since you say the noise is present with the
engine not running . . . then the wiring of the ignition
switches is not a likely source of your difficulties.
(Most of the wires that come from the panel go through connectors; in this
way, I can remove the panel from the aircraft by detaching three connectors
and the wire harness to the Autopilot.).
My question is: how do I go about isolating what the fault might be? I'm
dreading having to take apart every single wire in the avionics
interconnections.
Study the chapter on noise and formulate a plan . . . it's
like playing Clue (Mr. Mustard with the Pipe in the Library).
This is an exercise in hypothesis development and elimination
which starts with identifying the antagonist. The antagonist's
nose signature is your first clue . . . so we first need to qualify
the "breaking squelch" term.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: noise problem on radio |
URL Corrections. Seems my capture of image URLs out on
the web were flaky . . . I've posted the images to my
website and re-linked them in this repeat of my
earlier posting . . .
===============================================================
The noise is intermittent but seems to be strongly correlated to two things
- when the Autopilot (Trio Avionics ProPilot) is switched on I get much more
noise. This noise is present even when the engine is off. It's like the
squelch breaking.
The image (or sound) that pops to mind with the term
"squelch breaking" is the sort of white noise you
get from an receiver when no useful signal is present
but the volume is turned up. The noise is a combination
of atmospheric and internally generated noises. Is
this the kind of noise you're hearing?
For some reason I've noticed that it happens more when I
move the stick back and forth... I have no idea why this may be.
- engine RPM - when I increase the throttle the noise becomes more and seems
to increase in pitch and intensity.
But it's present even when the engine is not running?
I'm suspecting at least one faulty ground connection.
Not sure there is foundation for this supposition yet . . .
It's possible that it
could also be due to the fact that the magneto wires (well, I'm not sure
they are real magnetos, the engine is a Rotax 912UL) are not shielded as I
didn't know any better when I wired them the first time.
The 912 has a form of capacitor discharge ignition system.
See . . .
http://tinyurl.com/ouvxh42
The capacitors are charged via separate coils on
the PM alternator stator stack . . . the larger two
of ten coils visible here.
http://tinyurl.com/ohkdgc6
The Rotax manual calls for shielded wire on the ignition control
lines . . . which is fine . . . but it also calls for the shields
to be grounded at both ends which is not fine . . . at the
engine end only and use the shield as a ground for the
ignition switch. See:
http://tinyurl.com/n3oy37f
However, since you say the noise is present with the
engine not running . . . then the wiring of the ignition
switches is not a likely source of your difficulties.
(Most of the wires that come from the panel go through connectors; in this
way, I can remove the panel from the aircraft by detaching three connectors
and the wire harness to the Autopilot.).
My question is: how do I go about isolating what the fault might be? I'm
dreading having to take apart every single wire in the avionics
interconnections.
Study the chapter on noise and formulate a plan . . . it's
like playing Clue (Mr. Mustard with the Pipe in the Library).
This is an exercise in hypothesis development and elimination
which starts with identifying the antagonist. The antagonist's
nose signature is your first clue . . . so we first need to qualify
the "breaking squelch" term.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Off line for a few days . . . |
Dr. Dee and I are going to pick up her favorite
aunt and uncle in Leon, KS today and meander up
through the Flint Hills toward Kansas City for
an 'unplugged' weekend . . .
Be back Monday night . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 91X 26 amp Gen2 $137.50 per amp |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
Those who have a Rotax 91X know things aren't cheap.
Here's a 26 amp Gen2 for $137.50 per amp:
http://sportair.aero/12-epapower/epapower/
Ron Parigoris
BTW if you are a real die hard you can put one on the 130 HP 915 for $57,250
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419115#419115
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 91X 26 amp Gen2 $137.50 per amp |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
Those who have a Rotax 91X know things aren't cheap.
Here's a 26 amp Gen2 for $137.50 per amp:
http://sportair.aero/12-epapower/epapower/
Ron Parigoris
BTW if you are a real die hard you can put one on the 130 HP 915 for $57,250
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419117#419117
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a few days . . . |
> Dr. Dee and I are going to pick up her favorite
> aunt and uncle in Leon, KS today and meander up
> through the Flint Hills toward Kansas City for
> an 'unplugged' weekend . . .
>
> Be back Monday night . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
Have a great weekend!!!! ?
Roger
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe? |
>OSH Park ships international for free. See here: http://bit.ly/1cwmLTt
> Yep... www.pcb-pool.com I've used the South African incantation a
number of times with great success.
Etienne & Eric, thank you!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio |
Thank you Bob,
I went back and inspired by your comment about Mr. Clue, I carefully
observed the phenomenon without jumping to conclusions. It turns out the
interference only happens when the (Trio Avionics Pro Pilot) Autopilot is
ON, even if the engine is OFF. Attached is a link to a video with sound.
There is a lot of background noise (mostly the sound of the GNS430 fan) but
you can still here the interference and see that it completely disappears
when the AP is turned off.
The interference happens in the form of a RX signal on the radio. In other
words, whatever is happening is causing the COM radio to think it's
receiving a transmission, as is evidenced by the RX signal that's visible on
the GNS430 screen.
Anyone have any idea why this might be happening? I guess my next step is
to see if this also happens on, say, a handheld COM.
Sacha
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56559644/Autopilot%20COM%20interference%
20email.mp4
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Insulating 3.5mm Jacks |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Has anyone found an elegant way to electrically isolate 3.5mm audio jacks?
I don't know if it is as necessary to isolate these as we do the full-size
headset jacks, but does anyone make isolating washers for the smaller guys?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulating 3.5mm Jacks |
At 07:39 PM 2/22/2014, you wrote:
>Has anyone found an elegant way to electrically isolate 3.5mm audio
>jacks? I don't know if it is as necessary to isolate these as we do
>the full-size headset jacks, but does anyone make isolating washers
>for the smaller guys?
Not that I'm aware of . . . and the threaded length
of the barrel is prohibitively short for adding
insulation.
Go to lumber yard and get a coupon of Formica.
The kitchen remodeling department has racks
of 2 x 3 inch samples.
Drill clearance hole in your mounting surface
with .03 to .05 clearance all around the
jack's mounting hardware. Place a Formica
insulating sheet on the back side of the
mounting surface to support the jacks in
isolated splendor. You can bond the insulator
to the back side of the panel with E6000
so that there are no new fasteners coming
through to the front.
Had a few minutes this morning to drink some
coffee an peruse the 'net. The rest
of the family isn't up yet . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 02/22/14 |
| From: | Robert <rduplooy(at)iafrica.com> |
On 23 Feb 2014, at 9:58 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server
wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 14-02-22&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 14-02-22&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sat 02/22/14: 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 11:10 AM - Re: PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe? (Sacha)
> 2. 01:47 PM - Re: noise problem on radio (Sacha)
> 3. 05:42 PM - Insulating 3.5mm Jacks (Jared Yates)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PCB Mfg board house - in UK or Europe?
>
>> OSH Park ships international for free. See here: http://bit.ly/1cwmLTt
>
>
>> Yep... www.pcb-pool.com I've used the South African incantation a
> number of times with great success.
>
>
> Etienne & Eric, thank you!
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: noise problem on radio
>
>
> Thank you Bob,
> I went back and inspired by your comment about Mr. Clue, I carefully
> observed the phenomenon without jumping to conclusions. It turns out the
> interference only happens when the (Trio Avionics Pro Pilot) Autopilot is
> ON, even if the engine is OFF. Attached is a link to a video with sound.
> There is a lot of background noise (mostly the sound of the GNS430 fan) but
> you can still here the interference and see that it completely disappears
> when the AP is turned off.
> The interference happens in the form of a RX signal on the radio. In other
> words, whatever is happening is causing the COM radio to think it's
> receiving a transmission, as is evidenced by the RX signal that's visible on
> the GNS430 screen.
> Anyone have any idea why this might be happening? I guess my next step is
> to see if this also happens on, say, a handheld COM.
> Sacha
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56559644/Autopilot%20COM%20interference%
> 20email.mp4
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Insulating 3.5mm Jacks
> From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
>
> Has anyone found an elegant way to electrically isolate 3.5mm audio jacks?
> I don't know if it is as necessary to isolate these as we do the full-size
> headset jacks, but does anyone make isolating washers for the smaller guys?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy Apple Iphone 5S 32GB $600/Apple iPad 5 Air 4G 32GB$550 |
| From: | "wabbss" <wales.bale(at)yahoo.com> |
WE GLADLY WELCOME!! YOU TO MURTEN STORE LIMITED
MURTEN STORE LIMITED NOW OFFER A ANNUAL SALE!!!
We are dealers of all kinds of Mobile Phones Such as Apple Iphone, Blackberry,
Nokia, Samsung, HTC, Sony Ericsson and many more. All our products are brand new,
Original, comes with complete accessories and they also come with 1 year international
warranty.
We also give 90 days return policy on every products that has been paid for and
delivered to it owner, if within this days your equipment develop any fault or
damages you can return it back to us: We make shipment through FedEx Express/UPS/DHL
Services within 48hrs to your doorstep.
Buy 2 Get 1 Free
Buy 3 Get 1 Free + Free Shipping
Buy 5 Get 2 Free + Free Shipping
Contact :: Mr Stephen Clive Murray
Store :: Mobile & Gadgets Department
PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US @ MURTEN STORE LTD
For purchase enquiry you can contact us via any email below SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
Contact Name : Stephen Clive Murray
Email : murtenltd(at)musetr.com
Skype : murtenltd
Web :: murt.miiduu.com
BBM Pin : 27D4D1EE ( 24HRS CHAT )
Apple Iphone:
Apple iPhone 5S 16GB ....$550USD
Apple iPhone 5S 32GB ....$600USD
Apple iPhone 5S 64GB ....$650USD
Apple iPhone 5C 16GB ....$430USD
Apple iPhone 5C 32GB ....$450USD
Apple iphone 5S 64GB 24K Gold : $1,500 USD
Apple iphone 5S 32GB 24K Gold : $1,300 USD
Apple iphone 5S 16GB 24K Gold : $1,000 USD
Apple Iphone 5 64GB ....$430
Apple Iphone 5 32GB .....$400
Apple Iphone 5 16GB .....$380
Apple IPhone 4S 64GB.....$340
Apple IPhone 4S 32GB.....$320
Apple IPhone 4S 16GB.....$300
Apple Iphone 5 - 64GB - 24k Gold.....$850
Apple Iphone 5 - 32GB - 24k Gold.....$750
Apple Iphone 5 - 16GB - 24k Gold.....$650
Apple Ipad:
Apple iPad 5 Air Wi-Fi + 4 128GB .... $650 USD
Apple iPad 5 Air Wi-Fi + 4 64GB .... $600 USD
Apple iPad 5 Air Wi-Fi + 4 32GB .... $550 USD
Apple iPad 5 Air Wi-Fi + 4 16GB .... $500 USD
Apple iPad mini 2 Wi-Fi + 4G 64GB .... $480 USD
Apple iPad mini 2 Wi-Fi + 4G 32GB .... $430 USD
Apple iPad mini 2 Wi-Fi + 4G 16GB .... $400 USD
Apple iPad 4 Wi-Fi + 4G 64GB .... $430 USD
Apple iPad 4 Wi-Fi + 4G 32GB .... $410 USD
Apple iPad 4 Wi-Fi + 4G 16GB .... $400 USD
Apple iPad mini Wi-Fi + 4G 64GB.... $420 USD
Apple iPad mini Wi-Fi + 4G 32GB.... $380 USD
Apple iPad mini Wi-Fi + 4G 16GB.... $360 USD
Apple IPad 3 WiFi + 4G 64GB .... $340 USD
Apple IPad 3 WiFi + 4G 32GB .... $320 USD
Apple IPad 3 WiFi + 4G 16GB .... $300 USD
Apple IPad 3 WiFi 64GB .... $300
Apple IPad 3 WiFi 32GB .... $280
Apple IPad 3 WiFi 16GB .... $260
Sony PlayStation 4 - 500 GB .... $400 USD
Blackberry Porche Design 24k Gold.....$800
BlackBerry Q10 24k Gold .... $750 USD
Blackberry:
BlackBerry Porsche Design P9982 ..... $700
Blackberry Z30 .....$450
BlackBerry Q10 ...... $400
BlackBerry Q5 ..... $400
BlackBerry Z10 ...... $400
Blackberry Blade Design.....$400
BlackBerry Porsche Design P'9981....$450
BlackBerry Porsche P9981 WITH SPECIAL PIN $600
Blackberry TK Victory......$380
BlackBerry Playbook WiMax.......$340.00
BlackBerry 4G Playbook LTE......$300.00
BlackBerry 4G Playbook HSPA+.....$310.00
BlackBerry 4G 64GB PlayBook Wi-Fi Table......$320
BlackBerry Bold 9900......$330
Blackberry Bold 9930........$310
Blackberry Torch 9850........$300
Blackberry Torch 9800........$290
Blackberry Bold 9780.........$280
BlackBerry Style 9670......$260
BlackBerry Storm II 2 9550....$250
Blackberry Bold 9650.......$240
BlackBerry Bold ONYX 9700.........$230
Blackberry Storm 2.....$200
Samsung:
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 + Galaxy Gear.....$600
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition)....$520
Samsung Galaxy Grand 2 ..... $350
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 N9005.....$450
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 8.0.........$450
Samsung I9506 Galaxy S4 ...... $420
Samsung I9505 Galaxy S4 IV.....$420
Samsung Galaxy S4 zoom .....$420
Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 I9200.....$420
Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 N5100....$420
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 P5220.....$420
Samsung Galaxy Note II N7100.......$350
Samsung I9190 Galaxy S4 mini.......$400
Samsung Galaxy Gear Smartwatch ..... $250 USD
Samsung I9300 Galaxy S III.....$320
Samsung Galaxy Note LTE 10.1 N8020.....$400
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 N8000....$410
Samsung I8190 Galaxy S III Mini....$300
Samsung Rex 80 S5222R ..... $350
Samsung I8530 Galaxy Beam......$280
Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1.....$270
Samsung U380 Brightside.............$260
Samsung I9070 Galaxy S Advance.....$270
Samsung Galaxy Player 70 Plus......$260
Samsung I9105 Galaxy S II Plus....$240
Samsung Galaxy Y S5360.........$220
Samsung Galaxy Note N7000 .......$270
Samsung Galaxy Pocket S5300.......$230
Samsung Galaxy Note SGH-1717.....$250
Samsung I9100 Galaxy S II.....$200
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.....$200
Nokia:
Nokia Lumia 1520.....$400
Nokia Lumia 1020.....$350
Nokia Lumia 925......$330
Nokia Lumia 928......$300
Nokia Lumia 920......$290
Nokia Lumia 820......$280
Nokia Asha 311......$260
Nokia 808 PureView....$270
Nokia N9....$240
Nokia Lumia 900....$250
Nokia Lumia 800....$240
Nokia Lumia 710....$230
HTC:
HTC One Max 803s .... $420 USD
HTC Butterfly S .... $380 USD
HTC Desire 600 Dual Dim.....$360 USD
HTC One....$360 USD
HTC One mini...$350 USD
HTC First...$350
HTC Trophy.....$320
HTC One VX.....$320
HTC One X+.....$300
HTC One X......$300
HTC One XL.....$280
HTC One S......$270
HTC One V......$260
HTC Jetstream....$370
HTC Panache.....$360
HTC Butterfly ... $350.00
HTC Windows Phone 8X......$330
HTC Tube-5.....$350
HTC Status.....$330
HTC Vivid......$250
Sony Ericsson:
Sony Xperia Z1 ..... $400 USD
Sony Xperia Z Ultra .....$380 USD
Sony Xperia Z .....$370 USD
Sony Xperia M .....$360 USD
Sony Xperia L .....$350 USD
Sony Xperia V .....$340 USD
Sony Xperia Ion.....$280
Sony Xperia S.......$260
Sony Tablet S 3G.......$250
Motorola:
Motorola DROID RAZR MAXX......$300
Motorola MT917......$300
Motorola XT928......$300
Motorola RAZR XT912......$290
Motorola RAZR XT910......$280
Motorola XOOM 2 Media Edition......$300
Motorola XOOM 2......$280
Motorola XOOM Tablet......$180
Sony PlayStation 4 - 500 GB .... $400 USD
Other Mobiles:
LG G2 --- $270
AT&T Z998 ---- $270
Google Nexus 5 ----$300
Others ::
Xbox One Console..........................$400
Canon EOS 5D Mark II .... $700
HP ENVY 14 Beats edition series...... $999.99
Bose Lifestyle 235 Home Entertainment System ........... $1,599
Bose Lifestyle V25 Home Entertainment System ........... $1,610
Apple MacBook Air - Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz - 13.3 ------ 400.00
Leica S-Adapter for Hasselblad H-System Lenses
Leica | 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux M Aspherical Manual Focus Lens
Leica S - Type 006 - Digital Medium Format Slr Camera Body
Miller 903471 XMT 304 CC/CV 208-230/460 W/Auto-Link.....$1,700
PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US @ MURTEN STORE LTD
For purchase enquiry you can contact us via any email below... SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
Contact Name : Stephen Clive Murray
Email : murtenltd(at)musetr.com
Skype : murtenltd
Web :: murt.miiduu.com
BBM 24Hrs Chat : 27D4D1EE
MGT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419230#419230
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shower of Sparks question |
At 02:47 AM 2/23/2014, you wrote:
Hi Bob
I have recently bought an FK131, which is a retro
build of the Bcker Jungmann a, a wonderful
little plane with a Walter Micron 3 motor (also a
rebuild of the original Hirth motor), the Czech
motor company who builds it chose the "Buzzer" as
a start assistance and I found the wonderful
little article you wrote which helped me
understand how the system works a little better.
I'm pleased that you found it useful . . .
I have 2 questions, how is switch for the "Shower
of Sparks" or Buzzer labeled in the cockpit?
No differently than for a system without shower of sparks.
The existence of shower of sparks is transparent to the
pilot . . . except that the engine starts better . . .
can the system be used in an emergency if one of
the magnetos were to fail?? or would the failed
magneto not give it the impulse to make a difference?
Usually, the electro-mechanical, shower of sparks
is applied to only one of the two magnetos . . . and
the accessorized mag will be fitted with a second
set of delayed-timing points. If that mag fails,
you're stuck. I think there are modern incarnations
of the shower-of-sparks that can be adapted to any
magneto with our without impulse coupling. The
spark augmentation energy is piped into the magneto
p-lead based on some electronic determination of
timing.
If your 'buzzer' is a solid state device and
the supported magneto has only one set of points,
then the device can be switched between the two
magnetos with impunity.
If your spark is mechanically timed (second set of
points) the SOS system CAN be very useful for propping the
engine by hand. But you need appropriate switching
to make sure the starter is not engaged while your
'organic starter' has their hands on the prop.
After priming the engine and pulling the prop around
to the start of a compression stroke, you hold
the shower of sparks system in the 'cranking'
mode while the prop is pulled sedately through
the opening of the retarded timing points. The
engine will start right up.
This probably won't work with electronically
retarded systems that expect to see cranking
on the order of 100-200 rpm.
So the short answer is that the system will
work for either magneto only if it's electronically
retarded -OR- both mags are fitted with retard
points.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
I am fairly unexperienced and new at the experimental building hobby. I
am building a Bushcaddy L164 and I am putting dual electronic ignition
on it. I absolutely need this to work at all times since I am flying
over non-forgiving terrain in Alaska. The new systems are very reliable
and I am confident that with a redundant system (EIGN-4-2R through the
company fly EFII ) I will be fine as long as I can supply power to the
system. I have drawn up a schematic on how I plan to wire the system
and wanted some input from some experts out there to see if I have done
anything incorrectly. I have attached the diagram. I have also
considered using solid state relays in the system. I would use them for
all of the relays except the starter relay. Any thoughts on this? I
have found solid state relays that are rated for all of my applications
to include the Battery Master (rated at 300A continuous and 500A for 1
sec).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Linear Actuator Position |
| From: | James Baldwin <1james.baldwin(at)gmail.com> |
Hey Electronic Guys --
Does anybody have a schematic for a simple circuit to show the position of
the wiper on a 10k potentiometer? The leads are at each end of the
resistor and one additional one for the wiper. I was thinking of a few
LEDs that would light up depending on position of the wiper. Or maybe
something that would light up when the actuator was centered. I also have
a GRT EFIS if that could be used instead if anyone knows how. Thank you
for the help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Linear Actuator Position |
2/25/2014
Hello James Baldwin, Are you expecting this simple circuit to also
include how to create an indicator or display? There are already
indicators in existence that require only simple wire connections.
1) See here:
http://www.firgelli.com/Uploads/Pos%20datasheet.pdf
at this home page:
http://www.firgelli.com/products.php
2) See here:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/indsens.html
with this wiring instruction:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
at this home page:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/servos.html
I think that any ohm differences between your actuator and the
indicators can either be rather easily overcome with help from some
electrical guru or just ignored with the indicator still working
effectively.
OC
PS: What linear actuator are you using and for what purpose? I have a
few spare actuators that may be of help.
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
==============
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Linear Actuator Position
From: James Baldwin <1james.baldwin(at)gmail.com>
Hey Electronic Guys --
Does anybody have a schematic for a simple circuit to show the position
of
the wiper on a 10k potentiometer? The leads are at each end of the
resistor and one additional one for the wiper. I was thinking of a few
LEDs that would light up depending on position of the wiper. Or maybe
something that would light up when the actuator was centered. I also
have
a GRT EFIS if that could be used instead if anyone knows how. Thank you
for the help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There is no fuse to protect the battery and wires from an alternator short circuit.
I assume that the LEDs have a built-in resistor.
ELTs do not normally require aircraft power.
Replace 10 amp contactor coil fuses with 3 amp.
Contactor and relay coils need diodes to short out high induced voltages.
Main buses are not normally fused. The 60 amp fuse is not big danger, but it costs
money, has weight and is one more thing to go wrong.
I see no reason to have two contactors in series to feed the emergency bus. In
fact, it doubles that chances of losing power to the bus.
It is good to feed the avionics bus in two places, but the 5 amp fuses might blow.
A relay is not necessary to indicate a blown turn coordinator fuse. Just put the
LED in parallel with the fuse. Or buy a fuse that glows when blown, available
in 3 amp or larger. Van's Aircraft sells them.
The diode will reduce charging voltage to the aux battery, not necessarily a problem.
Schottky diodes drop less voltage.
There is a long, unprotected, always-hot wire between the battery and the master
switch. Instead, most aircraft switch the negative side of the master contactor.
Many builders have tried to improve on Bob Nuckolls' electrical architecture, but few have succeeded. You are probably better off using one of his drawings, perhaps Z-10/8 without the dynamo circuit. http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
or even one like this is much less complicated: http://forum.matronics.com/download.php?id=37766
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419325#419325
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If the emergency bus is inadvertently turned on during engine cranking, avionics
bus fuses will blow.
As is, there is no brownout protection for the avionics bus during engine cranking.
The aux battery could be used for that purpose.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419326#419326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio |
At 03:46 PM 2/22/2014, you wrote:
>
>Thank you Bob,
>I went back and inspired by your comment about Mr. Clue, I carefully
>observed the phenomenon without jumping to conclusions. It turns out the
>interference only happens when the (Trio Avionics Pro Pilot) Autopilot is
>ON, even if the engine is OFF.
Good work!
> Attached is a link to a video with sound
>
>The interference happens in the form of a RX signal on the radio. In other
>words, whatever is happening is causing the COM radio to think it's
>receiving a transmission, as is evidenced by the RX signal that's visible on
>the GNS430 screen.
Okay, it's perceived as a radiated signal that
comes in through the antenna coax. Have you
checked SWR on the comm antenna? If your shield
ground is loose at the radio, it can open a
pathway for conducting otherwise insignificant
signals into the receiver.
Is there an installation/wiring manual for the
AP that can be downloaded from the 'net? Also,
you could 'sniff' around with a handheld. I'd
craft a couple of probes to put onto your hand-held's
antenna jack.
An e-field probe consisting of a dime-sized
disk supported on about an inch off the back
end of the BNC connector. Also an h-field probe
consisting of two turns of wire about 3/4" diam
connected across a BNC connection on 1" of twisted
leads.
Open the squelch on the hand held and move the
attached probes over components and wiring of the
a/p to see if you can identify the strongest
manifestation of the noise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio |
> Attached is a link to a video with sound
>
>The interference happens in the form of a RX signal on the radio. In
>other words, whatever is happening is causing the COM radio to think
>it's receiving a transmission, as is evidenced by the RX signal that's
>visible on the GNS430 screen.
Okay, it's perceived as a radiated signal that
comes in through the antenna coax. Have you
checked SWR on the comm antenna?
No, I haven't. Is it worth getting my hands on an SWR meter?
If your shield ground is loose at the radio, it can open a
pathway for conducting otherwise insignificant
signals into the receiver.
You mean that the coax shield could not connected or improperly connected to
the appropriate BNC terminal? I actually have the coax connected to a
backplate connector to which the GNS430 connector slides into, so I guess
there is extra potential there for them not to properly connect (e.g. if the
radio is not properly slotted into the backplate connector).
Is there an installation/wiring manual for the
AP that can be downloaded from the 'net?
http://www.trioavionics.com/Pro%20Pilot%20Manual%203.8.pdf
Also,
you could 'sniff' around with a handheld. I'd
craft a couple of probes to put onto your hand-held's
antenna jack.
I sniffed around yesterday with the handheld and its regular antenna. What
I noticed was that as soon as I switch on the Avionics and the handheld
antenna is close to them, I hear a bunch of noise, but I guess that's
normal. When I switch on the AP and move the handheld antenna close to the
servo cables (that are shielded), I can hear a stronger kind of buzzing
noise. I really have to be almost touching those shielded cables though in
order to pick anything up. I didn't try putting the antenna close to the
radio's COM coax connector though.
An e-field probe consisting of a dime-sized
disk supported on about an inch off the back
end of the BNC connector. Also an h-field probe
consisting of two turns of wire about 3/4" diam
connected across a BNC connection on 1" of twisted
leads.
Do you have any pictures of how to build these? Is this
http://www.emcesd.com/tt120100.htm the right idea?
Open the squelch on the hand held and move the
attached probes over components and wiring of the
a/p to see if you can identify the strongest
manifestation of the noise.
Bob
Thanks again for the suggestions!
Regards
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Linear Actuator Position |
James,
<< schematic for a simple circuit to show the position of the wiper on
a 10k potentiometer >>
At $20, the 10 segment Firgelli indicator mentioned by Owen Baker is
hard to beat. It appears to be "smart" in the sense it measures
absolute voltage, not voltage relative to the buss value. This means
the 10k potentiometer needs to be fed with a constant voltage such as
provided by an LM7805 IC regulator.
If you insist on building a simpler display the attached 5-level
indicator uses less than $5 in parts.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
Justin;
1. The 10A fuse on the starter relay serves no purpose.
2. Closing the switch leading from the "emergency" buss to the Blue
Mountain EFIS back feeds the whole avionics buss through the 5amp fuse. It
will most certainly fail. (and if the avionics master is closed also back
feeds the main buss) What you're trying to do requires a second diode coming
from the avionics buss, not just the single diode you've shown.
3. The four circuits on the left of the "emergency" buss back feed the
main buss, making it impossible to isolate and also most likely the fuses
will fail as they are likely not large enough in combination to support the
whole of the electrical load. Guaranteed to fail if you touch the "starter"
switch with the master off. Each of these four circuits, similar to above,
require two diodes each to achieve what you've attempted to accomplish.
4. The "master" switch should be switching the ground side of the
master relay, not the "live".
5. I don't see any active "low voltage" warning, unless that is the
function of the circuit you've labeled "alt fault"?? Does your regulator
support low voltage notification?? Many "alternator failure" lights do not
achieve this goal.
6. Does your ELT actually require aircraft power?? This is rather
unusual.
7. Nothing should be an "emergency". The word should not be part of an
electrical system. In Bob's terms when the alternator fails, you revert to
the pre-thought-out "plan B" which may entail switching off the main buss
and relying on the "Endurance" buss for minimal electrical loads to get you
to your destination. It shouldn't constitute an "emergency".
8. "Pulling fuses" should not be part of your "plan B' scenario, but I
see a note whereby you "pull in case of buss failure". Switches are more
convenient. In a "properly designed" electrical system there is no need to
have any fuses accessible in flight. Nothing individually should be
"critical" and troubleshooting should be done after the flight is over, not
in the air.
9. Suggest reading AeroElectric connection and studying some of the "Z"
drawings as most of what you are trying to achieve is elegantly covered and
will allow you to fly, in the case of most failures, until you exhaust your
fuel supply. (assuming proper battery maintenance)
10. By all means re-invent the wheel if you wish, that's what
"experimental" is all about, but understand what's been developed before and
the reasons behind why it's been done the way it was, and then tweak to suit
your unique requirements.
11. As for your question on solid state relays, be aware that they are
very reliable as long as they are properly heatsinked and kept within their
ratings. We use them at work and get fantastic reliability as long as we
over rate them. When operating at their design limits there are some
failures, both fail open and fail closed. We've found that if we load them
in the 30% to 50% range they are close to perfect. (no failures) Their chief
advantage is very limited power consumption to operate the relay itself,
conserving an extra amp or two of load to add to your battery endurance.
Heat is their enemy and that's the reason behind de-rating to ensure they
stay cool. We always keep them under 50% current rating.
12. Keep asking, we'll help you sort it out to be head and shoulders
better than spam cans and achieve the reliability you require.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin
Jones
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic
Ignition
I am fairly unexperienced and new at the experimental building hobby. I am
building a Bushcaddy L164 and I am putting dual electronic ignition on it.
I absolutely need this to work at all times since I am flying over
non-forgiving terrain in Alaska. The new systems are very reliable and I am
confident that with a redundant system (EIGN-4-2R through the company fly
EFII ) I will be fine as long as I can supply power to the system. I have
drawn up a schematic on how I plan to wire the system and wanted some input
from some experts out there to see if I have done anything incorrectly. I
have attached the diagram. I have also considered using solid state relays
in the system. I would use them for all of the relays except the starter
relay. Any thoughts on this? I have found solid state relays that are
rated for all of my applications to include the Battery Master (rated at
300A continuous and 500A for 1 sec).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic Ignition |
Thank you all for your help and feedback! I will get on the forum and
look at the diagrams and figure out something that will work for me.
Thanks again!
Justin
On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Bob McCallum
wrote:
> Justin;
>
> The 10A fuse on the starter relay serves no purpose.
> Closing the switch leading from the =93emergency=94 buss to the Blue
Mountain EFIS back feeds the whole avionics buss through the 5amp fuse.
It will most certainly fail. (and if the avionics master is closed also
back feeds the main buss) What you=92re trying to do requires a second
diode coming from the avionics buss, not just the single diode you=92ve
shown.
> The four circuits on the left of the =93emergency=94 buss back feed
the main buss, making it impossible to isolate and also most likely the
fuses will fail as they are likely not large enough in combination to
support the whole of the electrical load. Guaranteed to fail if you
touch the =93starter=94 switch with the master off. Each of these four
circuits, similar to above, require two diodes each to achieve what
you=92ve attempted to accomplish.
> The =93master=94 switch should be switching the ground side of the
master relay, not the =93live=94.
> I don=92t see any active =93low voltage=94 warning, unless that is the
function of the circuit you=92ve labeled =93alt fault=94?? Does your
regulator support low voltage notification?? Many =93alternator failure=94
lights do not achieve this goal.
> Does your ELT actually require aircraft power?? This is rather
unusual.
> Nothing should be an =93emergency=94. The word should not be part of
an electrical system. In Bob=92s terms when the alternator fails, you
revert to the pre-thought-out =93plan B=94 which may entail switching
off the main buss and relying on the =93Endurance=94 buss for minimal
electrical loads to get you to your destination. It shouldn=92t
constitute an =93emergency=94.
> =93Pulling fuses=94 should not be part of your =93plan B=92 scenario,
but I see a note whereby you =93pull in case of buss failure=94.
Switches are more convenient. In a =93properly designed=94 electrical
system there is no need to have any fuses accessible in flight. Nothing
individually should be =93critical=94 and troubleshooting should be done
after the flight is over, not in the air.
> Suggest reading AeroElectric connection and studying some of the =93Z=94
drawings as most of what you are trying to achieve is elegantly covered
and will allow you to fly, in the case of most failures, until you
exhaust your fuel supply. (assuming proper battery maintenance)
> By all means re-invent the wheel if you wish, that=92s what
=93experimental=94 is all about, but understand what=92s been developed
before and the reasons behind why it=92s been done the way it was, and
then tweak to suit your unique requirements.
> As for your question on solid state relays, be aware that they are
very reliable as long as they are properly heatsinked and kept within
their ratings. We use them at work and get fantastic reliability as long
as we over rate them. When operating at their design limits there are
some failures, both fail open and fail closed. We=92ve found that if we
load them in the 30% to 50% range they are close to perfect. (no
failures) Their chief advantage is very limited power consumption to
operate the relay itself, conserving an extra amp or two of load to add
to your battery endurance. Heat is their enemy and that=92s the reason
behind de-rating to ensure they stay cool. We always keep them under 50%
current rating.
> Keep asking, we=92ll help you sort it out to be head and shoulders
better than spam cans and achieve the reliability you require.
>
> Bob McC
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Justin Jones
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:39 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring for Aircraft With Dual Electronic
Ignition
>
> I am fairly unexperienced and new at the experimental building hobby.
I am building a Bushcaddy L164 and I am putting dual electronic ignition
on it. I absolutely need this to work at all times since I am flying
over non-forgiving terrain in Alaska. The new systems are very reliable
and I am confident that with a redundant system (EIGN-4-2R through the
company fly EFII ) I will be fine as long as I can supply power to the
system. I have drawn up a schematic on how I plan to wire the system
and wanted some input from some experts out there to see if I have done
anything incorrectly. I have attached the diagram. I have also
considered using solid state relays in the system. I would use them for
all of the relays except the starter relay. Any thoughts on this? I
have found solid state relays that are rated for all of my applications
to include the Battery Master (rated at 300A continuous and 500A for 1
sec).
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration.
>
> Justin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio |
No, I haven't. Is it worth getting my hands on an SWR meter?
If your shield ground is loose at the radio, it can open a
pathway for conducting otherwise insignificant
signals into the receiver.
If you don't have ready access to one, hold off acquiring
it. But check the mechanical integrity of your coax
connections at the back of the radio. How well does the
comm transceiver work? Have you detected any shortfall
in performance?
http://www.trioavionics.com/Pro%20Pilot%20Manual%203.8.pdf
Okay . . . that's a busy little box. Refresh my
memory, is this noise a new thing or has it always
been present. Also, when receiving a weak signal
(tune in an ATIS and fly away from airport until
signal starts to get noisy . . . then turn a/p
on/off and judge how much effect the a/p noise
has on reception of weak signals).
I sniffed around yesterday with the handheld and its regular antenna. What
I noticed was that as soon as I switch on the Avionics and the handheld
antenna is close to them, I hear a bunch of noise, but I guess that's
normal. When I switch on the AP and move the handheld antenna close to the
servo cables (that are shielded), I can hear a stronger kind of buzzing
noise. I really have to be almost touching those shielded cables though in
order to pick anything up. I didn't try putting the antenna close to the
radio's COM coax connector though.
You wont see any noise coming OUT of this junction,
but it is a potential point of ingress for noises
that tend to pile up behind the panel.
Do you have any pictures of how to build these? Is this
http://www.emcesd.com/tt120100.htm the right idea?
Yes! good find. I got a little ahead of myself
in sifting the simple ideas. Don't run off and build
one (or e-field probe) yet.
It's not clear to me yet as to operational significance
of the noise. DO-160 ALLOWS certain levels of noise
while putting potential victims ON NOTICE that such
noises may be present but normally insignificant.
My sense of the situation from your narrative
so far is that while the A/P is a noteworthy
contributor . . . it's not the sole potential
antagonist . . . we may discover that it is
within practical limits and you just need to
tighten the squelch on the receiver a tad.
I think I've related my experiences with the
symphony of noises that are often heard in
various systems while sitting on the ground
with engines off and wearing headphones . . .
noises that are completely insignificant
while in flight.
Let's size the task before we get out hammers-
n-saws.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi all,
i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
installing in a metal wing.
#1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to power
supply??
#2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
thanks for any info.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
Bob,=0A=0AI put my comments in with your questions:=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0A From: bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com>=0ATo:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, March 1, 2014 2:25 PM
=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: grounds=0A =0A=0A=0Ahi all,=0A-i have 2 qu
estions about the led landing light and led strobe i am installing in a met
al wing.=0A-#1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire comp
ared to power supply??=0A=0AWhen you say "..power supply.." I assume you me
an positive lead.- =0AIf that is the case then the answer is no.- The c
urrent flowing in=0Athe positive lead is the same in the negative lead ther
efore the wires =0Ashould be the same size.=0A=0A=0A-#2 is it acceptable
to ground these lights to the airframe?=0A=0ALots of airplanes do, but if i
t were mine, I wouldn't.- Keeping=0Aaccessories grounded at 1 or possibly
2 properly-installed=0Agrounding busses helps reduce the potential for gro
und loops =0Ato affect sensitive equipment.=0A=0AAnecdote: =0AI'm aware of
a certificated metal airplane that was=0Ahaving problems w/ some electronic
equipment.- This aircraft=0Awas equipped w/ video cameras & recorders an
d there was=0Aa fair amount of noise on the video.- =0A=0AAfter years of
maintenance and new avionics & accessories =0Abeing installed/removed/upgra
ded etc the aircraft had grounds=0Aall over the place. Some things were gro
unded to a central=0Aground.=0A=0AThe fix was to move some of the ground wi
res for existing=0Aaccessories (don't know which ones) to the central groun
d buss.=0A=0A=0AFor further reading I recommend Bob Nuckoll's book. It has
a whole=0Achapter on the subject.=0A=0A=0A- thanks for any info.=0A-bob
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
thanks for the info. as a past builder of a dakota hawk ground wires were
the norm. had a ''forest of tabs''on both sides of the firewall. will do it
again with the rv.
bob noffs
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I put my comments in with your questions:
>
> -Jeff
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* bob noffs
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 1, 2014 2:25 PM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: grounds
>
> hi all,
> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
> installing in a metal wing.
> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to
> power supply??
>
> When you say "..power supply.." I assume you mean positive lead.
> If that is the case then the answer is no. The current flowing in
> the positive lead is the same in the negative lead therefore the wires
> should be the same size.
>
>
> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
>
> Lots of airplanes do, but if it were mine, I wouldn't. Keeping
> accessories grounded at 1 or possibly 2 properly-installed
> grounding busses helps reduce the potential for ground loops
> to affect sensitive equipment.
>
> Anecdote:
> I'm aware of a certificated metal airplane that was
> having problems w/ some electronic equipment. This aircraft
> was equipped w/ video cameras & recorders and there was
> a fair amount of noise on the video.
>
> After years of maintenance and new avionics & accessories
> being installed/removed/upgraded etc the aircraft had grounds
> all over the place. Some things were grounded to a central
> ground.
>
> The fix was to move some of the ground wires for existing
> accessories (don't know which ones) to the central ground buss.
>
>
> For further reading I recommend Bob Nuckoll's book. It has a whole
> chapter on the subject.
>
>
> thanks for any info.
> bob noffs
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | K <kleh(at)dialupatcost.ca> |
Short answer 1. No 2. Yes
Long answer:
It is good practice and in most cases a requirement that the ground wire
should be the same size as the supply if they carry the same current.
Exceptions can occur such as when the supply is part of a bundle whereas
the ground is exposed with good cooling, and voltage drop is not an
issue. I doubt there is much of that occurring in a Rebel.
There is little reason not to use airframe grounds for continuous loads
on a metal aircraft. Indeed it often reduces weight and
resistance/voltage drops. Obviously not good to pass current through a
hinge though if you have a position light on a rudder or something like
that.
The problem is only when airframe grounds are also used (shared) by
noise sensitive receptors such as audio wires or antennae. The sensitive
devices may pick up tiny voltage changes caused by other loads if they
share grounds. That phenomenon is commonly called ground loops and is
why avionics grounds should go to a common ground point.
Ken
On 01/03/2014 5:25 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
> installing in a metal wing.
> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to
> power supply??
> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
> thanks for any info.
> bob noffs
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Bob,
As for the wire size, the best option is to go with a 10A breaker and 18
gauge wire. Remember that a circuit breaker or fuse protects the wire
and not the device. Your LEDs will likely pull just a few amps, but this
leaves your options open in the future if you decide to go with
something other than LEDs. I would also use shielded wire. Ground the
shield at the airframe end and leave it ungrounded at the load end.
As far as the grounding to the airframe is concerned I would say it
depends. It is never a good idea to ground anything to the airframe and
not a ground bus. The lights will work if you do this, but it may help
contribute to noise in the system. The power supply for LEDs are
notorious for creating noise so grounding is imperative. I would also
consider using a ferrite filter. These can be had from radio shack. They
often come with new electronics and are cylinder shaped. It is a magnet
in plastic that clips around your wire and helps eliminate noise.
Hope this helps
Justin
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:25 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
installing in a metal wing.
> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to
power supply??
> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
> thanks for any info.
> bob noffs
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
In general 1 No, 2 Yes, but,
The power supply wire to a wing tip will be 15 or 20' long, so you may
choose to use a thicker wire size because of volts drop, rather than
current carrying, considerations. If the ground wire is grounded to the
spar 1' away then the volts drop considerations are not relevant and a
thinner ground wire may be used.
Using airframe ground return for the kind of wing tip mounted devices
you mention is standard practice in a metal airframe and can result in
significant weight savings (which are always important) - always
assuming you have a good ground path back to the battery. Take care of
potential ground loops for items in the panel that are sensitive (eg
audio devices).
Just my opinion,
Peter
On 01/03/2014 22:25, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
> installing in a metal wing.
> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to
> power supply??
> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
> thanks for any info.
> bob noffs
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Aske |
d Questions)
Hi Matt,
It appears that MS no longer supports XP..... http://www.microsoft.com/w
indowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx Anyhow, I could not get th
e above link to work for me. They do offer a resizing app for Win 8 how
ever. Just a FYI, Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Aske |
d Questions)
On 3/2/2014 2:16 PM, earl_schroeder(at)juno.com wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> It appears that MS no longer supports XP.....
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
> Anyhow, I could not get the above link to work for me. They do offer
> a resizing app for Win 8 however.
> Just a FYI, Earl
>
Try here:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/xp-downloads#2TC=powertoys
Like most companies, they move links around without including pointers
to the new location.
After loading the page, point at the resize download link, right click,
& 'save as' to where ever you can find it after downloading (usually
defaults to your downloads folder).
If you don't have any luck, ask & someone (me) can email you a copy of
the .exe file, if you trust us. :-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:25 PM 3/1/2014, you wrote:
>hi all,
> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
> installing in a metal wing.
> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared
> to power supply??
> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
> thanks for any info.
> bob noffs
The current demand of LED replacement for legacy
lighting is generally much smaller. You should tailor
your wire selections to those values . . . assuming
of course . . . that larger wires are not already
installed to service a legacy system being replaced.
In the later case, leave old wires in place.
Have you read chapter 5 of the 'Connection and
reviewed Z-15 and in particular, this drawing?
http://tinyurl.com/6w87rvb
Voltage drop is not a big issue with modern
LED fixtures fitted with constant current
power supplies . . . and the BRIGHT fixtures
fall into this category. The electronics in
the fixture insures proper lamp drive over a
wide range of input voltages.
Concerns for ground-loop induced noises have
foundation in poorly crafted grounds for VULNERABLE
systems. You can generally ground potentially
antagonistic systems anywhere as long as the
potential victims (generally all on the panel)
share a local common ground as depicted in the
Z-15 drawings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | noise problem on radio |
No, I haven't. Is it worth getting my hands on an SWR meter?
If your shield ground is loose at the radio, it can open a
pathway for conducting otherwise insignificant
signals into the receiver.
If you don't have ready access to one, hold off acquiring
it. But check the mechanical integrity of your coax
connections at the back of the radio. How well does the
comm transceiver work?
I don't have enough experience with it yet. In Italy, ultralights can only
speak to other such a/c on 130 MHz. You need to acquire an "advanced"
ultralight license (which costs approx.. $2000) to be able to talk to
anybody else. It's all part of the ridiculous regulation we endure here.
Have you detected any shortfall in performance?
(In my limited experience), not so far.
http://www.trioavionics.com/Pro%20Pilot%20Manual%203.8.pdf
Okay . . . that's a busy little box. Refresh my
memory, is this noise a new thing or has it always
been present.
I only noticed it in the last 10 hours or so, but the a/c only has 30 hours
or so since I rebuilt it, and I wasn't particularly concentrating on the use
of the radio initially since a) there's hardly any other traffic around and
b) I'm limited to the ultralight air-to-air frequency in any case.
Also, when receiving a weak signal (tune in an ATIS and fly away from
airport until
signal starts to get noisy . . . then turn a/p
on/off and judge how much effect the a/p noise
has on reception of weak signals).
I will try that next time.
[...] My sense of the situation from your narrative
so far is that while the A/P is a noteworthy
contributor . . . it's not the sole potential
antagonist . . . we may discover that it is
within practical limits and you just need to
tighten the squelch on the receiver a tad.
I'll try that next time too.
I think I've related my experiences with the
symphony of noises that are often heard in
various systems while sitting on the ground
with engines off and wearing headphones . . .
noises that are completely insignificant
while in flight.
Let's size the task before we get out hammers-
n-saws.
Bob . . .
What you say makes sense. I'm going to be away from the hangar for a few
weeks (I'm actually going to New Mexico for a job interview and then to
Socal to see some friends), so I'll pick the thread up again when I get
back.
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LAA IMC progress? |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Peter,
Just wondering if the ratchet has clicked along any more regarding the
LAA/CAA IMC approval for homebuilts.
I've heard absolutely nothing from FD since I wrote in requesting clearance
on 7th November...
regards,
Bill Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
thanks for the advice. i built my last plane using your diagrams. i now
have a plan!
bob noffs
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> At 04:25 PM 3/1/2014, you wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>> i have 2 questions about the led landing light and led strobe i am
>> installing in a metal wing.
>> #1 is it acceptable to use next size smaller groung wire compared to
>> power supply??
>> #2 is it acceptable to ground these lights to the airframe?
>> thanks for any info.
>> bob noffs
>>
>
> The current demand of LED replacement for legacy
> lighting is generally much smaller. You should tailor
> your wire selections to those values . . . assuming
> of course . . . that larger wires are not already
> installed to service a legacy system being replaced.
> In the later case, leave old wires in place.
>
> Have you read chapter 5 of the 'Connection and
> reviewed Z-15 and in particular, this drawing?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6w87rvb
>
> Voltage drop is not a big issue with modern
> LED fixtures fitted with constant current
> power supplies . . . and the BRIGHT fixtures
> fall into this category. The electronics in
> the fixture insures proper lamp drive over a
> wide range of input voltages.
>
> Concerns for ground-loop induced noises have
> foundation in poorly crafted grounds for VULNERABLE
> systems. You can generally ground potentially
> antagonistic systems anywhere as long as the
> potential victims (generally all on the panel)
> share a local common ground as depicted in the
> Z-15 drawings.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 24v aux power port? |
I've been looking for an auxiliary power port (courtesy port). All the ones I see
are advertised for use in 12v electrical systems. But I'm 24v.
For example:
http://www.amazon.com/Accessory-Outlet-Lighter-Marine-Motorcycle/dp/B005GSFK6U
But these are passive devices, right? As long as I keep the current within the
correct values, shouldn't it work with no problems?
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419895#419895
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
Using a lighter socket on a 24V system is possible, but invites disaster.
I did a quick survey around the house and while most of the lighter socket
plugs I found work with 24Vdc, it would be my luck that I'd find one that
didn't, the hard way (for example, my ham radio HT which takes 16.8V max).
Have you considered using a 24-12V DC-DC converter wired up behind the
socket, or do you need 24V for accessories?
-Jeff-
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> I've been looking for an auxiliary power port (courtesy port). All the
> ones I see are advertised for use in 12v electrical systems. But I'm 24v.
>
> For example:
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Accessory-Outlet-Lighter-Marine-Motorcycle/dp/B005GSFK6U
>
> But these are passive devices, right? As long as I keep the current within
> the correct values, shouldn't it work with no problems?
>
> -Don
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419895#419895
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Two into one or three into one solder splice |
| From: | "Bipedream" <smittss1c(at)hotmail.com> |
I've been searching for a good guide on the proper way to create a solder splice
for two wires into a single wire. I'm also interested how to splice three wires
into a single wire.
I assume that's been covered a number of time but my searching technique on the
forum may need a little help.
I saw a good article on the www.aeroelectric.com/ on doing a simple two wire solder splice but I didn't see one on this particular issue.
My radio (Flightline FL-760) has two power connections in the DSUB connector that
I need to splice into the single power wire. I also need three grounds pins
on the DSUB spliced into the ground wire.
I'm using machined DSUB pins and rotary crimp tool on the connector side.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419901#419901
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two into one or three into one solder splice |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
A Solder sleeve would work great for this application. Google "Solder sleeve".
There are a few YouTube videos out there that show how to use them in this exact
application.
Justin
On Mar 6, 2014, at 20:21, "Bipedream" wrote:
>
> I've been searching for a good guide on the proper way to create a solder splice
for two wires into a single wire. I'm also interested how to splice three
wires into a single wire.
>
> I assume that's been covered a number of time but my searching technique on the
forum may need a little help.
>
> I saw a good article on the www.aeroelectric.com/ on doing a simple two wire solder splice but I didn't see one on this particular issue.
>
> My radio (Flightline FL-760) has two power connections in the DSUB connector
that I need to splice into the single power wire. I also need three grounds pins
on the DSUB spliced into the ground wire.
>
> I'm using machined DSUB pins and rotary crimp tool on the connector side.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419901#419901
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two into one or three into one solder splice |
| From: | "Bipedream" <smittss1c(at)hotmail.com> |
Would a crimped splice also be okay? I already bought some and don't want to also
buy the heat gun needed to use the solder splice you mentioned if I can avoid
it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419905#419905
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
The Cessna I've had for 15 years has a 24v power jack and I've never had a problem
with passengers connecting anything to it. Partly because I don't let my passengers
connect things to my airplane without asking first (and if they didn't
ask, they deserve what they get). :D And secondly, it's already in use.
So can someone second that there is no difference in the construction of one of
these 12v connectors?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419907#419907
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)GMAIL.COM> |
How about installing two DC power outlets, one for 24 volts and one for 12 volts? One like this can be used for 24 volts without the danger of a 12 volt device being plugged into it. http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Switchcraft/712A/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMv1TUPJeFpwbvDLoO7VplWmGzPCelncVas%3d
A DC to DC converter can supply 12 volts to the other cigarette lighter type outlet. http://www.ebay.com/itm/24V-Step-Down-to-12V-DC-DC-Converter-Regulator-20A-240W-Converter-USA-Shipping-/121289155547?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c3d65a3db
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419908#419908
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two into one or three into one solder splice |
At 11:21 PM 3/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>I've been searching for a good guide on the proper way to create a
>solder splice for two wires into a single wire. I'm also interested
>how to splice three wires into a single wire.
This problem has been managed with crimped splices
for decades . . .
http://tinyurl.com/l67uj8h
You can bring multiple wires into any of the
PIDG (or equivalent) devices as long as the
devices is sized for cross section of copper
in the proposed joining . . .
Soldering them together under a heat-shrink
cover is equally functional . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
user9253 wrote:
> How about installing two DC power outlets, one for 24 volts and one for 12 volts? One like this can be used for 24 volts without the danger of a 12 volt device being plugged into it. http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Switchcraft/712A/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMv1TUPJeFpwbvDLoO7VplWmGzPCelncVas%3d
>
Kind of hard to plug my Garmin 396 into that.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419922#419922
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | How to Toggle Speed Brakes with Momentary On |
Switch?
At 11:03 AM 1/11/2014, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob and everyone for your most excellent
>help. Im a novice at electrical circuit stuff
>as you can tell but, eager to learn and willing to ask questions.
>
>And yes, I agree, spoilers is a more accurate
>term for these lift disturbing devices Ill correct that.
It's an understandably mixed bag for terminology . . .
Forces exerted by drag go up with square of speed so extending
these little critters into the slip stream at cruise will, no
doubt, exert substantial drag during a flight condition where
lift is at maximum (attack angle low).
During approach to landing, airspeed is perhaps 1/3 that of
high speed descent and the wing is working harder at a
higher attack angle.
The only two times I experienced the behavior of this system
was in Mooney's on approach. Once at Kerrville with a factory
test pilot, the other at Wichita in a friend's airplane. In
both cases I was encouraged to toggle the boards up and down
while watching the effects on rate of descent.
The extending the boards had no observable effects on airspeed
or angle of attack but a profound effect on rate of descent.
Hence they were behaving more as modifiers of lift
than as dissipators of kinetic energy . . . i.e. spoilers
I think there is a valid argument to be made for both behaviors
dependent upon the flight airplane's flight condition.
I was at Cessna in their Tech Pubs department when Bill Thompson
(founder of Precise Flight) was head of flight test. He was
partners with my teacher, friend and mentor of more than 40 years
(Ken Razak) in a nice old C-195. It was my offer to install a
Cessna surplus ADF-300 in the 195 that introduced me to Ken
and launched a career very rich in opportunities to learn.
I owe much to those two gentlemen . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
To answer your original question, the lighter jack you mentioned should
work with 24V. Typically voltage ratings are either (1) for safety
reasons, where it is easy to stick a finger in and get a shock, or (2) for
dielectric withstanding/arcing. 12 to 24V isn't enough to trigger either
restriction. While alternatives have been suggested, fuse it properly and
you'll be fine.
-Jeff-
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:46 AM, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>
> user9253 wrote:
> > How about installing two DC power outlets, one for 24 volts and one for
> 12 volts? One like this can be used for 24 volts without the danger of a
> 12 volt device being plugged into it.
> http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Switchcraft/712A/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMv1TUPJeFpwbvDLoO7VplWmGzPCelncVas%3d
> >
>
> Kind of hard to plug my Garmin 396 into that.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419922#419922
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24v aux power port? |
Thank you! :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419957#419957
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kjohnsondds(at)yahoo.com" <kjohnsondds(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two into one or three into one solder |
splice
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightline harness |
I am installing a Flightline FL 760 transceiver in my RV-7A project.
I bought the wiring harness from Aircraft Spruce with jacks attached.
The wires are labeled for the most part but 3 wires have me confused.
There are 2 wires soldered to the ptt tab on the mic jacks. One wire
goes back to the harness and the other wire is loose with no label.
This one would route to your stick-grip mounted
TRANSMIT button . . .
Also there is a wire from the harness labeled ptt intercom. I'm not
sure which wires should be connected to my ptt switch on my sticks.
This wire goes to a separate button on the grip
for INTERCOM.
I have researched this on the internet with no luck. The wiring
schematic provided by the manufacturer didn't cover the extra wire
from the mic jack. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Tim.
Way back when I was selling MicroAir, I did an installation
manual for the transceiver which you can download here.
http://tinyurl.com/m7mj7rk
I don't know that the pin numbers on the radio are the
same as what you have but the functionality is the same.
This 'more complete' wiring diagram is an example of how
your radio would be wired.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 91X 26 amp Gen2 $137.50 per amp |
At 09:19 AM 2/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Group
>
>Those who have a Rotax 91X know things aren't cheap.
>
>Here's a 26 amp Gen2 for $137.50 per amp:
>http://sportair.aero/12-epapower/epapower/
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
>BTW if you are a real die hard you can put one on the 130 HP 915 for $57,250
Ahhh . . . the joys of free-market exchange of value . . .
for the moment we still have many options to ponder
from a variety of sources.
The Rotax 912 manual . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pa4k5by
page 17-5 illustrates a 2nd alternator
option that appears to be a relatively stock
automotive alternator with more output and
probably MUCH less expensive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage as ground conductor |
At 01:08 PM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>Obviously, I am getting into this a bit late, but what about
>airplanes like the newer Bonanzas where all skins and stringers were
>painted prior to assembly? No doubt that the rivets when driven
>would spread to contact each joined skin, but would that be
>sufficient area to carry the current?
Good question . . . and it depends. A properly
bucked rivet swells to completely fill the holes
in a sheet. It seems unlikely that insulating
naterials would persist with enough contamination
to seriously degrade the conductivity . . . besides,
there are so many!
But things can happen. For example, I saw a
King Air out at Mid Continent getting
pressurization checks after some major refurb
including a paint job. Seems that the
chemical stripper used to prepare the airplane
for paint etched metal away under the rivet heads.
During pressurization checks, thousands of rivets
were found to 'bubble' when soaped.
This would place the conductivity of the airframe
in doubt as well. If stuff got in and ate material
away, then 'gas tightness' is lost.
I don't think the new assembly methods necessarily
degrade rivet conductivity but for sure, environmental
stresses (and over zealous painters) might offer
an alternative reality in time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 11:30 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>Apologies for not properly defining the issue ....the unit consists
>of four superbright LEds in a unit and is 12 v ready. So i want to
>take more than one of these units and create a flashing beacon light.
Okay, we're mulling over the options for producing
a white flashing beacon not unlike those sold as
strobes. This brings to mind an array of lamps
that is flashed about 60-90 times a minute
with a duty-cycle on the order of 10%. The
cool thing about the short duty cycle is that
you can drive the lamps with greater than
their continuous rated current without overheating
them. This lets you get brighter flashes than
might otherwise be secured with simple
on/off flasher circuits.
Doing the flasher for controlling 12v to the
lamps is pretty simple. The venerable 555 timer
has been incorporated into dozens of light
flashing circuits over its 50+ market life.
http://tinyurl.com/28tdjz
At the same time, you might want to consider
removing any resistors in the light assemblies
and driving them with a constant current power
supply specifically tailored to LED driving.
Sorry, there's not a satisfying 'short answer'
to your question. To confine a response to simply
flashing the off the shelf fixtures you're
working with would produce an outcome that's
far short of the best we know how to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
Does anyone have a resource for 14V White, Amber, and Blue indicators.
I am reorganizing my panel and the audio panel (PS Engineering
PMA7000M-S) is going to be out of easy field of view for approaches. The
PMA7000M-S has pins on the connector for remote lights so it won't be
too hard to wire it up. The real problem is that I'm finding it really
hard to find small incandescent lamps.
I'd love to find some Dialight 507-3914 series 14V cartridge lamps and
holders. They're just about the right size. I see them available in
white and amber but no blue. There's a hole in the part number series
where the blue one was and I've found a reference for them but it says
"Obsolete" and stock "0". :(
These are either Dialight 507-3914-1474-600 or MS-18235-2BT. Someone
probably has a drawer full of them somewhere...
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Have you considered LEDs? There are TONS of sources out there for them. Larg
e, Small, Medium... You name it. Just search 12v led indicator on google. I s
pent days searching thru the results from google before I decided on which o
ne to do. Plenty of good choices. The other thing to consider is that the ma
rkers aren't required if you have a different way to identify the fix.
There are a very few rare approaches where there is nothing but an OM marker
beacon to mark the FAF for a localizer-only approach. In those cases, you c
an't get by with DME or an ADF, but the FAF should be identifiable with a GP
S that has the fix in its database. Note that some GPS's like the KLN-89B do
not have non-GPS approaches in their database (and thus, no unnamed approac
h fixes) in their database, but more modern ones like the Garmin GNS430 do. I
n addition, as noted above, marker beacon receivers are required equipment f
or Cat II/III ILS approaches, but not too many of us do those.
There is always the flashing light factor. The more stuff the cooler it look
s.
Lone star has some dimable light pods.
http://www.lonestaraviation.com/MS-Dimmable-Panel-Indicator-14V.html
There are other color filters available as well
Justin
On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:05, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a resource for 14V White, Amber, and Blue indicators.
>
> I am reorganizing my panel and the audio panel (PS Engineering PMA7000M-S)
is going to be out of easy field of view for approaches. The PMA7000M-S has
pins on the connector for remote lights so it won't be too hard to wire it u
p. The real problem is that I'm finding it really hard to find small incande
scent lamps.
>
> I'd love to find some Dialight 507-3914 series 14V cartridge lamps and hol
ders. They're just about the right size. I see them available in white and a
mber but no blue. There's a hole in the part number series where the blue on
e was and I've found a reference for them but it says "Obsolete" and stock "
0". :(
>
> These are either Dialight 507-3914-1474-600 or MS-18235-2BT. Someone proba
bly has a drawer full of them somewhere...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
Bill;
A quick "Google" search reveals several suppliers with part number
507-3914-1474-600 in stock. (some are the "F" version which appears to be
the RoHS compliant model) Also some have minimums which will be a problem -
but-
http://www.masterelectronics.com shows 2 of the "F" model available to ship
http://www.onlinecomponents.com has 2 of the "F" model in stock for $4.95
ea
http://www.sierraic.com has 688 in stock
http://www.componentsmax.com says they have 51,800 in stock
http://www.harrykrantz.com shows 17 available
Why not an LED indicator which would have a better service life than the
incandescent model quoted??
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Putney
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:05 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators?
>
>
> Does anyone have a resource for 14V White, Amber, and Blue indicators.
>
> I am reorganizing my panel and the audio panel (PS Engineering
> PMA7000M-S) is going to be out of easy field of view for approaches. The
> PMA7000M-S has pins on the connector for remote lights so it won't be
> too hard to wire it up. The real problem is that I'm finding it really
> hard to find small incandescent lamps.
>
> I'd love to find some Dialight 507-3914 series 14V cartridge lamps and
> holders. They're just about the right size. I see them available in
> white and amber but no blue. There's a hole in the part number series
> where the blue one was and I've found a reference for them but it says
> "Obsolete" and stock "0". :(
>
> These are either Dialight 507-3914-1474-600 or MS-18235-2BT. Someone
> probably has a drawer full of them somewhere...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
Good Afternoon Bob and Bill,
May I ask why you want the marker beacon indication? It is/was part of
the low frequency range system which was shut down over sixty years ago. It
has been retained for use with a few ILSs and some NDB approaches, but such
use is rapidly being discontinued.
I know of no fix designated by a marker beacon that cannot be found via
some other legal IFR data.
That is especially true if one has an IFR approved GPS installed.
There is nothing wrong with having a marker beacon receiver installed, but
you can eliminate an antenna and some wiring by getting rid of it. You
might even be able to save some panel space.
My vote is to forget about the marker Beacon Receiver.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
Good Afternoon JM,
You mention that you need to have the fix in the GPS database to use it in
lieu of the marker beacon. That is not completely correct. If there is any
other fix along the same course that IS in the database, A distance from
that fix may be used. Check out the section in the AIM that has to do with
using the GPS in lieu of ADF and DME. That and other uses are covered quite
well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 3/9/2014 1:33:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com writes:
Have you considered LEDs? There are TONS of sources out there for them.
Large, Small, Medium... You name it. Just search 12v led indicator on google.
I spent days searching thru the results from google before I decided on
which one to do. Plenty of good choices. The other thing to consider is that
the markers aren't required if you have a different way to identify the
fix.
There are a very few rare approaches where there is nothing but an OM
marker beacon to mark the FAF for a localizer-only approach. In those cases,
you can't get by with DME or an ADF, but the FAF should be identifiable with
a GPS that has the fix in its database. Note that some GPS's like the
KLN-89B do not have non-GPS approaches in their database (and thus, no unnamed
approach fixes) in their database, but more modern ones like the Garmin
GNS430 do. In addition, as noted above, marker beacon receivers are required
equipment for Cat II/III ILS approaches, but not too many of us do those.
There is always the flashing light factor. The more stuff the cooler it
looks.
Lone star has some dimable light pods.
http://www.lonestaraviation.com/MS-Dimmable-Panel-Indicator-14V.html
There are other color filters available as well
Justin
On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:05, Bill Putney <_billp(at)wwpc.com_
(mailto:billp(at)wwpc.com) > wrote:
(mailto:billp(at)wwpc.com) >
Does anyone have a resource for 14V White, Amber, and Blue indicators.
I am reorganizing my panel and the audio panel (PS Engineering PMA7000M-S)
is going to be out of easy field of view for approaches. The PMA7000M-S
has pins on the connector for remote lights so it won't be too hard to wire
it up. The real problem is that I'm finding it really hard to find small
incandescent lamps.
I'd love to find some Dialight 507-3914 series 14V cartridge lamps and
holders. They're just about the right size. I see them available in white and
amber but no blue. There's a hole in the part number series where the blue
one was and I've found a reference for them but it says "Obsolete" and
stock "0". :(
These are either Dialight 507-3914-1474-600 or MS-18235-2BT. Someone
probably has a drawer full of them somewhere...
Bill
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li=========================
========================http://w===========================================
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 91X 26 amp Gen2 $137.50 per amp |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
True Rotax alt. alternator can be run from the front of the motor when prop is
in tractor mode, on the plane Europa I'm building it requires quite the modification
to the cowl and making sure that you have adequate clearance for the slip
ring contact for the constant speed Airmaster prop. The cowl is quite close
fitting to the motor.
I'm not an absolute advocate to $137.50 per amp, but it is driven by the aft side
of the motor.
A Europa enthusiast was offering a kit to drive an alternator from the aft side
of the motor for considerably less than $137.50 per amp. Perhaps all is OK, but
long term in service history I suspect is not available.
I personally ran scared and purchased a short B+C alternator with a regulator that
features Applied Archaic Technology (LR3C-14).
Not ideal. Weight further forward. Not cheap. The regulator is probably not as
efficient as a switcher. The alternator does not spin as fast as would be desirable.
But quality hardware, probably very reliable, you can easily set the set
point voltage. It kinda gives me a warm cozy feeling.
Set up was not $137.50 per amp, but not cheap.
I initially purchased a ND with an internal regulator that was machined to fit
a Rotax 91X vacuum pad. Unlike the B+C, no attempt was made to deal with a seized
alternator like B+C addressed. In addition the drive gear had a smaller width.
I was in contact with a Europa owner with a 6 cylinder Jabaru engine, and
he ate up several alternator driver gears with the modified ND alternator.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420078#420078
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Maybe I'm missing something, but the color filters on the face of the PS Engineering
PMA7000M-S were made to light up with plain old sort-of-white lamps.
Wouldn't white LEDs do fine?
--------
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=420091#420091
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators? |
Thanks...
Yeah, I'm considering all sorts of things. I like those Dialight lamps
because they don't glare like LED's tend to do. I guess I could take
some sandpaper to some LED's and fix that problem.
I'll take a look at the sources you listed.
Thanks again, Bill
On 3/9/14, 11:58 AM, Bob McCallum wrote:
>
> Bill;
>
> A quick "Google" search reveals several suppliers with part number
> 507-3914-1474-600 in stock. (some are the "F" version which appears to be
> the RoHS compliant model) Also some have minimums which will be a problem -
> but-
> http://www.masterelectronics.com shows 2 of the "F" model available to ship
> http://www.onlinecomponents.com has 2 of the "F" model in stock for $4.95
> ea
> http://www.sierraic.com has 688 in stock
> http://www.componentsmax.com says they have 51,800 in stock
> http://www.harrykrantz.com shows 17 available
>
> Why not an LED indicator which would have a better service life than the
> incandescent model quoted??
>
> Bob McC
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
>> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Putney
>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 2:05 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker Beacon Remote Indicators?
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a resource for 14V White, Amber, and Blue indicators.
>>
>> I am reorganizing my panel and the audio panel (PS Engineering
>> PMA7000M-S) is going to be out of easy field of view for approaches. The
>> PMA7000M-S has pins on the connector for remote lights so it won't be
>> too hard to wire it up. The real problem is that I'm finding it really
>> hard to find small incandescent lamps.
>>
>> I'd love to find some Dialight 507-3914 series 14V cartridge lamps and
>> holders. They're just about the right size. I see them available in
>> white and amber but no blue. There's a hole in the part number series
>> where the blue one was and I've found a reference for them but it says
>> "Obsolete" and stock "0". :(
>>
>> These are either Dialight 507-3914-1474-600 or MS-18235-2BT. Someone
>> probably has a drawer full of them somewhere...
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> _-
>> =====================================================
>> =====
>> _-
>> =====================================================
>> =====
>> _-
>> =====================================================
>> =====
>> _-
>> =====================================================
>> =====
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Some years ago I published the attached regarding the use of LEDs for beacons.
I was gratified to know it was pretty much right on because Whelen called me to
make a minor correction. They said their engineers love it and use it. It is
a companion piece to the LED article also attached which was written for Kitplanes...but
remains unpublished.
It is easy to make bad LED lighting, and there's a lot of it on the market. Be
careful. Some day the FAA might introduce a ramp-check lighting standard. This
will happen after a well-publicized accident caused by homemade LED lighting.
Now, on timer circuits: (the pertains to Wig-wags, but the same would apply to
single pulse units) The difficult problem with using a 555 timer is figuring out
how to avoid the 150% first pulse. (I.e. the first pulse is 1-1/2 times as
long as the remaining pulses.) I know a couple ways to do this but finally decided
the easy way was to ditch the 555 and use a CD4060 14-stage binary ripple
counter. The 150% first pulse problem is still there but it is now divided by
256...so it is not noticeable. Various pulse times are just a matter of switching
resistors. The circuit is the size of a postage stamp and needs no heat sink.
I have sold these in single pulse units for beacons and single landing light aircraft
with the output timing 375 ms ON/OFF.
I am still working on a system for my own airplane that would consist of half-a-dozen
or more synced LEDs instead of a beacon sticking into the breeze. I think
this is FAA legal (Bob?). The FAA historically loves red beacons, although
white strobes are common, big red LEDs make a heck of a beacon.
--------
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=420094#420094
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/wig_wag_d6d_schematic_121.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/led_lighting_article_draft_13may08_525.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_beacons_using_leds_307.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 10:29 AM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
Some years ago I published the attached regarding the use of LEDs for
beacons. I was gratified to know it was pretty much right on because
Whelen called me to make a minor correction. They said their
engineers love it and use it. It is a companion piece to the LED
article also attached which was written for Kitplanes...but remains
unpublished.
Pretty heavy reading for a Kitplanes subscriber . . . I'm wrestling
with the 4th installment on batteries with a focus on lithium . . . and
trying to peel back the layers on the physics onion without getting
too deep . . .
If you wish, I'd be pleased to post both articles to aeroelectric.com
It is easy to make bad LED lighting, and there's a lot of it on the
market. Be careful. Some day the FAA might introduce a ramp-check
lighting standard. This will happen after a well-publicized accident
caused by homemade LED lighting.
Not seeing much risk here . . . the fact that one of the
airplanes involved had 'unapproved' lighting goes only
to the sanctity of number published by those-who-know-more-
about-airplanes-than-we-do and little to do with known
facts for cause-effect.
The vast majority of airplanes attempting to occupy
the same airspace had 'approved' lighting on them. Whether
the lights were even ON is not generally a provable
condition. But in some cases, as many as four pilots
had their heads down . . . no doubt getting an update
from the moving map . . . or pouring coffee . . . who
knows?
http://tinyurl.com/k5alncy
I thought I had the NTSB docs on this incident but
can't find them now. NTSB monthly index doesn't
cite it either . . . Hmmmm . . .
But the idea that putting any kind of requirements
on lighting characteristics will have a quantifiable
effect on accident rates is unsupportable.
Now, on timer circuits: (the pertains to Wig-wags, but the same would
apply to single pulse units) The difficult problem with using a 555
timer is figuring out how to avoid the 150% first pulse. (I.e. the
first pulse is 1-1/2 times as long as the remaining pulses.) I know a
couple ways to do this but finally decided the easy way was to ditch
the 555 and use a CD4060 14-stage binary ripple counter. The 150%
first pulse problem is still there but it is now divided by 256...so
it is not noticeable. Various pulse times are just a matter of
switching resistors. The circuit is the size of a postage stamp and
needs no heat sink.
Yeah, I went the software route . . .
I have sold these in single pulse units for beacons and single
landing light aircraft with the output timing 375 ms ON/OFF.
I am still working on a system for my own airplane that would consist
of half-a-dozen or more synced LEDs instead of a beacon sticking
into the breeze. I think this is FAA legal (Bob?).
You got me my friend . . . I'm not sure most of the
regulators have the tools and experience to know . . . the
safe thing to do is fall back on the regs and somebody
else's approvals that came from some desk in OKC.
The FAA historically loves red beacons, although white strobes are
common, big red LEDs make a heck of a beacon.
You bet . . . long stripes of lighting make for much
larger viewing angles . . . problem is getting them
embedded into surfaces that are the most critical to
flight characteristics . . . the stagnation line along
leading edges . . . where de-ice systems like to reside.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LED Landing Lights |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A customer of mine tried these LED MR-16 lamps and he says they look brighter than
the 75W lamps they replace.
Google: " Soraa 00241 11.5 Watt LED MR16 75W "
And hey, that's 1A each to replace 6A each.
You might also try DX.com SKU: 286991 MR16 9W 760lm 6500K
--------
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=420108#420108
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:44 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
>I have a copy of the Aeroelectric "manual." Great book/manual. Like
>everyone I am taking a different approach. I'm sure you have had similar
>questions. I have a Chevy LS-1/V8 on my kit (Murphy Moose). I have dual
>alternators, a CS-130 and a CS-130D both capable of 80A output. I am using
>dual alternators/batteries as I have electronic ignition and the loss of
>the alternator is equivalent to an engine out.
Have you done an energy budge study on this project?
How many watts of power are required to keep the engine
running?
>Question 1: So how good are the voltage regulators in these alternators
>(mine are from PowerMaster). Reading your manual, I get the need for the
>regulation. I'm wondering if it's worth taking out the regulators in the
>alternators and use those from B&C or do I stick with those in the
>Alternator? Alternatively (no pun intended) is there another method of
>regulation I should consider.
Can't deal with this question intelligently until I
understand your energy requirements and we ponder the
options for architectures.
>Question 2: Looking at some of the StarkPower lithium batteries... a
>little expensive, but really light and lots of power. do you see any issues
>with these?
LOTS of issues . . . which I'm wrestling with in a series
of articles for Kitplanes. There is MUCH that is experimental
about the system you described. Suggest you take Uncle Bert's
advice to heart when he said, "Playing with an experimental
engine? Do it on a solid old TC airframe. Playing with an new
airframe?, fly it first with a known-quantity engine."
Lithium is NOT known quantity yet . . . suggest you stay
with SVLA for the interim. In the mean time, let's talk
about your design goals and system requirements on the List
so that what we discover can be shared . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
I will chime in here as I built and fly a V-8 alternative engine experim
ental...Mine is a V-8 347 cu in stroker Ford using MSD ignition and a ca
rb... I also run a Holley "red": fuel pump that delivers 6 PSI... The OP
has a LS-1 that needs a high pressure fuel pump running ALL the time so
power demands are higher, but not out of sight.. My motor needs 1 amp f
or every 1000 rpms to run the ignition system and 4 amps for the Holley
fuel boost pump I ran for take offs and landings.. I run a Optima Red T
op 1000CCA battery for both rear weight ballast and longevity in case of
an alternator failure. The DAR that inspected my plane asked that parti
cular question and by my calculations I figured I had enough spare power
in the battery alone to fly 7 hours, land, refuel, fly another 7 hours.
land, refuel, fly another 7 hours and by that time I would be getting c
lose to the point of ignition misfire from low power... I told him if I
was stupid enough to take off 3 times with a known failed alternator I d
eserve to crash.... He agreed and signed off my plane... 500+ hours late
r the V-8 runs perfectly.. In fact my plane is on the top of the front c
over of this months Kitplanes magazine... As for the OP's question.
. Your answer is in the capacity or your battery... IMHO Ben Haas.www.ha
aspowerair.com Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Question
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:34:02 -0500
olls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 05:44 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
>I have a copy of the Aeroelectric "manual." Great book/manual. Like
>everyone I am taking a different approach. I'm sure you have had simil
ar
>questions. I have a Chevy LS-1/V8 on my kit (Murphy Moose). I have du
al
>alternators, a CS-130 and a CS-130D both capable of 80A output. I am u
sing
>dual alternators/batteries as I have electronic ignition and the loss o
f
>the alternator is equivalent to an engine out.
Have you done an energy budge study on this project?
How many watts of power are required to keep the engine
running?
>Question 1: So how good are the voltage regulators in these alternators
>(mine are from PowerMaster). Reading your manual, I get the need for t
he
>regulation. I'm wondering if it's worth taking out the regulators in th
e
>alternators and use those from B&C or do I stick with those in the
>Alternator? Alternatively (no pun intended) is there another method of
>regulation I should consider.
Can't deal with this question intelligently until I
understand your energy requirements and we ponder the
options for architectures.
>Question 2: Looking at some of the StarkPower lithium batteries... a
>little expensive, but really light and lots of power. do you see any is
sues
>with these?
LOTS of issues . . . which I'm wrestling with in a series
of articles for Kitplanes. There is MUCH that is experimental
about the system you described. Suggest you take Uncle Bert's
advice to heart when he said, "Playing with an experimental
engine? Do it on a solid old TC airframe. Playing with an new
airframe?, fly it first with a known-quantity engine."
Lithium is NOT known quantity yet . . . suggest you stay
with SVLA for the interim. In the mean time, let's talk
about your design goals and system requirements on the List
so that what we discover can be shared . . .
Bob . . .
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
How to Stay Asleep All Night
Try this one weird trick to put your sleep troubles to rest.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/531e63cac447a63ca34ffst03duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | David Duperron <davedup10(at)gmail.com> |
I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light after
about 10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main battery buss
and I would like to know that if I forgot to turn it off the timer would do
it for me before draining the battery. Any ideas?
David Duperron
dapadup(at)chartermi.net
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> emjones(at)charter.net>
>
> Some years ago I published the attached regarding the use of LEDs for
> beacons. I was gratified to know it was pretty much right on because Whelen
> called me to make a minor correction. They said their engineers love it and
> use it. It is a companion piece to the LED article also attached which was
> written for Kitplanes...but remains unpublished.
>
> It is easy to make bad LED lighting, and there's a lot of it on the
> market. Be careful. Some day the FAA might introduce a ramp-check lighting
> standard. This will happen after a well-publicized accident caused by
> homemade LED lighting.
>
> Now, on timer circuits: (the pertains to Wig-wags, but the same would
> apply to single pulse units) The difficult problem with using a 555 timer
> is figuring out how to avoid the 150% first pulse. (I.e. the first pulse is
> 1-1/2 times as long as the remaining pulses.) I know a couple ways to do
> this but finally decided the easy way was to ditch the 555 and use a CD4060
> 14-stage binary ripple counter. The 150% first pulse problem is still there
> but it is now divided by 256...so it is not noticeable. Various pulse times
> are just a matter of switching resistors. The circuit is the size of a
> postage stamp and needs no heat sink.
>
> I have sold these in single pulse units for beacons and single landing
> light aircraft with the output timing 375 ms ON/OFF.
>
> I am still working on a system for my own airplane that would consist of
> half-a-dozen or more synced LEDs instead of a beacon sticking into the
> breeze. I think this is FAA legal (Bob?). The FAA historically loves red
> beacons, although white strobes are common, big red LEDs make a heck of a
> beacon.
>
> --------
> 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=420094#420094
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/wig_wag_d6d_schematic_121.pdf
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/led_lighting_article_draft_13may08_525.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_beacons_using_leds_307.pdf
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 09:18 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
>I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light
>after about 10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main
>battery buss and I would like to know that if I forgot to turn it
>off the timer would do it for me before draining the battery. Any ideas?
Are you wanting to DIY from scratch parts
or looking for a Plug-n-Play assembly?
There are dozens of ways to implement this
on-limit function. I have a micro-controller
that is configured to offer this functionality
but you have to wrap a few goodies around
it. It will eventually find its way into
a PnP product but for now, it's just the chip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:14 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
I will chime in here as I built and fly a V-8 alternative engine
experimental...
Mine is a V-8 347 cu in stroker Ford using MSD ignition and a carb...
I also run a Holley "red": fuel pump that delivers 6 PSI...
The OP has a LS-1 that needs a high pressure fuel pump running ALL
the time so power demands are higher, but not out of sight..
My motor needs 1 amp for every 1000 rpms to run the ignition system
and 4 amps for the Holley fuel boost pump I ran for take offs and
landings.. I run a Optima Red Top 1000CCA battery for both rear
weight ballast and longevity in case of an alternator failure. The
DAR that inspected my plane asked that particular question and by my
calculations I figured I had enough spare power in the battery alone
to fly 7 hours, land, refuel, fly another 7 hours. land, refuel, fly
another 7 hours and by that time I would be getting close to the
point of ignition misfire from low power...
I told him if I was stupid enough to take off 3 times with a known
failed alternator I deserve to crash.... He agreed and signed off my
plane... 500+ hours later the V-8 runs perfectly.. In fact my plane
is on the top of the front cover of this months Kitplanes magazine...
As for the OP's question.. Your answer is in the capacity or your
battery... IMHO
Agreed. I know it's difficult to put down the
hammers and saws and get out the pencils to
craft a cogent requirements document to confidently
guide future hammer'n and saw'n.
I'm working on a pamphlet to be shared with my
present benefactors for gainful activity entitled
"The Quest for Elegant Requirements". The premise
of my offering suggests that much of what are
dubbed 'requirements' are in fact 'intellectual
band-aids' put in place to hide the fact that
there are many features for which the real
reliability requirements are not well known.
Another burden on $time$ to market cycle arises
when we do whizzy things simply because we can. Those
impressive features really look good in the marketing
brochures but fly in the face of simple-ideas that
go back hundreds of years.
7 centuries ago, William of Ockham posited the
idea, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate".
The statement translates roughly into the notion that
one should not multiply complexity un necessarily.
Similarly, Thomas Paine wrote only 2 centuries ago,
"The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is
to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered."
These ideas are core to the crafting of any system
and especially useful when failure of the system under
study has high risk implications. These are time-honored,
well demonstrated processes such as those described
in Ben's missive about his approach to system
reliability.
Ben's numbers may not translate directly into OP's
solution but the process by which they are deduced
and satisfied are the same.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
Thanks for the responses.
I bumped into a "heat seeker" in the electronics store who was playing
around with LED light sequencing. When I aired my concept, he was only to
happy to have me test his "oscillator circuit" as he called it. "12 V
ready" to boot.
So I hooked it up and tested it, and found the time interval is dependent
on the no of LED bars, and was very noisy on the radio. I then added the
fat cap which silences the unit completely on audio. Probably overkill on
the Cap.
Apparently it is easy to add sequencing and variable on off
durations....might just try that out for a wig wag type setup.
A little video of the unit at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IfTgY_GTg
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 9 March 2014 18:59, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 11:30 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>
>> Apologies for not properly defining the issue ....the unit consists of
>> four superbright LEds in a unit and is 12 v ready. So i want to take more
>> than one of these units and create a flashing beacon light.
>>
>
> Okay, we're mulling over the options for producing
> a white flashing beacon not unlike those sold as
> strobes. This brings to mind an array of lamps
> that is flashed about 60-90 times a minute
> with a duty-cycle on the order of 10%. The
> cool thing about the short duty cycle is that
> you can drive the lamps with greater than
> their continuous rated current without overheating
> them. This lets you get brighter flashes than
> might otherwise be secured with simple
> on/off flasher circuits.
>
> Doing the flasher for controlling 12v to the
> lamps is pretty simple. The venerable 555 timer
> has been incorporated into dozens of light
> flashing circuits over its 50+ market life.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28tdjz
>
> At the same time, you might want to consider
> removing any resistors in the light assemblies
> and driving them with a constant current power
> supply specifically tailored to LED driving.
>
> Sorry, there's not a satisfying 'short answer'
> to your question. To confine a response to simply
> flashing the off the shelf fixtures you're
> working with would produce an outcome that's
> far short of the best we know how to do.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | See and be seen fallacy |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets Airborne",
CDTI Test Flight.
> The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI
picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision
course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles
a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.
> Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat
aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon as
we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one
mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised
that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.
know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing,
will you see it in time?
>
The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based on
slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the closure rate in the above example,
two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive
action. And it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots
just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets
within one mile? Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the
ground for several seconds at a time. If the pilot happens to look in the direction
of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any? Strobes
and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on. ADS-B
is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions. And that could be improved
by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately
!"
I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window. But doing so will not
necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.
If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the one
above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420139#420139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 05:59 AM 3/11/2014, you wrote:
Thanks for the responses.
I bumped into a "heat seeker" in the electronics store who was
playing around with LED light sequencing. When I aired my concept, he
was only to happy to have me test his "oscillator circuit" as he
called it. "12 V ready" to boot.
So I hooked it up and tested it, and found the time interval is
dependent on the no of LED bars,
Hmmmm . . . normally, one expects behavior of
'controls' to be independent of the nature
of 'loads' . . .
and was very noisy on the radio.
What was the nature of radio noise? Can you
share the schematic under discussion?
I then added the fat cap which silences the unit completely on
audio. Probably overkill on the Cap.
. . . again, a schematic would contribute greatly
to crafting a common image amongst the readers.
Apparently it is easy to add sequencing and variable on off
durations....might just try that out for a wig wag type setup.
I wasn't sure if you were setting out to craft
a beacon or wig-wag system. Beacons tend to be
high intensity, short burst, semi-spherical emissions
while the wig-wag adapts existing illumination fixtures
into a recognition lights system with attention
getting qualities only forward of the airplane.
If you're wanting to craft a wig-wag, you might
want to exploit the open source work we offered
here on the List about a year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/d9q6ntj
This link offers all the information to duplicate
or expand on the wig-wag project at any level.
I can offer programmed controllers for $5 each.
If you want a turn-key wig-wag controller, I have
those too.
By the way, any List readers who were monitoring
discussion and development of this project at
the time will recall that I was taken to task for
considering the addition of a HID warm-up delay feature
in the software. I was told that would violate a "patented"
wig-wag system currently offered to the OBAM aviation
community.
I downloaded the patent cited for study.
http://tinyurl.com/ms23j3f
This turned out to be a terribly written document
that is very broad and cites vague features like "current
manipulators". Further, it's a 'stealthy' attempt
to cloak an aviation wig-wag system in some other
design goal for 'extending bulb life'. The patent cuts a wide
swath with respect to variations on a theme. For example, on the
last page we read:
[]
This says that any combination of on/off switches combined with
any sort of flasher will in violation of the patent whether the transition
from warm-up to flash mode is accomplished manually or automatically
by timer or software.
Hence, I could be considered in violation of this
patent were I to advise anyone that my AEC9012 wig-wag
controller can be used with HID fixtures by simply commanding
to both-full-on for a minute before moving the switch
to wig-wag function. In the interest of collegial harmony
amongst the OBAM aviation community, I hereby refrain
from offering such advice.
In short, the gentleman who owns this patent should hit
the attorney up for getting his money back. It's so vague,
broad and loaded with floobydust (boat load of cited
references with dubious relevance) as to be essentially
worthless as a guardian ideas cited in textbooks and
manufacturer's published data masquerading as original
intellectual property.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: See and be seen fallacy |
> The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other
> aircraft is based on slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the
> closure rate in the above example, two pilots have 13 seconds to
> see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive action. And
> it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots just
> happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it
> gets within one mile?
Exactly. About 15 years ago I participated in an ad hoc
gathering of techno-wennies, pilots and operators who
sifted through a host of simple ideas for collision
avoidance for exploiting then existing technologies. We met
at the EAA museum in OSH one January weekend that was
about as cold as I've ever experienced! I was amazed that
my travel companion's car even started the morning we
left for home . . . I think it was about 15 below that
morning.
In two days, we crafted a recommendation that
a host of objects of interest to pilots could be
'tagged' with a simple beacon that says, "Here I am! My
position is (LAT,LON), my speed over ground is (GS), my
course is (DEG), my height is (ALT) and my threat category
is (A thru H for fixed, drifting balloon, air recreational vehicle,
light plane, high performance, small air transport,
medium air transport, heavy air transport).
The data would be a simple squitter stream with a repetition
rate proportional to ground speed. The faster you're moving,
the greater your update rate.
Beacons could be fitted to mountain tops, towers, buildings,
airport obstructions, and all manner of flying machine.
The beacon would be independent of any receiver and associated
interpreter of data. It would be cheap and easy to install
beacons that could also serve as crash locators. The major
difference between beacons and locators being that the
beacons ran all the time.
Any owner/operator interested in utilizing this data would
add a receiver/interpreter that could supply all manner
of warning either aurally or visually. The data stream is
open source so any number of end users could exploit the
data for incorporation into their panel mounted offering.
That was a satisfying experience and a great study in
spontaneous organization. That little brain trust of about
20 folks produced what I believed was an exceedingly elegant
solution to a very difficult problem . . . how to make a
huge constellation of solid objects with closure speeds
of 10-400 MPH aware of each other irrespective of external
visual conditions . . . and supply quality data that
goes to reduction of risk for collision. It was a 'talk
and be heard philosophy'.
The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with
a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .
but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing
monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation
of an open source technology.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: See and be seen fallacy |
Doesn't surprise me. Haven't we all had the experience of hearing a
pilot call their position in the pattern, and us looking and looking
and not seeing them, until several seconds later?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:21 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets
>
>> The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI
picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision
course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles
a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.
>> Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat
aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon
as we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one
mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised
that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.
know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing,
will you see it in time?
>>
> The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based
on slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the closure rate in the above example,
two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take
evasive action. And it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots
just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets
within one mile? Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the
ground for several seconds at a time. If the pilot happens to look in the
direction of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any?
Strobes and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on. ADS-B
is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions. And that could be improved
by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately
!"
> I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window. But doing so will
not necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.
> If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the
one above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420139#420139
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | See and be seen fallacy |
>
> The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with
> a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .
> but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing
> monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation
> of an open source technology.
The "I didn't design it therefore it is of no value" philosophy
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | David Duperron <davedup10(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
A PnP product would be ideal but I'm not opposed to building it if I have
instructions (schematic) and can find the parts I will need. David Duperron
Thanks Bob
davedup10(at)gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:18 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light after
>> about 10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main battery buss
>> and I would like to know that if I forgot to turn it off the timer would do
>> it for me before draining the battery. Any ideas?
>>
>
> Are you wanting to DIY from scratch parts
> or looking for a Plug-n-Play assembly?
>
> There are dozens of ways to implement this
> on-limit function. I have a micro-controller
> that is configured to offer this functionality
> but you have to wrap a few goodies around
> it. It will eventually find its way into
> a PnP product but for now, it's just the chip.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 09:11 PM 3/11/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>A PnP product would be ideal but I'm not opposed to building it if I
>have instructions (schematic) and can find the parts I will need.
>David Duperron Thanks Bob
All the data to duplicate the effort
at any level is on the website. Look it
over and choose a level consistent
with your level of comfort/risk . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Searching for OFF Delay Timing Relay, these were found:
http://www.grainger.com/product/MACROMATIC-Encapsulated-Timer-Rly-21EP68?s_pp=false
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DC-12V-delay-relay-delay-Turn-on-Turn-off-switch-module-with-timer-/251373367057
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/H3FA-AU-DC12V/Z3012-ND/2237310
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Magnecraft-Schneider-Electric/822TD10H-UNI/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMusEhY1Fvo8txannxpCQaZxnY%2fFt%2fHlWmw%3d
Depending on the relay, a momentary input signal might be required.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420186#420186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
There are dome light timer relays for cars
http://www.delcity.net/store/Time-Delay-Relay/p_804415.h_804416.t_1.r_IF1003?gclid=COb_ieijjb0CFc1afgodbl0AUA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Whelen strobe set for sale |
| From: | "rngurley" <rngurley(at)att.net> |
I have a full Whelen aircraft strobe set for sale. This includes a HDACF power
supply, A500-14-H tail position and strobe, and one each red and green A650-PR-14
wing tip strobes. Also included is strobe wiring for a small aircraft.
All units are new and never installed.
This $1200 package is available for $600 plus shipping. Please contact me off
post at rngurley(at)att.net if interested
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420192#420192
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Timer circuit for led array Reply with quote
> I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light after about
10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main battery buss and I
would like to know that if I forgot to turn it off the timer would do it for
me before draining the battery. Any ideas? David Duperron
I learned to fly in Cessnas, and as I recall leaving the beacon on was a certain
way to avoid walking away from the airplane with something still on.
Perhaps the solution to your problem is just to have the cabin light on the same
bus as the beacon.
Adding an extra gizmo is not the best way to go.
--------
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=420198#420198
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
True but ... =0A=0Athat overlooks the convenience of always-available cabin
lighting without having the Master on.- =0A=0AThe post earlier today tha
t referenced an existing automotive delay relay looks like a great solution
- cheap, designed for the purpose, plug-n-play, no re-inventing the wheel
=0A=0A- what don't we like about that=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A_______________
_________________=0A From: Eric M. Jones <emjones(at)charter.net>=0ATo: aeroel
ectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:42 AM=0ASubj
ect: AeroElectric-List: Re: Timer circuit for led array=0A =0A=0A--> AeroEl
ectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" =0A=0A
=0A>- Timer circuit for led array--- Reply with quote=0A> I'm looki
ng for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light after about 10 m
inutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main battery buss and I wou
ld like to know that if I forgot to turn it off the timer would do it for m
e before draining the battery. Any ideas? David Duperron =0A=0A=0AI learned
to fly in Cessnas, and as I recall leaving the beacon on was a certain way
to avoid walking away from the airplane with something still on.=0APerhaps
the solution to your problem is just to have the cabin light on the same b
us as the beacon.=0A=0AAdding an extra gizmo is not the best way to go.=0A
=0A--------=0AEric M. Jones=0Awww.PerihelionDesign.com=0A113 Brentwood Driv
e=0ASouthbridge, MA 01550=0A(508) 764-2072=0Aemjones(at)charter.net=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/view
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 03/12/2014 01:06 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> that overlooks the convenience of always-available cabin lighting
> without having the Master on.
Just food for thought, but how is it any more inconvenient to turn on
the master switch versus turning on the light switch?
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Timer circuit for led array |
> Just food for thought, but how is it any more inconvenient to turn on
> the master switch versus turning on the light switch?
sometimes you may want to only turn on a light and not power up your
whole panel.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 01:20 PM 3/12/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>>Just food for thought, but how is it any more inconvenient to turn on
>>the master switch versus turning on the light switch?
>
> sometimes you may want to only turn on a light and not power up
> your whole panel.
>
> Roger
February 07, 2014 - March 12, 2014
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mg