AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mm

August 29, 2014 - October 18, 2014



Subject: Re: The cost/benefit ratio for automation
From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
> I had been through the drill many times to simulate an engine out emergency but I know for me when it actually happened, I did not perform as well as I could/should have. After flying an ultralight for 300 hours, I was certain that I wanted to continue flying and bought an older 172 with hopes of quickly obtaining my private pilots license. Immediately, I proceeded to plaster any available blank panel space with cheat sheets or reminders and checklists to help me along. It worked well. Each list was laminated and stuck to the panel with a dab of Velcro so I could easily modify them as needed. Most of those early reminders have since disappeared, but many still remain. One list still worthy of retention is an ENGINE OUT CHECKLIST, because it is so little used, escapes memory and you usually dont have time to fiddle with the manual. -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429571#429571 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Battery bulge
At 12:00 PM 8/28/2014, you wrote: > >My comments to a friend started the recent battery thread on this >list. During an annual on my Glasair I noticed a bulge on the >firewall mounted battery which was three inches in diameter and >about 3/16 inches high. On the 'end' or 'broad-side'? >I replaced the battery with a new one, and after only one hour of >flight time the new battery developed a similar bulge. For fifteen >years I've followed Bob's advice to replace the battery every year, >and I've never had a problem until the last two batteries. They >were BatteryPlus (Weiker, 12v, 32 amphr, regular batteries, cost >about $80), but the last two batteries were "deep cycle". That's a really big battery for an airplane . . . what are your battery-only endurance targets? > The cooling air flow has not been altered; the 60 amp alternator > still produces 14.4 volts and the ammeter seems normal. Question: > could my problem be the "deep cycle" property of the last two > batteries? Thanks, Bob in Virginia. END Could be . . . do you still have them? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: The cost/benefit ratio for automation
At 03:36 PM 8/28/2014, you wrote: > >I was wondering about automatic fire extinguishers and whether or >not this philosophy might be applied to them. Good question . . . for which there are no pat answers. One first needs to detect the presence of fire. Not an easy task. Worked on a fire detection system some years back that seemed pretty well thought out. The 'detector' was a length of what you might call semi-rigid coax. It was about 1/8" diameter. The dielectric material was a semi-conductor with a large temperature coefficient of resistance. A length of this 'cable' was routed about the engine compartment not unlike a piece of plumbing. The installer was encouraged to route into areas most likely to be a location for fire. Under normal ops, the TOTAL resistance of this 8-foot long resistor would assume some nominal value but if any portion of its length were exposed to flame, resistance in that area would drop sharply. The 'trick' was to detect that drop. With modern software, that task would be much easier . . . we did it with op-amps. This was a warning system . . . all it did was flash a light. We built a working prototype but got out-bid by another supplier . . . never got any history on the effectiveness of this technology. Numerous approaches have been devised for the detection of fire. Do a search on "fire detection" on http://www.freepatents.com for a sampling of the proposed technologies. I look back with fondness on the long-thermistor detection system for its simplicity. To be sure, there are lots of complex ways to watch for fire. The problem to be approached for the decision to automate is rooted in the complexities. A fire detection system brings new preventative maintenance issues . . . others come with risk for false warning. Depending on the fire suppression physics, the cleanup after dumping the bottles can range from benign to severe and all are no doubt expensive. One is further tasked with identifying the high risk sources for fire. In air transport category aircraft, the risks run all over the airplane with a constellation of potential events ranging from smoking in the john to lithium batteries in the hold to compromised wiring setting insulation on fire. In the OBAM aircraft, we're pretty much limited to fluid fed fires under the cowl. The idea that split-second decision to actuate the fire suppression system will somehow "save the day" doesn't offer much comfort. It's sorta like putting boots on the leading edges for ice-removal. Boots are useful over a very narrow range of circumstances . . . better to apply greater diligence in avoiding and/or escaping icing conditions. Similarly, one's return on investment for keeping fluids under the cowl properly contained will go a lot further to reducing risk than adding a fire suppression system - automated or not. It's much easier to prevent fire than to deal with it after it starts. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: The cost/benefit ratio for automation
At 07:28 AM 8/29/2014, you wrote: > > > > I had been through the drill many times to > simulate an engine out emergency but I know for > me when it actually happened, I did not perform > as well as I could/should have. > > >After flying an ultralight for 300 hours, I was >certain that I wanted to continue flying and >bought an older 172 with hopes of quickly >obtaining my private pilots >license. Immediately, I proceeded to plaster >any available blank panel space with =98cheat >sheets=99 or reminders and checklists to help me >along. It worked well. Each list was laminated >and stuck to the panel with a dab of Velcro so I >could easily modify them as needed. Most of >those early reminders have since disappeared, >but many still remain. One list still worthy of >retention is an ENGINE OUT CHECKLIST, because it >is so little used, escapes memory and you >usually don=99t have time to fiddle with the manual. But how much is there to diagnose engine stoppage in a 172. One flies on BOTH tanks, BOTH mags and it's a gravity feed fuel system to the strainer sump. If the engine starts to fade, the elapsed time from when your hand starts to move toward the boost pump switch (while glancing at fuel pressure gage) is but a second or two . . . Emacs! That airplane is a fine example of risk reduction through simplicity. Short of catastrophic failures from which there is no engine recovery, likelihood of failure due to anything but dry tanks is vanishingly small. Critical systems management needs to be as automatic as the practiced flare looking for a greaser. This system offers not the slightest risk of needing to fiddle with the manual . . . or sift through post-it notes on the panel. Critical systems management needs to be as automatic as the practiced flare looking for a greaser. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Microphone Question
At 08:12 PM 8/29/2014, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >Haven't heard from you in a while, so I thought I'd check in. Have >you had an opportunity to look at the mic? > >Kevin I'm about ready to order an etched circuit board Emacs! with a schematic patterned after D.L. Josephson's suggestion earlier this year. Emacs! Should have boards by end of next week. The finished amplifier will be 0.48" wide by 0.83" long Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Battery Cable Fitting
From: "N38CW" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Aug 31, 2014
I am building an RV-8 with the battery installed in the forward baggage compartment. The battery contactor is mounted about 4" from the positive terminal. The simplest and shortest route for the cable would be a straight 4" length between the two. Is this acceptable, or should I take a somewhat indirect route to the contactor so that the cable has a bit of a loop in it? -------- Bill Settle RV-8 Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429707#429707 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Cable Fitting
At 04:03 PM 8/31/2014, you wrote: > >I am building an RV-8 with the battery installed in the forward >baggage compartment. The battery contactor is mounted about 4" from >the positive terminal. The simplest and shortest route for the >cable would be a straight 4" length between the two. Is this >acceptable, or should I take a somewhat indirect route to the >contactor so that the cable has a bit of a loop in it? Use a ~8" length of 4AWG welding cable with sufficient wire dress to avoid putting any stress on terminals on either end of the jumper wire. Use heavy-wall heat-shrink to provide vibration support at the terminals but let the stuff in the middle wave in the breeze. http://tinyurl.com/kfqjphg The above article illustrates M22759 'fat wire' but if it were my airplane, welding cable is the material of first choice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shunt - Location
Date: Aug 31, 2014
This is a perfect discussion for the aeroelectric list I'm sure Bob has some insight. I have CC'd the aeroelectric list email address Justin On Aug 30, 2014, at 6:47, Phillip Perry wrote: > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there ar e 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it mi sses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sendin g electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the bus s as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus t he start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want t o make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub panel, s o I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shunt - Location
On Aug 30, 2014, at 6:47, Phillip Perry wrote: Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there are 3 different electrical locations for it. 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). If you're going to measure current anywhere, this is the FIRST choice . . . I will elaborate later . . . 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) This is how it was done on cars and some airplanes for decades. Useful ONLY to the individual who KNOWS about how a battery behaves with a lot of electro-whizzies wrapped around it. Good diagnostic tool but it requires attention, memory (monitoring of trends) and an understanding of battery physics. I don't recommend it. 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus the start). But you KNOW what that number is . . . right? This is the FIRST task for crafting an electrical system is to list everything that needs power, separate to appropriate bus, tabulate the total bus energy needed under various flight configurations. It's called a Load Analysis and EVERY TC aircraft is blessed with one. You won't find an ammeter in series with any bus structure on a biz jet . . . ammeters monitor generator loads. The PRIMARY electrical system monitor is active notification of LOW VOLTS. When the light comes on, you look to see if the alternator is putting out ANYTHING . . . MAYBE it has popped a diode and is still putting out some energy but at a reduced rate. You have the option of reducing load until the light goes out. Are we talking actual SHUNTS or Hall-Effect Current Sensors. If the latter, one sensor can be used to monitor the output of both alternators in a dual system like Z-12 or Z-13/8 http://tinyurl.com/kgg8nva http://tinyurl.com/ag46m2f Check out any of the architecture figures at http://tinyurl.com/5wxzn7 You will not find an ammeter shunt anywhere except on the alternator B-leads . . . Your NUMBER ONE tool for dealing with electrical system malfunction is active notification of low voltage. Your response to that event should be . . . at most . . . the repositioning of a couple of switches whereupon you assume Plan-B for getting comfortably on the ground. If your Plan-B calls for reading displays, flipping switches, pushing/pulling breakers, fiddling with fuses and/or WONDERING how long the battery is going to last . . . then you blew it before your airplane's first flight. For the most part, an ammeter is useful for figuring things out AFTER you get back on the ground. Not having one available in flight should NOT be a matter of concern. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Engine restart while airborne . . .
At 10:15 AM 9/1/2014, you wrote: Hi Bob, I read your book through and I think have understood the basics. It gave me a super know how boost, thanks. Right now I am on the electric schema for a Zenith STOL 750 with Rotax 912 ULS 2. One thing I do not understand: In no Z-Drawing is the Ignition Switch / Start Button connected to the endurance bus? In case of a failure of the master relay or master switch it is not possible to restart the engine in this configuration as far as I understood the different drawings. Although it might rarely occur that at the same time in flight you need to restart the engine and the main bus is not available (would mean there is a kind of a big problem). But it would surely help to have the security to be able to turn the engine; or may the windmill effect make my need redundant? Does the 912 engine windmill on a STOL750? I don't know but the people who are building and flying these airplanes SHOULD know . . . and this information is best acquired from the factory. So is there any reason not to connect the ignition/engine start switch to the endurance bus? If the main bus is down, this means the battery master contactor is open. So being able to put power on the starter contactor is not very useful whene there is no power for the contactor to control. Sorry for the question you probably already answered many times but I could not access the FAQ Part on your page. No problem. I'll look into that FAQ link. But in any case, the legacy failure mode effects analysis for light aircraft does not stack multiple failures. The vast majority of engines stop because of fuel starvation. Your pondering of "Plan-B" alternatives would do well to consider all the ways that mechanical failure in the fuel delivery system can be managed . . . the kit folks have probably done this already but you need to understand it. In other words, the elegant answer to your question is: "Minimize or eliminate the reasons that your engine might quit in flight so that you don't find yourself short on the Main Bus power as well! Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: Todd Bristol <djtoddb(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: My Sandia Transponder interferes with my Com Radio.
I have an Icon A-22 wired (no battery) into my Titan Tornado with a Sandia STX-165. The antennas are as far apart as I can get them at about 4'. When the transponder is interrogated and "replys", it causes a popping in the radio that affects both the reception and transmission. ATC can't understand my voice unless I turn the transponder to "stby". I tried using an external 12V battery for the Icom Radio and it worked MUCH Better. Any Thoughts out there ???? TJ On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:44 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 10:15 AM 9/1/2014, you wrote: Hi Bob, I read your book through and I think have understood the basics. It gave me a super know how boost, thanks. Right now I am on the electric schema for a Zenith STOL 750 with Rotax 912 ULS 2. One thing I do not understand: In no Z-Drawing is the Ignition Switch / Start Button connected to the endurance bus? In case of a failure of the master relay or master switch it is not possible to restart the engine in this configuration as far as I understood the different drawings. Although it might rarely occur that at the same time in flight you need to restart the engine and the main bus is not available (would mean there is a kind of a big problem). But it would surely help to have the security to be able to turn the engine; or may the windmill effect make my need redundant? Does the 912 engine windmill on a STOL750? I don't know but the people who are building and flying these airplanes SHOULD know . . . and this information is best acquired from the factory. So is there any reason not to connect the ignition/engine start switch to the endurance bus? If the main bus is down, this means the battery master contactor is open. So being able to put power on the starter contactor is not very useful whene there is no power for the contactor to control. Sorry for the question you probably already answered many times but I could not access the FAQ Part on your page. No problem. I'll look into that FAQ link. But in any case, the legacy failure mode effects analysis for light aircraft does not stack multiple failures. The vast majority of engines stop because of fuel starvation. Your pondering of "Plan-B" alternatives would do well to consider all the ways that mechanical failure in the fuel delivery system can be managed . . . the kit folks have probably done this already but you need to understand it. In other words, the elegant answer to your question is: "Minimize or eliminate the reasons that your engine might quit in flight so that you don't find yourself short on the Main Bus power as well! Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Cable Fitting
Bob, As always, Thanks! On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:17 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 04:03 PM 8/31/2014, you wrote: > >I am building an RV-8 with the battery installed in the forward >baggage compartment. The battery contactor is mounted about 4" from >the positive terminal. The simplest and shortest route for the >cable would be a straight 4" length between the two. Is this >acceptable, or should I take a somewhat indirect route to the >contactor so that the cable has a bit of a loop in it? Use a ~8" length of 4AWG welding cable with sufficient wire dress to avoid putting any stress on terminals on either end of the jumper wire. Use heavy-wall heat-shrink to provide vibration support at the terminals but let the stuff in the middle wave in the breeze. http://tinyurl.com/kfqjphg The above article illustrates M22759 'fat wire' but if it were my airplane, welding cable is the material of first choice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Cable Fitting
I second Bob's suggestion. Welding Cable is really great stuff. It's tough-as-nails, very flexible, and easy to work with. -Jeff On Monday, September 1, 2014 12:54 PM, Bill Settle wrote: Bob, As always, Thanks! On Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:17 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 04:03 PM 8/31/2014, you wrote: > >I am building an RV-8 with the battery installed in the forward >baggage compartment. The battery contactor is mounted about 4" from >the positive terminal. The simplest and shortest route for the >cable would be a straight 4" length between the two. Is ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
Subject: Re: Engine restart while airborne . . .
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Bob, Nope, a Rotax is a geared engine and when the engine stops so does the prop. Even the two strokes with relatively low compression compared to the 10.5 to 1 of the 912S series engines bring the prop to a stop PDQ when the engine stops running. Learned this the hard way when the engine on my Kolb quit on a downwind departure. Fortunately I was able to glide back to the runway and miss the idiot in the Baron who was taking off downwind so it ended well. Some new Hanes and a fuel filter and I was good as new. Rick Girard On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 10:15 AM 9/1/2014, you wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I read your book through and I think have understood the basics. It gave > me a super know how boost, thanks. Right now I am on the electric schema > for a Zenith STOL 750 with Rotax 912 ULS 2. > > One thing I do not understand: In no Z-Drawing is the Ignition Switch / > Start Button connected to the endurance bus? In case of a failure of the > master relay or master switch it is not possible to restart the engine in > this configuration as far as I understood the different drawings. Although > it might rarely occur that at the same time in flight you need to restart > the engine and the main bus is not available (would mean there is a kind of > a big problem). But it would surely help to have the security to be able to > turn the engine; or may the windmill effect make my need redundant? > > Does the 912 engine windmill on a STOL750? I don't know > but the people who are building and flying these airplanes > SHOULD know . . . and this information is best acquired from > the factory. > > So is there any reason not to connect the ignition/engine start switch to > the endurance bus? > > If the main bus is down, this means the battery master contactor is > open. So being able to put power on the starter contactor is not very > useful whene there is no power for the contactor to control. Sorry for > the question you probably already answered many times but I could not > access the FAQ Part on your page. > No problem. I'll look into that FAQ link. But in any case, the legacy > failure mode effects analysis for light aircraft does not stack multiple > failures. The vast majority of engines stop because of fuel starvation. > Your pondering of "Plan-B" alternatives would do well to consider all the ways > that mechanical failure in the fuel delivery system can be managed . . . > the kit folks have probably done this already but you need to understand > it. In other words, the elegant answer to your question is: "Minimize or > eliminate the reasons that your engine might quit in flight so that you don't > find yourself short on the Main Bus power as well! > > Bob . . . > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * > > -- Zulu Delta Mk IIIC Thanks, Homer GBYM It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy. - Groucho Marx ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Sandia Transponder interferes with Com Radio.
At 02:20 PM 9/1/2014, you wrote: >I have an Icon A-22 wired (no battery) into my Titan Tornado with a >Sandia STX-165. The antennas are as far apart as I can get them at >about 4'. When the transponder is interrogated and "replys", it >causes a popping in the radio that affects both the reception and >transmission. ATC can't understand my voice unless I turn the >transponder to "stby". > >I tried using an external 12V battery for the Icom Radio and it >worked MUCH Better. >Any Thoughts out there ???? > >TJ I presume the 'pop' you describe is every time the reply light flashes - is that what YOU hear when listening to the A-22? The same noise impressed on your transmitted audio would not reduce your transmitted signal to unintelligible. Have you heard the noise that ATC complains about? You need to get a hand-held, stand off a hundred yards and talk somebody in the cockpit of your airplane. When you say "much better" . . . does that mean that all is right with the universe or does the interference simply go down such that you can be understood . . . but the noise is still there? It's very difficult to diagnose . . . much less recommend remedy for 'noise' without actually hearing it. As a radio amateur in my early electron-herding career, I learned to identify source, propagation mode and remedy from simply hearing the noise . . . all 'noises' have a signature and a propagation mode . . . with unique remedies. If the 'noise' is present in both transmit and receive, it is unlikely that the propagation mode involves a difficulty with antennas. The fact that things got better when the com radio was operated on an independent battery suggests a noise conducted on the DC power lines. The fact that you're experiencing difficulty in both transmit and receive also points to a problem with DC power quality. Which engine/alternator/rectifier-regulator are you using? Do you have a schematic of the power distribution system? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shunt - Location
My comments are in orange (hope they are legible) & a few paragraphs at the bottom. 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT).If you're going to measure current anywhere, this is the FIRST choice . . . I will elaborate later . . . 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) This is how it was done on cars and some airplanes for decades. There may be a good reason for that... Useful ONLY to the individual who KNOWS about how a battery behaves with a lot of electro-whizzies wrapped around it. Good diagnostic tool but it requires attention, memory (monitoring of trends) and an understanding of battery physics. I don't think you need a BSEE to understand how to read a battery ammeter. Besides, if you are going to fly around in an electrically-dependent airplane, it probably wouldn't hurt to learn a little about batteries & ammeters. As pilots we do a lot of "trend monitoring". You won't find an ammeter in series with any bus structure on a biz jet . . . ammeters monitor generator loads. Not sure the Biz Jet analogy is apt here. There are lots of differences between a biz jet & our OBAMs. Biz jets have 2 of lots of things, engines, generators (maybe 3 w/ APU), pilots, etc. They have more complicated feed/source switching. The pilots go to recurrent training which includes systems training, etc. Very little of that applies to OBAMs. In other words, just 'cause they do it in Gulfstreams doesn't mean we should do it in our little airplanes. The PRIMARY electrical system monitor is active notification of LOW VOLTS. When the light comes on, you look to see if the alternator is putting out ANYTHING . . . MAYBE it has popped a diode and is still putting out some energy but at a reduced rate. You have the option of reducing load until the light goes out. You can do load reduction with the Battery Ammeter... Your NUMBER ONE tool for dealing with electrical system malfunction is active notification of low voltage. Your response to that event should be . . . at most . . . the repositioning of a couple of switches whereupon you assume Plan-B for getting comfortably on the ground. Absolutely. I don't have any of the Z figures in front of me but I have a question. In the most complicated Z design, how many switches does the pilot have to flip in a worst case scenario? If your Plan-B calls for reading displays, flipping switches, pushing/pulling breakers, fiddling with fuses and/or WONDERING how long the battery is going to last . . . then you blew it before your airplane's first flight. Maybe... but, I didn't hear anyone suggest pushing, pulling, or fiddling, (especially w/ fuses)... (are those checklist items?:) For the most part, an ammeter is useful for figuring things out AFTER you get back on the ground. Not having one available in flight should NOT be a matter of concern. OK Here's what I like about Battery Ammeters: 1. Using a zero-center ammeter provides info on the health of the battery charging system when everything is working properly. By learning to watch the charge taper after start-up you can glean info about the health of your battery & charging system. Learning to watch trends: "hey, that looked different than it did last time I started-up. What's up with that?" 2. When the alternator fails, the ammeter automatically becomes a load meter to aid the pilot in load-shedding, if necessary. Exactly the info you want, exactly when you need it (without flipping any switches). What I don't like about Alternator Load Ammeters: 1. Alternator load is not a very useful piece of information Do you really care what the alternator is putting out? Will you take any action if the alternator load is 25 amps or if it is 40 amps - as long as the alternator is working properly, it's replacing the necessary volume of electrons to handle the load... automatically. It is either working properly or it isn't. 2. Alternator Load is kind of a muddled number. It is neither buss load nor is it battery charge current. Those are 2 numbers I care something about but Alternator Load gives me neither. I'm unaware of a scenario where I would see some value on the Alternator Ammeter and say "I better do something about that!" If it is too high, indicating a full-field condition then I presume the my over-voltage protection system will kick-in (probably before I even have time to look at the ammeter) and shut-down the regulator. If the alternator stops making power, my low-volts alarm will go off and my Alternator Load Ammeter is useless. -Jeff On Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:01 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: On Aug 30, 2014, at 6:47, Phillip Perry wrote: Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there are 3 different electrical locations for it. 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). If you're going to measure current anywhere, this is the FIRST choice . . . I will elaborate later . . . 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) This is how it was done on cars and some airplanes for decades. Useful ONLY to the individual who KNOWS about how a battery behaves with a lot of electro-whizzies wrapped around it. Good diagnostic tool but it requires attention, memory (monitoring of trends) and an understanding of battery physics. I don't recommend it. 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus the start). But you KNOW what that number is . . . right? This is the FIRST task for crafting an electrical system is to list everything that needs power, separate to appropriate bus, tabulate the total bus energy needed under various flight configurations. It's called a Load Analysis and EVERY TC aircraft is blessed with one. You won't find an ammeter in series with any bus structure on a biz jet . . . ammeters monitor generator loads. The PRIMARY electrical system monitor is active notification of LOW VOLTS. When the light comes on, you look to see if the alternator is putting out ANYTHING . . . MAYBE it has popped a diode and is still putting out some energy but at a reduced rate. You have the option of reducing load until the light goes out. Are we talking actual SHUNTS or Hall-Effect Current Sensors. If the latter, one sensor can be used to monitor the output of both alternators in a dual system like Z-12 or Z-13/8 http://tinyurl.com/kgg8nva http://tinyurl.com/ag46m2f Check out any of the architecture figures at http://tinyurl.com/5wxzn7 You will not find an ammeter shunt anywhere except on the alternator B-leads . . . Your NUMBER ONE tool for dealing with electrical system malfunction is active notification of low voltage. Your response to that event should be . . . at most . . . the repositioning of a couple of switches whereupon you assume Plan-B for getting comfortably on the ground. If your Plan-B calls for reading displays, flipping switches, pushing/pulling breakers, fiddling with fuses and/or WONDERING how long the battery is going to last . . . then you blew it before your airplane's first flight. For the most part, an ammeter is useful for figuring things out AFTER you get back on the ground. Not having one available in flight should NOT be a matter of concern. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shunt - Location
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Sep 02, 2014
An answer I understand: thank you Jeff Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 2 Sep 2014, at 07:18 am, Jeff Luckey wrote: > > My comments are in orange (hope they are legible) & a few paragraphs at th e bottom. > > > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT).If you're go ing to measure current anywhere, this is the > FIRST choice . . . I will elaborate later . . . > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it mi sses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) > This is how it was done on cars and some airplanes for decades. > There may be a good reason for that... > > Useful ONLY to the individual who KNOWS about > how a battery behaves with a lot of electro-whizzies > wrapped around it. Good diagnostic tool but it requires > attention, memory (monitoring of trends) and an understanding > of battery physics. > > I don't think you need a BSEE to understand how to read a battery ammeter. Besides, if you are going to fly around in an electrically-dependent airpl ane, it probably wouldn't hurt to learn a little about batteries & ammeters. As pilots we do a lot of "trend monitoring". > > You won't find an ammeter in series with any bus structure > on a biz jet . . . ammeters monitor generator loads. > Not sure the Biz Jet analogy is apt here. There are lots of differences b etween a biz jet & our OBAMs. Biz jets have 2 of lots of things, engines, g enerators (maybe 3 w/ APU), pilots, etc. They have more complicated feed/so urce switching. The pilots go to recurrent training which includes systems t raining, etc. Very little of that applies to OBAMs. > > In other words, just 'cause they do it in Gulfstreams doesn't mean we shou ld do it in our little airplanes. > > The PRIMARY electrical system monitor is active notification > of LOW VOLTS. When the light comes on, you look to see if > the alternator is putting out ANYTHING . . . MAYBE it has > popped a diode and is still putting out some energy but > at a reduced rate. You have the option of reducing load > until the light goes out. > You can do load reduction with the Battery Ammeter... > > > Your NUMBER ONE tool for dealing with electrical system > malfunction is active notification of low voltage. Your > response to that event should be . . . at most . . . > the repositioning of a couple of switches whereupon you > assume Plan-B for getting comfortably on the ground. > > Absolutely. > I don't have any of the Z figures in front of me but I have a question. I n the most complicated Z design, how many switches does the pilot have to fl ip in a worst case scenario? > > If your Plan-B calls for reading displays, flipping > switches, pushing/pulling breakers, fiddling with > fuses and/or WONDERING how long the battery is going > to last . . . then you blew it before your airplane's > first flight. > > Maybe... but, I didn't hear anyone suggest pushing, pulling, or fiddling, ( especially w/ fuses)... (are those checklist items?:) > > > For the most part, an ammeter is useful for figuring > things out AFTER you get back on the ground. Not having > one available in flight should NOT be a matter of concern. > > OK > > > > Here's what I like about Battery Ammeters: > > 1. Using a zero-center ammeter provides info on the health of the battery c harging system when everything is > working properly. By learning to watch the charge taper after start-up yo u can glean info about the health of your battery & charging system. Learni ng to watch trends: "hey, that looked different than it did last time I star ted-up. What's up with that?" > > 2. When the alternator fails, the ammeter automatically becomes a load met er to aid the pilot in load-shedding, if necessary. Exa ctly the info you want, exactly when you need it (without flipping any switc hes). > > > > What I don't like about Alternator Load Ammeters: > > 1. Alternator load is not a very useful piece of information > Do you really care what the alternator is putting out? Will you take any a ction if the alternator load is 25 amps or if it is 40 amps - as long as the alternator is working properly, it's replacing the necessary volume of elec trons to handle the load... automatically. It is either working properly or it isn't. > > 2. Alternator Load is kind of a muddled number. It is neither buss load n or is it battery charge current. Those are 2 numbers I care something about but Alternator Load gives me neither. > > I'm unaware of a scenario where I would see some value on the Alternator A mmeter and say "I better do something about that!" If it is too high, indic ating a full-field condition then I presume the my over-voltage protection s ystem will kick-in (probably before I even have time to look at the ammeter) and shut-down the regulator. If the alternator stops making power, my low- volts alarm will go off and my Alternator Load Ammeter is useless. > > > > -Jeff > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Engine restart while airborne . . .
At 07:36 PM 9/1/2014, you wrote: >Bob, Nope, a Rotax is a geared engine and when >the engine stops so does the prop. Even the two >strokes with relatively low compression compared >to the 10.5 to 1 of the 912S series engines >bring the prop to a stop PDQ when the engine stops running. >Learned this the hard way when the engine on my >Kolb quit on a downwind departure. Fortunately I >was able to glide back to the runway and miss >the idiot in the Baron who was taking off >downwind so it ended well. Some new Hanes and a >fuel filter and I was good as new. > >Rick Girard Shucks . . . I knew that. Thanks for the refresher course! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 02, 2014
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
Hi All, Over the long weekend I got the ELT mounted, the remote mounted, the phone cable in. The really hard part was In a message dated 8/27/2014 8:31:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:40 PM 8/26/2014, you wrote: > >Quoted from below >"Power(+) to the battery bus . . . use a 3A fuse." > >I don't think you want the power to this ELT wired to the battery >bus. The recommended 3 month test requires the power to the ELT to >be off. We used to get emails from SAR in Canada confirming >satellite reception for those 3 month tests but I'm always careful >to make sure my master (power to the ELT) is off when I test. > >I picked this ELT specifically because it uses aircraft power to >pre-process gps position and have the position instantly available >if the unit is activated. It is news to me if aircraft power is also >available to supplement battery power for transmissions. I'll ask ACK . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Microphone Question
At 08:12 PM 8/29/2014, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >Haven't heard from you in a while, so I thought I'd check in. Have >you had an opportunity to look at the mic? > >Kevin The boards are on order . . . Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 02, 2014
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
Lets try that again. For unknown reasons, my computer occasionally sends mail prematurely. Anyway, I got the ELT mounted, phone line in. The difficult part was fishing the three wire conductor from one end of the aircraft to the other. I have the ELT power, ground and GPS feed set up in this cable. It currently ends in the right gear tower. I have a fused power feed from a fuse block and a ground wire from my avionics ground bus. Unfortunately, I miscalculated the length and am about two feet short on the three conductor getting to the back of the GPS. I have a single shielded wire which I planned to bring down from the GPS, terminating all together at the gear tower. If I connect (solder) both shields and the ELT ground lead together and ground all of that to the avionics ground bus, will that do the trick? I did not ground the shield at the ELT end nor would I ground the shield at the GPS end. The GPS is a Garmin GTN 650. Steinair, who wired my panel, has four feeds coming from a single feed (pin 8). They suggested that I tap into this for the GPS feed. Two of the feeds go into Grand Rapids PFD and MFD. It would be a lot easier to tap into the circuit where they enter those units than into the GPS where there is already a four into one joint. I can't see that it makes any electrical different which end of the wire I join into. Am I missing anything here? Thanks, Michael Wynn RV 8 Livermore, CA In a message dated 8/27/2014 8:31:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:40 PM 8/26/2014, you wrote: > >Quoted from below >"Power(+) to the battery bus . . . use a 3A fuse." > >I don't think you want the power to this ELT wired to the battery >bus. The recommended 3 month test requires the power to the ELT to >be off. We used to get emails from SAR in Canada confirming >satellite reception for those 3 month tests but I'm always careful >to make sure my master (power to the ELT) is off when I test. > >I picked this ELT specifically because it uses aircraft power to >pre-process gps position and have the position instantly available >if the unit is activated. It is news to me if aircraft power is also >available to supplement battery power for transmissions. I'll ask ACK . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shunt - Location
Here's what I like about Battery Ammeters: 1. Using a zero-center ammeter provides info on the health of the battery charging system when everything is working properly. By learning to watch the charge taper after start-up you can glean info about the health of your battery & charging system. Learning to watch trends: "hey, that looked different than it did last time I started-up. What's up with that?" Yes, it has that functionality . . . my first car ('41 Pontiac) had one and it took a bit to figure out the nuances of behavior. But is THIS a useful way to track battery condition. If you're a day-vfr airplane and you don't care about battery capacity, then you run the battery until it doesn't crank the engine any more. You're more likely to replace the battery because it is given you soggy starts than if 'the needle is returning to zero just a tad too soon'. If you have specific endurance goals then unless those goals allow you to run a battery down to 80% of new capacity, then you're not likely to see much of an accelerated recharge rate on the battery ammeter when in fact, it IS time to replace the battery. 2. When the alternator fails, the ammeter automatically becomes a load meter to aid the pilot in load-shedding, if necessary. Exactly the info you want, exactly when you need it (without flipping any switches). Say what? Your Plan-B is "flip switches until you see what you like"? This presumes, of course, that what-you-like is consistent with prior knowledge of battery capacity and you KNOW that the what-you-like-reading is going to get you on the ground. Plan-B is best crafted by (1) maintaining a battery at some level consistent with design goals and (2) knowing exactly what loads are to be shed after alternator failure - BEFORE TAKEOFF. What I don't like about Alternator Load Ammeters: 1. Alternator load is not a very useful piece of information Do you really care what the alternator is putting out? Nope, that's what I've said. Ammeters are of little use as an in-flight, system management tool. Of course, you get the same behavior from the alternator load meter after engine start as you do with the -0+ battery ammeter . . . a peaking of demand while the battery is being recharged that tapers as the battery recovers. Same date. Will you take any action if the alternator load is 25 amps or if it is 40 amps - as long as the alternator is working properly, it's replacing the necessary volume of electrons to handle the load... automatically. It is either working properly or it isn't. Actually, I've had an instance for loosing one phase in an alternator on a car that I had bought. The a/c was out so I didn't run blower loads until months later during heating season. Only then did I discover that the battery would not get recharged during night ops with both head-lights and blower. When diagnosing the system I discovered that the alternator was de-graded to about a 15-20A machine . . . adequate to all ops when the blower was off. The factory stock alt warning light never did come on. In any case, you're correct that if a low-volts warning light is dark, then alternator output, what ever its limits are, is adequate for the current task. 2. Alternator Load is kind of a muddled number. It is neither buss load nor is it battery charge current. Those are 2 numbers I care something about but Alternator Load gives me neither. Which is precisely why it's not a flight ops display . . . I'm unaware of a scenario where I would see some value on the Alternator Ammeter and say "I better do something about that!" If it is too high, indicating a full-field condition then I presume the my over-voltage protection system will kick-in (probably before I even have time to look at the ammeter) and shut-down the regulator. If the alternator stops making power, my low-volts alarm will go off and my Alternator Load Ammeter is useless. Absolutely . . . and so is the battery ammeter. Lord Kelvin once opined: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science." A load analysis is comprised of measurable values. Capacity checks produce measurable values. Endurance based on known capacity divided by verifiable load is a number base on measured values. Look through the POH for any TC aircraft having a battery ammeter and see if the manufacturer offers a narrative on its use as a in-flight tool beyond an obvious failure of engine driven power source. Emacs! Most are no more carefully calibrated than the stock ammeters on cars of the era . . . doing the battery ammeter was easy, doing a low volts warning light not so much. But it DID satisfy the FARs for offering the pilot a means of monitoring health of the GENERATOR . . . not the battery. Nowadays, the low volts warning is child's play. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Does negative SEO really work?
From: "newastrums" <newastrums(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 03, 2014
Does negative SEO really work? We know that a site can be penalized or can be suppressed by Google algorithms if they have engaged in manipulative link building. The result can be a manual unnatural links penalty or an unnanouced demotion at the hands of the Penguin algorithm. So, if links that I made can hurt me, then intuitively it makes sense that links that someone else made could have the same negative effect. Google is quite adamant that true, effective negative SEO is very rare. In an effort to understand more about Google's stance on negative SEO I decided to research every instance I could find where a Google representative discussed negative SEO. You can read transcriptions of a good number of John Mueller's and Matt Cutt's statements on negative SEO in this article. I'll be quoting from these transcriptions several times in this Moz post as well. Astrums (http://astrums.net/) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429901#429901 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hai
From: "newastrums" <newastrums(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 04, 2014
Hai Friends By Jayanthi Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429960#429960 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
At 08:52 AM 9/2/2014, you wrote: Lets try that again. For unknown reasons, my computer occasionally sends mail prematurely. Mine too . . . but I think it's because my tongue is covering my eyeteeth and I can't see what I'm typing . .. Anyway, I got the ELT mounted, phone line in. The difficult part was fishing the three wire conductor from one end of the aircraft to the other. I have the ELT power, ground and GPS feed set up in this cable. It currently ends in the right gear tower. I have a fused power feed from a fuse block and a ground wire from my avionics ground bus. Unfortunately, I miscalculated the length and am about two feet short on the three conductor getting to the back of the GPS. I have a single shielded wire which I planned to bring down from the GPS, terminating all together at the gear tower. If I connect (solder) both shields and the ELT ground lead together and ground all of that to the avionics ground bus, will that do the trick? I did not ground the shield at the ELT end nor would I ground the shield at the GPS end. Normally, a shielded wire carrying DATA is grounded at both ends . . . and the shield is part of the signal path. I am disappointed in ACK's installation instructions. For as long as they've been in the business I would have hoped the quality of their design and accompanying instructions would have matured. I'm adrift for crafting a rationale for doing any particular thing with the shields . . . it would be USEFUL to have some means by which signal integrity to the ELT could be verified. The manual speaks to tying an LED onto the ELT data transmit line to see if it 'flashes' in response to 1 second updates from the panel GPS. But the significance of that flash is not known. Does it NOT flash if there is some degradation of signal quality . . . checksum bad, framing bad???? Given that so much FAITH is being placed on this piece of equipment to guide searchers to your remains, it would really be nice if their design included some means for demonstrating integrity as opposed to guessing. As I said . . . their instructions suck . . . The GPS is a Garmin GTN 650. Steinair, who wired my panel, has four feeds coming from a single feed (pin 8). They suggested that I tap into this for the GPS feed. Two of the feeds go into Grand Rapids PFD and MFD. It would be a lot easier to tap into the circuit where they enter those units than into the GPS where there is already a four into one joint. I can't see that it makes any electrical different which end of the wire I join into. Am I missing anything here? Talk to Steinair about this. I'm not privy to the rationale for offering all these 'pigtails'. It's a mystery to me but they would be the one to explain their intentions. By the way, I did talk to ACK about the recommended power source for the E04. If you have a 'commericial' version (E04C) then power needs to come from a battery bus. If the plain vanilla version for little-guys, the power should come from a switched bus. Another little 'gotcha' in their instructions. Sorry I can't be more help . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 04, 2014
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
I will wire it up as it looks simplest. I have the grounding and switched power set up. Once I connect the single, I will give it a test and report back. Thanks, Michael Wynn In a message dated 9/4/2014 8:46:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:52 AM 9/2/2014, you wrote: Lets try that again. For unknown reasons, my computer occasionally sends mail prematurely. Mine too . . . but I think it's because my tongue is covering my eyeteeth and I can't see what I'm typing . .. Anyway, I got the ELT mounted, phone line in. The difficult part was fishing the three wire conductor from one end of the aircraft to the other. I have the ELT power, ground and GPS feed set up in this cable. It currently ends in the right gear tower. I have a fused power feed from a fuse block and a ground wire from my avionics ground bus. Unfortunately, I miscalculated the length and am about two feet short on the three conductor getting to the back of the GPS. I have a single shielded wire which I planned to bring down from the GPS, terminating all together at the gear tower. If I connect (solder) both shields and the ELT ground lead together and ground all of that to the avionics ground bus, will that do the trick? I did not ground the shield at the ELT end nor would I ground the shield at the GPS end. Normally, a shielded wire carrying DATA is grounded at both ends . . . and the shield is part of the signal path. I am disappointed in ACK's installation instructions. For as long as they've been in the business I would have hoped the quality of their design and accompanying instructions would have matured. I'm adrift for crafting a rationale for doing any particular thing with the shields . . . it would be USEFUL to have some means by which signal integrity to the ELT could be verified. The manual speaks to tying an LED onto the ELT data transmit line to see if it 'flashes' in response to 1 second updates from the panel GPS. But the significance of that flash is not known. Does it NOT flash if there is some degradation of signal quality . . . checksum bad, framing bad???? Given that so much FAITH is being placed on this piece of equipment to guide searchers to your remains, it would really be nice if their design included some means for demonstrating integrity as opposed to guessing. As I said . . . their instructions suck . . . The GPS is a Garmin GTN 650. Steinair, who wired my panel, has four feeds coming from a single feed (pin 8). They suggested that I tap into this for the GPS feed. Two of the feeds go into Grand Rapids PFD and MFD. It would be a lot easier to tap into the circuit where they enter those units than into the GPS where there is already a four into one joint. I can't see that it makes any electrical different which end of the wire I join into. Am I missing anything here? Talk to Steinair about this. I'm not privy to the rationale for offering all these 'pigtails'. It's a mystery to me but they would be the one to explain their intentions. By the way, I did talk to ACK about the recommended power source for the E04. If you have a 'commericial' version (E04C) then power needs to come from a battery bus. If the plain vanilla version for little-guys, the power should come from a switched bus. Another little 'gotcha' in their instructions. Sorry I can't be more help . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
At 04:01 PM 9/4/2014, you wrote: >I will wire it up as it looks simplest. I have the grounding and >switched power set up. Once I connect the single, I will give it a >test and report back. > >Thanks, > >Michael Wynn The 64-dollar question is how do you test it? Without a receiver fitted with a feature that resolves and displays the GPS location data being transmitted by the ELT, how do you know that the communications channel GPS->ELT is good? I suppose avionics shops have that capability these days. Does anyone on the List have knowledge of this? I wonder if Steinair hot-checks their pre-wired panels. Bob . . . > >In a message dated 9/4/2014 8:46:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: > > >At 08:52 AM 9/2/2014, you wrote: >Lets try that again. For unknown reasons, my computer occasionally >sends mail prematurely. > > Mine too . . . but I think it's because my tongue > is covering my eyeteeth and I can't see what I'm > typing . .. > > >Anyway, I got the ELT mounted, phone line in. The difficult part was >fishing the three wire conductor from one end of the aircraft to the >other. I have the ELT power, ground and GPS feed set up in this >cable. It currently ends in the right gear tower. I have a fused >power feed from a fuse block and a ground wire from my avionics ground bus. > > >Unfortunately, I miscalculated the length and am about two feet short >on the three conductor getting to the back of the GPS. I have a >single shielded wire which I planned to bring down from the GPS, >terminating all together at the gear tower. > >If I connect (solder) both shields and the ELT ground lead together >and ground all of that to the avionics ground bus, will that do the >trick? I did not ground the shield at the ELT end nor would I ground >the shield at the GPS end. > > Normally, a shielded wire carrying DATA is grounded > at both ends . . . and the shield is part of the signal > path. I am disappointed in ACK's installation instructions. > For as long as they've been in the business I would have > hoped the quality of their design and accompanying > instructions would have matured. > > I'm adrift for crafting a rationale for doing any > particular thing with the shields . . . it would > be USEFUL to have some means by which signal > integrity to the ELT could be verified. The manual > speaks to tying an LED onto the ELT data transmit > line to see if it 'flashes' in response to 1 second > updates from the panel GPS. But the significance of > that flash is not known. Does it NOT flash if there > is some degradation of signal quality . . . checksum > bad, framing bad???? > > Given that so much FAITH is being placed on this > piece of equipment to guide searchers to your remains, > it would really be nice if their design included > some means for demonstrating integrity as opposed > to guessing. > > As I said . . . their instructions suck . . . > >The GPS is a Garmin GTN 650. Steinair, who wired my panel, has four >feeds coming from a single feed (pin 8). They suggested that I tap >into this for the GPS feed. Two of the feeds go into Grand Rapids >PFD and MFD. It would be a lot easier to tap into the circuit where >they enter those units than into the GPS where there is already a >four into one joint. I can't see that it makes any electrical >different which end of the wire I join into. Am I missing anything here? > > Talk to Steinair about this. I'm not privy to the rationale > for offering all these 'pigtails'. It's a mystery to me > but they would be the one to explain their intentions. > > By the way, I did talk to ACK about the recommended power > source for the E04. If you have a 'commericial' version > (E04C) then power needs to come from a battery bus. If > the plain vanilla version for little-guys, the power > should come from a switched bus. Another little > 'gotcha' in their instructions. > > Sorry I can't be more help . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Sep 04, 2014
www.406Test.com You pay a sign up fee and a beacon fee. The cost is $30 each. You log into the website and schedule a test the of beacon. You have 48 hour s to test it. The beacon must be registered. You must test it with a clear view of the southern sky. You will receive an SMS text message confirming your test. I'm unsure if it will give you a set of coordinates telling you where your b eacon is or if it just says test successful. You may be able to find out on t he website. The specific question on weather or not the connectivity between your elt an d GPS is working or not will probably need to be answered by an avionics sho p with expensive test equipment. However you may get exact coordinates from t he test website above. If you do, and they match within a few yards, it may b e safe to assume the connection is working. Side note: I had to put my garmin 430w into a programming mode to tell it wh at devices are connected to the rs232 and serial ports. There is a website t elling you how to enter this programming mode. It was simple. Just hold down a button or combination of buttons during power application. Hope this helps Justin On Sep 4, 2014, at 15:01, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr ic.com> wrote: > At 04:01 PM 9/4/2014, you wrote: >> I will wire it up as it looks simplest. I have the grounding and switche d power set up. Once I connect the single, I will give it a test and report back. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael Wynn > > The 64-dollar question is how do you test it? > Without a receiver fitted with a feature that > resolves and displays the GPS location data being > transmitted by the ELT, how do you know that > the communications channel GPS->ELT is good? > > I suppose avionics shops have that capability > these days. Does anyone on the List have > knowledge of this? > > I wonder if Steinair hot-checks their pre-wired > panels. > > Bob . . . > >> >> In a message dated 9/4/2014 8:46:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nuckolls. bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: lls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >> >> At 08:52 AM 9/2/2014, you wrote: >> Lets try that again. For unknown reasons, my computer occasionally >> sends mail prematurely. >> >> Mine too . . . but I think it's because my tongue >> is covering my eyeteeth and I can't see what I'm >> typing . .. >> >> >> Anyway, I got the ELT mounted, phone line in. The difficult part was >> fishing the three wire conductor from one end of the aircraft to the >> other. I have the ELT power, ground and GPS feed set up in this >> cable. It currently ends in the right gear tower. I have a fused >> power feed from a fuse block and a ground wire from my avionics ground bu s. >> >> >> Unfortunately, I miscalculated the length and am about two feet short >> on the three conductor getting to the back of the GPS. I have a >> single shielded wire which I planned to bring down from the GPS, >> terminating all together at the gear tower. >> >> If I connect (solder) both shields and the ELT ground lead together >> and ground all of that to the avionics ground bus, will that do the >> trick? I did not ground the shield at the ELT end nor would I ground >> the shield at the GPS end. >> >> Normally, a shielded wire carrying DATA is grounded >> at both ends . . . and the shield is part of the signal >> path. I am disappointed in ACK's installation instructions. >> For as long as they've been in the business I would have >> hoped the quality of their design and accompanying >> instructions would have matured. >> >> I'm adrift for crafting a rationale for doing any >> particular thing with the shields . . . it would >> be USEFUL to have some means by which signal >> integrity to the ELT could be verified. The manual >> speaks to tying an LED onto the ELT data transmit >> line to see if it 'flashes' in response to 1 second >> updates from the panel GPS. But the significance of >> that flash is not known. Does it NOT flash if there >> is some degradation of signal quality . . . checksum >> bad, framing bad???? >> >> Given that so much FAITH is being placed on this >> piece of equipment to guide searchers to your remains, >> it would really be nice if their design included >> some means for demonstrating integrity as opposed >> to guessing. >> >> As I said . . . their instructions suck . . . >> >> The GPS is a Garmin GTN 650. Steinair, who wired my panel, has four >> feeds coming from a single feed (pin 8). They suggested that I tap >> into this for the GPS feed. Two of the feeds go into Grand Rapids >> PFD and MFD. It would be a lot easier to tap into the circuit where >> they enter those units than into the GPS where there is already a >> four into one joint. I can't see that it makes any electrical >> different which end of the wire I join into. Am I missing anything here? >> >> Talk to Steinair about this. I'm not privy to the rationale >> for offering all these 'pigtails'. It's a mystery to me >> but they would be the one to explain their intentions. >> >> By the way, I did talk to ACK about the recommended power >> source for the E04. If you have a 'commericial' version >> (E04C) then power needs to come from a battery bus. If >> the plain vanilla version for little-guys, the power >> should come from a switched bus. Another little >> 'gotcha' in their instructions. >> >> Sorry I can't be more help . . > > Bob . . . > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2014
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
What I did was putting my computer with a serial interface behind and watched the data stream coming (on putty, it's NMEA 183) so I could see, that the data was valid, if the ACK ELT can handle it correctly is another question and I could not find out. Do not forget as well to have the correct baud rate selected via the jumper inside! Cheers Werner On 05.09.2014 01:01, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > The 64-dollar question is how do you test it? > Without a receiver fitted with a feature that > resolves and displays the GPS location data being > transmitted by the ELT, how do you know that > the communications channel GPS->ELT is good? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Spray-on batteries
From: "newastrums" <newastrums(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2014
Spray-on batteries Researchers at Rice University in Houston have developed a prototype spray-on battery that could allow engineers to rethink the way portable electronics are designed.The rechargeable battery boasts similar electrical characteristics to the lithium ion batteries that power almost every mobile gadget, but it can be applied in layers to almost any surface with a conventional airbrush, said Neelam Singh, a Rice University graduate student who led a team working on the technology for more than a year.Current lithium ion batteries are almost all variations on the same basic form: an inflexible block with electrodes at one end. Because they cannot easily be shaped, they sometimes restrict designers, particularly when it comes to small gadgets with curved surfaces, but the Rice prototypes could change that. "Today, we only have a few form factors of batteries, but this battery can be fabricated to fill the space available," said Singh.The battery is sprayed on in five layers: two current collectors sandwich a cathode, a polymer separator and an anode. The result is a battery that can be sprayed on to plastics, metal and ceramics.The researchers are hoping to attract interest from electronics companies, which Singh estimates could put it into production relatively easily. "Airburshing technology is well-established. At an industrial level it could be done very fast," she said. Astrums (http://astrums.net/) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430030#430030 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 06, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
At 06:49 PM 9/4/2014, you wrote: ><http://www.406Test.com>www.406Test.com > >You pay a sign up fee and a beacon fee. The cost is $30 each. > >You log into the website and schedule a test the of beacon. You have >48 hours to test it. > >The beacon must be registered. > >You must test it with a clear view of the southern sky. > >You will receive an SMS text message confirming your test. Cool! Thanks for the heads-up. I've been unhooked from the avionics side of the house for too long. The technology is running over the horizon in front of me. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 07, 2014
From: Ken <kleh(at)dialupatcost.ca>
Subject: Continuous open squelch Icom RFI Gemini
Just some comments for the archives since I could not find any specific info on this problem. Perhaps it will help someone in the future. When my Icom A200 VHF was replaced with a new A210, I was plagued much of the time with an open squelch even with max squelch selected. The interference was coming in through the antenna. It turns out that the cast metal radio frame is ever so slightly wider than the older radio. Widening the panel opening a tiny bit to let the radio slide about 0.020" further into the tray fixed the problem. I would also note that I found it easy to remove and install the A210 without disconnecting that front panel ribbon cable that has caused problems for some owners. Confounding my trouble shooting was that my handheld VHF has had the same problem with an uncontrollable open squelch when placed on the glareshield. Battery powered but with the rubber ducky antenna. I don't often use it like that and had not noticed exactly when it started to misbehave other than it was a couple of years ago. It seems that RFI from a Gemini glass ADI was contributing to that problem. A 0.001 uF capacitor across the power connections in its Dsub connector quieted that enough to make the handheld stop breaking squelch at least when it is above the metal glareshield. Even easier would be one of these filters. http://www.l-com.com/d-sub-capacitive-filter-emc-adapter-db9-male-female Ken ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 07, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of battery issues...
At 03:03 AM 8/27/2014, you wrote: >Hi Bob- > >Were you ever able to glean anything from the >Battery Tender Jr I sent you some time back? > >Tnx- Not yet . . . but testing is under way . . . I had some help from my grand-daughter this summer who did a bang-up job getting rid of some trash and getting stuff 'organized' in my office/electronics shop. Unfortunately, I had three Battery Tender Jr. in one box and don't know which one is yours. Got out the data acquisition system and set up to 'cycle' all three devices. It will be an interesting comparison. It will take a few days but the experiment is moving forward . . . we'll see if we can identify your charger by its behaviors in a blind study. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Shield wiring
Date: Sep 07, 2014
...and know that the unit does not come with a jumper to use! I robbed one from an old computer hard drive for an ACK unit on another Berkut I'm working on. -James Berkut/Race 13 -----Original Message----- From: Werner Schneider Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 3:02 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shield wiring --> Do not forget as well to have the correct baud rate selected via the jumper inside! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 2014
From: Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com>
Subject: Two power signals, one wire
I remember the fun stump-the-freshman boxes we'd build in school to control, one, two or three lights on one box with one two or three switches on another box, with only two wires running between them. (It was done with isolated power sources AKA batteries and diodes.) I've got a similar challenge. I've got one #18 wire that runs out to the tip of the tail for the beacon and aft position light. I'd like to separate them. I guess I could do a similar trick with a diode and an isolated power supply (instead of a second battery, I guess I could use an IC that generates isolated power via a charge pump...). Is there a more traditional way to separately control two loads at the end of a single wire? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Electronic Ignition Competitive Comparison
Date: Sep 09, 2014
With much talk about the EFII system by Robert Paisley here lately, I thought I would share the results of a test between the EFII system, a Slick Magneto, the Pmag 114, and the Lightspeed Plasma II+ systems. http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm Bob, I am interested in your thoughts on this test. Thanks Justin At the EFII facility at Cable Airport in Upland, California we gathered up the most popular choices for ignition systems on Lycoming engines to do some comparison testing. The results were very interesting and brought up some important differences between the systems tested. The systems tested were: Lightspeed Plasma II+ P-mag 114 Slick Magneto EFII There are other ignitions available for Lycoming engines. Those listed above appear to be the most popular choices in today's market for experimental aircraft. IGNITION 101 Energy Storage In general, ignition systems are categorized first by how they store energy to do their job. Their job of course is to produce sufficient voltage and current to generate a spark across the gap of the spark plug, and to create this spark at some nominal point during the rotation of the engine. Most vehicle ignition systems fall into one of two categories depending upon how they produce and store energy. Capacitive Discharge - The first category of ignition is "capacitive discharge" or "CD". CD ignitions store energy in a capacitor and then discharge the stored energy through the primary winding of an ignition coil which in turn has a secondary winding connected to the spark plug. In CD ignitions, the storage capacitor is typically charged through a DC-DC converter circuit which takes the available charging bus voltage (commonly around 13.8V) and converts it up to around 400V. Charging the capacitor at 400V allows for much greater energy storage than if the capacitor was charged at bus voltage. The ignition coil in a CD ignition is used as a step up transformer. When the 400V charge in the capacitor is dumped through the ignition coil, the voltage is stepped up to several thousand volts by the coil. This provides the required spark voltage to jump the gap of the spark plug. These days, CD ignitions are found primarily on small vehicles such as scooters, dirt bikes, and other small engines which typically have a minimal electrical system. Common characteristics of CD ignitions are a relatively low spark energy and relatively short spark duration. Inductive Discharge - The second general category of ignition systems is "inductive discharge" or simply "inductive" ignitions. Again, this refers to how the ignition stores energy to do its job. In an inductive ignition, the energy is stored directly within the ignition coil in the form of a magnetic field. When current is passed through the primary winding of the coil, energy is stored in the magnetic field. When the charging current is shut off, the magnetic field collapses very quickly and the energy is discharged through the secondary winding of the coil which is connected to the spark plug. There are a few sub categories of inductive ignitions. Magnetos were one of the earliest forms of inductive ignitions. Magnetos store energy in a magnetic field by passing a current through the primary winding of the ignition coil like all inductive ignitions. However, they generate their own electrical power with an internal generator and do not rely upon the vehicle electrical system. Cars made before the 1980s typically used a points triggered, slow charging type of inductive ignition in conjunction with a distributor. These ignitions were powered by the vehicle electrical system and had relatively low energy. Modern cars all use high energy inductive ignitions. High energy inductive ignitions use an ignition coil that has a very low resistance primary winding, typically in the 0.5 to 0.7 ohm range. The low resistance coil can charge very rapidly to a high energy level. This type system works very well with larger engines that have a capable electrical system that includes a battery and alternator. With the high energy inductive ignition, the coil can draw a fairly high current during the time it is charging, but this charge time is very short and the average current draw is low. Common traits of a high energy inductive ignition are high spark energy and long spark duration. Spark Timing - The next topic of interest when it comes to ignition systems is spark timing. A good hot spark is only half of the story when it comes to making an engine run well. The second part of the equation is making the spark at the right time. Ideal spark timing is not a simple thing. It varies with engine rpm, engine load, fuel type and octane, engine compression ratio, and other factors. Spark timing is handled differently by different ignitions. The most basic spark timing scheme is fixed timing. This means that the spark timing is always the same. The engine designers choose a worst case timing situation that won't cause engine damage regardless of how all the operational variables stack up and they fix the spark timing at that point. The fixed timing we find with aircraft magnetos is a prime example of this method. The problem with this scheme is that the spark timing is never correct for any given condition. You end up sacrificing horsepower, efficiency, and starting characteristics when you're stuck with fixed timing. Before engine computers, cars used a mechanical means of producing a timing curve. Commonly, this included a vacuum advance mechanism to adjust the curve for engine load. With today's computer controlled ignition systems, a complex spark timing curve can be generated by the engine computer to optimize horsepower and efficiency, as well as starting behavior. Aftermarket electronic ignitions typically have a base timing curve that advances with rpm up to some maximum value and then retards the ignition timing to some degree as engine load increases. BACK TO THE IGNITIONS THAT WERE TESTED Here is a list of the basic traits of each of the ignition systems in our test: Lightspeed Plasma II+ - Capacitive discharge, electronically controlled timing curve with load compensation. P-Mag 114 - Magneto inductive, electronically controlled timing curve with load compensation. Slick Magneto - Magneto inductive, fixed timing, points triggered. EFII - High energy inductive, electronically controlled timing curve with load compensation. We measured the spark energy, spark duration, and system current draw of each of these systems. Below are graphs of the data that resulted. The ignitions were run under load. This means that the instrumented spark plug was mounted in a pressurized chamber of inert gas to simulate the electrical load that the spark gap sees when it is inside the combustion chamber of a running engine at high rpm and high horsepower. System current draw at 2750 rpm: P-Mag =BB none; Slick Mag =BB none; Plasma II+ =BB 1.5 amps; EFII =BB 1.2 amps There are some interesting items in the data: Notice the increasing energy of the magneto as rpm increases. One drawback of the magneto ignition is very low spark energy at cranking rpms. Impulse couplings are commonly used on starting mags to momentarily speed them up in an effort to get a little more energy during cranking. This helps, but the energy is still very low during cranking. You might expect the P-Mag to have increasing energy with rpm also, but they have chosen to limit the charge time of the coil such that the energy does not increase as rpm goes up. Another interesting item is the very short spark duration of the Plasma II+ ignition. This is a characteristic inherent to CD type ignitions. If the air fuel ratio is optimal, this may not be much of an issue. However, if you are looking for maximum power, you will be seeking an air fuel ratio on the rich side. Short spark duration ignitions will tend to misfire before long spark duration ignitions as you continue to add fuel. If you are a lean-of-peak guy, you have a similar situation where a short spark duration ignition will start to misfire before a long duration ignition as you take away fuel. These characteristics tend to favor long spark duration ignitions for best economy as well as for best power. This is a primary reason cars all have inductive ignitions. The long spark duration of the EFII ignition means that the spark is lit for more than 36 degrees of engine rotation at 2750 rpm. This gives lots of opportunity for a non optimal mixture to light. If you click on the thumbnail below, you can view a nice photo of Mannan Thomason's EFIS display in his RV-8. His Dual EFII ignition is helping to deliver 155 knots true at 6.0 gallons per hour - that's 178mph at 29.7 miles per gallon! - not too shabby! EFII Flies Above the Rest Why does our system seem to come out on top? It's not because we're clever with our data. There are really two reasons. First, we are a technology driven company. We value function over form. Clever packaging or glossy marketing are not what we focus on. Our priorities are performance and reliability. Second, we have been designing and manufacturing performance ignitions since the 1980s. We went through our ignition design learning curves a long time ago. This allows us to design the correct product for a given application without the teething pains that others seem to go through. The data in this article highlights only some of the differences between our system and others. Our Tefzel wire harness, OEM style connectors, and billet crank trigger are also significant in a thorough comparison. The end result of our experience and our sound design philosophy is a product with unmatched quality and performance. This is why you too, should fly with EFII. TECHIE STUFF Just in case you were wondering how to measure spark energy and duration, here is a little extra info. It helps to have a nice oscilloscope that can do some fancy math for you. Otherwise, data can be exported to a computer for computation. Fortunately, we have an oscilloscope that is up to the task. Below, you can see a screen shot of the scope with the spark waveforms shown. This particular measurement was of the spark output of the EFII ignition. There are four traces displayed on the scope image. Trace #1 is the spark current. This measurement is made by returning the spark current through a 100 ohm resistor that serves as a current shunt. The spark current generates a signal across the shunt resistor that is a few volts in amplitude and can easily be measured by the scope. Trace #2 is the spark voltage. The voltage was measured with a 1000:1 probe. The portion of this signal that lies between the vertical cursor lines in the image shows when there is a spark present in the gap of the spark plug. Notice in trace #1, this is also the period where there is current flowing. Trace#3 is a math channel that is generated by the oscilloscope. This trace is defined as (trace#1 x trace#2) or spark current times spark voltage. Current times voltage is power. Trace #3 is a representation of the instantaneous power (in Watts) of the spark event. Trace #4 is another math channel. In this case trace #4 has been defined as the integral over time of trace #3. This can also be explained as the area under the curve of trace #3. Mathematically, this gives you the spark power (in Watts) times the spark time (in seconds) which is spark energy (in Joules). Watts times Seconds equals Joules. In this case, the energy is much less than one Joule, so we express it in milli Joules, or thousandths of a Joule. Trace #4 shows the accumulation of energy during the spark event. Notice that the #4 curve stops rising when the spark current stops. This is because there is no additional energy being delivered across the spark gap. Also notice the two small "x" marks on the #4 curve. This is an amplitude measurement function of the scope. The amplitude measured in this case is displayed at the top middle of the screen. You can see it reads 44.4 mU. The scope doesn't know what units we are acutally measuring, so it has labeled the value generically as 44.4 milli Units. In this case, milli Units means milli Joules. You may notice that in this measurement, the EFII ignition is putting out 44.4 milli Joules of energy - which is a lot! The graphs above show that our ignition puts out 36 milli Joules. Spark energy readings can vary quite a bit with variations in temperature and humidity. We tried to be fair to all the systems measured and take data on the same day when we collected the info for the graphs. The scope screen shot was made on a different day with high humidity and the reading showed much higher. We want to emphasize, that we did in fact make every effort possible to evaluate all the systems fairly and under the same conditions. The data in the graphs is a result of this. There is a little more to the energy measurement process, such as having a pressure vessel for the spark plug to fire into to simulate the load on the spark gap that is present in a running engine. There is also the requirement to trigger the different systems properly with crank signals in the case of the LSE and EFII systems and to properly spin the input shafts in the case of the P-Mag and Slick Mag. We used an electronically generated crank trigger signal for the EFII system. To trigger the LSE system, we mounted a flywheel in our engine lathe and spun it with the crank trigger assembly mounted on the tool post of the lathe. The P-Mag and Slick Mag were also spun using the engine lathe. Below you can see the magneto mount rig on the lathe. This setup above was used to test the Slick Mag and P-mag. You can see the spark pressure chamber in the image. There is an old Bendix mag in the picture. We would have added the data to the graphs from this mag, but it didn't perform very well at all. This one is overdue for overhaul. The Slick Mag we tested was brand new as was the P-Mag. Below, you can see the EFII system under test. In case you are trying to read the numbers on the power supply next to the scope, it reads 1.1 amps and 13.8 volts. This was at 2500 rpm. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Two_power_signals,_one_wire?
Date: Sep 09, 2014
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpJJ3ZlIGdvdCBhIHNpbWlsYXIgY2hhbGxlbmdlLiBJJ3ZlIGdvdCBvbmUg IzE4IHdpcmUgdGhhdCBydW5zIG91dCB0byB0aGUgDQp0aXAgb2YgdGhlIHRhaWwgZm9yIHRoZSBi ZWFjb24gYW5kIGFmdCBwb3NpdGlvbiBsaWdodC4gSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gDQpzZXBhcmF0ZSB0aGVt LiBJIGd1ZXNzIEkgY291bGQgZG8gYSBzaW1pbGFyIHRyaWNrIHdpdGggYSBkaW9kZSBhbmQgYW4g DQppc29sYXRlZCBwb3dlciBzdXBwbHkgKGluc3RlYWQgb2YgYSBzZWNvbmQgYmF0dGVyeSwgSSBn dWVzcyBJIGNvdWxkIHVzZSANCmFuIElDIHRoYXQgZ2VuZXJhdGVzIGlzb2xhdGVkIHBvd2VyIHZp YSBhIGNoYXJnZSBwdW1wLi4uKS4gSXMgdGhlcmUgYSANCm1vcmUgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWwgd2F5IHRv IHNlcGFyYXRlbHkgY29udHJvbCB0d28gbG9hZHMgYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBhIA0Kc2luZ2xlIHdp cmU/DQoNCg0KDQpJcyBpdCBub3QgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gcHVsbCBpbiBhIHNlY29uZCB3aXJlPyAg SXQgc2VlbXMgbGlrZSB5b3UgYXJlIGNvbXBsaWNhdGluZyBhIHJlbGF0aXZlbHkgc2ltcGxlIGV4 ZXJjaXNlLiAgUGVyaGFwcyBpdCBpcyBhbiBpbmV4Y2Vzc2FibGUgcGxhY2UuICBUZWxsIHVzIG1v cmUuDQoNCg0KUm9nZXI ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Sep 10, 2014
The answer is an emphatic NO and YES. NO: You really don't want to do it. YES: See: wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Wire#Example_communication_with_a_device Or you can use phases where one phase is the beacon and the other the light. (This could cause severe difficulties on the ground plane.) Imagine an alternator with a blown diode, or no blown diodes. The remote logic can detect this and act accordingly. Modern cars use one power wire which is driven by a CAN communication bus that is made for this purpose. There are also older and trickier methods that can use the time when the beacon is off to charge a cap that runs the tail light. But you still need communication. There are several wireless control transmitters like Zigbee etc. There are ways to use one wire for power and signal the remote electronics by a short pulse, which indexes the logic by a rotary selector or its electronic equivalent (some pinball machines had something similar). -------- 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=430291#430291 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 10, 2014
I also saw a method recently that put a micro-controller at the receiving end of a 5.7V rail. Power for the micro went through a diode to a large cap on the power pin. A digital input was connected to the power rail through another diode, with a pull-down resistor. Power could be cycled low briefly to signal the digital pin without resetting the micro. With a large enough cap on Vcc, I suspect you could conduct one-way serial comms this way. Eric On Sep 10, 2014, at 6:53 AM, "Eric M. Jones" wrote: > The answer is an emphatic NO and YES. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Microphone Question
At 08:12 PM 8/29/2014, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >Haven't heard from you in a while, so I thought I'd check in. Have >you had an opportunity to look at the mic? > >Kevin Got the first-article assembled . . . but I need to put the fun-stuff down for a bit and do something to keep the boss happy. Emacs! Might get to power it up later tonight but tomorrow for sure. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
At 09:18 AM 9/10/2014, you wrote: > >I also saw a method recently that put a micro-controller at the >receiving end of a 5.7V rail. Power for the micro went through a >diode to a large cap on the power pin. A digital input was >connected to the power rail through another diode, with a pull-down >resistor. Power could be cycled low briefly to signal the digital >pin without resetting the micro. With a large enough cap on Vcc, I >suspect you could conduct one-way serial comms this way. There was a chap at OSH a number of years back who was proposing a kind of 'remote controlled bus' where a single wire might run from the main bus to another distribution point in the wing where power would split off to several accessories under the control of a micro-controller on the panel that spoke to another controller at the end of the extension feeder. He was using a kind of line-carrier technology not unlike the X10 house control systems . . . or FM radio intercom systems that communicated with each other over the power lines. This can be done . . . but at no trivial bill of materials. I.e., parts count really jumps and FMEA suffers when you place several of the ship's functions under the influence of one part. Of course, the BIG guys have been doing instrumentation, command, monitoring and control over data busses for a long time. The short answer is, you CAN do such a thing. Aside from meeting a technical challenge for having accomplished it . . . how did it affect system reliability? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition Competitive Comparison
At 06:18 PM 9/9/2014, you wrote: >With much talk about the EFII system by Robert Paisley here lately, >I thought I would share the results of a test between the EFII >system, a Slick Magneto, the Pmag 114, and the Lightspeed Plasma II+ systems. > ><http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm>http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm > > >Bob, I am interested in your thoughts on this test. Thanks for the heads-up on this. It will take some time to study the piece . . . but I will get back to you . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 10, 2014
On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:33 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > This can be done . . . but at no trivial bill of materials. I.e., parts count really jumps and FMEA suffers when you place several of the ship's functions under the influence of one part. > > [SNIP] > > The short answer is, you CAN do such a thing. Aside from meeting a technical challenge for having accomplished it . . . how did it affect system reliability? > > Bob . . . Indeed. I'd imagine the simplest and most reliable fix for the original poster on this thread would be to use the existing single wire as a fish tape to pull in two new wires. Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Sep 10, 2014
There must be a simple way to accomplish this. Surefire flashlights have one switch with different "modes" such as dim, bright and flash. You depress the switch, let up momentarily, then re-depress the switch to change modes. The method to accomplish this is above my pay-grade, but I am sure there are people on here that can explain. Justin On Sep 10, 2014, at 14:48, Eric Page wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:33 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: >> This can be done . . . but at no trivial bill of materials. I.e., parts count really jumps and FMEA suffers when you place several of the ship's functions under the influence of one part. >> >> [SNIP] >> >> The short answer is, you CAN do such a thing. Aside from meeting a technical challenge for having accomplished it . . . how did it affect system reliability? >> >> Bob . . . > > Indeed. I'd imagine the simplest and most reliable fix for the original poster on this thread would be to use the existing single wire as a fish tape to pull in two new wires. > > Eric > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
At 06:29 PM 9/10/2014, you wrote: > > >There must be a simple way to accomplish this. Surefire flashlights >have one switch with different "modes" such as dim, bright and >flash. You depress the switch, let up momentarily, then re-depress >the switch to change modes. The method to accomplish this is above >my pay-grade, but I am sure there are people on here that can explain. Yes, it's a micro-controller programmed with the various operating modes. A guy I work with at Textron has 'hacked' one such product and installed his own variants on the operating features. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of battery issues...
At 03:03 AM 8/27/2014, you wrote: >Hi Bob- > >Were you ever able to glean anything from the >Battery Tender Jr I sent you some time back? > >Tnx- Yes, it was the second BT I picked out of the box. It charges at a very low rate and oscillates between charging and fully charged indications on the front panel LED. Your original suspicions were correct . . . eess kaput! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2014
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition Competitive Comparison
From: "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com>
Lightspeed claims <http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Products/IgnitionBasics.htm> > 130 mJ, which should be way off those charts. This would seemingly match the perceived benefits of CDI as well (high energy due to 0.5*C*V^2. What's the whole truth here? Is the 100 ohm series resistor messing things up somehow? I'd like to see the measurement made using a current transducer instead of a resistance. -Jeff- On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 06:18 PM 9/9/2014, you wrote: > > With much talk about the EFII system by Robert Paisley here lately, I > thought I would share the results of a test between the EFII system, a > Slick Magneto, the Pmag 114, and the Lightspeed Plasma II+ systems. > > http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm > > > Bob, I am interested in your thoughts on this test. > > > Thanks for the heads-up on this. It will take some > time to study the piece . . . but I will get back > to you . . . > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition Competitive Comparison
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Sep 10, 2014
I am very interested in this thread...... I built and sold an 0360 with dual p mags and was really impressed with the run in on the test stand. Engine s eemed to be extremely smooth and powerful. Have had no feed back from the b uyer, which is probably significant. Now I am building an 85 Cont with O20 0 jugs and crank. Was thinking of going with the p mags again. M. Haught Sent from my iPad > On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:11 PM, "Jeff B." wrote: > > Lightspeed claims > 130 mJ, which should be way off those charts. This wou ld seemingly match the perceived benefits of CDI as well (high energy due to 0.5*C*V^2. What's the whole truth here? Is the 100 ohm series resistor me ssing things up somehow? I'd like to see the measurement made using a curre nt transducer instead of a resistance. > > -Jeff- > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@ae roelectric.com> wrote: >> At 06:18 PM 9/9/2014, you wrote: >>> With much talk about the EFII system by Robert Paisley here lately, I th ought I would share the results of a test between the EFII system, a Slick M agneto, the Pmag 114, and the Lightspeed Plasma II+ systems. >>> >>> http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm >>> >>> >>> Bob, I am interested in your thoughts on this test. >> >> Thanks for the heads-up on this. It will take some >> time to study the piece . . . but I will get back >> to you . . . >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li st >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2014
Subject: Re: Speaking of battery issues...
From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
> > Thanks, Bob; Schauer is now in the house... now all I need is to get a > couple more batteries. That, and find / make the time to finish the > plane... > > At 03:03 AM 8/27/2014, you wrote: > >Hi Bob- > > > >Were you ever able to glean anything from the > >Battery Tender Jr I sent you some time back? > > > >Tnx- > > Yes, it was the second BT I picked out of the box. It > charges at a very low rate and oscillates between > charging and fully charged indications on the front > panel LED. > > Your original suspicions were correct . . . eess kaput! > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 11, 2014
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition Competitive Comparison
LSE claims their spark energy is "> 120 mJ" for all their ignition systems. http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Products/IgnitionSpecs.htm On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > With much talk about the EFII system by Robert Paisley here lately, I > thought I would share the results of a test between the EFII system, a > Slick Magneto, the Pmag 114, and the Lightspeed Plasma II+ systems. > > http://www.flyefii.com/ignition/ignition_comparison.htm > > > Bob, I am interested in your thoughts on this test. > > Thanks > Justin > ------------------------------ > > At the EFII facility at Cable Airport in Upland, California we gathered u p > the most popular choices for ignition systems on Lycoming engines to do > some comparison testing. The results were very interesting and brought up > some important differences between the systems tested. > > The systems tested were: > *Lightspeed Plasma II+* > *P-mag 114* > *Slick Magneto* > *EFII* > > There are other ignitions available for Lycoming engines. Those listed > above appear to be the most popular choices in today's market for > experimental aircraft. > > ------------------------------ > *IGNITION 101* > ------------------------------ > *Energy Storage* > In general, ignition systems are categorized first by how they store > energy to do their job. Their job of course is to produce sufficient > voltage and current to generate a spark across the gap of the spark plug, > and to create this spark at some nominal point during the rotation of the > engine. > > Most vehicle ignition systems fall into one of two categories depending > upon how they produce and store energy. > > *Capacitive Discharge* - The first category of ignition is "capacitive > discharge" or "CD". CD ignitions store energy in a capacitor and then > discharge the stored energy through the primary winding of an ignition co il > which in turn has a secondary winding connected to the spark plug. In CD > ignitions, the storage capacitor is typically charged through a DC-DC > converter circuit which takes the available charging bus voltage (commonl y > around 13.8V) and converts it up to around 400V. Charging the capacitor a t > 400V allows for much greater energy storage than if the capacitor was > charged at bus voltage. The ignition coil in a CD ignition is used as a > step up transformer. When the 400V charge in the capacitor is dumped > through the ignition coil, the voltage is stepped up to several thousand > volts by the coil. This provides the required spark voltage to jump the g ap > of the spark plug. These days, CD ignitions are found primarily on small > vehicles such as scooters, dirt bikes, and other small engines which > typically have a minimal electrical system. Common characteristics of CD > ignitions are a relatively low spark energy and relatively short spark > duration. > > *Inductive Discharge* - The second general category of ignition systems > is "inductive discharge" or simply "inductive" ignitions. Again, this > refers to how the ignition stores energy to do its job. In an inductive > ignition, the energy is stored directly within the ignition coil in the > form of a magnetic field. When current is passed through the primary > winding of the coil, energy is stored in the magnetic field. When the > charging current is shut off, the magnetic field collapses very quickly a nd > the energy is discharged through the secondary winding of the coil which is > connected to the spark plug. There are a few sub categories of inductive > ignitions. Magnetos were one of the earliest forms of inductive ignitions . > Magnetos store energy in a magnetic field by passing a current through th e > primary winding of the ignition coil like all inductive ignitions. Howeve r, > they generate their own electrical power with an internal generator and d o > not rely upon the vehicle electrical system. > > Cars made before the 1980s typically used a points triggered, slow > charging type of inductive ignition in conjunction with a distributor. > These ignitions were powered by the vehicle electrical system and had > relatively low energy. > > Modern cars all use high energy inductive ignitions. High energy inductiv e > ignitions use an ignition coil that has a very low resistance primary > winding, typically in the 0.5 to 0.7 ohm range. The low resistance coil c an > charge very rapidly to a high energy level. This type system works very > well with larger engines that have a capable electrical system that > includes a battery and alternator. With the high energy inductive ignitio n, > the coil can draw a fairly high current during the time it is charging, b ut > this charge time is very short and the average current draw is low. Commo n > traits of a high energy inductive ignition are high spark energy and long > spark duration. > > ------------------------------ > *Spark Timing* - The next topic of interest when it comes to ignition > systems is spark timing. A good hot spark is only half of the story when it > comes to making an engine run well. The second part of the equation is > making the spark at the right time. Ideal spark timing is not a simple > thing. It varies with engine rpm, engine load, fuel type and octane, engi ne > compression ratio, and other factors. Spark timing is handled differently > by different ignitions. > > The most basic spark timing scheme is fixed timing. This means that the > spark timing is always the same. The engine designers choose a worst case > timing situation that won't cause engine damage regardless of how all the > operational variables stack up and they fix the spark timing at that poin t. > The fixed timing we find with aircraft magnetos is a prime example of thi s > method. The problem with this scheme is that the spark timing is never > correct for any given condition. You end up sacrificing horsepower, > efficiency, and starting characteristics when you're stuck with fixed > timing. > > Before engine computers, cars used a mechanical means of producing a > timing curve. Commonly, this included a vacuum advance mechanism to adjus t > the curve for engine load. With today's computer controlled ignition > systems, a complex spark timing curve can be generated by the engine > computer to optimize horsepower and efficiency, as well as starting > behavior. Aftermarket electronic ignitions typically have a base timing > curve that advances with rpm up to some maximum value and then retards th e > ignition timing to some degree as engine load increases. > ------------------------------ > *BACK TO THE IGNITIONS THAT WERE TESTED* > Here is a list of the basic traits of each of the ignition systems in our > test: > > *Lightspeed Plasma II+* - Capacitive discharge, electronically controlled > timing curve with load compensation. > *P-Mag 114* - Magneto inductive, electronically controlled timing curve > with load compensation. > *Slick Magneto* - Magneto inductive, fixed timing, points triggered. > *EFII* - High energy inductive, electronically controlled timing curve > with load compensation. > > We measured the spark energy, spark duration, and system current draw of > each of these systems. Below are graphs of the data that resulted. The > ignitions were run under load. This means that the instrumented spark plu g > was mounted in a pressurized chamber of inert gas to simulate the > electrical load that the spark gap sees when it is inside the combustion > chamber of a running engine at high rpm and high horsepower. > > *System current draw at 2750 rpm: P-Mag =C2=BB none; Slick Mag =C2=BB none; > Plasma II+ =C2=BB 1.5 amps; EFII =C2=BB 1.2 amps* > > > There are some interesting items in the data: > > Notice the increasing energy of the magneto as rpm increases. One drawbac k > of the magneto ignition is very low spark energy at cranking rpms. Impuls e > couplings are commonly used on starting mags to momentarily speed them up > in an effort to get a little more energy during cranking. This helps, but > the energy is still very low during cranking. > > You might expect the P-Mag to have increasing energy with rpm also, but > they have chosen to limit the charge time of the coil such that the energ y > does not increase as rpm goes up. > > Another interesting item is the very short spark duration of the Plasma > II+ ignition. This is a characteristic inherent to CD type ignitions. If > the air fuel ratio is optimal, this may not be much of an issue. However, > if you are looking for maximum power, you will be seeking an air fuel rat io > on the rich side. Short spark duration ignitions will tend to misfire > before long spark duration ignitions as you continue to add fuel. If you > are a lean-of-peak guy, you have a similar situation where a short spark > duration ignition will start to misfire before a long duration ignition a s > you take away fuel. These characteristics tend to favor long spark durati on > ignitions for best economy as well as for best power. This is a primary > reason cars all have inductive ignitions. The long spark duration of the > EFII ignition means that the spark is lit for more than 36 degrees of > engine rotation at 2750 rpm. This gives lots of opportunity for a non > optimal mixture to light. > > If you click on the thumbnail below, you can view a nice photo of Mannan > Thomason's EFIS display in his RV-8. His Dual EFII ignition is helping to > deliver 155 knots true at 6.0 gallons per hour - that's 178mph at 29.7 > miles per gallon! - not too shabby! > > > ------------------------------ > *EFII Flies Above the Rest* > Why does our system seem to come out on top? It's not because we're cleve r > with our data. There are really two reasons. First, we are a technology > driven company. We value function over form. Clever packaging or glossy > marketing are not what we focus on. Our priorities are performance and > reliability. Second, we have been designing and manufacturing performance > ignitions since the 1980s. We went through our ignition design learning > curves a long time ago. This allows us to design the correct product for a > given application without the teething pains that others seem to go > through. > > The data in this article highlights only some of the differences between > our system and others. Our Tefzel wire harness, OEM style connectors, and > billet crank trigger are also significant in a thorough comparison. The e nd > result of our experience and our sound design philosophy is a product wit h > unmatched quality and performance. > *This is why you too, should fly with EFII.* > ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > *TECHIE STUFF* > Just in case you were wondering how to measure spark energy and duration, > here is a little extra info. > > It helps to have a nice oscilloscope that can do some fancy math for you. > Otherwise, data can be exported to a computer for computation. Fortunatel y, > we have an oscilloscope that is up to the task. Below, you can see a scre en > shot of the scope with the spark waveforms shown. This particular > measurement was of the spark output of the EFII ignition. > > > There are four traces displayed on the scope image. Trace #1 is the spark > current. This measurement is made by returning the spark current through a > 100 ohm resistor that serves as a current shunt. The spark current > generates a signal across the shunt resistor that is a few volts in > amplitude and can easily be measured by the scope. Trace #2 is the spark > voltage. The voltage was measured with a 1000:1 probe. The portion of thi s > signal that lies between the vertical cursor lines in the image shows whe n > there is a spark present in the gap of the spark plug. Notice in trace #1 , > this is also the period where there is current flowing. Trace#3 is a math > channel that is generated by the oscilloscope. This trace is defined as > (trace#1 x trace#2) or spark current times spark voltage. Current times > voltage is power. Trace #3 is a representation of the instantaneous power > (in Watts) of the spark event. Trace #4 is another math channel. In this > case trace #4 has been defined as the integral over time of trace #3. Thi s > can also be explained as the area under the curve of trace #3. > Mathematically, this gives you the spark power (in Watts) times the spark > time (in seconds) which is spark energy (in Joules). Watts times Seconds > equals Joules. In this case, the energy is much less than one Joule, so w e > express it in milli Joules, or thousandths of a Joule. Trace #4 shows the > accumulation of energy during the spark event. Notice that the #4 curve > stops rising when the spark current stops. This is because there is no > additional energy being delivered across the spark gap. Also notice the t wo > small "x" marks on the #4 curve. This is an amplitude measurement functio n > of the scope. The amplitude measured in this case is displayed at the top > middle of the screen. You can see it reads 44.4 mU. The scope doesn't kno w > what units we are acutally measuring, so it has labeled the value > generically as 44.4 milli Units. In this case, milli Units means milli > Joules. You may notice that in this measurement, the EFII ignition is > putting out 44.4 milli Joules of energy - which is a lot! The graphs abov e > show that our ignition puts out 36 milli Joules. Spark energy readings ca n > vary quite a bit with variations in temperature and humidity. We tried to > be fair to all the systems measured and take data on the same day when we > collected the info for the graphs. The scope screen shot was made on a > different day with high humidity and the reading showed much higher. We > want to emphasize, that we did in fact make every effort possible to > evaluate all the systems fairly and under the same conditions. The data i n > the graphs is a result of this. > > There is a little more to the energy measurement process, such as having a > pressure vessel for the spark plug to fire into to simulate the load on t he > spark gap that is present in a running engine. There is also the > requirement to trigger the different systems properly with crank signals in > the case of the LSE and EFII systems and to properly spin the input shaft s > in the case of the P-Mag and Slick Mag. We used an electronically generat ed > crank trigger signal for the EFII system. To trigger the LSE system, we > mounted a flywheel in our engine lathe and spun it with the crank trigger > assembly mounted on the tool post of the lathe. The P-Mag and Slick Mag > were also spun using the engine lathe. Below you can see the magneto moun t > rig on the lathe. > > > This setup above was used to test the Slick Mag and P-mag. You can see th e > spark pressure chamber in the image. There is an old Bendix mag in the > picture. We would have added the data to the graphs from this mag, but it > didn't perform very well at all. This one is overdue for overhaul. The > Slick Mag we tested was brand new as was the P-Mag. > > Below, you can see the EFII system under test. In case you are trying to > read the numbers on the power supply next to the scope, it reads 1.1 amps > and 13.8 volts. This was at 2500 rpm. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Two power signals, one wire
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Sep 11, 2014
It turns out Magnecraft actually still sells relays that allow lots of funny-business to be done with one wire and a ground. http://www.serelays.com/library/archive/104_Section5.pdf Imagine a single push button in the cockpit that drives a small remote-end motor that has a cam that pushes a bunch of microswitches. The only problem is knowing how long to push the button...enter the stepping relay. One push one step. Stepping relays were used for telephone dialing. n-pulses on the dial and the stepping relay will step n-times. Imagine how cool it would be to have a rotary telephone dial on your panel! It could handle all your switching needs. Stepping relays were also used in old pinball machines. The ball hits the bumper, and the stepping relay indexes the lights to new locations. Enjoy. Send me a picture if you put a telephone dial on your panel. The gold ones might go along with your Jules Verne Nautilus motif interior. -------- 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=430406#430406 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 16, 2014
Subject: latest edition?
I have the AeroElectric Connection Revision 12A. Is it current? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: latest edition?
At 12:27 2014-09-16, you wrote: >I have the AeroElectric Connection Revision 12A. Is it current? Yessir . . . it is. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 2014
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Subject: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned on
Good day, When my strobes are turned on, after two or three seconds the alternator goes off line. I can turn the strobe switch off, recycle the master switch and the alternator comes back on line. With the strobes off, I can load the electrical system clear up to fifty amps with the landing light, nav. lights, pitot heat, etc. and the alternator won't go off line. When the alternator goes off line with the strobes on, the strobes continue to operate off the battery. This behavior just started. The aircraft is an older Super Cub. The only instrumentation in the electrical system is an ammeter on the alternator output. I cannot find a breaker in the field circuit. The alternator is an InterAv (Motorola) and the voltage regulator appears to be a Motorola. The strobes are Whelan. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thank you, Steve S. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on At 15:08 2014-09-16, you wrote: > >Good day, > >When my strobes are turned on, after two or three seconds the >alternator goes off line. I can turn the strobe switch off, recycle >the master switch and the alternator comes back on line. With the >strobes off, I can load the electrical system clear up to fifty amps >with the landing light, nav. lights, pitot heat, etc. and the >alternator won't go off line. When the alternator goes off line >with the strobes on, the strobes continue to operate off the >battery. This behavior just started. > >The aircraft is an older Super Cub. The only instrumentation in the >electrical system is an ammeter on the alternator output. I cannot >find a breaker in the field circuit. The alternator is an InterAv >(Motorola) and the voltage regulator appears to be a Motorola. The >strobes are Whelan. Is this a new condition? Try loading the system with lights and heat and turning all off simultaneously to see if the trip repeats. What form and function of OV protection is included in your system? Sounds like the ov trip has become 'twitchy' . . . do you have an accurate voltmeter in the system? What is the normal bus voltage. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 16, 2014
Thank you for your response. This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of the InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in the system so I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The only instrumentation in the system is the ammeter on the alternator output. I will load up the system and turn it all off at once after I reinstall the alternator. I removed it for testing at a local shop. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 16, 2014, at 5:09 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > At 15:08 2014-09-16, you wrote: >> >> Good day, >> >> When my strobes are turned on, after two or three seconds the alternator goes off line. I can turn the strobe switch off, recycle the master switch and the alternator comes back on line. With the strobes off, I can load the electrical system clear up to fifty amps with the landing light, nav. lights, pitot heat, etc. and the alternator won't go off line. When the alternator goes off line with the strobes on, the strobes continue to operate off the battery. This behavior just started. >> >> The aircraft is an older Super Cub. The only instrumentation in the electrical system is an ammeter on the alternator output. I cannot find a breaker in the field circuit. The alternator is an InterAv (Motorola) and the voltage regulator appears to be a Motorola. The strobes are Whelan. > > Is this a new condition? Try loading the system with > lights and heat and turning all off simultaneously > to see if the trip repeats. > > What form and function of OV protection is included > in your system? Sounds like the ov trip has become > 'twitchy' . . . do you have an accurate voltmeter > in the system? What is the normal bus voltage. > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on At 22:54 2014-09-16, you wrote: > >Thank you for your response. >This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of the >InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in the >system so I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The only >instrumentation in the system is the ammeter on the alternator >output. I will load up the system and turn it all off at once after >I reinstall the alternator. I removed it for testing at a local shop. Sorry you went to the trouble before troubleshooting to find out what device needed to be repaired/replaced. It's unlikely to be the alternator. You need to KNOW the regulation set-point for the system. Get a digital voltmeter and check voltage at the bus at 1000 rpm and minimal electrical load, 2000 rpm and min load, then 2000 rpm with max load. While at 2000 rpm, see if you can cause the system to trip with the load-dump experiment I suggested earlier. The symptoms you've described thus far strongly suggest a skitterish ov protection system being irritated by either an elevated bus voltage -or- internal cauese. The most likely is elevated bus voltage. If your regulator is adjustable, set the bus to 14.2 volts. What kind of battery and how old? This is a good discussion to be sharing with the rest of the List membership. Getting the tools out to remove a piece of hardware is best reserved until you KNOW which piece needs to be removed. Fortunately, there are relatively easy techniques for deducing which piece that is. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2014
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on Thanks again for your help and advice. The voltage regulator is not adjustable. The battery is a Odyssey PC680, about three years old and has a resting, nothing connected voltage of about 13.2 volts (seems high?) measured soon after shutdown. I will install the alternator (relatively easy to do) and conduct the recommended tests. On 9/17/2014 5:52 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 22:54 2014-09-16, you wrote: >> >> >> Thank you for your response. >> This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of the >> InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in the >> system so I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The only >> instrumentation in the system is the ammeter on the alternator >> output. I will load up the system and turn it all off at once after >> I reinstall the alternator. I removed it for testing at a local shop. > > Sorry you went to the trouble before troubleshooting > to find out what device needed to be repaired/replaced. > > It's unlikely to be the alternator. > > You need to KNOW the regulation set-point for the > system. Get a digital voltmeter and check voltage at > the bus at 1000 rpm and minimal electrical load, 2000 > rpm and min load, then 2000 rpm with max load. While > at 2000 rpm, see if you can cause the system to trip > with the load-dump experiment I suggested earlier. > > The symptoms you've described thus far strongly suggest > a skitterish ov protection system being irritated by > either an elevated bus voltage -or- internal cauese. > The most likely is elevated bus voltage. If your > regulator is adjustable, set the bus to 14.2 volts. > > What kind of battery and how old? > > This is a good discussion to be sharing with the rest > of the List membership. Getting the tools out to remove > a piece of hardware is best reserved until you KNOW which > piece needs to be removed. Fortunately, there are relatively > easy techniques for deducing which piece that is. > > > Bob . . . > > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 17, 2014
I have done the suggested testing. The bus voltage at 1000 rpm settles in around 14.24 volts although I did see it as high as 14.4 volts at one point. The bus voltage is virtually the same at 2000 rpm. When I load up the system to 45 plus amps at 2000 rpm, the bus voltage drops to about 13.1 volts. When I dump the load all at once the system does not trip. The battery is an Odyssey PC680 about three years old. The voltage regulator is not adjustable, but it appears that is not the problem. Thank you Steve Sent from my iPad > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:52 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > At 22:54 2014-09-16, you wrote: >> >> Thank you for your response. >> This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of the InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in the system so I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The only instrumentation in the system is the ammeter on the alternator output. I will load up the system and turn it all off at once after I reinstall the alternator. I removed it for testing at a local shop. > > Sorry you went to the trouble before troubleshooting > to find out what device needed to be repaired/replaced. > > It's unlikely to be the alternator. > > You need to KNOW the regulation set-point for the > system. Get a digital voltmeter and check voltage at > the bus at 1000 rpm and minimal electrical load, 2000 > rpm and min load, then 2000 rpm with max load. While > at 2000 rpm, see if you can cause the system to trip > with the load-dump experiment I suggested earlier. > > The symptoms you've described thus far strongly suggest > a skitterish ov protection system being irritated by > either an elevated bus voltage -or- internal cauese. > The most likely is elevated bus voltage. If your > regulator is adjustable, set the bus to 14.2 volts. > > What kind of battery and how old? > > This is a good discussion to be sharing with the rest > of the List membership. Getting the tools out to remove > a piece of hardware is best reserved until you KNOW which > piece needs to be removed. Fortunately, there are relatively > easy techniques for deducing which piece that is. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on
From: Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com>
Hi Steve, I am assuming that your strobes are capacitive discharge, what if some of the capacitance is going to ground after it warms up 2 to 3 minutes as per your data. Is a partial or intermittent failure in the strobe power supply capable of sending high voltage pulses back into the 12 volt side of the system? Bob? On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve Sundquist wrote: > > > > I have done the suggested testing. The bus voltage at 1000 rpm settles in > around 14.24 volts although I did see it as high as 14.4 volts at one > point. The bus voltage is virtually the same at 2000 rpm. When I load up > the system to 45 plus amps at 2000 rpm, the bus voltage drops to about 13.1 > volts. When I dump the load all at once the system does not trip. The > battery is an Odyssey PC680 about three years old. The voltage regulator > is not adjustable, but it appears that is not the problem. > > Thank you > > Steve > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:52 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > > > At 22:54 2014-09-16, you wrote: > sttwig(at)gmail.com> > >> > >> Thank you for your response. > >> This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of the > InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in the system so > I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The only instrumentation in > the system is the ammeter on the alternator output. I will load up the > system and turn it all off at once after I reinstall the alternator. I > removed it for testing at a local shop. > > > > Sorry you went to the trouble before troubleshooting > > to find out what device needed to be repaired/replaced. > > > > It's unlikely to be the alternator. > > > > You need to KNOW the regulation set-point for the > > system. Get a digital voltmeter and check voltage at > > the bus at 1000 rpm and minimal electrical load, 2000 > > rpm and min load, then 2000 rpm with max load. While > > at 2000 rpm, see if you can cause the system to trip > > with the load-dump experiment I suggested earlier. > > > > The symptoms you've described thus far strongly suggest > > a skitterish ov protection system being irritated by > > either an elevated bus voltage -or- internal cauese. > > The most likely is elevated bus voltage. If your > > regulator is adjustable, set the bus to 14.2 volts. > > > > What kind of battery and how old? > > > > This is a good discussion to be sharing with the rest > > of the List membership. Getting the tools out to remove > > a piece of hardware is best reserved until you KNOW which > > piece needs to be removed. Fortunately, there are relatively > > easy techniques for deducing which piece that is. > > > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on
From: "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2014
Perhaps disconnect each strobe power supply one at a time and see if the system still trips. You might find out one of the power supplies is bad. This assumes you have a separate power supply for each strobe. -------- John Keller, TX RV-8 N247TD Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430709#430709 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Garmin AHRS drifting
Interesting read I've got today, seems to have an impact on Garmin G1000, G1000H, G950, G900X, G500, G500H, G600 when after power up the aircraft is moved the first 10 seconds. Was not aware of this http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/SAFO14004 So does the G3X then have a different platform? Cheers Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on Thanks, I will look into that. On 9/18/2014 5:05 AM, Bubblehead wrote: > > Perhaps disconnect each strobe power supply one at a time and see if the system still trips. You might find out one of the power supplies is bad. This assumes you have a separate power supply for each strobe. > > -------- > John > Keller, TX > RV-8 N247TD > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430709#430709 > > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Steve Sundquist <sttwig(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on Joe, Thank you for your input. About all I know about the strobes is that they are old Whelans. The alternator kicks out immediately, within 2 or 3 SECONDS upon switching on the strobes. I have seen no failure in the strobes as they continue to operate normally, on battery power, after the alternator is kicked off line. Per another suggestion, I am going to look for power supplies for the strobe system in the wings in addition to the one next to the battery which may be just for the tail. Steve On 9/17/2014 8:42 PM, Joe Motis wrote: > Hi Steve, I am assuming that your strobes are capacitive discharge, > what if some of the capacitance is going to ground after it warms up 2 > to 3 minutes as per your data. > > Is a partial or intermittent failure in the strobe power supply > capable of sending high voltage pulses back into the 12 volt side of > the system? > Bob? > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve Sundquist > wrote: > > > > > I have done the suggested testing. The bus voltage at 1000 rpm > settles in around 14.24 volts although I did see it as high as > 14.4 volts at one point. The bus voltage is virtually the same at > 2000 rpm. When I load up the system to 45 plus amps at 2000 rpm, > the bus voltage drops to about 13.1 volts. When I dump the load > all at once the system does not trip. The battery is an Odyssey > PC680 about three years old. The voltage regulator is not > adjustable, but it appears that is not the problem. > > Thank you > > Steve > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:52 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > wrote: > > > III" > > > > > At 22:54 2014-09-16, you wrote: > > > >> > >> Thank you for your response. > >> This is a new condition. The OV protection relay is part of > the InterAv system, part no. 635-62448. There is no voltmeter in > the system so I don't know what the normal buss voltage is. The > only instrumentation in the system is the ammeter on the > alternator output. I will load up the system and turn it all off > at once after I reinstall the alternator. I removed it for > testing at a local shop. > > > > Sorry you went to the trouble before troubleshooting > > to find out what device needed to be repaired/replaced. > > > > It's unlikely to be the alternator. > > > > You need to KNOW the regulation set-point for the > > system. Get a digital voltmeter and check voltage at > > the bus at 1000 rpm and minimal electrical load, 2000 > > rpm and min load, then 2000 rpm with max load. While > > at 2000 rpm, see if you can cause the system to trip > > with the load-dump experiment I suggested earlier. > > > > The symptoms you've described thus far strongly suggest > > a skitterish ov protection system being irritated by > > either an elevated bus voltage -or- internal cauese. > > The most likely is elevated bus voltage. If your > > regulator is adjustable, set the bus to 14.2 volts. > > > > What kind of battery and how old? > > > > This is a good discussion to be sharing with the rest > > of the List membership. Getting the tools out to remove > > a piece of hardware is best reserved until you KNOW which > > piece needs to be removed. Fortunately, there are relatively > > easy techniques for deducing which piece that is. > > > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > == > - > Electric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ========== > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > * > > > * --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
> So does the G3X then have a different platform? Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably exhibit similar performance if abused. Peter _ _ On 18/09/2014 15:28, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > Interesting read I've got today, seems to have an impact on Garmin > G1000, G1000H, G950, G900X, G500, G500H, G600 when after power up the > aircraft is moved the first 10 seconds. > > Was not aware of this http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/SAFO14004 > > So does the G3X then have a different platform? > > Cheers Werner > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Dual electric system in glasair
Hi Bob
I have your dual alt , dual batteries, with x connect. One circ uit is fine " B". The " A" circuit is dead. I can hear the solenoid click b ut no power any where on that circuit. X connect doesn't seem to do anythin g. Any trouble shooting advice appreciated. Jim Robinson. 530 409-1021

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: > > So does the G3X then have a different platform? > >Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that >is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot >be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use >fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably >exhibit similar performance if abused. > >Peter All modern AHRS systems have shed their 'iron' gyros representing horizontal and heading references in favor of rotational rate sensors. When I was working the GP180 program at Lear wayyyy back when, a supplier (I think it was King Radio) came in to pitch their latest and greatest offering to the new airplane. One of the presenters made kind of a show of opening a briefcase-like container on the table and turning on a switch. A light came on. He then proceeded to the next phase of his presentation. After a time, the 'briefcase' began to emit a 'ticking' sound . . . about one tick per second. We were all looking at the thing with some concern but the guy at the view graph projector seemed oblivious to attention being paid to the ticking box on the table. At some point he smiled and said, "Oh yeah, that briefcase contains one of our new laser-ring gyros. It outputs a stream of pulses proportional to rotation . . . that ticking you hear is a measure of its present rotational speed." "But sir . . . it's not moving!!" "Ahhh . . . but it is . . . those ticks are marking rotation of the earth."' This was my first introduction into some of the engineering and physics upon which the modern gyro-less systems are based. Assuming that you can measure rotation rate or position about any axis with precision, you can use that to replace a spinning gyro assuming further that you KNOW from what orientation from which you began making measurements. This means that from the time you power up the system there will be an interval of time for the software to stand up and say, "yeah . . . I know where the horizon is and I've got a lock on present yaw orientation in space . . . but until you give me some GPS course data or some magnetometer data corrected for deviation, I'm not going to know what our heading orientation is . . . " That laser ring gyro took several minutes to stand up. It was a positional sensor with drift that was essentially zero. Modern MEMS sensors are rate sensors. You have to integrate rate over time to deduce the difference in angle. Drifts and offsets are low but not zero. Hence the necessity to stand still while the byte thrashers decide when they're ready to go flying . . . or even taxiing. They'll first wash out offset by assuming that you're standing still. Once you move, data coming from other sources will wash out calibration issues . . . and it always takes some amount of time. 10 seconds is pretty quick and I'm having a little trouble putting my arms around the impatience for getting under way or perhaps already being under way when the system gets powered up. One more example of a check-list forsaken . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
The first aircraft I worked on had a 'iron' gyro platform that had to be spun up to speed and then 'torqued' until the gyro axes were perpendicular to the earth by aligning the vertical axis with gravity. A good align, taking at least 5 minutes (something longer) resulted in a gyro drift of 1nm per hour ... and it cost tens of thousands of $$$! The equipment available today is remarkable - no discernible drift after a 10 second align, amazing! I'm using an AFS EFIS that takes around a minute to align - I though that was rather good. Peter On 18/09/2014 21:02, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: >> > So does the G3X then have a different platform? >> >> Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that >> is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot >> be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use >> fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably >> exhibit similar performance if abused. >> >> Peter > > All modern AHRS systems have shed their 'iron' gyros > representing horizontal and heading references in favor > of rotational rate sensors. > > When I was working the GP180 program at Lear wayyyy back when, > a supplier (I think it was King Radio) came in to pitch their > latest and greatest offering to the new airplane. > > One of the presenters made kind of a show of opening a > briefcase-like container on the table and turning on > a switch. A light came on. He then proceeded to the next > phase of his presentation. After a time, the 'briefcase' > began to emit a 'ticking' sound . . . about one tick per > second. We were all looking at the thing with some concern > but the guy at the view graph projector seemed oblivious > to attention being paid to the ticking box on the table. > > At some point he smiled and said, "Oh yeah, that briefcase > contains one of our new laser-ring gyros. It outputs a stream > of pulses proportional to rotation . . . that ticking you > hear is a measure of its present rotational speed." > > "But sir . . . it's not moving!!" > > "Ahhh . . . but it is . . . those ticks are marking rotation > of the earth."' > > This was my first introduction into some of the engineering > and physics upon which the modern gyro-less systems are > based. Assuming that you can measure rotation rate or position > about any axis with precision, you can use that to replace > a spinning gyro assuming further that you KNOW from what orientation > from which you began making measurements. This means that from the > time you power up the system there will be an interval > of time for the software to stand up and say, "yeah . . . > I know where the horizon is and I've got a lock on present > yaw orientation in space . . . but until you give > me some GPS course data or some magnetometer data corrected > for deviation, I'm not going to know what our heading > orientation is . . . " > > That laser ring gyro took several minutes to stand up. > It was a positional sensor with drift that was essentially > zero. Modern MEMS sensors are rate sensors. You have to > integrate rate over time to deduce the difference in > angle. Drifts and offsets are low but not zero. Hence > the necessity to stand still while the byte thrashers > decide when they're ready to go flying . . . or even > taxiing. They'll first wash out offset by assuming that > you're standing still. Once you move, data coming from > other sources will wash out calibration issues . . . and > it always takes some amount of time. 10 seconds is pretty > quick and I'm having a little trouble putting my arms around > the impatience for getting under way or perhaps already > being under way when the system gets powered up. > > One more example of a check-list forsaken . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
So how does a modern AHRS re-initialize after an airborne re-boot? (perhaps due to some electrical failure) Magnetometer? -Jeff On Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:09 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: The first aircraft I worked on had a 'iron' gyro platform that had to be spun up to speed and then 'torqued' until the gyro axes were perpendicular to the earth by aligning the vertical axis with gravity. A good align, taking at least 5 minutes (something longer) resulted in a gyro drift of 1nm per hour ... and it cost tens of thousands of $$$! The equipment available today is remarkable - no discernible drift after a 10 second align, amazing! I'm using an AFS EFIS that takes around a minute to align - I though that was rather good. Peter On 18/09/2014 21:02, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: >> > So does the G3X then have a different platform? >> >> Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that >> is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot >> be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use >> fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably >> exhibit similar performance if abused. >> >> Peter > > All modern AHRS systems have shed their 'iron' gyros > representing horizontal and heading references in favor > of rotational rate sensors. > > When I was working the GP180 program at Lear wayyyy back when, > a supplier (I think it was King Radio) came in to pitch their > latest and greatest offering to the new airplane. > > One of the presenters made kind of a show of opening a > briefcase-like container on the table and turning on > a switch. A light came on. He then proceeded to the next > phase of his presentation. After a time, the 'briefcase' > began to emit a 'ticking' sound . . . about one tick per > second. We were all looking at the thing with some concern > but the guy at the view graph projector seemed oblivious > to attention being paid to the ticking box on the table. > > At some point he smiled and said, "Oh yeah, that briefcase > contains one of our new laser-ring gyros. It outputs a stream > of pulses proportional to rotation . . . that ticking you > hear is a measure of its present rotational speed." > > "But sir . . . it's not moving!!" > > "Ahhh . . . but it is . . . those ticks are marking rotation > of the earth."' > > This was my first introduction into some of the engineering > and physics upon which the modern gyro-less systems are > based. Assuming that you can measure rotation rate or position > about any axis with precision, you can use that to replace > a spinning gyro assuming further that you KNOW from what orientation > from which you began making measurements. This means that from the > time you power up the system there will be an interval > of time for the software to stand up and say, "yeah . . . > I know where the horizon is and I've got a lock on present > yaw orientation in space . . . but until you give > me some GPS course data or some magnetometer data corrected > for deviation, I'm not going to know what our heading > orientation is . . . " > > That laser ring gyro took several minutes to stand up. > It was a positional sensor with drift that was essentially > zero. Modern MEMS sensors are rate sensors. You have to > integrate rate over time to deduce the difference in > angle. Drifts and offsets are low but not zero. Hence > the necessity to stand still while the byte thrashers > decide when they're ready to go flying . . . or even > taxiing. They'll first wash out offset by assuming that > you're standing still. Once you move, data coming from > other sources will wash out calibration issues . . . and > it always takes some amount of time. 10 seconds is pretty > quick and I'm having a little trouble putting my arms around > the impatience for getting under way or perhaps already > being under way when the system gets powered up. > > One more example of a check-list forsaken . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
Just to clarify a misconception....ADs most certainly can be issued on non-certificated equipment. Not common, and up to aircraft owner/operator to determine if it applies to their situation. Part 39 applies to ALL aircraft, not just type certificated aircraft. While it is rare to issue one on an experimental airframe, the FAA does have the authority, and often issues ADs on components used on both certificated and experimental aircraft. No different than if you have a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine on your Puffmaster 1000, and an AD is issued on that engine. No different than a King KX-170B...it was non-TSO, only met FCC requirements, not any particular FAA standard, but it certainly could have an AD issued for whatever. You can ignore the AD if you choose, but if you have an accident where someone/something gets injured, do you want to be sitting at the plaintiff's deposition explaining why you ignored the AD? On 9/18/2014 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: >> > So does the G3X then have a different platform? >> >> Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that >> is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot >> be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use >> fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably >> exhibit similar performance if abused. >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
Yes, there have always been airborne re-alignment techniques. Once the platform has toppled a rough alignment can be done quickly (a few seconds as the pilot will be needing some information soonest) using combinations of (hopefully) reliable data, such as gravity, mag heading, GPS, airspeed (with OAT input), a stored position/velocity from a state model. Some of these are more reliable than others, hence the need for the pilot to fly level and unaccelerated for a while where possible, and also depends on the sophistication of the software algorithms (perhaps $$$ behind the developer). I have never seen inside these algorithms, but I would hope they would compare the available data. Such as if heading is changing don't believe gravity, how does heading compare with GPS track (hopefully constant offset), how does GPS speed compare to airspeed/TAS (again constant offset?), and so on, to figure out what can be believed, and so get the best available alignment. Its never going to be quite as accurate as a ground align, but should be sufficient to get you on the ground without too much additional workload. On 18/09/2014 22:32, Jeff Luckey wrote: > So how does a modern AHRS re-initialize after an airborne re-boot? > (perhaps due to some electrical failure) > > Magnetometer? > > -Jeff > > > On Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:09 PM, Peter Pengilly > wrote: > > > > > > The first aircraft I worked on had a 'iron' gyro platform that had to be > spun up to speed and then 'torqued' until the gyro axes were > perpendicular to the earth by aligning the vertical axis with gravity. A > good align, taking at least 5 minutes (something longer) resulted in a > gyro drift of 1nm per hour ... and it cost tens of thousands of $$$! The > equipment available today is remarkable - no discernible drift after a > 10 second align, amazing! I'm using an AFS EFIS that takes around a > minute to align - I though that was rather good. > > Peter > > On 18/09/2014 21:02, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > > > At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: > >> > So does the G3X then have a different platform? > >> > >> Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that > >> is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot > >> be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use > >> fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably > >> exhibit similar performance if abused. > >> > >> Peter > > > > All modern AHRS systems have shed their 'iron' gyros > > representing horizontal and heading references in favor > > of rotational rate sensors. > > > > When I was working the GP180 program at Lear wayyyy back when, > > a supplier (I think it was King Radio) came in to pitch their > > latest and greatest offering to the new airplane. > > > > One of the presenters made kind of a show of opening a > > briefcase-like container on the table and turning on > > a switch. A light came on. He then proceeded to the next > > phase of his presentation. After a time, the 'briefcase' > > began to emit a 'ticking' sound . . . about one tick per > > second. We were all looking at the thing with some concern > > but the guy at the view graph projector seemed oblivious > > to attention being paid to the ticking box on the table. > > > > At some point he smiled and said, "Oh yeah, that briefcase > > contains one of our new laser-ring gyros. It outputs a stream > > of pulses proportional to rotation . . . that ticking you > > hear is a measure of its present rotational speed." > > > > "But sir . . . it's not moving!!" > > > > "Ahhh . . . but it is . . . those ticks are marking rotation > > of the earth."' > > > > This was my first introduction into some of the engineering > > and physics upon which the modern gyro-less systems are > > based. Assuming that you can measure rotation rate or position > > about any axis with precision, you can use that to replace > > a spinning gyro assuming further that you KNOW from what orientation > > from which you began making measurements. This means that from the > > time you power up the system there will be an interval > > of time for the software to stand up and say, "yeah . . . > > I know where the horizon is and I've got a lock on present > > yaw orientation in space . . . but until you give > > me some GPS course data or some magnetometer data corrected > > for deviation, I'm not going to know what our heading > > orientation is . . . " > > > > That laser ring gyro took several minutes to stand up. > > It was a positional sensor with drift that was essentially > > zero. Modern MEMS sensors are rate sensors. You have to > > integrate rate over time to deduce the difference in > > angle. Drifts and offsets are low but not zero. Hence > > the necessity to stand still while the byte thrashers > > decide when they're ready to go flying . . . or even > > taxiing. They'll first wash out offset by assuming that > > you're standing still. Once you move, data coming from > > other sources will wash out calibration issues . . . and > > it always takes some amount of time. 10 > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
The situation in the US may be different to other countries. As I understand it the CofA of an aircraft will not be valid if an AD is not complied with. In the UK amateur built aircraft don't have a CofA, they have a permit to fly. Therefore the CAA has to raise a Mandatory Permit Directive to make ADs effective on permit aircraft. On 18/09/2014 22:42, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Just to clarify a misconception....ADs most certainly can be issued on > non-certificated equipment. Not common, and up to aircraft > owner/operator to determine if it applies to their situation. Part 39 > applies to ALL aircraft, not just type certificated aircraft. While it > is rare to issue one on an experimental airframe, the FAA does have > the authority, and often issues ADs on components used on both > certificated and experimental aircraft. > No different than if you have a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine on your > Puffmaster 1000, and an AD is issued on that engine. No different than > a King KX-170B...it was non-TSO, only met FCC requirements, not any > particular FAA standard, but it certainly could have an AD issued for > whatever. You can ignore the AD if you choose, but if you have an > accident where someone/something gets injured, do you want to be > sitting at the plaintiff's deposition explaining why you ignored the AD? > > On 9/18/2014 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 13:59 2014-09-18, you wrote: >>> > So does the G3X then have a different platform? >>> >>> Yes, the G3X uses a GSU 73 or GSU 25 ADAHRS, not the GRS 77/77H that >>> is the subject of the AD. However the G3X is not certified so cannot >>> be the subject of an AD. It seems unlikely that the GSU 73 or 25 use >>> fundamentally different algorithms than the GRS77, so will probably >>> exhibit similar performance if abused. >>> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garmin AHRS drifting
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sep 18, 2014
Totally concur with the comment about ADs. An Airworthiness Directive can be issued on pretty much anything pertaining to safety of flight, whether it's "certified" equipment or not. Owner/builders of experimental aircraft are of course responsible for their own maintenance. But if you don't bother keeping up to date with ADs or decline to carry out an AD on an item in your plane, you could well be hung out to dry legally if anything goes wrong with that piece of equipment. Plus there's the obvious point that it simply makes good safety sense to just do it. On the topic of IRS/AHRS alignment, 10 seconds is nothing! We used to have to wait at least 15 minutes for IRS alignment before even starting our engines on some early systems when I was in the military. Anyone complaining about having to be stationary without the engine running for a 10 second or even a 60 second alignment gets no sympathy from me! [Wink] -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430758#430758 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on At 12:31 2014-09-18, you wrote: >Joe, > >Thank you for your input. > >About all I know about the strobes is that they >are old Whelans.=C2 The alternator kicks out >immediately, within 2 or 3 SECONDS upon >switching on the strobes.=C2 I have seen no >failure in the strobes as they continue to >operate normally, on battery power, after the >alternator is kicked off line.=C2 Per another >suggestion, I am going to look for power >supplies for the strobe system in the wings in >addition to the one next to the battery which may be just for the tail. What we're witnessing is one or more incursions on the design limits for an aircraft device to either emit or succumb to noise. Ostensibly, both the strobes and ov protection system in the regulator were qualified to their intended purposes . . . both have a long service history. The ov protection system is supposed to be pretty robust. You have to ELEVATE the bus voltage above trip limits for a pretty good interval of time . . . hundreds of millisecond. Even if the strobe were to suffer it's worst possible failure . . . what mechanism would pump energy BACK into the system with sufficient magnitude to irritate a normally functioning ov protection system? On the other hand, one or more components within the ov protection system could have aged sufficiently to decrease voltage excursion or duration necessary to trip it. This scenario seems more likely than an 'energy dump' from the strobe back into the system. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 2014
Subject: Re: AD's, was Garmin AHRS drifting
From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
Just to add a clarification for our friends overseas and reminder to our 'locals' regarding the foregoing excellent commentary on AD's, for U.S. Type Certificated Aircraft AD COMPLIANCE is mandatory. For EAB aircraft, the AD must be ADDRESSED. That bit of diction is the critical part. Should something unfortunate yet utterly unrelated to the AD occur, you can still be ruined. Failure to address the AD has a technical / legal impact on your C of A, and the status of your C of A generally impacts your insurance in a negative way. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire sale . . .
I've got about 80 of these LED illumination/annunciation fixtures that need to go . . . http://tinyurl.com/l83fdty High intensity LED (no resistor) All metal housing . . . While they last, 5 fixtures for $12 postage paid to US addresses. Email your request directly to me. Thanks! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Fire_sale_._._.?
Date: Sep 20, 2014
Qm9iLA0KDQoNCldoYXQgY29sb3IgYXJlIHRoZXNlPyBUaGV5IGxvb2sgYW1iZXIgYnV0IEkgc2Vl IGEgcmVkIHJlZmxlY3Rpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgbGlnaHQuICBBbHNvIG1vdW50aW5nIGhvbGUgc2l6 ZS4NCg0KDQpSb2dlcg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpJJ3ZlIGdvdCBhYm91dCA4MCBvZiB0aGVzZSBM RUQgaWxsdW1pbmF0aW9uL2FubnVuY2lhdGlvbg0KZml4dHVyZXMgdGhhdCBuZWVkIHRvIGdvIC4g LiAuDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly90aW55dXJsLmNvbS9sODNmZHR5DQoNCkhpZ2ggaW50ZW5zaXR5IExFRCAo bm8gcmVzaXN0b3IpIEFsbCBtZXRhbCBob3VzaW5nIC4gLiAuDQoNCldoaWxlIHRoZXkgbGFzdCwg NSBmaXh0dXJlcyBmb3IgJDEyIHBvc3RhZ2UgcGFpZCB0bw0KDQpVUyBhZGRyZXNzZXMuIEVtYWls IHlvdXIgcmVxdWVzdCBkaXJlY3RseSB0byBtZS4 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fire sale . . .
At 18:38 2014-09-20, you wrote: >Bob, > >What color are these? They look amber but I see >a red reflection from the light. Also mounting hole size. Yes, amber leds. They mount in a 8mm - 5/16" hole. >Roger > >I've got about 80 of these LED illumination/annunciation >fixtures that need to go . . . > >http://tinyurl.com/l83fdty > >High intensity LED (no resistor) All metal housing . . . > >While they last, 5 fixtures for $12 postage paid to >US addresses. Email your request directly to me. > >)=AD=E6=DF=A2{l=8B7=B6r=89h=AFM4=D3Mi=C7=9C=A2=EAz=B9=DE=C1=CA.=AE'=ABN z=BA-=E7-=AE'=8A=CBD=99=A8=A5=8A=EE=99K=B6=8Cj=DA=E8=9E',.+-=E6=AD=BA =B7=AC5=AB=81=ABh=AE=DA=AE=8C,z=D8^=99=A9=F2.+-=BA=D8=A5=8A=D8=9E=B2=98 =85=AB=8A=CBT=9F=AEn=C7+=8A=9Bb=A2p+r=AFy'=9A=AD=C8C=A3=E5=A1=A7{ >=AC=81=AE=8C,x(Z=B4P>-=A2=C8Z=AD=E6=A7vk=9C=86k=9C=86j+y=A8ky=F8m=B6=9F=FF =C3&j=DA=E8=9E',r=895=AB=81=ABh=AC=AB >I^r=DAp=B8=AC=B6m=A7=FF=F0=C3=9A=B6=BA'=89=CB=A2o=CDj=F8 j=DA+=EA=E8W=9C=B6=B8=9C.+-=FD=A3M=8D >$'NECI=A9=9E=82=B7=9A=B5=CA'=B5=E9=EDj[(j=F6=A2-=E5z=F8=9A=B6'y=B1 h=AE=E9=ACj=DE~m=A7=FF=DF=A2=BB=B2f=AD=AE=89r=C7(=9Am=A7=FF=DF=A2=BB =B2f=AD=AE=89r=C7(=9B=F6=8B=8A=CBB=A2{k=89=BB=AD=8A=89=D6y=B4=A2=B5=E4 =E1jy2=A2=E7=E8=AF*.=AE=A7z=BA.=B2=CB=A9=8A=ED1=ABm=B6=A5-=B2=D0 =9A)=DA=86=B7=9F=86=DBi=FF=FC0=C2f=AD=AE=89r=C7(=9B=F7(=9E=DAn=EBb=A2x m=B6=9F=FF=C3&j=DA=E8=9E',r=89r=89=ED=AE&=EE=B6*'=FD=AF=DB=FD=FA'=B7=FAk{ =F6=E8w/=E1=B6i > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2014
Subject: Re: Fire sale . . .
From: Bill <wtrooper(at)gmail.com>
Hi Bob - I'd like to buy $12 worth! Thank you - Bill Mills (attended AEC seminar @1998/2000(?), Livermore CA) 2673 Vergil Ct. Castro Valley, CA 94546 On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > I've got about 80 of these LED illumination/annunciation > fixtures that need to go . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/l83fdty > > High intensity LED (no resistor) All metal housing . . . > > While they last, 5 fixtures for $12 postage paid to > US addresses. Email your request directly to me. > > Thanks! > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2014
Subject: Stator
From: Thomas Kondrat <tkondrat(at)roadrunner.com>
I am going to attempt to rewind the stator off my AeroVee engine. Has anyone done this before? What words of wisdom can you impart, such as what to be wary of, where to buy components, etc. Thanks Tom Sonex 1414X ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Bench 4-1/2 digit multimeter
A 4-1/2 digit bench multimeter has become surplus to my needs. It's been on eBay for nearly a week. It appears that it's going to sell for a good price. http://tinyurl.com/kmvls7p Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
On 9/21/2014 7:50 AM, Thomas Kondrat wrote: > > I am going to attempt to rewind the stator off my AeroVee engine. Has > anyone done this before? What words of wisdom can you impart, such as what > to be wary of, where to buy components, etc. > > Thanks > Tom > Sonex 1414X > To repair it, or to change its characteristics? If just repair, have you tried to find a replacement stator? Odds are very high that its an off-the-shelf item from a motorcycle or other small engine. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Stator
Date: Sep 21, 2014
Tom, I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, such that you could find the replacement instead of going thru the trouble of a rewind. Example, Most Cessna alternators and regulators are really Ford products. D _______________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Kondrat" <tkondrat(at)roadrunner.com> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 5:50 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Stator > > > I am going to attempt to rewind the stator off my AeroVee engine. Has > anyone done this before? What words of wisdom can you impart, such as > what > to be wary of, where to buy components, etc. > > Thanks > Tom > Sonex 1414X > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 16:47 2014-09-21, you wrote: > >Tom, >I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. >However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, >such that you could find the replacement instead of going thru the >trouble of a rewind. Example, Most Cessna alternators and >regulators are really Ford products. D Tom's alternator isn't anything like you'd find on a Cessna . . . Emacs! It's a permanent magnet alternator with windings that look something like this . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 22, 2014
I am curious to know the purpose of rewinding the alternator. Is the winding open or partially shorted? Is the winding stationary and permanent magnets rotate with the engine? Is a new winding available from Sonex at a reasonable price? Maybe the same winding is available from Briggs & Stratton or Tecumseh. The stator of an alternator is usually pretty robust and unlikely to fail. What are the symptoms that suggest that winding replacement is necessary? Or is the goal to improve the alternator output? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430911#430911 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 22, 2014
Here are some sources for magnet wire: http://www.magnet4less.com/?cPath=9 http://www.powerwerx.com/wire-cable/magnet-wire.html It is also available at eBay and Amazon and Digikey. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430912#430912 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Stator
Date: Sep 22, 2014
That is a single phase alternator. The windings in this photo look perfectly good. The only reason to rewind one would be if the windings were somehow damaged or shorted internally somewhere. The big factor on rewinding is to get the correct size wire and then make sure the direction of the turns on each element are correct. Normally the winding direction is reversed on every other element. Since these windings don't turn, there is no problem with the wire being thrown off by centrifugal force. I agree with the other advice though. It would be much easier all around to just get a new one. From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 6:03 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator At 16:47 2014-09-21, you wrote: > Tom, I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, such that you could find the replacement instead of going thru the trouble of a rewind. Example, Most Cessna alternators and regulators are really Ford products. D Tom's alternator isn't anything like you'd find on a Cessna . . . It's a permanent magnet alternator with windings that look something like this . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: Jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sep 23, 2014
It is easy testing the stator with a isolation and continuity test. No point rewinding it if that test is ok. Visually the stator looks fine. Maybe the r otor has been so hot that the permanent magnets have partly demagnetised. Yo u need some green magnet paper or a gaus meter to verify even magnetisation o f you pm rotor All the best Jan > On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:36, Jim Kale wrote: > > That is a single phase alternator. The windings in this photo look perfec tly good. The only reason to rewind one would be if the windings were some how damaged or shorted internally somewhere. The big factor on rewinding i s to get the correct size wire and then make sure the direction of the turns on each element are correct. Normally the winding direction is reversed on every other element. Since these windings don=99t turn, there is no p roblem with the wire being thrown off by centrifugal force. I agree with t he other advice though. It would be much easier all around to just get a ne w one. > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 6:03 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator > > At 16:47 2014-09-21, you wrote: > et> > > Tom, > I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. > However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, such that you could find the replacement instead of going thru the trouble of a rewin d. Example, Most Cessna alternators and regulators are really Ford products . D > > > Tom's alternator isn't anything like you'd > find on a Cessna . . . > > > > It's a permanent magnet alternator with windings > that look something like this . . . > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 18:34 2014-09-22, you wrote: >It is easy testing the stator with a isolation and continuity test. >No point rewinding it if that test is ok. Visually the stator looks >fine. Maybe the rotor has been so hot that the permanent magnets >have partly demagnetised. You need some green magnet paper or a gaus >meter to verify even magnetisation of you pm rotor The picture I posted for the PM alternator stator was and exemplar NEW device. I think the stator that started this thread was toast. They're not hard to rewind as long as care is taken to insure insulation integrity between windings and the stator core. Hopefully his original core was powder coated and not damaged. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Stator
Date: Sep 22, 2014
One of the oddest stator failures I have ever witnessed was a hairline crack in the stator wiring that only opened when the alternator group reached a certain temperature. In that case, it was where the end of the heavy stator wire was swaged into the case for grounding. I think the wire was stressed during manufacture and the fault did not fully materialize until much later. When the alternator was reviewed and bench tested no failure could be found. On the test stand it was not subject to the temps needed to open the fault. . !! It was an old grey haired, very wise, electrical alternator wizard guy that unraveled that mystery. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan To: Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:34 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator It is easy testing the stator with a isolation and continuity test. No point rewinding it if that test is ok. Visually the stator looks fine. Maybe the rotor has been so hot that the permanent magnets have partly demagnetised. You need some green magnet paper or a gaus meter to verify even magnetisation of you pm rotor All the best Jan On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:36, Jim Kale wrote: That is a single phase alternator. The windings in this photo look perfectly good. The only reason to rewind one would be if the windings were somehow damaged or shorted internally somewhere. The big factor on rewinding is to get the correct size wire and then make sure the direction of the turns on each element are correct. Normally the winding direction is reversed on every other element. Since these windings don=99t turn, there is no problem with the wire being thrown off by centrifugal force. I agree with the other advice though. It would be much easier all around to just get a new one. From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 6:03 PM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator At 16:47 2014-09-21, you wrote: Tom, I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, such that you could find the replacement instead of going thru the trouble of a rewind. Example, Most Cessna alternators and regulators are really Ford products. D Tom's alternator isn't anything like you'd find on a Cessna . . . It's a permanent magnet alternator with windings that look something like this . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 18:34 2014-09-22, you wrote: >It is easy testing the stator with a isolation and continuity test. >No point rewinding it if that test is ok. Visually the stator looks >fine. Maybe the rotor has been so hot that the permanent magnets >have partly demagnetised. You need some green magnet paper or a gaus >meter to verify even magnetisation of you pm rotor The picture I posted for the PM alternator stator was and exemplar NEW device. I think the stator that started this thread was toast. They're not hard to rewind as long as care is taken to insure insulation integrity between windings and the stator core. Hopefully his original core was powder coated and not damaged. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: Jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sep 23, 2014
Always a good thing to test at operating temperature. Just stick it in a ove n .. Or outside in a black box in the sun .... :-) .. Poor mans heat chamber ... Then do your readings ... All the best Jan > On Sep 23, 2014, at 9:33, David Lloyd wrote: > > One of the oddest stator failures I have ever witnessed was a hairline cra ck in the stator wiring that only opened when the alternator group reached a certain temperature. In that case, it was where the end of the heavy stato r wire was swaged into the case for grounding. I think the wire was stresse d during manufacture and the fault did not fully materialize until much late r. > When the alternator was reviewed and bench tested no failure could be foun d. On the test stand it was not subject to the temps needed to open the fau lt. . !! > It was an old grey haired, very wise, electrical alternator wizard guy tha t unraveled that mystery. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jan > To: > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:34 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator > > It is easy testing the stator with a isolation and continuity test. No poi nt rewinding it if that test is ok. Visually the stator looks fine. Maybe th e rotor has been so hot that the permanent magnets have partly demagnetised. You need some green magnet paper or a gaus meter to verify even magnetisati on of you pm rotor > > All the best > > Jan > >> On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:36, Jim Kale wrote: >> >> That is a single phase alternator. The windings in this photo look perfe ctly good. The only reason to rewind one would be if the windings were som ehow damaged or shorted internally somewhere. The big factor on rewinding i s to get the correct size wire and then make sure the direction of the turns on each element are correct. Normally the winding direction is reversed on every other element. Since these windings don=99t turn, there is no p roblem with the wire being thrown off by centrifugal force. I agree with t he other advice though. It would be much easier all around to just get a ne w one. >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelec tric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III >> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 6:03 PM >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stator >> At 16:47 2014-09-21, you wrote: >> net> >> >> Tom, >> I do not know anything about the alternator used on your engine. >> However, I would bet that it is used in many other applications, such tha t you could find the replacement instead of going thru the trouble of a rewi nd. Example, Most Cessna alternators and regulators are really Ford product s. D >> >> >> Tom's alternator isn't anything like you'd >> find on a Cessna . . . >> >> >> >> It's a permanent magnet alternator with windings >> that look something like this . . . >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 2014
Subject: Stator
From: Thomas Kondrat <tkondrat(at)roadrunner.com>
I am not sure if I am doing this right, but I wanted to thank everyone that responded to my stator problem. I can not find a replacement because there are no numbers to cross reference and a new one from Sonex is $500. I think the material would be less than $100 and it would be a good learning experience! Thanks again, Tom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 16:52 2014-09-23, you wrote: > > >I am not sure if I am doing this right, but I wanted to thank everyone that >responded to my stator problem. I can not find a replacement because there >are no numbers to cross reference and a new one from Sonex is $500. I think >the material would be less than $100 and it would be a good learning >experience! The material should be MUCH less than $100 . . . Have you un-wound the existing wire, measured its length and put a caliper or micrometer on its diameter? I have access to several aircraft motor wind shops that will have class-h insulation magnet wire suited to your task. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
By the way, how much load is on this alternator in flight? What kind of rectifier/regulator do you run? There are two techniques for voltage regulation on PM alternators . . . the legacy, easy to do, shunt regulator that essentially has the alternator running full load all the time. Then there's the more modern series regulators that load the alternator only to meet system requirements. This winding may have failed because of a shunt regulator . . . I can help you make sure that your newly rewound alternator is not unnecessarily taxed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
On 9/23/2014 4:52 PM, Thomas Kondrat wrote: > > I am not sure if I am doing this right, but I wanted to thank everyone that > responded to my stator problem. I can not find a replacement because there > are no numbers to cross reference and a new one from Sonex is $500. I think > the material would be less than $100 and it would be a good learning > experience! > > Thanks again, > > Tom > Tom, Have you tried ebay, google, amazon, etc? How about posting a pic with accurate measurements? Here's the 1st site I found with a google search for 'motorcycle alternator stator': http://www.jpcycles.com/motorcycle-stators It shows pics of dozens of models; you should be able to narrow down the choices a lot just by appearance, and then counting generating coils & trigger coils (likely one or at most two trigger coils; should be obviously different). You can also try googling 'outboard motor alternator stator'. Or better yet, have you asked on lists that are frequented by users of aerovee engines? Odds are good that *somebody* has already found an aftermarket solution. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 25, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale Phase II
BNC cable-male connectors to fit RG-58, LMR-195, RG-400, RG-142 . . . Pkg of 5 connectors $15 post-paid to US addresses. Email me directly at mailto:Nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 25, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fire Sale Phase II (Connectors are all sold)
At 14:55 2014-09-25, you wrote: >BNC cable-male connectors to fit RG-58, >LMR-195, RG-400, RG-142 . . . > >Pkg of 5 connectors $15 post-paid to US >addresses. You guys swooped down on these like a ducks on Junebugs . . . they're all sold. THANKS! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wiring GPS Audio
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Sep 26, 2014
When adding the GPS (stereo) audio, do the GPS audio outputs wire directly to the headset jacks in parallel with the comm ouput wires? And when you're using stereo headphone jacks do you just wire the single comm audio output to both jack pickups? I can't see how else you could do it. In my case it's a Garmin SL40 com and Garmin Aera 500 gps. Thanks in advance. Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431124#431124 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 26, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring GPS Audio
At 05:00 2014-09-26, you wrote: > >When adding the GPS (stereo) audio, do the GPS audio outputs wire >directly to the headset jacks in parallel with the comm ouput >wires? And when you're using stereo headphone jacks do you just >wire the single comm audio output to both jack pickups? I can't see >how else you could do it. In my case it's a Garmin SL40 com and >Garmin Aera 500 gps. Thanks in advance. Does your system include any sort of audio isolation or mixing amplifier? The legacy approach to merging multiple audio sources into the head-set feeds uses a mixing amplifier. Here's and exemplar device that includes some variations on the audio system architectures. http://tinyurl.com/lvwsypg You might also review the audio system chapter in the 'Connection . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vern Little <voltar@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring GPS Audio
Date: Sep 26, 2014
Here's an alternative: i assume you are a single seater 'warbird' and have no intercom. Connect your comm output and each of the two Aera outputs to 150 ohm resistors. Connect the other end of the three resistors together and connect this point to your headset earphone. Thanks, Vern Little =================================================== Sent from my iThing. It is responsible for all gramma and typo terrors. > On Sep 26, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 05:00 2014-09-26, you wrote: >> >> When adding the GPS (stereo) audio, do the GPS audio outputs wire directly to the headset jacks in parallel with the comm ouput wires? And when you're using stereo headphone jacks do you just wire the single comm audio output to both jack pickups? I can't see how else you could do it. In my case it's a Garmin SL40 com and Garmin Aera 500 gps. Thanks in advance. > > > Does your system include any sort of audio isolation > or mixing amplifier? The legacy approach to merging > multiple audio sources into the head-set feeds uses > a mixing amplifier. Here's and exemplar device > that includes some variations on the audio system > architectures. > > http://tinyurl.com/lvwsypg > > You might also review the audio system chapter in > the 'Connection . . . > > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wiring GPS Audio
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Sep 26, 2014
Fortunately at the moment nothing is hooked up and I have no amp. The radios (Garmin SL40 transceiver, GTX 327 txdr with Ameri-king encoder and an Aera 500 GPS) are mounted, as are the headphone and mic jacks and the four PTT's. There will be an intercom, two position, PTT activated, using the one built into the SL40. Two hole open cockpit biplane. No audio panel. Open to suggestions!! [Shocked] Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431169#431169 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 27, 2014
Subject: Stator
From: Thomas Kondrat <tkondrat(at)roadrunner.com>
Has anyone actually rewound a stator? My plan is to chamfer the edges of the poles slightly since they are square and quite sharp on the edge. Then cover the stator in kapton tape. Then use two strands of 16 gauge to wind 19 turns on each pole (total of 2x19=38) which is what is there now. Does anyone have a better idea?? Thanks Tom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 27, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 11:14 2014-09-27, you wrote: > > >Has anyone actually rewound a stator? My plan is to chamfer the edges of >the poles slightly since they are square and quite sharp on the edge. Then >cover the stator in kapton tape. Then use two strands of 16 gauge to wind >19 turns on each pole (total of 2x19=38) which is what is there now. > >Does anyone have a better idea?? Sounds good. The chamfer doesn't need to be much more than to 'break' the sharp corner. The Kapton is probably good. I've also seen multiple layers (like 10 or so) of the Teflon thread tape as an insulation between wires and laminations. Your present winding is bi-filar? Connected in series or parallel? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Batteries.?
Date: Sep 27, 2014
SGFzIGFueW9uZSBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdCBjaGVja2VkIG91dCB0aGUgVk1BWDYwMCBiYXR0ZXJ5LiAg VGhlIHNwZWNzIG1ha2UgaXQgbG9vayBhIGJpdCBiZXR0ZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgUEM2ODAuICBUaGUg Q0NBIGlzIHNvbWV3aGF0IGhpZ2hlciBhbmQgdGhlIEFIIGlzIGFsc28gaGlnaGVyIGF0IDIwLiAg VGhlIHByaWNlIGlzIHNvbWV3aGF0IGxvd2VyLiAgDQoNCg0KSnVzdCBzdGlycmluZyB0aGUgcG90 ISAgSSBtYXkgb3IgbWF5IG5vdCBidXkuICBsb29raW5nIHRvIHNlZSBpZiBhbnlvbmUgaGFzIGV4 cGVyaWVuY2Ugd2l0aCB0aGlzLg0KDQoNClJvZ2Vy ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2014
Google '12220 battery'. 22AH; same form factor as PC680. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:00 PM, wrote: > > Has anyone on the list checked out the VMAX600 battery. The specs make it look a bit better than the PC680. The CCA is somewhat higher and the AH is also higher at 20. The price is somewhat lower. > > Just stirring the pot! I may or may not buy. looking to see if anyone ha s experience with this. > > Roger > > > > > )=C2=AD=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2{l=B97=C2=B6r=B0h=C2=AFM4=C3=93M=1Fi=C3 =87=C5=93=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=ABN=17=82 =ACz=C2=BA=04=A2=C3=A7-=C2=AE'=0B=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=16 =C5-=C3=AE=84=A2K=1E=C2=B6=17=C5=92j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',.+-=15=C3=C2 =AD=C2=BA=C2=B7=C2=AC5=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AE=C3=9A=1B=C2=AE=C5=92,z =C3=98^=84=A2=C2=A9=C3=B2.+-=C2=BA=C3=98=C2=A5=C5-=C3=98=C5=BE=C2=B2=C3 =8B=C5=93=C2=AB=0B=C5-=C3=8BT=C5=B8=C3=B4=C2=AEn=C3=87+=C5- =BAb=C2=A2p+r=18=C2=AFy'=C5=A1=C2=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=C2=81=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2=B4P=10>=1A-=C2=A2=C3=88Z=C2=AD=C3=C2=A7v k=C5=93-k=C5=93-j+y=C2=A8ky=C3=B8m=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3=83=0C &j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C25=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AC=07=C2 =AB I^r=C3=9A=C3=A2p=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=B0=C3=83 =C5 =A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=1C=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj=C3=B8 j=C3=9A+=01=C3=C3=A8 =12W=C5=93=C2=B6=C2=B8=C5=93.+-=C3=BD=C2=A3M=13=C2=8D $=93=10=11NEC=12 I=C2=A9=C5=BE=9A=C2=B7=C5=A1=C2=B5=C3=8A'=C2=B5=C3=A9=C3=ADj[(j=C3=B6=C2 =A2=A2=C2=C3=A5z=C3=B8=C5=A1=C2=B6=17=93y=C2=B1h=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2 =ACj=1A=C3=9E~=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE =B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=C5=A1=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2 =AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B6=B9=C5-=C3=8BB=C2=A2{ k=B0=C2=BB=C2=AD=C5-=B0=C3'y=C2=B4=C2=A2=C2=B5=C3=A4=C3=A1jy 2=C2=A2=C3=A7=C3=A8=C2=AF*.=C2=AE=07=C2=A7z=C2=BA.=C2=B2=C3=8B=C2=A9=C2=C5 -=C3=AD1=C2=ABm=0E=C2=B6=C2=A5=A2=C3=A2=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=90=1D=C5=A1)=C3 =9A-=C2=B7=C5=B8-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=BC0=C3=82f=C2=AD=C2=AE =B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B7(=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2xm=C2=B6=C5 =B8=C3=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C2r=B0=C3=AD=C2=AE &=C3=AE=C2=B6*'=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3 =A1=C2=B6i ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Batteries.?
Date: Sep 28, 2014
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpHb29nbGUgJzEyMjIwIGJhdHRlcnknLiAyMkFIOyBz YW1lIGZvcm0gZmFjdG9yIGFzIFBDNjgwLg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KQmVlbiB0aGVyZSwgZG9uZSB0 aGF0ISAgTWFueSBvZiB0aG9zZSAxMjIyMCBiYXR0ZXJpZXMgaGF2ZSBhIGhpZ2ggaW50ZXJuYWwg cmVzaXN0YW5jZSBhbmQgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgd2lsbCBub3QgZWZmZWN0aXZlbHkgc3VwcGx5IGVu Z2luZSBzdGFydGluZyBwb3dlci4NCg0KDQpSb2dlcg= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
> I've also seen multiple layers (like 10 or so) of the Teflon > thread tape as an insulation between wires and laminations. Bob N. Bob, That's probably true, but that doesn't make it right. Don't use it. As for rewinding things, I've rewound a few motors and transformers in my salad days. I've even had to rewind the same Volvo wiper motor twice...it's a learning process. I even used an old record player to wind 10,000 turns of hair-thin wire on an early audio transformer. You can do well at this with the right materials and advice. And I wouldn't be surprised if you find someone to do it for you for short money. -------- 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=431199#431199 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
http://www.amazon.com/VMAX600-Motorcycle-Battery-Davidson-Kawasaki/dp/B00896WRHQ The VMAX600 weighs 2.4 pounds less than the PC680. If manufacturers' claims can not be depended on, weight could be an indicator of amp-hour capacity. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431200#431200 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 28, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stator
At 09:02 2014-09-28, you wrote: > I've also seen multiple layers (like 10 or so) of the Teflon > thread tape as an insulation between wires and laminations. Bob N. Bob, That's probably true, but that doesn't make it right. Don't use it. Can you elaborate? As for rewinding things, I've rewound a few motors and transformers in my salad days. I've even had to rewind the same Volvo wiper motor twice...it's a learning process. I even used an old record player to wind 10,000 turns of hair-thin wire on an early audio transformer. You can do well at this with the right materials and advice. And I wouldn't be surprised if you find someone to do it for you for short money. To be sure, education was never cheap in terms of time and expense . . . but we're free . . . at least for now to choose what topics in which we wish to invest our educational budget. The List is an opportunity to share lessons learned and to sift alternatives. The teacher's imperative "Don't use it" is of little value unless the underlying foundations are offered as to why. Until he mentioned what appears to be a bi-fillar winding, the task was relatively low risk. Now, if we are to serve the questioner well, we need to make sure that WE and ultimately HE understands the significance of two wires laid down together. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
Dear Bob N.: We hashed this out years ago on http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=368877 Except for a very few uses, don't use Teflon...especially in winding stators, motors, and transformers. I used to design medical devices. in 1975 there were teflon parts everywhere. By 2001 all that was left was a FDA teflon injection paste and a couple o-rings that didn't matter much. Nothing else. -------- 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=431206#431206 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 28, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Batteries.
At 09:37 2014-09-28, you wrote: > >http://www.amazon.com/VMAX600-Motorcycle-Battery-Davidson-Kawasaki/dp/B00896WRHQ >The VMAX600 weighs 2.4 pounds less than the PC680. If >manufacturers' claims can not be depended on, weight could be an >indicator of amp-hour capacity. >Joe Excellent point. The rules that set energy limits in chemistry are pretty much carved in stone. A couple of years ago we were offered some batteries marked as if they were in a larger class of product than reality revealed. Emacs! I've still got a couple of these I keep for various tasks but they're closer to a 14 ah battery than 20. One of the first things we noted about these critters was their light weight. The rating of lithium cells comes with another constellation of facts in physics. I'm doing some articles in Kitplanes on lithium . . . I've been testing some 26650 cells off eBay where you'll find them 'rated' from 2400 to 6600 mAH. How can THIS be? Seems that this chemistry's life-cycle is extended greatly by NOT stuffing the chemistry to full capacity on each recharge cycle. The more conservative offerors of these cells seem to encourage longer life by rating them at much less than the chemistry's max capacity. So once again, weight of the cell is a strong first marker in potential performance with recommended performance being something more reserved. The next article will discuss my discoveries. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 28, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator knocked off line when strobes turned
on Steve, I ran your ov relay carcass over the bench. While labeled to trip at 16.0 volts, this one wouldn't trip at 30 volts. Just why it WAS tripping under stimulus from your strobes remains a mystery . . . but this critter was toast. Bob . . . -------------------------------- At 22:25 2014-09-21, you wrote: >I will send it to the address on your website. > >Steve > > >Sent from my iPad > > > On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:23 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > wrote: > > > > At 13:11 2014-09-21, you wrote: > >> Here is a link to the schematic for the InterAv > alternator/regulator/OV relay combo. > http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4575&d=1355847096 > >> > >> I changed out the OV relay yesterday and everything returned to > the normal behavior experience before the failure. We will see how > long that lasts. > >> > >> Thanks again for all your help. > > > > Do you still have the old relay? I'd like to have > > it if you have no other plans for it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Batteries.
Date: Sep 28, 2014
Here is the type of battery I have been using for the last 20 years in my airplane. Generally, the battery will last around 5 to 6 years. I've only had one fail in that length of time as I generally replace them in year 5, letting them serve out their time as "jumper" batteries on in my lawnmower. And the one that failed was abused terribly as I left the master switch on and ran down completely in sub-zero weather, and it sat that way for 6 weeks or more. I have had excellent service from them, and no longer had to repair the battery box every 3 or 4 months. http://www.batterymart.com/p-Big-Crank-ETX14-Battery.html M. Haught On Sep 28, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 09:37 2014-09-28, you wrote: >> >> http://www.amazon.com/VMAX600-Motorcycle-Battery-Davidson-Kawasaki/dp/B008 96WRHQ >> The VMAX600 weighs 2.4 pounds less than the PC680. If manufacturers' claims can not be depended on, weight could be an indicator of amp-hour capacity. >> Joe > > Excellent point. The rules that set energy limits in > chemistry are pretty much carved in stone. A couple of years > ago we were offered some batteries marked as if they were > in a larger class of product than reality revealed. > > <4756e2d.jpg> > > > I've still got a couple of these I keep for various > tasks but they're closer to a 14 ah battery than 20. > One of the first things we noted about these critters > was their light weight. > > The rating of lithium cells comes with another constellation > of facts in physics. I'm doing some articles in Kitplanes > on lithium . . . I've been testing some 26650 cells > off eBay where you'll find them 'rated' from 2400 to > 6600 mAH. How can THIS be? Seems that this chemistry's > life-cycle is extended greatly by NOT stuffing the > chemistry to full capacity on each recharge cycle. > > The more conservative offerors of these cells > seem to encourage longer life by rating them > at much less than the chemistry's max capacity. > So once again, weight of the cell is a strong > first marker in potential performance with > recommended performance being something more > reserved. > > The next article will discuss my discoveries. > > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
Quote from page 5 of Wind Turbine Stator Design http://tinyurl.com/Wind-Turbine-Stator-Design "The reason two wires are required for the 12V coils is due to the difficulty of winding very thick wire. The wire must be thick to handle the current, but this makes it difficult to bend so two thinner cables in parallel are used. This gives the same cross sectional area but is much easier to work with." Not saying this is the purpose of two wires in the Sonex stator but is a good possibility. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431214#431214 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Batteries.
Date: Sep 28, 2014
Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. M. Haught On Sep 28, 2014, at 12:14 PM, H. Marvin Haught wrote: > Here is the type of battery I have been using for the last 20 years in my airplane. Generally, the battery will last around 5 to 6 years. I've only had one fail in that length of time as I generally replace them in year 5, letting them serve out their time as "jumper" batteries on in my lawnmower. And the one that failed was abused terribly as I left the master switch on and ran down completely in sub-zero weather, and it sat that way for 6 weeks or more. I have had excellent service from them, and no longer had to repair the battery box every 3 or 4 months. http://www.batterymart.com/p-Big-Crank-ETX14-Battery.html > > M. Haught > > On Sep 28, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> At 09:37 2014-09-28, you wrote: >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/VMAX600-Motorcycle-Battery-Davidson-Kawasaki/dp/B008 96WRHQ >>> The VMAX600 weighs 2.4 pounds less than the PC680. If manufacturers' claims can not be depended on, weight could be an indicator of amp-hour capacity. >>> Joe >> >> Excellent point. The rules that set energy limits in >> chemistry are pretty much carved in stone. A couple of years >> ago we were offered some batteries marked as if they were >> in a larger class of product than reality revealed. >> >> <4756e2d.jpg> >> >> >> I've still got a couple of these I keep for various >> tasks but they're closer to a 14 ah battery than 20. >> One of the first things we noted about these critters >> was their light weight. >> >> The rating of lithium cells comes with another constellation >> of facts in physics. I'm doing some articles in Kitplanes >> on lithium . . . I've been testing some 26650 cells >> off eBay where you'll find them 'rated' from 2400 to >> 6600 mAH. How can THIS be? Seems that this chemistry's >> life-cycle is extended greatly by NOT stuffing the >> chemistry to full capacity on each recharge cycle. >> >> The more conservative offerors of these cells >> seem to encourage longer life by rating them >> at much less than the chemistry's max capacity. >> So once again, weight of the cell is a strong >> first marker in potential performance with >> recommended performance being something more >> reserved. >> >> The next article will discuss my discoveries. >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 28, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Batteries.
At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: >Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium >batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? What size engine. What kind of starter? How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story my friend! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
The first I tried was for my CPAP machine. I like to camp and do so often, and was having to carry a 12 to 18 pound battery around to power the CPAP. Respronics makes a 14.8 V/6.6AH LI-ON battery pack. Kinda pricey at $352, comes in it's own little travel case, with a dedicated charger unit. Charged it up fully and used it one night at home. It lasted all night, so I thought I was good to go. Camping, it only lasted 4 hours and then quit. I charged it all day from the airplane, and again, it only lasted 4 hours. I used the airplane battery (the one I posted earlier) after that, and it would run the CPAP all night, and still start the airplane the next day. I've have tried the LI-ION Battery pack several times since then, and 4 hours is all the service I get. Very dis-satifactory especially considering the price. Plus, in cold weather, it won't run the CPAP for more than an hour or so. The second was when I sold my airplane and flew it to Alaska. The new owner bought an AeroVoltz 8 cell at 1.8 pounds to replace the UTV Battery. At that time, it came with a special charger, in case you ever completely discharged the battery. While the battery did okay on the trip, we had to take the battery cover off of the box because it was getting so hot. After we got to Alaska, he said it only lasted a few weeks until the first cold spell, and then it would not turn over the engine on cold mornings. It was being charged by a standard generator that showed 13.5 charging volts through a Zeftronics regulator. Engine was a Lycoming 0290-D. Limited story and probably will not yield any useful info, but that is the most of which I think I know! M. Haught On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: >> Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. > > Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? > What size engine. What kind of starter? > > How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ > control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story > my friend! > > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: Jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sep 29, 2014
When you ran this Li-ion pack at home did you do so inside at room temperature ? Then you took it outside and got the poor performance ? Always look at what the supplier quote as normal operating temperature of the pack. The other issue is that Li-ion has many more flavours than your old fashioned lead battery, hence a much wider operating envelope. When talking about Li-ion you need to know the specific chemistry - iron phosphate or cobalt etc.... And what type of cell is used .. Pouch cell or round etc... Each type has its advantages and disadvantages ... . The old saying that you have " liars, liars and battery suppliers " is still very true ... Especially with Li-ion ... :-) All the best Jan > On Sep 29, 2014, at 5:47, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > > > The first I tried was for my CPAP machine. I like to camp and do so often, and was having to carry a 12 to 18 pound battery around to power the CPAP. Respronics makes a 14.8 V/6.6AH LI-ON battery pack. Kinda pricey at $352, comes in it's own little travel case, with a dedicated charger unit. Charged it up fully and used it one night at home. It lasted all night, so I thought I was good to go. Camping, it only lasted 4 hours and then quit. I charged it all day from the airplane, and again, it only lasted 4 hours. I used the airplane battery (the one I posted earlier) after that, and it would run the CPAP all night, and still start the airplane the next day. I've have tried the LI-ION Battery pack several times since then, and 4 hours is all the service I get. Very dis-satifactory especially considering the price. Plus, in cold weather, it won't run the CPAP for more than an hour or so. > > The second was when I sold my airplane and flew it to Alaska. The new owner bought an AeroVoltz 8 cell at 1.8 pounds to replace the UTV Battery. At that time, it came with a special charger, in case you ever completely discharged the battery. While the battery did okay on the trip, we had to take the battery cover off of the box because it was getting so hot. After we got to Alaska, he said it only lasted a few weeks until the first cold spell, and then it would not turn over the engine on cold mornings. It was being charged by a standard generator that showed 13.5 charging volts through a Zeftronics regulator. Engine was a Lycoming 0290-D. > > Limited story and probably will not yield any useful info, but that is the most of which I think I know! > > M. Haught >> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: >>> Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. >> >> Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? >> What size engine. What kind of starter? >> >> How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ >> control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story >> my friend! >> >> >> >> Bob . . . > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Sep 28, 2014
It definitely does not perform well below freezing - most use has been camping in the 70's to 90's. It was just a rip off, for $352. The pack has 12 round batteries in a plastic shrink pack. Now, even at room temps at home, it won't run the CPAP more than 3 or 4 hours. I've been thinking of taking it to Battery Outfitters and see if they can rebuild it with better performing batteries that can use the original plugs and charger. They rebuilt all my drill batteries a year or so ago and they have been infinitely better than the OEM batteries.....hold a charge longer and it has already been 2 years since I had them rebuilt. I used my truck battery at Oshkosh this year, and it worked fine. On my new airplane project, I am going to just put in a second lighter weight battery that the electrical system will charge, and use it for my CPAP. Jeeping in the outback, we take a second battery and charge it as we drive during the day. M. Haught On Sep 28, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Jan wrote: > > When you ran this Li-ion pack at home did you do so inside at room temperature ? > > Then you took it outside and got the poor performance ? > > Always look at what the supplier quote as normal operating temperature of the pack. The other issue is that Li-ion has many more flavours than your old fashioned lead battery, hence a much wider operating envelope. When talking about Li-ion you need to know the specific chemistry - iron phosphate or cobalt etc.... And what type of cell is used .. Pouch cell or round etc... Each type has its advantages and disadvantages ... . > > The old saying that you have " liars, liars and battery suppliers " is still very true ... Especially with Li-ion ... :-) > > All the best > > Jan > >> On Sep 29, 2014, at 5:47, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: >> >> >> The first I tried was for my CPAP machine. I like to camp and do so often, and was having to carry a 12 to 18 pound battery around to power the CPAP. Respronics makes a 14.8 V/6.6AH LI-ON battery pack. Kinda pricey at $352, comes in it's own little travel case, with a dedicated charger unit. Charged it up fully and used it one night at home. It lasted all night, so I thought I was good to go. Camping, it only lasted 4 hours and then quit. I charged it all day from the airplane, and again, it only lasted 4 hours. I used the airplane battery (the one I posted earlier) after that, and it would run the CPAP all night, and still start the airplane the next day. I've have tried the LI-ION Battery pack several times since then, and 4 hours is all the service I get. Very dis-satifactory especially considering the price. Plus, in cold weather, it won't run the CPAP for more than an hour or so. >> >> The second was when I sold my airplane and flew it to Alaska. The new owner bought an AeroVoltz 8 cell at 1.8 pounds to replace the UTV Battery. At that time, it came with a special charger, in case you ever completely discharged the battery. While the battery did okay on the trip, we had to take the battery cover off of the box because it was getting so hot. After we got to Alaska, he said it only lasted a few weeks until the first cold spell, and then it would not turn over the engine on cold mornings. It was being charged by a standard generator that showed 13.5 charging volts through a Zeftronics regulator. Engine was a Lycoming 0290-D. >> >> Limited story and probably will not yield any useful info, but that is the most of which I think I know! >> >> M. Haught >>> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> >>> >>> At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: >>>> Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. >>> >>> Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? >>> What size engine. What kind of starter? >>> >>> How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ >>> control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story >>> my friend! >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 28, 2014
Subject: Re: Batteries.
There is also an old saying that goes something like, when all fails, read the instructions. My reading of the LiFePo batteries documentation from several sources says that when very cold, the initial start attemp will warm the battery after which the engine will start normally. Rich In a message dated 9/28/2014 6:38:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan When you ran this Li-ion pack at home did you do so inside at room temperature ? Then you took it outside and got the poor performance ? Always look at what the supplier quote as normal operating temperature of the pack. The other issue is that Li-ion has many more flavours than your old fashioned lead battery, hence a much wider operating envelope. When talking about Li-ion you need to know the specific chemistry - iron phosphate or cobalt etc.... And what type of cell is used .. Pouch cell or round etc... Each type has its advantages and disadvantages ... . The old saying that you have " liars, liars and battery suppliers " is still very true ... Especially with Li-ion ... :-) All the best Jan > On Sep 29, 2014, at 5:47, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > > > The first I tried was for my CPAP machine. I like to camp and do so often, and was having to carry a 12 to 18 pound battery around to power the CPAP. Respronics makes a 14.8 V/6.6AH LI-ON battery pack. Kinda pricey at $352, comes in it's own little travel case, with a dedicated charger unit. Charged it up fully and used it one night at home. It lasted all night, so I thought I was good to go. Camping, it only lasted 4 hours and then quit. I charged it all day from the airplane, and again, it only lasted 4 hours. I used the airplane battery (the one I posted earlier) after that, and it would run the CPAP all night, and still start the airplane the next day. I've have tried the LI-ION Battery pack several times since then, and 4 hours is all the service I get. Very dis-satifactory especially considering the price. Plus, in cold weather, it won't run the CPAP for more than an hour or so. > > The second was when I sold my airplane and flew it to Alaska. The new owner bought an AeroVoltz 8 cell at 1.8 pounds to replace the UTV Battery. At that time, it came with a special charger, in case you ever completely discharged the battery. While the battery did okay on the trip, we had to take the battery cover off of the box because it was getting so hot. After we got to Alaska, he said it only lasted a few weeks until the first cold spell, and then it would not turn over the engine on cold mornings. It was being charged by a standard generator that showed 13.5 charging volts through a Zeftronics regulator. Engine was a Lycoming 0290-D. > > Limited story and probably will not yield any useful info, but that is the most of which I think I know! > > M. Haught >> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: >>> Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've tried a couple with very disappointing results. >> >> Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? >> What size engine. What kind of starter? >> >> How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ >> control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story >> my friend! >> >> >> >> Bob . . . > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Batteries.
From: Jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sep 29, 2014
You are correct .. Using the battery will heat it up (wasted energy) ... Pro blem can be that the battery now have to be oversized to allow you to start i n the first place ... Or you have to put small load on it ... Gradually incr eased that load so the cell temp reaches the spec as per the supplier info S o that you now can pull the big load you require.. By then your pack might b e flat .. If it is to small ..and it is to cold to start with... All the best Jan > On Sep 29, 2014, at 9:57, wrote: > > There is also an old saying that goes something like, when all fails, read the instructions. My reading of the LiFePo batteries documentation from sev eral sources says that when very cold, the initial start attemp will warm th e battery after which the engine will start normally. > > Rich > > In a message dated 9/28/2014 6:38:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jan@CLAVE R.DEMON.CO.UK writes: > > When you ran this Li-ion pack at home did you do so inside at room tempera ture ? > > Then you took it outside and got the poor performance ? > > Always look at what the supplier quote as normal operating temperature of t he pack. The other issue is that Li-ion has many more flavours than your old fashioned lead battery, hence a much wider operating envelope. When talking about Li-ion you need to know the specific chemistry - iron phosphate or co balt etc.... And what type of cell is used .. Pouch cell or round etc... E ach type has its advantages and disadvantages ... . > > The old saying that you have " liars, liars and battery suppliers " is sti ll very true ... Especially with Li-ion ... :-) > > All the best > > Jan > > > On Sep 29, 2014, at 5:47, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > > disoncounty.net> > > > > The first I tried was for my CPAP machine. I like to camp and do so oft en, and was having to carry a 12 to 18 pound battery around to power the CPA P. Respronics makes a 14.8 V/6.6AH LI-ON battery pack. Kinda pricey at $35 2, comes in it's own little travel case, with a dedicated charger unit. Cha rged it up fully and used it one night at home. It lasted all night, so I t hought I was good to go. Camping, it only lasted 4 hours and then quit. I c harged it all day from the airplane, and again, it only lasted 4 hours. I u sed the airplane battery (the one I posted earlier) after that, and it would run the CPAP all night, and still start the airplane the next day. I've ha ve tried the LI-ION Battery pack several times since then, and 4 hours is al l the service I get. Very dis-satifactory especially considering the price. Plus, in cold weather, it won't run the CPAP for more than an hour or so. > > > > The second was when I sold my airplane and flew it to Alaska. The new o wner bought an AeroVoltz 8 cell at 1.8 pounds to replace the UTV Battery. A t that time, it came with a special charger, in case you ever completely dis charged the battery. While the battery did okay on the trip, we had to take the battery cover off of the box because it was getting so hot. After we g ot to Alaska, he said it only lasted a few weeks until the first cold spell, and then it would not turn over the engine on cold mornings. It was being c harged by a standard generator that showed 13.5 charging volts through a Ze ftronics regulator. Engine was a Lycoming 0290-D. > > > > Limited story and probably will not yield any useful info, but that is t he most of which I think I know! > > > > M. Haught > >> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> kolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > >> > >> At 12:29 2014-09-28, you wrote: > >>> Am looking forward to Bob's article on the lithium batteries.....I've t ried a couple with very disappointing results. > >> > >> Which ones have you tried? What kind of alternator? > >> What size engine. What kind of starter? > >> > >> How do you use your airplane? Were you able to monitor/ > >> control the system charging voltage? Tell us a story > >> my friend! > >> > >> > >> > >> Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================== = Use utilities Day ================== ========================== ==== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ========= ========================== ============= - List Contribution Web S ite sp; =============== ========================== ========= > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 30, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale Phase III
I have a quantity of etched circuit boards http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9009-300-2A.jpg for the stereo/mono audio isolation amplifier described as a DIY project here: http://tinyurl.com/ngoo6hc Was $22.00 each, now $7.00 each postage paid to US addresses. Contact me directly please. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fire Sale Phase III
Date: Sep 30, 2014
Bob, I'll take one. Send to : 42456 Canal Rd. Ronan, MT 59864 Give me an address and check's in the mail. Mauri Morin ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:32 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale Phase III I have a quantity of etched circuit boards for the stereo/mono audio isolation amplifier described as a DIY project here: http://tinyurl.com/ngoo6hc Was $22.00 each, now $7.00 each postage paid to US addresses. Contact me directly please. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "White, Isaac" <iwhite(at)stevensaviation.com>
Subject: Fire Sale Phase III
Date: Sep 30, 2014
How many of these do you have? I would love to discuss a quantity purchase deal [Signature, Low Res] From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:32 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale Phase III I have a quantity of etched circuit boards [http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9009-300-2A.jpg] for the stereo/mono audio isolation amplifier described as a DIY project here: http://tinyurl.com/ngoo6hc Was $22.00 each, now $7.00 each postage paid to US addresses. Contact me directly please. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 30, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale Phase III
At 16:29 2014-09-30, you wrote: >How many of these do you have? I would love to discuss a quantity >purchase deal How about 14 pieces @ $6.00 each postage paid? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 01, 2014
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Fire Sale Phase III
I would take 3 but would need a mail price to Australia, Bob. I imagine they would fit in the smallest padded envelope? Bill On 1/10/2014 6:32 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > I have a quantity of etched circuit boards > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9009-300-2A.jpg > for the stereo/mono audio isolation amplifier > described as a DIY project here: > > http://tinyurl.com/ngoo6hc > > Was $22.00 each, now $7.00 each postage paid > to US addresses. Contact me directly please. > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * e the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse

________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Capacitor question
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Sep 30, 2014
This cap came out of my air compressor when the motor refused to start with no load. It had been getting sluggish for awhile. My question is can I substitute any 60 mfd , 250v Cap? What do the other specs mean? Thanks John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431320#431320 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02925_large_237.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Capacitor question
Date: Sep 30, 2014
John; Any AC motor run capacitor with a 60 mfd 250VAC rating should work. Here is a link to a source of exactly what you have and an explanation of all the specs. http://tinyurl.com/qac95sw Bob McC > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:25 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Capacitor question > > > This cap came out of my air compressor when the motor refused to start with no load. It > had been getting sluggish for awhile. > My question is can I substitute any 60 mfd , 250v Cap? What do the other specs mean? > > Thanks > John > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431320#431320 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02925_large_237.jpg > > > > > _- > ===================================================== > ===== > _- > ===================================================== > ===== > _- > ===================================================== > ===== > _- > ===================================================== > ===== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 30, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Capacitor question
At 20:24 2014-09-30, you wrote: > >This cap came out of my air compressor when the motor refused to >start with no load. It had been getting sluggish for awhile. >My question is can I substitute any 60 mfd , 250v Cap? What do the >other specs mean? This is not a capacitor you would find in an electronics shop. AC motor run and starting capacitors are a special breed of cap you will find at a electrical equipment dealer. If you're not in a big hurry, you can get this one delivered to your door in 3-4 days for $13 . . . http://tinyurl.com/q7hpown "Retail" on this device will probably be a bit higher if you don't have an account with a local jobber . . . but they're pretty common and shouldn't be hard to find. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 30, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale = Phase IV
I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down well onto a 22AWG twisted trio. Emacs! Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.' Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10. Email me directly please . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fire Sale = Phase IV
From: Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 01, 2014
Yes please Bob I'd like a pack of 30. Sacha SARDO INFIRRI Prediction Company 525 Camino de Los Marquez, Suite 6 Santa Fe, NM 87505 > On Oct 1, 2014, at 5:07, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect ric.com> wrote: > > I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails > for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part > number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down > well onto a 22AWG twisted trio. > > > > <1111f895.jpg> > > Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them > before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.' > > Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10. > > Email me directly please . . . > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 01, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale Phase III (CLOSED)
THE AUDIO AMPLIFIER BOARDS ARE GONE . . . THANKS GUYS! http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9009-300-2A.jpg Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 01, 2014
From: Paul Thomson <cyav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fire Sale = Phase IV
I'll take 2 bags Bob. Paul Thomson 8216 W 148th St Overland Park, KS 66223 913-638-6221 ________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale = Phase IV I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down well onto a 22AWG twisted trio. Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.' Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10. Email me directly please . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com>
Subject: Re: Fire Sale = Phase IV
Date: Oct 01, 2014
Bob, Will you ship to Canada using the USPS? Thanks, Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:07 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale = Phase IV I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down well onto a 22AWG twisted trio. Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.' Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10. Email me directly please . . . Bob . . . No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 10/01/14 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 01, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire Sale = Phase IV (CLOSED)
You guys have sucked these solder sleeves up like a Craftsman ShopVac . . . In fact, I'm not sure there are enough left to fill orders already invoiced. Dr. Dee and I need to shut off the screens and get the bags packed. We're going off on a long weekend to visit relatives in the Pacific NW. Not even taking a computer along. If I'm not back on-line by Tuesday noon, you can begin to worry that I flipped my Kayak (Damn . . . where's the rudder pedals in this thing . . . you can't do a spin recovery without rudder!) We'll get the books balanced Tuesday and will probably have to refund some money. Thanks for your support on this guys. I'm getting the AEC business model cranked around to be a pure design and development activity with some time to study these lithium thingys . . . I've been running some charge/discharge cycles on exemplar 26650 LiPo cells and making some very interesting discoveries. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <n4zq(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Lancair 360 Alternator field wire
Date: Oct 02, 2014
My alternator field wire connects to the LR3C and at the moment, this wire runs in close proximity to sensor wires (EGT,CHT,FF, etc) and Im getting some erratic indications on the MVP-50. With the alternator off, everything is quiet. So Im wondering what should be the minimum distance between the alternator field wire and the other sensor wires? Also, the LR3C is supposed to be linear and quiet, but would there be any benefit to locating an electrolytic capacitor between terminals 4 and 7? Thanks, Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 02, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Lancair 360 Alternator field wire
Angier,=0A=0A=0AThe hypothesis is that noise on the field wire is interferi ng w/ instrumentation. I agree w/ you that it seems a little odd consideri ng, as you point out that "... the LR3C is supposed to be linear and quiet. ." and that the max current it handles is around an amp.=0A=0AIn an effort to isolate some variables, is it practical to disconnect the existing field wire and route a temporary one away from the sensors and perform your test s again?=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:37 AM, "Gr eenbacks, UnLtd." wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-Li st message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." =0A=0AMy alter nator field wire connects to the LR3C and at the moment, this wire runs in close proximity to sensor wires (EGT,CHT,FF, etc) and I=99m getting s ome erratic indications on the MVP-50. With the alternator off, everything is quiet. So I=99m wondering what should be the minimum distance betw een the alternator field wire and the other sensor wires? Also, the LR3C is supposed to be linear and quiet, but would there be any benefit to locatin g an electrolytic capacitor between terminals 4 and 7?=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0AAn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 02, 2014
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 10/01/14
From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
Have a blast, Bob! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Oct 05, 2014
If you ran the P leads through the firewall using an old fashioned Cannon plug could you use a three pin plug and run both shields through one pin with no noise consequences, or would a separate pin for each shield be required? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431522#431522 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 06, 2014
There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? :) Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431596#431596 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote: > >There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of >KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture >of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should >aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? :) Just got home from the little trip to Canada. Delightful time but didn't get to do the kayak trip. Too cold. Quite memorable for a host of other reasons. I've done some preliminary charge/discharge experiments and I've 'discovered' some interesting things which for the moment I'll have to catalog as anecdotal because I did not rigorously control test conditions or record data. While sitting on airplanes (lots of them!) over the past week, I've designed a test plan that requires some fabrication and programming. If my preliminary discoveries don't fall to closer scrutiny, I'll have some interesting 'meat' to include in my next installment of the lithium saga. I tried to get the KP article but the website is not responding at the moment. Will try again later. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
At 07:38 2014-10-05, you wrote: > >If you ran the P leads through the firewall using an old fashioned >Cannon plug could you use a three pin plug and run both shields >through one pin with no noise consequences, or would a separate pin >for each shield be required? > Your subject speaks to the D-subs . . . Emacs! but you write about 'old fasion Cannon connectors which I take to mean something more like this . . . Emacs! The classic D-Sub isn't a very robust connector for service as a fire wall penetration but the MS31xx series connectors are fine. You can combine the shields on one pin. Ground the shields at engine end only. Use the shields as ground conductor for the "G" terminal on the mag switch. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2014
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A failed-open point won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous on the ground (engine can fire with switches off). A less than perfect job of installation (of any splice/connector installation) could cause a failed-shorted problem, which *could* stop the engine. Charlie On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:38 AM, stearman456 wrote: > > If you ran the P leads through the firewall using an old fashioned Cannon > plug could you use a three pin plug and run both shields through one pin > with no noise consequences, or would a separate pin for each shield be > required? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431522#431522 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Oct 07, 2014
Thanks Bob. The MS31xx type of plug was what I had in mind. I hadn't thought of grounding the switch through the shields but that makes sense. Thanks again. Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431628#431628 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
At 17:25 2014-10-07, you wrote: >No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A >failed-open point won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous >on the ground (engine can fire with switches off). A potentially latent failure than is pre-flight detectable during run-up . . . low risk. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
On 10/7/2014 7:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 17:25 2014-10-07, you wrote: >> No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A failed-open >> point won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous on the ground >> (engine can fire with switches off). > > A potentially latent failure than is pre-flight > detectable during run-up . . . low risk. > An in-flight failure would be detectable prior to shutdown, too. If that's part of the shutdown procedure, but it rarely is. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Connector for shielded wire
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 08, 2014
What is best way to connect a shielded wire (shielded part)? Can I use a regular Molex connector and just treat the shield like one of the other wires? Is there a better way? I need to connect shielded wiring from my position LED lights at the wing roots. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431659#431659 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <voltar@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Connector for shielded wire
Date: Oct 08, 2014
Works just fine, that's what I did in my HR-II and RV-9A. Vern -----Original Message----- From: bob88 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:29 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connector for shielded wire What is best way to connect a shielded wire (shielded part)? Can I use a regular Molex connector and just treat the shield like one of the other wires? Is there a better way? I need to connect shielded wiring from my position LED lights at the wing roots. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431659#431659 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 08, 2014
Subject: Re: Connector for shielded wire
Is shielding necessary for LED lights? I have two Aveo beacons (Red Baron XP and Red Baron Mini) and they told me that shielded wire is not necessary. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM, bob88 wrote: > > > > What is best way to connect a shielded wire (shielded part)? Can I use a > regular Molex connector and just treat the shield like one of the other > wires? Is there a better way? I need to connect shielded wiring from my > position LED lights at the wing roots. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431659#431659 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Connector for shielded wire
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 08, 2014
AeroLED installation instruction for NS90 lights specifies shielded wire... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431665#431665 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote: > >There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of >KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture >of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should >aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? :) Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both ends . . . what are the odds? Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty much an academic assemblage of published facts about the various lithium products being studied and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where energy density and charge/discharge protocols are much more demanding. The article is probably accurate but minimally relevant to what we're doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery products. Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any other catastrophic energy release in that it takes a combination of stacked conditions. In the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER battery, the first condition we'll strive to minimize is the choice of chemistries. My preliminary findings working with the 26650 liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their ratings, and coincidentally their in-service risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles I've read suggest that optimum battery life is achieved if the cells are cycled between about 80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits. The hybrid vehicles program their battery management systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs within these or similar limits thus accepting a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity. This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry with the most robust resistance to conflagration suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding, the lithium products finding their way onto TC aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said enclosures are designed to contain a battery fire and vent products of combustion overboard. Know too that these offerings have a significant proportion of procurement expense tied up in the battery management system electronics! Emacs! http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7 As of this date, I'me aware of no similar prophylactics against catastrophic failure being offered to the OBAM aviation community. My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data gathering tools. One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . . these are an entirely different breed of cat and to suggest that an end user can expect performance and maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent. To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational expectations, system integration and failure modes management. In the mean time, know that the article cited in the subject line of this tread has little significance to the issues we're wrestling with here on the List. Watch this space . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or space? The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are not insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us. Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a limit to how much experimenting most will do. The more proven non-flooded Lead-based batteries are very safe and convenient and I use them on both my certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will hopefully be flying next year. Ralph Finch On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote: > > > There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of KitPlanes > Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture of lithium > batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should aircraft lithium > battery boxes be made of firebrick? :) > > > Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken > airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both > ends . . . what are the odds? > > Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty > much an academic assemblage of published facts > about the various lithium products being studied > and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where > energy density and charge/discharge protocols are > much more demanding. The article is probably > accurate but minimally relevant to what we're > doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery > products. > > Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any > other catastrophic energy release in that it > takes a combination of stacked conditions. In > the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER > battery, the first condition we'll strive to > minimize is the choice of chemistries. > > My preliminary findings working with the 26650 > liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their > ratings, and coincidentally their in-service > risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the > boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles > I've read suggest that optimum battery life is > achieved if the cells are cycled between about > 80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits. > The hybrid vehicles program their battery management > systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs > within these or similar limits thus accepting > a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity. > > This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry > with the most robust resistance to conflagration > suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably > overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding, > the lithium products finding their way onto TC > aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that > ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said > enclosures are designed to contain a battery > fire and vent products of combustion overboard. > > Know too that these offerings have a significant > proportion of procurement expense tied up in the > battery management system electronics! > > > [image: Emacs!] > > http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7 > > As of this date, I'me aware of no similar > prophylactics against catastrophic failure being > offered to the OBAM aviation community. > > My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced > some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the > data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems > that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging > voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've > go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data > gathering tools. > > One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is > to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product > with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . . > these are an entirely different breed of cat and to > suggest that an end user can expect performance and > maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency > is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent. > > To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely > limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose > application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly > egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational > expectations, system integration and failure modes management. > > In the mean time, know that the article cited in the > subject line of this tread has little significance to > the issues we're wrestling with here on the List. > > Watch this space . . . > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
At 09:48 2014-10-09, you wrote: >I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously >consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or >space? The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are >not insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable >electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us. > >Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a >limit to how much experimenting most will do. The more proven >non-flooded Lead-based batteries are very safe and convenient and I >use them on both my certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will >hopefully be flying next year. A lucid deliberation my friend . . . based on my own experience and personal design goals for seeking the 'elegant solution', I have no foundation for a contrary argument. But until we know as much as can be discovered about these critters, arguments proposing any design goal will be on shaky foundation. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
There is an article in the October 2014 issue of Sport Aviation on page 92 titled, "I'll Never Do That Again". The author experienced an avionics failure while in IFR conditions. Other pilots in similar emergency situations have crashed. This pilot was very experienced. After briefly losing control, he was able to use backup instruments and land. While safely on the ground, he noticed a popped circuit breaker and reset it. It immediately tripped again, accompanied by an unusual smell. The pilot wrote, "I will never reset a breaker in the air. I did not have a fire, but I clearly was cooking something while I was on the ramp. Flames on the ground are a problem. Flames in the air are deadly." Take away the resettable feature of circuit breakers and they have no advantage (in most cases) over fuses, other than the cool factor of the appearance of a neat row of breakers. Fuses cost less, weigh less, and never fail to open when overloaded. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431678#431678 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Connector for shielded wire
From: "bmwr606" <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
unless you need to remove the wings on a regular basis, leave a "service loop" at the wing root ... no chance of a connector failure or corrosion but if a future need for wing removal arises you can cut the service loop and add a connector at that time i usually leave about a 4 inch diameter service loop Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431680#431680 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes
I am comfortable using Lithium batteries based on the many, many thousands that are currently in use in snowmachines, motorcycles, etc., and the many that are currently being used in EAB aircraft. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Ralph Finch wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled as to why we, the E/AB community, would seriously > consider Lithium batteries for the main battery. To save weight or space? > The savings are insignificant and the unknowns and risks are not > insignificant. Lithium chemistry makes sense for highly portable > electronics (laptops, tablets, phones) but not so much for us. > > Sure, we DO build and fly *experimental* aircraft, but there's a limit to > how much experimenting most will do. The more proven non-flooded Lead-based > batteries are very safe and convenient and I use them on both my > certificated Aircoupe and the RV-9A that will hopefully be flying next year. > > Ralph Finch > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > >> At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote: >> >> >> There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of >> KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture of >> lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should aircraft >> lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? :) >> >> >> Had a great vacation trip punctuated by broken >> airplanes and overnight stays in travel at both >> ends . . . what are the odds? >> >> Got a look at the article cited. This is pretty >> much an academic assemblage of published facts >> about the various lithium products being studied >> and tried in MOTIVE POWER applications where >> energy density and charge/discharge protocols are >> much more demanding. The article is probably >> accurate but minimally relevant to what we're >> doing . . . or proposing to do with lithium battery >> products. >> >> Getting a lithium battery to burn is like any >> other catastrophic energy release in that it >> takes a combination of stacked conditions. In >> the case of an ENGINE CRANKING / STANDBY POWER >> battery, the first condition we'll strive to >> minimize is the choice of chemistries. >> >> My preliminary findings working with the 26650 >> liFe cells purchased off eBay suggest that their >> ratings, and coincidentally their in-service >> risks for abuse, are strongly influenced by the >> boundaries on charge/recharge limits. Many articles >> I've read suggest that optimum battery life is >> achieved if the cells are cycled between about >> 80 and 20 percent of their chemical energy limits. >> The hybrid vehicles program their battery management >> systems to keep routine cycling of the cell packs >> within these or similar limits thus accepting >> a designed-in de-rating of battery capacity. >> >> This de-rating along with choice of a chemistry >> with the most robust resistance to conflagration >> suggest that fire-brick battery boxes are probably >> overkill. Lowered risks for LiFe fire not-withstanding, >> the lithium products finding their way onto TC >> aircraft ARE being housed in enclosures that >> ASSUME a potential for the worst . . . said >> enclosures are designed to contain a battery >> fire and vent products of combustion overboard. >> >> Know too that these offerings have a significant >> proportion of procurement expense tied up in the >> battery management system electronics! >> >> >> [image: Emacs!] >> >> http://tinyurl.com/l6xbev7 >> >> As of this date, I'me aware of no similar >> prophylactics against catastrophic failure being >> offered to the OBAM aviation community. >> >> My cursory studies of the lithium question have produced >> some enlightenment and mild surprises . . . but the >> data gathering methodology was too coarse . . . it seems >> that differences as small as 0.1 volts per cell in charging >> voltage can have a large effect on energy stored. I've >> go more cells ordered and I'm assembling better data >> gathering tools. >> >> One thing I can offer at this stage of the study is >> to strongly object to any marketing of a lithium product >> with words that speak to "lead-acid equivalency" . . . >> these are an entirely different breed of cat and to >> suggest that an end user can expect performance and >> maintenance issues to be a matter of drop-in equivalency >> is at best disingenuous and at worst a tad fraudulent. >> >> To the snow-mobiler or biker who's interests are largely >> limited to engine cranking and service life, the loose >> application of words like 'equivalency' is not terribly >> egregious. Airplanes are be VERY different in operational >> expectations, system integration and failure modes management. >> >> In the mean time, know that the article cited in the >> subject line of this tread has little significance to >> the issues we're wrestling with here on the List. >> >> Watch this space . . . >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in
flight? At 10:07 2014-10-09, you wrote: > >There is an article in the October 2014 issue of Sport Aviation on >page 92 titled, "I'll Never Do That Again". The author experienced >an avionics failure while in IFR conditions. Other pilots in >similar emergency situations have crashed. This pilot was very >experienced. After briefly losing control, he was able to use >backup instruments and land. While safely on the ground, he noticed >a popped circuit breaker and reset it. It immediately tripped >again, accompanied by an unusual smell. The pilot wrote, "I will >never reset a breaker in the air. I did not have a fire, but I >clearly was cooking something while I was on the ramp. Flames on >the ground are a problem. Flames in the air are deadly." > Take away the resettable feature of circuit breakers and they > have no advantage (in most cases) over fuses, other than the cool > factor of the appearance of a neat row of breakers. Fuses cost > less, weigh less, and never fail to open when overloaded. In the revenue generating class of aircraft there can be maintenance conveniences for having disconnect capabilities at the bus . . . I won't pretend to know the big picture of what constitutes an elegant solution for those folks. Further, there is probably not much risk of fire for having reset a breaker . . . even multiple times. The pundits are fond of citing the Ricky Nelson DC-3 crash on New Year's eve 1985 wherein it was hypothesized that repeated attempts to get a gas-fired cabin heater to stay on line were unsuccessful and MAY have lead to the fire which definitely started in the rear of the cabin. Forensics failed to conclusively tag the heater. It's REALLY hard to set anything on fire by repeatedly reseting a breaker as long as the trip is protecting a hard-faulted wire. The major risks for in-flight fire are from failures within a piece of equipment and SOFT faults to a wire. "SOFT" being defined as a condition that dissipates a lot of energy over a period of time but at current levels lower than the trip value for the breaker. Cases in point: Swissair 111 and a C90 that experienced elevator disconnect due to soft-fault arcing of the cable against a wire that was breaker protected at 40A. My own preference for not re-setting breakers has more to do with builder competence in crafting and pilot competence in carry out a Plan-B. These are exercises in pre-incident planning that go to making breaker resets or fuse replacements irrelevant. This isn't about fires, it's about avoiding that deer-in-the-headlights look that overcomes too many of our span-can driving brothers. Incidents described in detail over decades of what I've called the "Dark n Stormy Night" stories popular with the journals . . . Sport Aviation not withstanding. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight?
From: "rv8builder" <rv8builder.kd0m(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
In my former life as an airline pilot, the policy on reseting CB's in flight was "If it is absolutely needed for flight (gear, etc), one reset was allowed. If it was not needed for flight (galley, cabin lights, cabin entertainment, etc) no reset in flight was allowed. Dale -------- Dale Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431693#431693 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight?
From: "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
rv8builder wrote: > In my former life as an airline pilot, the policy on reseting CB's in flight was "If it is absolutely needed for flight (gear, etc), one reset was allowed. If it was not needed for flight (galley, cabin lights, cabin entertainment, etc) no reset in flight was allowed. > > Dale That pretty much covers my current airline's philosophy: "At the discretion of the captain ONE (1) reset is allowed, except for anything involving fuel" (gauge, pump, etc). For a fuel related item there is no reset - it becomes a problem for the maintenance guys at the next landing. And if it's something not required for the safe completion of the flight then we just live with it being u/s. Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431703#431703 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: are twisted pairs necessary for RS-232?
Dynon Skyview uses RS-232 serial communication. Is twisted wire a requirement for RS-232? The installation manual makes no mention, other than for their "Skyview Network" which is separate from the RS-232 found in the harness. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: Re: are twisted pairs necessary for RS-232?
Twisted pairs for RS-232 won't accomplish much. If you twist RX and TX together you'll be actively hurting the signal. It's a single-ended signal and can't take advantage of the common-mode rejection provided by a twisted pair. If you have signal integrity problems with it (and can't use the differential equivalent RS-422) then shielded cable is probably the way to go. Henry On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Dynon Skyview uses RS-232 serial communication. Is twisted wire a > requirement for RS-232? The installation manual makes no mention, other than > for their "Skyview Network" which is separate from the RS-232 found in the > harness. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: Re: are twisted pairs necessary for RS-232?
Thanks Henry. My next question was whether or not it would be acceptable to splice the RS-232 wires. Specifically I would like to connect them to one side of a terminal strip, and then resume them from the other side. It sounds like that should not cause any problem? On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Henry Hallam wrote: > henry(at)pericynthion.org> > > Twisted pairs for RS-232 won't accomplish much. If you twist RX and > TX together you'll be actively hurting the signal. It's a > single-ended signal and can't take advantage of the common-mode > rejection provided by a twisted pair. > If you have signal integrity problems with it (and can't use the > differential equivalent RS-422) then shielded cable is probably the > way to go. > > Henry > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > > Dynon Skyview uses RS-232 serial communication. Is twisted wire a > > requirement for RS-232? The installation manual makes no mention, other > than > > for their "Skyview Network" which is separate from the RS-232 found in > the > > harness. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Oct 09, 2014
Subject: Re: are twisted pairs necessary for RS-232?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Thanks Henry. My next question was whether or not it would be acceptable to > splice the RS-232 wires. Specifically I would like to connect them to one > side of a terminal strip, and then resume them from the other side. It > sounds like that should not cause any problem? Yes that should be fine. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in
flight? > My own preference for not re-setting breakers has > more to do with builder competence in crafting > and pilot competence in carry out a Plan-B. These > are exercises in pre-incident planning that go > to making breaker resets or fuse replacements > irrelevant. > > This isn't about fires, it's about avoiding that > deer-in-the-headlights look that overcomes too > many of our span-can driving brothers. Incidents > described in detail over decades of what I've called the > "Dark n Stormy Night" stories popular with the > journals . . . Sport Aviation not withstanding FWIW, I tried to follow this thinking in my plane. I ended up with 4 breakers and 2 fuse panels in my Z-14). Breakers 1&2 = for (2) LRC3 Voltage Regulators per installation instructions. Breaker 3 = flap motor (my thinking was that flap deployment at highspeeds could/might pop the breaker and I'd like to be able to reset. Casual testing indicated that the motor just 'stalls' or 'slips' but never pops the breaker) Breaker 4 = Autopilot because the TruTrak unit doesn't have an on/off switch. Intent is to use it as an emergency on/off switch. In retrospect after 3 years and 500 hours , Breaker 3 was a mistake and is not needed, a fuse for wire protection would do. Breaker 4 still makes sense to me though such an emergency has never been encountered. However I wish I had either installed 3 additional breakers or at least on/off switches for my (3) GRT EFIS screens. These devices lack on/off switches and are always-on when main power is on. That is how I normally operate. But they are major consumers of electrons and any load shedding exercise would benefit from being able to shut down 1 or 2 of them. With 2 batteries and 2 alternators, all scenarios that involve loss of a single battery or alternator allow me to complete the flight without a problem with all (3) on. But starting a cold engine, on a cold day, with the critical battery drawn down (the one without the (3) EFISs) can be impossible unless the (3) EFISs are taken off line. It's happened and it's required pulling their fuses. If I maintain and manage my batteries properly, this should never be a problem; but I didn't and it was. On the other hand it's just an on-the-ground non-emergency situation. In the end, only the (2) breakers for the LRC voltage controllers are needed. I would like all my avionics to have an on/off capability. For those devices that don't (AP and the 3 EFISs), it seems that breakers can serve as infrequently used on/off switches. Bill "happily flying with a fully equipped kitchen and sink" Watson Addendum: One other thing that breakers can do for you is to visually indicate what circuit popped. LED equipped blade fuses can do the same and do it quite well. My fuse panels are installed in the passenger seat foot well and have transparent panels. While not easily reached by the pilot in flight, they are easily visible. Combined with a panel diagram (or transparent panel labeling) it is easy to see what fuse is popped. The only fuse that ever popped in flight was for the strobe unit. The fix was to replace the unit with one that didn't require a power run from the rear mounted battery, forward to the on/off switch, and back to the rear mounted strobe unit. Now there is an unreachable inline fuse between the battery and the strobe unit. The on/off switch controls the unit via some sort of relay. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? Bill "happily flying with a fully equipped kitchen and sink" Watson Addendum: One other thing that breakers can do for you is to visually indicate what circuit popped. LED equipped blade fuses can do the same and do it quite well. My fuse panels are installed in the passenger seat foot well and have transparent panels. While not easily reached by the pilot in flight, they are easily visible. Combined with a panel diagram (or transparent panel labeling) it is easy to see what fuse is popped. Are there fuses that could be popped and go unnoticed during preflight? I.e. is there potential for latent failure that goes unnoticed beyond preflight? The only fuse that ever popped in flight was for the strobe unit. The fix was to replace the unit with one that didn't require a power run from the rear mounted battery, forward to the on/off switch, and back to the rear mounted strobe unit. Now there is an unreachable inline fuse between the battery and the strobe unit. The on/off switch controls the unit via some sort of relay. Bill, Thanks for sharing your observations and deductions from lessons learned. I am curious as to your load distribution configuration that drove the 'fuse pulling' incident. Z-14 offers some pretty robust engine driven power sourcing supported by two batteries. What are your battery sizes and which one is 'critical'? I've always encouraged builders not to revert to circuit breakers as either the normal on/off ops of an accessory (like the breaker-switches in Bonanzas and Barons), or as a prophylactic against an FMEA deduced situation requiring shutdown of select appliances. If there's ever a reason to shut a thing off, providing a switch to do the job makes the most sense. Putting an crew-operable breaker on the panel for that purpose MOVES a chunk of your bus structure onto the panel. An attractive feature of the fuse-blocks is organization of the bus structure in tidy, off-panel chunks. The notion of adding switch based on an FMEA-driven requirement seems elegant way to go while keeping distribution busses off the panel. Yeah, those pesky strobes . . . Gray beards here on the List will recall a rash of incidents cited by readers experiencing one or more failures of switches on their strobe systems. http://tinyurl.com/2a2qqp There was also a rash of failed fast-on terminals with the predominant failure being an under crimped wire. Seems that many of the modern strobes use constant power energy sources to the tubes. I.e., while 'rated' at 7-8 amps or so at 14.5 volts, they would draw half again more during battery-only and during cranking transients. So strobes that are left ON to warn outsiders of a 'powerd- up' aircraft tend to stress the supply feeder hardware more than the legacy strobes which in fact, would draw less current at lower voltages. No doubt, advancements in LED offerings will make even this little design quirk a thing of the past . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? On 10/12/2014 3:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > Bill "happily flying with a fully equipped kitchen and sink" Watson > > Addendum: One other thing that breakers can do for you is to visually > indicate what circuit popped. LED equipped blade fuses can do the > same and do it quite well. My fuse panels are installed in the > passenger seat foot well and have transparent panels. While not > easily reached by the pilot in flight, they are easily visible. > Combined with a panel diagram (or transparent panel labeling) it is > easy to see what fuse is popped. > > Are there fuses that could be popped and go unnoticed > during preflight? I.e. is there potential for latent > failure that goes unnoticed beyond preflight? > I don't think so. I must admit that checking the fuse panel for a popped fuse, i.e. a red LED, is not part of my preflight checklist. However, experience indicates that it catches my eye nonetheless, just like any other red light in the aircraft. I think I'm going to add it to my checklist anyway. > Bill, Thanks for sharing your observations and deductions from > lessons learned. I am curious as to your load distribution > configuration that drove the 'fuse pulling' incident. Z-14 > offers some pretty robust engine driven power sourcing > supported by two batteries. What are your battery sizes > and which one is 'critical'? > It is very robust. I have (2) PC680s. Either will start the engine under normal conditions but you pointed out that using both for start will extend their life a bit and running them unlinked together during flight should be SOP. It has taken some 'tuning' to get to the point where I am no longer concerned about a 'critical' battery. Nor do I feel the need to add (3) on/off switches for the (3) EFIS units though I continue to wish they had an integrated on/off function. Before my 'tuning', the battery that doesn't run the (3) EFISs was critical. That is, I depend on it being fully charged and in good shape so that it is capable of starting the engine without being linked to the other battery. If the EFIS battery is discharged by pre-start flight planning activity, a linked start would force a re-boot of my EFISs and sometimes the G430. To avoid that, I would do the start using only the critical battery. In cold temps with a cold engine and a less than fully charged and healthy critical battery, a single battery start may not be possible (IO540 with a Skytech LS starter) . It happened. The 'tuning' involved several changes: 1. The GRT units had an always-on clock circuit. One or two units; perhaps no problem. Three units slowly degraded my battery. The clock circuit is no longer needed since the GRTs now pickup the time from the GPS signal so they were eliminated. 2. I added TCW Technologies Intelligent Power Stabilizer to the EFIS and G430 circuits. This has completely eliminated reboots during linked engine starts. 3. The above items allow me to always start with both batteries linked and then operate them unlinked... all with confidence and consistency. I've even gone back to turning on the strobes before starts. As always, thanks for your insights. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H.Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: AN 3087-8 Connector
Date: Oct 12, 2014
What is the proper way to install an AN 3087-8 Connector on a 5 wire cable? Can the connector be removed and reused? I've got to replace the power cable on my Tig welder. M. Haught ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AN 3087-8 Connector
At 18:42 2014-10-12, you wrote: > > >What is the proper way to install an AN 3087-8 Connector on a 5 wire >cable? Can the connector be removed and reused? I've got to >replace the power cable on my Tig welder. Are you sure the number isn't AN3057-8? [] The 3057 strain-relief fits a variety of connectors. The most common being the MIL-C-5015 series devices that have been around since WWII. They are offered in both soldered and crimped contacts. The strain relief is threaded onto the back shell which is, in turn, threaded onto the connector housing. Emacs! If your connector is soldered, then yes, it's easy to de-solder the wires and re-use the connector. The crimped pins cannot be salvaged. With the right tools, you can extract the pins and use the original housing to take new pins crimped to your replacement wire. Check out the catalog from my website here . . . http://tinyurl.com/ohxmtzc Find out which contact arrangement is appropriate to your connector. You may be able to find another number stamped onto the connector retaining ring that will help you define the size and insert. For example, the connector above has an 18-1 insert as described on page 12 of the catalog. If your existing connector is crimped, the short path to success is probably to replace it with it's solder-on brother. Newark Electronics is one of many sources for these connectors . . . should you find that replacement is preferable to salvage . . . http://tinyurl.com/p6x5jbo They're not a terribly expensive connector . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 13, 2014
There has been some remarkably good discussion on this subject and I want to add my two cents: 1) Breakers themselves fail or degrade. Abused breakers are difficult to detect. Resetting them after they cool down may be possible. But diagnosis should be a ground-repair issue. Remember to Fly the Airplane. 2) The classic "breaker for every wire" seems old fashioned and indeed breakers sometimes pop in commercial a/c and nobody notices. An LED warning on every breaker seems to be a great idea. 3) Switch-Breaker combos save weight and panel space. These SBs have become much better, smaller and cheaper than the early ones. 4) New approaches like solid state resettables certainly have their place. 5) If you don't have to change a fuse during flight, a fuse works well. This includes, wig-wags, entertainment systems, seat heaters, baggage compartment lights, convenience lights, rear intercoms, and others. 6) Inherently Safe Buses are low-current or current-limited buses where no fuse is required because a dead short will not generate enough power to ignite anything. Worth considering in this low-current world of Cmos, Fet gates and LEDs. 7) A design goal might be to eliminate the breaker panel by employing a variety of other circuit protection methods. Are there some breakers that never pop? Why have them? -------- 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=431800#431800 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? There has been some remarkably good discussion on this subject and I want to add my two cents: 1) Breakers themselves fail or degrade. Abused breakers are difficult to detect. Resetting them after they cool down may be possible. But diagnosis should be a ground-repair issue. Remember to Fly the Airplane. That's a pretty broad brush . . . SOME breakers are less robust than we might like for use in an extra-ordinarily abusive environment. Consider the inner monkey-motion and parts count of the switch-breaker (on left) and the commercial, off-the shelf appliance breaker on the right . . . with the military qualified device in the center that is RATED and TESTED for thousands of high-fault current trips without degradation of performance. I've never encountered a pre-mature failure in this style breaker when used solely as a circuit protective device and not a crew-operated power control. Emacs! 2) The classic "breaker for every wire" seems old fashioned and indeed breakers sometimes pop in commercial a/c and nobody notices. An LED warning on every breaker seems to be a great idea. Three points to ponder here. Legacy design goals call limiting failure effects to one system only. It's generally not a good thing to have one failure take down multiple appliances. Hence, one protective device per feeder. If a protective device operates then some system is off line as a result. If nobody notices, then that appliance is not being used. As soon as the crew expects that appliance to be available, the popped breaker will, no doubt, be noticed . . . whereupon Plan-B for that failure will be implemented. Adding indicator lights to breaker/fuses only complicates the monkey-motion built into the device. It does not reduce risks to comfortable termination of flight. It might be a troubleshooting aid . . . but then . . . you already know that appliance is inop or you will know before next flight . . . it's on your preflight checklist . . . right? 3) Switch-Breaker combos save weight and panel space. These SBs have become much better, smaller and cheaper than the early ones. . . . but still MUCH more expensive than a fuse and they FORCE a modification of architecture to move a portion of the ship's bus structure onto the panel. 4) New approaches like solid state resettables certainly have their place. But what is the return on investment? If you're not going to reset breakers or replace fuses in flight . . . what is the value of incorporating a 'more modern' approach to hardware that is more convenient to reset? 5) If you don't have to change a fuse during flight, a fuse works well. This includes, wig-wags, entertainment systems, seat heaters, baggage compartment lights, convenience lights, rear intercoms, and others. Under what conditions would it EVER be necessary/useful/ prudent to replace a fuse in flight? Are there design goals to exercise that would eliminate any such condition? 6) Inherently Safe Buses are low-current or current-limited buses where no fuse is required because a dead short will not generate enough power to ignite anything. Worth considering in this low-current world of Cmos, Fet gates and LEDs. Yes, feeders current limited at the bus can be considered intrinsically immune to damage as a consequence of a faulted wire. I've encountered perhaps a dozen such opportunities in my lifetime. 7) A design goal might be to eliminate the breaker panel by employing a variety of other circuit protection methods. Are there some breakers that never pop? Why have them? Exactly. This question prompted an essay published in Sport Aviation 21 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/o9joztv The decision process for circuit protective philosophy has almost nothing to do with convenience or the performance issues unique to devices being considered. To be sure, devices like this http://tinyurl.com/oka6z2a may offer some unique opportunities for adding some appliance to an airplane but in general, a clean piece of paper design should strive for minimum risk, minimum cost, minimum complexity, minimum weight in that order of prominence. Emacs! . . . at the present time, I'm unable to suggest a superior alternative to the rudimentary fuse for keeping all the smoke inside your wires . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2014
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? Respectfully, your dictate of placement of "minimum cost" above "minimum complexity" and "minimum weight" is purely opinion. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > There has been some remarkably good discussion on this subject and I want > to add my two cents: > > 1) Breakers themselves fail or degrade. Abused breakers are difficult to > detect. Resetting them after they > cool down may be possible. But diagnosis should be a ground-repair issue. > Remember to Fly the Airplane. > > *That's a pretty broad brush . . . SOME breakers are less robust than we > might **like for use in an extra-ordinarily abusive environment. Consider > the inner **monkey-motion and parts count of the switch-breaker (on left) > and the commercial, **off-the shelf appliance breaker on the right . . . > with the military qualified **device in the center that is RATED and > TESTED for thousands of high-fault current **trips without degradation of > performance. I've never encountered a pre-mature **failure in this style > breaker when used solely as a circuit protective device * > > *and not a crew-operated power control.* [image: Emacs!] > > 2) The classic "breaker for every wire" seems old fashioned and indeed > breakers sometimes > pop in commercial a/c and nobody notices. An LED warning on every breaker > seems to be a great idea. > > *Three points to ponder here. Legacy design goals call limiting failure **effects > to one system only. It's generally not a good thing to have one **failure > take down multiple appliances. Hence, one protective device per * > > *feeder. **If a protective device operates then some system is off line > as a **result. If nobody notices, then that appliance is not being used. **As > soon as the crew expects that appliance to be available, the **popped > breaker will, no doubt, be noticed . . . whereupon Plan-B * > > *for that failure will be implemented. **Adding indicator lights to > breaker/fuses only complicates the **monkey-motion built into the device. > It does not reduce risks **to comfortable termination of flight. It might > be a troubleshooting **aid . . . but then . . . you already know that > appliance is inop **or you will know before next flight . . . it's on > your preflight * > > > *checklist . . . right? * 3) Switch-Breaker combos save weight and panel > space. These SBs have become much better, > smaller and cheaper than the early ones. > > *. . . but still MUCH more expensive than a fuse and they **FORCE a > modification of architecture to move a portion of * > > > *the ship's bus structure onto the panel. * 4) New approaches like solid > state resettables certainly have their place. > > *But what is the return on investment? If you're not going to **reset > breakers or replace fuses in flight . . . what is the **value of > incorporating a 'more modern' approach to hardware **that is more > convenient to reset?* 5) If you don't have to change a fuse during > flight, a fuse works well. This > includes, wig-wags, entertainment systems, seat heaters, baggage > compartment lights, > convenience lights, rear intercoms, and others. > > *Under what conditions would it EVER be necessary/useful/ **prudent to > replace a fuse in flight? Are there design * > > > *goals to exercise that would eliminate any such condition? * 6) > Inherently Safe Buses are low-current or current-limited buses where no > fuse is > required because a dead short will not generate enough power to ignite > anything. > Worth considering in this low-current world of Cmos, Fet gates and LEDs. > > *Yes, feeders current limited at the bus can be considered **intrinsically > immune to damage as a consequence of a faulted **wire. I've encountered > perhaps a dozen such opportunities in * > > > *my lifetime. * 7) A design goal might be to eliminate the breaker panel > by employing a variety > of other circuit protection methods. Are there some breakers that never > pop? Why > have them? > > *Exactly. This question prompted an essay published in Sport Aviation **21 > years ago: http://tinyurl.com/o9joztv The > decision process **for circuit protective philosophy has almost nothing > to do **with convenience or the performance issues unique to devices > being **considered. To be sure, devices like this > http://tinyurl.com/oka6z2a **may offer some > unique opportunities for adding some appliance to **an airplane but in > general, a clean piece of paper design should **strive for minimum risk, > minimum cost, minimum complexity, minimum weight * > > *in that order of prominence. * [image: Emacs!] > > > *. . . at the present time, I'm unable to suggest a superior **alternative > to the rudimentary fuse for keeping all the smoke * > > *inside your wires . . .* > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? At 12:01 2014-10-13, you wrote: >Respectfully, your dictate of placement of "minimum cost" above >"minimum complexity" and "minimum weight" is purely opinion. No problem . . . order your design goals as they suit your wishes . . . but DO have design goals crafted with argument that makes sense to you. As a general rule, cost and complexity go hand-in-hand a lower cost design is generally less complex. Furhter, costs should be global and embrace cost of ownership. In the electronics business, a great many parts are tiny, exceedingly inexpensive and reliable. So cost and complexity often swap priorities. It's the project manager's call . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture
From: "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net>
Date: Oct 13, 2014
I have just bought Bob Lee's Kr2 project and am trying to gather any info that may pertain to the project. Do you have nay more posts or information about the electronics he used? Thanks Bob R Winnipeg Canada Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431818#431818 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2014
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Welding cable ring connectors
I just acquired some #4 welding wire to fashion ground cables and looking at the available connectors the #6 connectors seem to fit with little or no slack. Am I missing something? Can I use the #6 connectors with #4 cable? Thanks, johninreno ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Welding cable ring connectors
At 21:27 2014-10-13, you wrote: > >I just acquired some #4 welding wire to fashion ground cables and >looking at the available connectors the #6 connectors seem to fit >with little or no slack. Am I missing something? Can I use the #6 >connectors with #4 cable? Seems that connector sizing is a lot like shoe and dress sizing . . . that is . . . in the ballpark. Go by what fits best, not necessarily what's printed on the box. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2014
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: Welding cable ring connectors
Thanks! On 10/13/2014 7:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 21:27 2014-10-13, you wrote: >> >> >> I just acquired some #4 welding wire to fashion ground cables and >> looking at the available connectors the #6 connectors seem to fit >> with little or no slack. Am I missing something? Can I use the #6 >> connectors with #4 cable? > > Seems that connector sizing is a lot like shoe and > dress sizing . . . that is . . . in the ballpark. > Go by what fits best, not necessarily what's printed > on the box. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture
At 20:09 2014-10-13, you wrote: > >I have just bought Bob Lee's Kr2 project and am trying to gather any >info that may pertain to the project. Do you have nay more posts or >information about the electronics he used? When you say project . . . what stage of completion? Are any of the electrical system appliances operable either airborne or on the ground? I don't recall any conversations with Mr. Lee here on the List. Depending on how many 'hard' decisions are already in place, you might be well advices to pull out all the 'fuzzy' stuff and start over. Is this your first project or do you have some lessons-learned to draw on? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight?
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Oct 14, 2014
Same in our airline. There are good reasons for not resetting tripped breakers, eg., causing the production of smoke when before there was none. FWIW in the never-ending "fuses versus breakers" debate, my design goals were: 1. The circuit protection shall be checked during preflight (a principle beaten into me during both military flying and airline training), and so tripped circuit protection devices must be easy to distinguish on the ground, and must be investigated before getting airborne. 2. In the air, tripped circuit protection shall be easily identifiable but not be reset/replaced unless I have a damn good reason for it. 3. In the air, circuit protection shall be easily reachable by system, such that if things produce unauthorised smoke , corresponding circuit protection can be manually tripped (as a backup to actually switching the system off). I achieved these goals, slightly more easily IMHO, by using CBs rather than fuses although with the advent of illuminated fuses there's probably no reason why they couldn't achieve them too. I do actually know of a couple of instances when I was in the military where boxes produced smoke airborne and CBs had to be pulled. -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431871#431871 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in
flight? Mike, All excellent points and it's good to hear from people who've had exposure to different organizations. I'm not an airline pilot & never served in the military. I would like to clarify one point. In this and other posts, people have referred to fuse panels which have "fuse blown" indicators in the form of red LEDs mounted next to the fuse. I think these are really neat! But, keep in mind that the LED is only lit when the fuse is blown AND the device on the other end is turned-on or at least capable of conducting a few milli-amps to ground. This means that if the circuit w/ the blown fuse is turned-off, the LED will not light and the blown fuse may go unnoticed. An example will help illustrate. Let's say that while taxing back to your hangar one night, the landing light fuse blows. No big deal - you're on the ground & home - you'll fix it next weekend. Then, next weekend you get out to the plane and you forget about the inop landing light. The "fuse blown" LED will not light up when you power-up the buss because there is no path to ground for the LED. This is really not a big deal, however, if that had been a breaker instead of a fuse, the breaker would still be 'popped' and sticking up when you got back to the plane. The point being that a popped circuit breaker can be a conspicuous reminder of a problem. The argument could be made that a popped breaker is easier to detect than a blown fuse as Mike points out. -Jeff On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:17 PM, mmayfield wrote: Same in our airline. There are good reasons for not resetting tripped breakers, eg., causing the production of smoke when before there was none. FWIW in the never-ending "fuses versus breakers" debate, my design goals were: 1. The circuit protection shall be checked during preflight (a principle beaten into me during both military flying and airline training), and so tripped circuit protection devices must be easy to distinguish on the ground, and must be investigated before getting airborne. 2. In the air, tripped circuit protection shall be easily identifiable but not be reset/replaced unless I have a damn good reason for it. 3. In the air, circuit protection shall be easily reachable by system, such that if things produce unauthorised smoke , corresponding circuit protection can be manually tripped (as a backup to actually switching the system off). I achieved these goals, slightly more easily IMHO, by using CBs rather than fuses although with the advent of illuminated fuses there's probably no reason why they couldn't achieve them too. I do actually know of a couple of instances when I was in the military where boxes produced smoke airborne and CBs had to be pulled. -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431871#431871 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Q?Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Re:_Should_a_tripped_circuit_breaker_be_?=
=?utf-8?Q?reset_in_flight=3F?
Date: Oct 14, 2014
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBjbGFyaWZ5IG9uZSBw b2ludC4gIEluIHRoaXMgYW5kIG90aGVyIHBvc3RzLCBwZW9wbGUgaGF2ZSByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBm dXNlIHBhbmVscyB3aGljaCBoYXZlICJmdXNlIGJsb3duIiBpbmRpY2F0b3JzIGluIHRoZSBmb3Jt IG9mIHJlZCBMRURzIG1vdW50ZWQgbmV4dCB0byB0aGUgZnVzZS4gIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlc2UgYXJl IHJlYWxseSBuZWF0IQ0KDQoNCg0KDQpCdXQsIGtlZXAgaW4gbWluZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBMRUQgaXMg b25seSBsaXQgd2hlbiB0aGUgZnVzZSBpcyBibG93biBBTkQgdGhlIGRldmljZSBvbiB0aGUgb3Ro ZXIgZW5kIGlzIHR1cm5lZC1vbiBvciBhdCBsZWFzdCBjYXBhYmxlIG9mIGNvbmR1Y3RpbmcgYSBm ZXcgbWlsbGktYW1wcyB0byBncm91bmQuICBUaGlzIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQgaWYgdGhlIGNpcmN1aXQg dy8gdGhlIGJsb3duIGZ1c2UgaXMgdHVybmVkLW9mZiwgdGhlIExFRCB3aWxsIG5vdCBsaWdodCBh bmQgdGhlIGJsb3duIGZ1c2UgbWF5IGdvIHVubm90aWNlZC4NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpBbiBleGFtcGxl IHdpbGwgaGVscCBpbGx1c3RyYXRlLiAgTGV0J3Mgc2F5IHRoYXQgd2hpbGUgdGF4aW5nIGJhY2sg dG8geW91ciBoYW5nYXIgb25lIG5pZ2h0LCB0aGUgbGFuZGluZyBsaWdodCBmdXNlIGJsb3dzLiAg Tm8gYmlnIGRlYWwgLSB5b3UncmUgb24gdGhlIGdyb3VuZCAmIGhvbWUgLSB5b3UnbGwgZml4IGl0 IG5leHQgd2Vla2VuZC4gIFRoZW4sIG5leHQgd2Vla2VuZCB5b3UgZ2V0IG91dCB0byB0aGUgcGxh bmUgYW5kIHlvdSBmb3JnZXQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGlub3AgbGFuZGluZyBsaWdodC4gIFRoZSAiZnVz ZSBibG93biIgTEVEIHdpbGwgbm90IGxpZ2h0IHVwIHdoZW4geW91IHBvd2VyLXVwIHRoZSBidXNz IGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcGF0aCB0byBncm91bmQgZm9yIHRoZSBMRUQuDQoNCg0KDQoN ClRoaXMgaXMgcmVhbGx5IG5vdCBhIGJpZyBkZWFsLCBob3dldmVyLCBpZiB0aGF0IGhhZCBiZWVu IGEgYnJlYWtlciBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIGEgZnVzZSwgdGhlIGJyZWFrZXIgd291bGQgc3RpbGwgYmUg J3BvcHBlZCcgYW5kIHN0aWNraW5nIHVwIHdoZW4geW91IGdvdCBiYWNrIHRvIHRoZSBwbGFuZS4g IFRoZSBwb2ludCBiZWluZyB0aGF0IGEgcG9wcGVkIGNpcmN1aXQgYnJlYWtlciBjYW4gYmUgYSBj b25zcGljdW91cyByZW1pbmRlciBvZiBhIHByb2JsZW0uDQoNCg0KDQoNClRoZSBhcmd1bWVudCBj b3VsZCBiZSBtYWRlIHRoYXQgYSBwb3BwZWQgYnJlYWtlciBpcyBlYXNpZXIgdG8gZGV0ZWN0IHRo YW4gYSBibG93biBmdXNlIGFzIE1pa2UgcG9pbnRzIG91dC4NCg0KDQoNCklmIHlvdSBjb25zaWRl ciB0aGlzIHNhbWUgZXhhY3Qgc2NlbmFyaW8gZXhjZXB0IHRoYXQgdGhlIGJ1bGIgYmxldyBpbnN0 ZWFkIG9mIHRoZSBmdXNlLCBhbmQgeW91IHNhaWQg4oCcSeKAmWxsIGZpeCBpdCBsYXRlcuKAnSBh bmQgeW91IGZvcmdvdCwgdGhlIGNpcmN1aXQgYnJlYWtlciB3b3VsZCBiZSBubyBoZWxwLiAgDQoN Cg0KWW91IGNhbm5vdCByZWx5IG9uIGhhdmluZyBhbiBpbmRpY2F0b3IgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IHBvc3Np YmxlIGZhaWx1cmUhICBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIGdvaW5nIHRvIGJlIGxhbmRpbmcgYXQgbmlnaHQsIGNo ZWNrIHlvdXIgbGlnaHRzIGJlZm9yZSB5b3UgbGVhdmUuDQoNCg0KUm9nZXI ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset
in flight? >The argument could be made that a popped breaker is easier to detect >than a blown fuse as Mike points out. Given that there are 100x more ways a thing can fail that DOESN'T pop a fuse, it seems that the whole argument over the utility of visible notification is moot. If it's important that piece of equipment work before flight . . . then exercise the critter in preflight. If not working, then indeed a fuse MIGHT be open but it's more likely that it is not. Visual inspection any circuit protective device offers no assurance whatsoever of any system's operational integrity. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2014
Subject: Garmin 430 to GRT EFIS
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Anyone have a wiring diagram for a 430 to a GRT Sport? I could have sworn that I've seen one, but can't find one now. Does it require an optional arinc module to display course/glideslope info, from either the GPS or the ILS receiver? Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: RG393 coax
Date: Oct 15, 2014
All, In my as-yet-non-airworthy Europa, I=92m about to replace the RG58 coax originally installed for COM and XPNDR antennas. Both my newly purchased COM and (mode =93S=94) XPNDR are part of the Dynon SkyView suite. Dynon sez the RG58=85though perhaps adequate for the COM...will be very unsatisfactory for the XPNDR, and the folks there refer me to =93Antenna Cable=94, p. 230, (chap 11-p.12) in the SkyView installation guide where various coax cables are considered. (I cannot seem to include a link to the SkyView Installation Guide) On p. 231, (chap.11-p.13) there is a chart which appears to state that RG400 (M17/128) is fine IF its length is less than 8=92-4=94. I find that this M17/128 is the spec. for the RG400 sold by suppliers like Aircraft Spruce, SteinAir, and B & C. The chart also lists an RG304 for lengths up to 12=926=94, and RG393 for lengths up to 17=92-3=94. There is also a link below the chart to manufacturer=92s data which is more specific=85there is clearly a special realm reserved for coax cables. I=92ve located a source for the RG393 where I can buy a minimum of 100 feet at $6.89/ft=85and I=92m having trouble swallowing. I=92m skeptical of the notion that SkyView customers are using coax other than the widely available RG400 (M17-128), and I=92m VERY reluctant to spring for this RG393. I do intend to replace ALL of my RG58. Can someone who has some keen knowledge on this subject give me some guidance? =85with appreciation, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: King Electronics
From: "Scot" <1975jsa(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2014
Does anyone have a manual for a Kings Electronic condenser cap. tester, specifically model 603? Thanks in advance for your time. Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431927#431927 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2014
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
I'd ask myself if the new xponder operates at a different frequency, impedance, & power level from the old one. If it's the same...... Charlie On Oct 15, 2014 6:54 PM, "Fred Klein" wrote: > All, > > In my as-yet-non-airworthy Europa, I=99m about to replace the RG58 coax > originally installed for COM and XPNDR antennas. Both my newly purchased > COM and (mode =9CS=9D) XPNDR are part of the Dynon SkyView su ite. Dynon sez the > RG58though perhaps adequate for the COM...will be very unsatisfa ctory for > the XPNDR, and the folks there refer me to =9CAntenna Cable =9D, p. 230, (chap > 11-p.12) in the SkyView installation guide where various coax cables are > considered. > > (I cannot seem to include a link to the SkyView Installation Guide) > > On p. 231, (chap.11-p.13) there is a chart which appears to state that > RG400 (M17/128) is fine IF its length is less than 8=99-4=9D. I find that this > M17/128 is the spec. for the RG400 sold by suppliers like Aircraft Spruce , > SteinAir, and B & C. > > The chart also lists an RG304 for lengths up to 12=996=9D, an d RG393 for > lengths up to 17=99-3=9D. > > There is also a link below the chart to manufacturer=99s data which is more > specificthere is clearly a special realm reserved for coax cable s. > > I=99ve located a source for the RG393 where I can buy a minimum of 100 feet > at $6.89/ftand I=99m having trouble swallowing. > > I=99m skeptical of the notion that SkyView customers are using coax other > than the widely available RG400 (M17-128), and I=99m VERY reluctant to spring > for this RG393. I do intend to replace ALL of my RG58. > > Can someone who has some keen knowledge on this subject give me some > guidance? > > with appreciation, > > Fred > > * > =========== www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
The Skyview transponder sold for US market is 250 wats, mode S, using the standard 1030 and 1090 Mhz frequencies that all Mode A and C transponders use. In other words the difference is in the pulsed message, not the frequency or power. It is difficult to see why more than 8 ft of cable would be needed for a 2 place aircraft, unless the antenna needs to be in an unusual location. Also difficult to see why the com radio would need better than RG-58 cable unless it has less noise rejection than the radios designed 30 years ago that worked just fine at ranges as far as 120 nm with sufficient altitude. On 10/15/2014 10:14 PM, Charlie England wrote: > > I'd ask myself if the new xponder operates at a different frequency, > impedance, & power level from the old one. If it's the same...... > > Charlie > > On Oct 15, 2014 6:54 PM, "Fred Klein" > wrote: > > All, > > In my as-yet-non-airworthy Europa, Im about to replace the RG58 > coax originally installed for COM and XPNDR antennas. Both my > newly purchased COM and (mode S) XPNDR are part of the Dynon > SkyView suite. Dynon sez the RG58though perhaps adequate for the > COM...will be very unsatisfactory for the XPNDR, and the folks > there refer me to Antenna Cable, p. 230, (chap 11-p.12) in the > SkyView installation guide where various coax cables are considered. > > (I cannot seem to include a link to the SkyView Installation Guide) > > On p. 231, (chap.11-p.13) there is a chart which appears to state > that RG400 (M17/128) is fine IF its length is less than 8-4. I > find that this M17/128 is the spec. for the RG400 sold by > suppliers like Aircraft Spruce, SteinAir, and B & C. > > The chart also lists an RG304 for lengths up to 126, and RG393 > for lengths up to 17-3. > > There is also a link below the chart to manufacturers data which > is more specificthere is clearly a special realm reserved for > coax cables. > > Ive located a source for the RG393 where I can buy a minimum of > 100 feet at $6.89/ftand Im having trouble swallowing. > > Im skeptical of the notion that SkyView customers are using coax > other than the widely available RG400 (M17-128), and Im VERY > reluctant to spring for this RG393. I do intend to replace ALL of > my RG58. > > Can someone who has some keen knowledge on this subject give me > some guidance? > > with appreciation, > > Fred > > * > > ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2014
From: Todd Bristol <djtoddb(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
What makes the RG400 better/different than the RG58 for the transponder use ?=0A =0ATodd Bristol=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AOn Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:14 PM , Charlie England wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0AI'd ask myself if the new xponder operates at a different frequency, impedance, & power le vel from the old one. If it's the same......=0ACharlie=0AOn Oct 15, 2014 6: 54 PM, "Fred Klein" wrote:=0A=0AAll,=0A>=0A>=0A>In my as-yet-non-airworthy Europa, I=99m about to replace the RG58 coax originally installed for COM and XPNDR antennas. Both my newly purchased C OM and (mode =9CS=9D) XPNDR are part of the Dynon SkyView suite . Dynon sez the RG58though perhaps adequate for the COM...will be very unsatisfactory for the XPNDR, and the folks there refer me to =9CAntenna Cable=9D, p. 230, (chap 11-p.12) in the SkyView installati on guide where various coax cables are considered.=0A>=0A>(I cannot seem to include a link to the SkyView Installation Guide)=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On p. 231 , (chap.11-p.13) there is a chart which appears to state that RG400 (M17/12 8) is fine IF its length is less than 8=99-4=9D. I find that th is M17/128 is the spec. for the RG400 sold by suppliers like Aircraft Spruc e, SteinAir, and B & C.=0A>=0A>=0A>The chart also lists an RG304 for length s up to 12=996=9D, and RG393 for lengths up to 17=99-3 =9D.=0A>=0A>=0A>There is also a link below the chart to manufacturer =99s data which is more specificthere is clearly a special real m reserved for coax cables. =0A>=0A>=0A>I=99ve located a source for t he RG393 where I can buy a minimum of 100 feet at $6.89/ftand I =99m having trouble swallowing. =0A>=0A>=0A>I=99m skeptical of the notion that SkyView customers are using coax other than the widely availab le RG400 (M17-128), and I=99m VERY reluctant to spring for this RG393 . I do intend to replace ALL of my RG58.=0A>=0A>=0A>Can someone who has som e keen knowledge on this subject give me some guidance?=0A>=0A>=0A> with appreciation,=0A>=0A>=0A>Fred=0A>ist" target="_blank">http://www. matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Atp://forums.matronics.com=0A_bl ======= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2014
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
It has lower loss, which becomes more critical as you go up in frequency. Waht is OK at VHF, frequently isn't once you start working at microwave frequencies. Bill On 16/10/2014 5:08 PM, Todd Bristol wrote: > What makes the RG400 better/different than the RG58 for the > transponder use? > Todd Bristol > > > On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:14 PM, Charlie England > wrote: > > > I'd ask myself if the new xponder operates at a different frequency, > impedance, & power level from the old one. If it's the same...... > Charlie > On Oct 15, 2014 6:54 PM, "Fred Klein" > wrote: > > All, > > In my as-yet-non-airworthy Europa, Im about to replace the RG58 > coax originally installed for COM and XPNDR antennas. Both my > newly purchased COM and (mode S) XPNDR are part of the Dynon > SkyView suite. Dynon sez the RG58though perhaps adequate for the > COM...will be very unsatisfactory for the XPNDR, and the folks > there refer me to Antenna Cable, p. 230, (chap 11-p.12) in the > SkyView installation guide where various coax cables are considered. > > (I cannot seem to include a link to the SkyView Installation Guide) > > On p. 231, (chap.11-p.13) there is a chart which appears to state > that RG400 (M17/128) is fine IF its length is less than 8-4. I > find that this M17/128 is the spec. for the RG400 sold by > suppliers like Aircraft Spruce, SteinAir, and B & C. > > The chart also lists an RG304 for lengths up to 126, and RG393 > for lengths up to 17-3. > > There is also a link below the chart to manufacturers data which > is more specificthere is clearly a special realm reserved for > coax cables. > > Ive located a source for the RG393 where I can buy a minimum of > 100 feet at $6.89/ftand Im having trouble swallowing. > > Im skeptical of the notion that SkyView customers are using coax > other than the widely available RG400 (M17-128), and Im VERY > reluctant to spring for this RG393. I do intend to replace ALL of > my RG58. > > Can someone who has some keen knowledge on this subject give me > some guidance? > > with appreciation, > > Fred > > * > > ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > * -->http://www.matronics.com/con=============== > > * > > > > > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2014
Fred, >From what I have read on previous posts, RG-58 is fine for the com radio. You did not say how long the transponder coax is in your Europa. How long is it? If the length is excessive, can you move the transponder closer to the antenna as suggested in the Skyview installation manual? I suggest that you call SteinAir and ask their advice. If it necessary to use expensive cable, SteinAir can sell you only the length needed with professionally installed connectors. For others, here is a link to the Skyview installation guide: http://www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/Install_Guides/SkyView_System_Installation_Guide-Rev_R_v11.0.pdf See pages 11-12 through 11-13 Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431938#431938 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
> >I'm skeptical of the notion that SkyView >customers are using coax other than the widely >available RG400 (M17-128), and I=99m VERY >reluctant to spring for this RG393. I do intend to replace ALL of my RG58. > >Can someone who has some keen knowledge on this subject give me some guidance? Your gut reaction is on track . . . Coax cable decisions for the vast majority of GA feed line decisions is not unlike deciding which laundry soap to use on your wash-n-wear shirts. Unless they are contaminated with something extra-ordinary . . . like road tar . . . the dirt-removing performance offered by any of the dozens of choices on the laundry soap isle will produce satisfactory results. Take a peek down the 'laundry soap' isle for coax cable . . . http://tinyurl.com/kjjvuel Who ever called out RG-393 for a general aviation antenna installation should be banished for 30 days to each lunch at McDonalds. This stuff has a 10AWG center conductor and an outside diameter of 0.4" If the coax was FREE, you'd still have to find connectors and tools to install them . . . lots of $thrashing$ around just to get 1db of loss in a 10' run at GPS frequencies. If you REALLY want/need that kind of performance, consider LMR-240 coax. http://tinyurl.com/kw9s2n8 MUCH less expensive and easier route (0.24" diam) but still problematic for acquisition and personal installation of the desired connectors. Fortunately, there are folks who will build a custom length of this cable with the right connectors for a fraction of the cost of RG-393. Contact this guy . . . http://tinyurl.com/nz9cjpg On the other hand, if you have connectors and tools for RG400/RG141 . . . this stuff would probably be just fine. I still have some 141 on hand . . . tell me what connectors you need and I can probably make an attractive offer ($0.13/inch and $5/connector). LMR-195 is superior performance to RG58 and on a par with 400/141 . . . and uses same tools/connectors as the RG series coax. I've installed about a half dozen connectors on LMR-195 . . . it's a little finicky but it's just another process to be learned. Cool thing is that it's really inexpensive. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: RG393 coax
Date: Oct 16, 2014
Gentlemen=85thank you for your helpful replies=85 re: RG58 for COM Dynon sez, "Regarding your choice of routing and coaxial cable, in my personal experience as an Amateur Radio Operator, while RG58 coaxial cable will work, and work acceptably in the absence of other signals and potential interference, it is overall a poor coaxial cable. In the long run, especially now while you have the luxury of easy access during the build process, you will be much better served, overall, in the long term, by using the much better RG400 coaxial cable. It will much better resist potential radio frequency interference sources within the fuselage. "Put it this way - with RG58, your COM radio will be "listening" not only to signals coming in from the antenna, but also all the "birdies" from within the fuselage. With RG400, your COM radio will only be listening to the signals from the antenna.=94 re: Length of run for XPNDR coax in my aircraft=85 At present, the run is approx. 8 feet, however, this routing puts it in the same raceway as my 4AWG feeder AND 4AWG ground=85(battery and XPNDR antenna are aft of the cockpit)=85when upgrading my coax, I was anticipating changing the routing so that it is separate from these heavy duty power lines and this would increase the length of coax to about 13 feet=85I MAY be able to relocate the XPNDR antenna to reduce that distance to 10 feet. re: Bob=92s comment: > Your gut reaction is on track . . . > Take a peek down the 'laundry soap' isle for coax > cable . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/kjjvuel =85I can only respond w/ a =93=85geesus=85=94=85as I previously noted, my eyes were opened to a whole new world of coax=85it looks like a very deep rabbit hole=85one which I need not explore further. OK=85moving forward=85 I=92m going to order some RG400 (M17/128) for my XPNDR=85and keep it in the raceway alongside the 4AWG feeders to keep the run as short as possible. In doing so, I am relying on my memory of an older post of Bob=92s which stated, if I recall correctly, that there is NO EVIDENCE of coax performance being compromised by adjacency to 12v power feeders. (I=92d appreciate a correction if I=92m in error.) And since my set up allows for swapping out the RG58 for my COM antenna anytime, I think I may just leave it in for now and replace it w/ RG400 only if problems show up. I=92m having one of those days where I say, =93=85screw it=85I want to get this puppy airborne=85=94 Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RG393 coax
>Im going to order some RG400 (M17/128) for my >XPNDRand keep it in the raceway alongside the >4AWG feeders to keep the run as short as >possible. In doing so, I am relying on my memory >of an older post of Bobs which stated, if I >recall correctly, that there is NO EVIDENCE of >coax performance being compromised by adjacency >to 12v power feeders. (Id appreciate a correction if Im in error.) Correct. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2014
From: n1deltawhiskey(at)comcast.net
Subject: battery cables
Bob, Several years ago I acquired pre-cut and connector installed battery cables - I believe from you or B&C. I recently found that there was corrosion on one of the PC680 battery ground terminal connections. I want to replace the offending battery and install new #4 cables from each battery to the #2 ground cable. Though the #2 cable connector was involved, only the area around the end of the connector was involved so it can be restored, reused and protected; the wire itself was also corroded in the case with the single #4 jumper. I need one 4" wire length with connector tabs same side of cable, and one cable 3" wire length, connector tabs on opposite side of the cable, both #4 cable. This will get the #2 wire removed from the battery terminals. I did not find pre-cut and connector fitted cables on the B&C website. Can you advise a source where I might obtain these? Regards, Doug Windhorn ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: battery cables
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2014
Doug, One option is to take your cables to a local welding supply store and purcha se welding cable to replace them. They will cut the new cable to the correct length and install the connectors of your choice. The welding cable is ver y flexible and easy to work with. The other option is to go to a marine supply store such as west marine and p urchase the cables and connectors there. This option will be a bit more expe nsive. Good luck Justin. > On Oct 16, 2014, at 19:01, n1deltawhiskey(at)comcast.net wrote: > > Bob, > > Several years ago I acquired pre-cut and connector installed battery cable s - I believe from you or B&C. I recently found that there was corrosion on o ne of the PC680 battery ground terminal connections. I want to replace the o ffending battery and install new #4 cables from each battery to the #2 groun d cable. Though the #2 cable connector was involved, only the area around th e end of the connector was involved so it can be restored, reused and protec ted; the wire itself was also corroded in the case with the single #4 jumper . > > I need one 4" wire length with connector tabs same side of cable, and one c able 3" wire length, connector tabs on opposite side of the cable, both #4 c able. This will get the #2 wire removed from the battery terminals. I did no t find pre-cut and connector fitted cables on the B&C website. > > Can you advise a source where I might obtain these? > > Regards, Doug Windhorn > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: battery cables
From: "bcondrey" <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
B&C still sells these - they're listed as "Super-Flex Battery Lead - Red" (also a "-Black" version). http://www.bandc.biz/grounding-supplies-battery-cables.aspx Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431979#431979 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: battery cables
At 20:01 2014-10-16, you wrote: >Bob, > >Several years ago I acquired pre-cut and connector installed battery >cables - I believe from you or B&C. I recently found that there was >corrosion on one of the PC680 battery ground terminal connections. I >want to replace the offending battery and install new #4 cables from >each battery to the #2 ground cable. Though the #2 cable connector >was involved, only the area around the end of the connector was >involved so it can be restored, reused and protected; the wire >itself was also corroded in the case with the single #4 jumper. > >I need one 4" wire length with connector tabs same side of cable, >and one cable 3" wire length, connector tabs on opposite side of the >cable, both #4 cable. This will get the #2 wire removed from the >battery terminals. I did not find pre-cut and connector fitted >cables on the B&C website. > > Can you advise a source where I might obtain these? Many moons ago I did supplied these products. In the interim, B&C has added super-flex jumper service to their catalog. http://tinyurl.com/ow4uwxw Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
Who makes affordable crankcase ferrous particle detectors? Eric -------- 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=431984#431984 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2014
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com>
Hi Eric, you wrote <> I may have misunderstood this to mean a "chip detector" which I have fitted to my Lycoming 0-320 engined aircraft. I sourced mine from a breaker - there are plenty of crashed Robinson R22s out there, and all have chip/particle detectors in their gearboxes. I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordable from the breaker. my 10c FWIW Bill Allen LongEz160 N99BA FD51 CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ On 17 October 2014 20:06, Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones(at)charter.net> > > Who makes affordable crankcase ferrous particle detectors? > > Eric > > -------- > 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=431984#431984 > > -- Bill Allen LongEz160 N99BA FD51 CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Q?Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Crankcase_ferrous_particle_detectors=3F?
Date: Oct 17, 2014
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpJIGRvbid0IGtub3cgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIHNvdXJj ZSBvZiB0aGVzZSB3aGVuIG5ldywgYnV0IHRoZXkncmUgYWZmb3JkYWJsZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBicmVh a2VyLg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCmF0IHRoZSByaXNrIG9mIHNvdW5kaW5nIHN0dXBpZCwgbWF5IEkgYXNr LCB3aG8gaXMg4oCcdGhlIGJyZWFrZXLigJ0/DQoNCg0KDQpSb2dlcg= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net>
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Strange_characters?
Date: Oct 17, 2014
RG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyB3aHkgSSBnZXQgYWxsIHRoZSBzdHJhbmdlIGNoYXJhY3RlcnMgb24g dGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiBteSBzdWJtaXNzaW9ucyB0byB0aGUgbGlzdD8gIEkgYW0gdXNpbmcgT3V0 bG9vayB3aXRoIFdpbmRvd3MgOC4NCg0KDQpSb2dlcg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0K DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KKe+/ve+/vd+ie2zvv70377+9cu+/vWjvv71NNO+/vU0f acec77+977+977+9eu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vS7vv70n77+9Thfvv71677+9BO+/ve+/vS3vv70nIO+/ ve+/vUTvv73vv73vv70W77+977+9Sx7vv70X77+9au+/ve+/vScsListFeatuu+/ve+/vTXvv73i gato77+977+9G++/ve+/vSx677+9Xu+/ve+/ve+/vS4rLe+/vdil77+92J7vv73LnO+/ve+/vSDv v73vv71U77+977+9bu+/vSvvv73vv71i77+9cCtyGO+/vXkn77+977+977+9Q++/vSDload7IO+/ ve+/ve+/ve+/vSx4KFrvv71QED4aLe+/ve+/vVrvv73vv712a++/ve+/vWvvv73vv71qK3nvv71r ee+/vW3vv73vv73vv73vv70gJmrvv73vv70nLHLvv73vv70177+94oGraO+/vQfvv73vv71JXnLv v73vv71w77+977+977+9G23vv73vv73vv73vv70g77+977+977+9J++/ve+/vRzvv71v77+9au+/ ve+/vWrvv70rAe+/ve+/vRJX77+977+977+977+9List77+977+9TRPvv70gJO+/vRARTkVDEknv v73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv70n77+977+977+9alsoau+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXrvv73vv73v v70X77+9ee+/vWjvv73vv71qGu+/vX4bbe+/ve+/vd+i77+977+977+9Zu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXLv v70o77+9G23vv73vv73fou+/ve+/ve+/vWbvv73vv73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ vULvv717a++/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXnvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71qeTLvv73vv73vv70qLu+/ vQfvv71677+9Lu+/vcup77+977+977+9Me+/vW0O77+977+977+977+977+977+9He+/vSnahu+/ ve+/ve+/ve+/vWnvv73vv70w77+9Zu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXLvv70o77+977+9KO+/ve+/ve+/vW7v v71i77+9eG3vv73vv73vv73vv70gJmrvv73vv70nLHLvv73vv71y77+977+9Ju+/vSon77+977+9 77+977+977+9J++/ve+/vWt777+977+9dy/vv71p ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
Date: Oct 17, 2014
What's the output from one of these sensors, and what are you monitoring/dis playing it with? Eric On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Bill Allen wrote: > I may have misunderstood this to mean a "chip detector" which I have fitt ed to my Lycoming 0-320 engined aircraft. > > I sourced mine from a breaker - there are plenty of crashed Robinson R22s o ut there, and all have chip/particle detectors in their gearboxes. > > I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordable from the breaker. > > my 10c FWIW > > Bill Allen > LongEz160 N99BA FD51 > CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
Date: Oct 17, 2014
They're called wreckers in the auto business. They break up junk aircraft a nd sell off parts, then recycle the hull. Eric On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:29 PM, wrote: > at the risk of sounding stupid, may I ask, who is "the breaker"? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
Most of the chip detectors are in the shape of a spark plug, but smaller. Th ey have two magnetic posts that are also electrical contacts. When enough fe rrous metal collects on the magnetic co facts, it closes a circuit. You can w ire it to illuminate a light on the panel or to display on a dynon engine mo nitor. Other monitors may display the condition of a contact as well. Hope this helps. Justin > On Oct 17, 2014, at 13:50, Eric Page wrote: > > What's the output from one of these sensors, and what are you monitoring/d isplaying it with? > > Eric > > >> On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Bill Allen wrot e: >> I may have misunderstood this to mean a "chip detector" which I have fit ted to my Lycoming 0-320 engined aircraft. >> >> I sourced mine from a breaker - there are plenty of crashed Robinson R22s out there, and all have chip/particle detectors in their gearboxes. >> >> I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordabl e from the breaker. >> >> my 10c FWIW >> >> Bill Allen >> LongEz160 N99BA FD51 >> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
I meant to say contacts. Not co facts. > On Oct 17, 2014, at 14:13, Justin Jones wrote : > > Most of the chip detectors are in the shape of a spark plug, but smaller. T hey have two magnetic posts that are also electrical contacts. When enough f errous metal collects on the magnetic co facts, it closes a circuit. You can wire it to illuminate a light on the panel or to display on a dynon engine m onitor. Other monitors may display the condition of a contact as well. > > Hope this helps. > > Justin > > > >> On Oct 17, 2014, at 13:50, Eric Page wrote: >> >> What's the output from one of these sensors, and what are you monitoring/ displaying it with? >> >> Eric >> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Bill Allen wro te: >>> I may have misunderstood this to mean a "chip detector" which I have fi tted to my Lycoming 0-320 engined aircraft. >>> >>> I sourced mine from a breaker - there are plenty of crashed Robinson R22 s out there, and all have chip/particle detectors in their gearboxes. >>> >>> I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordab le from the breaker. >>> >>> my 10c FWIW >>> >>> Bill Allen >>> LongEz160 N99BA FD51 >>> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ >> >> >> D=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=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> D=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=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> //forums.matronics.com >> D=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=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
Date: Oct 17, 2014
IlRoZSBicmVha2VycyIgaXMgdGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggdGVybSBmb3Igd2hhdCBpbiB0aGUgVVMgaXMg Y29tbW9ubHkgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gYXMgYSAid3JlY2tpbmcgeWFyZCIgb3IgImp1bmsgeWFyZCIu DQpJbiB0aGlzIGNvbnRleHQgaXQgd291bGQgYWxzbyBtZWFuICJhaXJjcmFmdCBzYWx2YWdlIHlh cmQiLg0KDQpCb2IgTWNDDQoNCkZyb206IHJuamN1cnRpc0BjaGFydGVyLm5ldA0KVG86IGFlcm9l bGVjdHJpYy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlz dDogQ3JhbmtjYXNlIGZlcnJvdXMgcGFydGljbGUgZGV0ZWN0b3JzPw0KRGF0ZTogRnJpLCAxNyBP Y3QgMjAxNCAxOToyOToyNCArMDAwMA0KDQoKCgoKCgoNCg0KDQoNCkkgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyB0aGUg b3JpZ2luYWwgc291cmNlIG9mIHRoZXNlIHdoZW4gbmV3LCBidXQgdGhleSdyZSBhZmZvcmRhYmxl IGZyb20gdGhlIGJyZWFrZXIuDQphdCB0aGUgcmlzayBvZiBzb3VuZGluZyBzdHVwaWQsIG1heSBJ IGFzaywgd2hvIGlzIOKAnHRoZSBicmVha2Vy4oCdPw0KUm9nZXIKCgoKKe+/ve+/vd+ie2zvv703 77+9cu+/vWjvv71NNO+/vU0facec77+977+977+9eu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vS7vv70n77+9Thfvv716 77+9BO+/ve+/vS3vv70nCe+/ve+/vUTvv73vv73vv70W77+977+9Sx7vv70X77+9au+/ve+/vScs ListFeatuu+/ve+/vTXvv73igato77+977+9G++/ve+/vSx677+9Xu+/ve+/ve+/vS4rLe+/vdil 77+92J7vv73LnO+/ve+/vQnvv73vv71U77+977+9bu+/vSvvv73vv71i77+9cCtyGO+/vXkn77+9 77+977+9Q++/vQnload7Cu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSx4KFrvv71QED4aLe+/ve+/vVrvv73vv712a++/ ve+/vWvvv73vv71qK3nvv71ree+/vW3vv73vv73vv73vv70MJmrvv73vv70nLHLvv73vv70177+9 4oGraO+/vQfvv73vv71JXnLvv73vv71w77+977+977+9G23vv73vv73vv73vv70J77+977+977+9 J++/ve+/vRzvv71v77+9au+/ve+/vWrvv70rAe+/ve+/vRJX77+977+977+977+9List77+977+9 TRPvv70gJO+/vRARTkVDEknvv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv70n77+977+977+9alsoau+/ve+/ ve+/ve+/ve+/vXrvv73vv73vv70X77+9ee+/vWjvv73vv71qGu+/vX4bbe+/ve+/vd+i77+977+9 77+9Zu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXLvv70o77+9G23vv73vv73fou+/ve+/ve+/vWbvv73vv73vv73vv71y 77+9KO+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vULvv717a++/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXnvv73vv73vv73vv73v v71qeTLvv73vv73vv70qLu+/vQfvv71677+9Lu+/vcup77+977+977+9Me+/vW0O77+977+977+9 77+977+977+9He+/vSnahu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vWnvv73vv70w77+9Zu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXLvv70o 77+977+9KO+/ve+/ve+/vW7vv71i77+9eG3vv73vv73vv73vv70MJmrvv73vv70nLHLvv73vv71y 77+977+9Ju+/vSon77+977+977+977+977+9J++/ve+/vWt777+977+9dy/vv71pIAkJIAkgICAJ CSAg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture
From: "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
The project is pretty well on it's way. As far as hard decisions I think Bob went to great lengths with the panel and also talked somewhere about the electrical as far as flight instruments goes as well. Here is a link to some pics and information about the current state of affairs with the project. I have not seen it in person and likely will not until I can pick it up next spring. http://www.krnet.org/krs/boblee/ Please go have a look and I am expecting some pictures of the back of the panel at some point so I can see what is going on there. The instrument on the right (beside the Loran) is a Rocky Mountain Instruments micro monitor for quiet a number of functions I have worked on a few projects but not much electrical, I have a Preceptor Ultra Pup that I am learning about some aspects as I maintain it. Thanks for posting back on my post guys. Bob R Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431997#431997 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture
From: "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
Also see the first post as that is what I responded to Lee KR-2 System Architecture Maybe he sent you something at one time.. looks like back in 2009 Thanks Bob R Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431998#431998 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2014
Eric - Continental offers a number of sump plugs with integral magnets... Neal George Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:06 PM, "Eric M. Jones" wrote: > > > Who makes affordable crankcase ferrous particle detectors? > > Eric > > -------- > 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=431984#431984 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2014
Subject: Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors?
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Some helicopter mag plugs also have a high current connection to burn 'fuzz'. A mag plug warning from the main (or tailrotor) gearbox is a 'land immediate' or 'land as soon as possible' event, so false alarms have serious consequences - helicopters scattered all over the country side. If the warning is due to a large chip indicating a gear or bearing is breaking up then its done its job. But if its due to a collection of small particles - or fuzz - then no one's very impressed. The plugs can be pulled regularly and cleaned, but that just adds to the servicing cost. Alternatively using a high current in the chip detector circuit means the fuzz doesn't cause (so many) false alarms. My experience is that most false alarms occur within the first few hours from delivery - or perhaps that is just a reflection on the quality standards of 1990s military suppliers... Peter On Oct 17, 2014 9:27 PM, "Justin Jones" wrote: > Most of the chip detectors are in the shape of a spark plug, but smaller. > They have two magnetic posts that are also electrical contacts. When enough > ferrous metal collects on the magnetic co facts, it closes a circuit. You > can wire it to illuminate a light on the panel or to display on a dynon > engine monitor. Other monitors may display the condition of a contact as > well. > > Hope this helps. >


August 29, 2014 - October 18, 2014

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mm