AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-pb

August 01, 2019 - September 03, 2019



      Hi Art,
      
      Sliding is what I'd consider an advantage. Once the wire is in the 
      connector (for me, that's right after labeling), then it can't leave the 
      wire. And once the wire is in its bundle, the label can't move very far 
      away from the connector. I could then slide/rotate the label so I can 
      read it while 'dumpster diving' under the panel at a future date.
      
      On 8/1/2019 1:08 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
      > The labels that I had would slide freely up and down the 22 awg wire. 
      > That's why I had to put a smaller sleeve underneath
      >
      >
      > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 1:06 PM Charlie England  > wrote:
      >
      >     Is that really a disadvantage? Once bundled, the label won't
      >     travel far. And I've found that my labels that can't be moved a
      >     bit often are difficult to read because the printed area happens
      >     to face into a bundle, or has another wire's label in the way.
      >     Sliding them along the wire an inch or two, and being able to
      >     rotate them would be an advantage, for me.
      >
      >     Charlie
      >
      >
      >     On 8/1/2019 11:06 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
      >>     You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some
      >>     small, unmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label
      >>     over that.
      >>
      >>       -- Art Z.
      >>
      >>     On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM Sebastien >     > wrote:
      >>
      >>         I am going to be making a bunch of harnesses next week and
      >>         would like to find a good solution for marking wires. I need
      >>         to custom label very clear and specific markings on many
      >>         wires to make it easy for the customer to install so I was
      >>         thinking of getting a DYMO Printer and using their 1/4"
      >>         Heat-Shrink. Has anyone used this system and would it work
      >>         for 22 gauge wire? I'm afraid it either won't shrink down far
      >>         enough to be secure on the wire or won't be readable once it
      >>         does.
      >>
      >>         Thank you
      >>
      >>     -- 
      >>     https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
      >>
      >>     /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt.
      >>     /Deut. 10:19
      >
      >
      >     
      >     	Virus-free. www.avast.com
      >     
      >
      >
      >     <#m_9019167577042916761_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
      >
      
      
      ---
      This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
      https://www.avast.com/antivirus
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: marking wires, a variation?
Date: Aug 01, 2019
A variation on the shrink tubing idea: I like the idea of being able to add a label *after* a wire has been inserted in a connector. This can be driven by several things; 'I forgot', 'I'm chasing unlabeled wires', etc. I've played with a decent label maker, but while its labels stick tenaciously to just about everything, the adhesive doesn't stick well to itself, when folded over the wire to make a 'flag'. Anyone tried this that can recommend a brand that works? Thanks, Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
At 11:06 AM 8/1/2019, you wrote: >You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some >small, unmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. Another option: Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
At 11:06 AM 8/1/2019, you wrote: >You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some >small, unmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. Another option: Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
At 11:06 AM 8/1/2019, you wrote: >You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some >small, unmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. Another option: Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2019
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
Sebastian, I have used a DYMO printer for wire marking for years. Works great. Arts suggestion for 22AWG should work for your teeny wire. Blue skies & tailwinds, Bob Borger Sent from my iPad > On Aug 1, 2019, at 09:25, Sebastien wrote: > > I am going to be making a bunch of harnesses next week and would like to find a good solution for marking wires. I need to custom label very clear and specific markings on many wires to make it easy for the customer to install so I was thinking of getting a DYMO Printer and using their 1/4" Heat-Shrink. Has anyone used this system and would it work for 22 gauge wire? I'm afraid it either won't shrink down far enough to be secure on the wire or won't be readable once it does. > > Thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
From: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net>
Date: Aug 01, 2019
I use 1/8=9D / 3mm shrink tubes for 22 ga wire. They can still be move d but they are fairly tight. I have an old Bee 3+ labeler. (I think the latest Epson equivalent is the LW -PX900.) Don=99t think you can get tube that small for the Dymo. Chuck On Aug 1, 2019, at 11:06, Art Zemon wrote: You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some small, unm arked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. -- Art Z. > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM Sebastien wrote: > I am going to be making a bunch of harnesses next week and would like to f ind a good solution for marking wires. I need to custom label very clear and specific markings on many wires to make it easy for the customer to install so I was thinking of getting a DYMO Printer and using their 1/4" Heat-Shrin k. Has anyone used this system and would it work for 22 gauge wire? I'm afra id it either won't shrink down far enough to be secure on the wire or won't b e readable once it does. > > Thank you -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2019
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
1/4" is the smallest for the Dymo. I think I'll order a bunch of clear heat shrink and use Bob's method. On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 17:52 Chuck Birdsall wrote: > I use 1/8=9D / 3mm shrink tubes for 22 ga wire. They can still be m oved but > they are fairly tight. > > I have an old Bee 3+ labeler. (I think the latest Epson equivalent is the > LW-PX900.) > > Don=99t think you can get tube that small for the Dymo. > > Chuck > > On Aug 1, 2019, at 11:06, Art Zemon wrote: > > You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some small, > unmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. > > -- Art Z. > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM Sebastien wrote: > >> I am going to be making a bunch of harnesses next week and would like to >> find a good solution for marking wires. I need to custom label very clea r >> and specific markings on many wires to make it easy for the customer to >> install so I was thinking of getting a DYMO Printer and using their 1/4" >> Heat-Shrink. Has anyone used this system and would it work for 22 gauge >> wire? I'm afraid it either won't shrink down far enough to be secure on the >> wire or won't be readable once it does. >> >> Thank you >> > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2019
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
Kroy has a 1/8=9D shrink tube printer etc. I have found that the print ing smears. After shrinking it shrink a clear over it Rich Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 1, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Sebastien wrote: > > 1/4" is the smallest for the Dymo. I think I'll order a bunch of clear hea t shrink and use Bob's method. > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 17:52 Chuck Birdsall wrote: >> I use 1/8=9D / 3mm shrink tubes for 22 ga wire. They can still be m oved but they are fairly tight. >> >> I have an old Bee 3+ labeler. (I think the latest Epson equivalent is the LW-PX900.) >> >> Don=99t think you can get tube that small for the Dymo. >> >> Chuck >> >> On Aug 1, 2019, at 11:06, Art Zemon wrote: >> >> You're right; it won't shrink enough for 22 AWG wire. Shrink some small, u nmarked shrink tube on the wire. Then shrink your label over that. >> >> -- Art Z. >> >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:45 AM Sebastien wrote: >>> I am going to be making a bunch of harnesses next week and would like to find a good solution for marking wires. I need to custom label very clear a nd specific markings on many wires to make it easy for the customer to insta ll so I was thinking of getting a DYMO Printer and using their 1/4" Heat-Shr ink. Has anyone used this system and would it work for 22 gauge wire? I'm af raid it either won't shrink down far enough to be secure on the wire or won' t be readable once it does. >>> >>> Thank you >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: I think my email client is getting hidebound . . .
My posting about the wire labels failed to show up as sent in my email outbox . . . in spite of what must have been multiple 'clicks'. I see that in fact, the thing did squirt out multiple postings. Sorry 'bout that. Just looking over the history files and I find that I've got List traffic dating back to 2002 . . . over 17,000 posts. Maybe I should figure out how to archive them and spin up a new install of a program that hasn't been cleaned up in 17 years! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Marking Wires
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Date: Aug 02, 2019
I have a Rhino 4200. The 1/4" heat shrink tubing shrinks down to 22AWG okay. You can break it loose so it will slide. In fact, I made a tool to help slide the tubing on all sizes. 5 years later, still legible. Except in the engine compartment. Some of those are getting hard to read from dirt/oil/grease. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490651#490651 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 02, 2019
Subject: Re: I think my email client is getting hidebound .
. . Whoa. Eudora. Haven't heard of that in more than a decade. :-) You certainly brought a nostalgic smile to my face this morning, Bob. I was a died in the wool MH user. Then switched to Netscape. Then Thunderbird. I liked having my email in plain text files that could be moved from desktop to desktop to desktop as I upgraded my hardware. Simple. Reliable. Then I found myself using multiple devices and POP + Thunderbird got unwieldy so I switched to IMAP + Thunderbird. Even that got to be a pain, particularly when the interwebs were slow or I spent a long time away from home on a trip. I finally joined the dark side and switched to a paid G Suite account. The Gmail UI isn't too bad, runs on any device that happens to be in my hand at the moment, and has POP and IMAP for interfacing to old clients (or exporting mail) should I ever want to do that. The only downside is that I have to pay for it. (Do note that I am talking about the paid G Suite, which does not have ads, and not the free Gmail which does serve up ads.) Give it a thought. If you want to move your archived emails into Gmail, it's simple and I can coach you through it. -- Art Z. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:23 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > My posting about the wire labels > failed to show up as sent in my email > outbox . . . in spite of what must have > been multiple 'clicks'. > > I see that in fact, the thing did squirt > out multiple postings. Sorry 'bout that. > Just looking over the history files and > I find that I've got List traffic dating > back to 2002 . . . over 17,000 posts. > > Maybe I should figure out how to archive > them and spin up a new install of a > program that hasn't been cleaned up > in 17 years! > > Bob . . . > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: I think my email client is getting hidebound
. . . At 06:05 AM 8/2/2019, you wrote: >Whoa. Eudora. Haven't heard of that in more than a decade. :-) You >certainly brought a nostalgic smile to my face this morning, Bob. > >I was a died in the wool MH user. Then switched to Netscape. Then >Thunderbird. I liked having my email in plain text files that could >be moved from desktop to desktop to desktop as I upgraded my >hardware. Simple. Reliable. Yeah, Eudora does that . . . and it turns out that the problem is not on my end. My email server is having trouble getting the handshake for outbound mail. Matt runs my website and email server . . . I'll have to bug him about it. Eudora has served me well for decades. It doesn't need to 'install' to run under windows. In fact, when on the road, I can move and run three separate email accounts on my travel laptop out of a thumbdrive . . . then put the whole thing back on the desktop when I get home. The plain text archives have proven valuable several times when I had to find a conversation based on a short character string. Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer . . . and Eudora has proven a capable hammer. I think Matt uses it too. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 02, 2019
Subject: Re: I think my email client is getting hidebound .
. . Art I don't think free gmail has ads any more. Maybe it's just my version but I can't find any ads and cannot remember seeing any for at least a decade. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:12 AM Art Zemon wrote: > Whoa. Eudora. Haven't heard of that in more than a decade. :-) You > certainly brought a nostalgic smile to my face this morning, Bob. > > I was a died in the wool MH user. Then switched to Netscape. Then > Thunderbird. I liked having my email in plain text files that could be > moved from desktop to desktop to desktop as I upgraded my hardware. Simple. > Reliable. Then I found myself using multiple devices and POP + Thunderbird > got unwieldy so I switched to IMAP + Thunderbird. Even that got to be a > pain, particularly when the interwebs were slow or I spent a long time away > from home on a trip. I finally joined the dark side and switched to a paid > G Suite account. The Gmail UI isn't too bad, runs on any device that > happens to be in my hand at the moment, and has POP and IMAP for > interfacing to old clients (or exporting mail) should I ever want to do > that. The only downside is that I have to pay for it. (Do note that I am > talking about the paid G Suite, which does not have ads, and not the free > Gmail which does serve up ads.) > > Give it a thought. If you want to move your archived emails into Gmail, > it's simple and I can coach you through it. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:23 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > >> My posting about the wire labels >> failed to show up as sent in my email >> outbox . . . in spite of what must have >> been multiple 'clicks'. >> >> I see that in fact, the thing did squirt >> out multiple postings. Sorry 'bout that. >> Just looking over the history files and >> I find that I've got List traffic dating >> back to 2002 . . . over 17,000 posts. >> >> Maybe I should figure out how to archive >> them and spin up a new install of a >> program that hasn't been cleaned up >> in 17 years! >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: I think my email client is getting hidebound .
. .
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 02, 2019
Both my regularly used email accounts are with gmail. No ads. Think about it; google doesn't need to push ads at us because they're collecting our lives & selling them to the people who *do* push ads at us. I *really HATE* gmail's native web interface. I use Thunderbird as my email client; works across computers but unfortunately their team hasn't had the resources to port it to android. Closest thing to a decent email client I've found for android is Bluemail. Far from ideal, but much better than the gmail app; at least for me. Charlie On 8/2/2019 9:53 PM, Sebastien wrote: > Art I don't think free gmail has ads any more. Maybe it's just my > version but I can't find any ads and cannot remember seeing any for at > least a decade. > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:12 AM Art Zemon > wrote: > > Whoa. Eudora. Haven't heard of that in more than a decade. :-) You > certainly brought a nostalgic smile to my face this morning, Bob. > > I was a died in the wool MH user. Then switched to Netscape. Then > Thunderbird. I liked having my email in plain text files that > could be moved from desktop to desktop to desktop as I upgraded my > hardware. Simple. Reliable. Then I found myself using multiple > devices and POP+ Thunderbird got unwieldy so I switched to IMAP+ > Thunderbird. Even that got to be a pain, particularly when the > interwebs were slow or I spent a long time away from home on a > trip. I finally joined the dark side and switched to a paid G > Suite account. The Gmail UI isn't too bad, runs on any device that > happens to be in my hand at the moment, and has POP and IMAP for > interfacing to old clients (or exporting mail) should I ever want > to do that. The only downside is that I have to pay for it. (Do > note that I am talking about the paid G Suite, which does not have > ads, and not the free Gmail which does serve up ads.) > > Give it a thought. If you want to move your archived emails into > Gmail, it's simple and I can coach you through it. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:23 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > wrote: > > My posting about the wire labels > failed to show up as sent in my email > outbox . . . in spite of what must have > been multiple 'clicks'. > > I see that in fact, the thing did squirt > out multiple postings. Sorry 'bout that. > Just looking over the history files and > I find that I've got List traffic dating > back to 2002 . . . over 17,000 posts. > > Maybe I should figure out how to archive > them and spin up a new install of a > program that hasn't been cleaned up > in 17 years! > > Bob . . . > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. > /Deut. 10:19 > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 04, 2019
Subject: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." Here are the details: I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the ground. I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my headset into the adapter. I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm radio is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily available under the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of the airplane, about 3 feet apart. I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try transmitting. The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. - PS Engineering audio panel. - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position lights off. - MGL iEFIS system - iPad and smartphone What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacKenzie <jmackenzie52(at)outlook.com>
Subject: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Date: Aug 04, 2019
Please remove me from email list! ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Art Zemon Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:23 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish f requency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." Here are the details: I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the ground. I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my headset into the adapter. I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm rad io is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily available u nder the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of the airplane, about 3 feet apart. I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try tra nsmitting. The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: * Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C volt age regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. * PS Engineering audio panel. * VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. * AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag * AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position l ights off. * MGL iEFIS system * iPad and smartphone What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 04, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Art Zemon wrote: > During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio > in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish > frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as > a higher frequency "alternator whine." > > Here are the details: > > I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the > ground. > > I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my > headset into the adapter. > > I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm > radio is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily > available under the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second > comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of > the airplane, about 3 feet apart. > > I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that > I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off > the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try > transmitting. > > The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. > > Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: > > - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C > voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. > - PS Engineering audio panel. > - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. > - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag > - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position > lights off. > - MGL iEFIS system > - iPad and smartphone > > What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication > is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. > > -- Art Z. > Hmmm (pardon the pun). More details? Was the handheld powered from ship's power or its internal batteries? Did you try it with the handheld's rubber ducky antenna? Does 'on the ground' mean without the engine running & everything powered off except the handheld? Have you tested sitting on the ground with engine running and normal stuff powered up as typical for flight? If you get the same noise in the above condition, I'd try shutting stuff down one at a time until everything's off or until the hum stops. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2019
From: Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Art, Do you get the hum if you use the Rubber Ducky antenna? Charlie wrote: During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." Here are the details: I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the ground. I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my headset into the adapter.=C2- I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm rad io is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily available u nder the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of the airplane, about 3 feet apart. I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try tra nsmitting. The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C volta ge regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. - PS Engineering audio panel. - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag=C2- - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position li ghts off. - MGL iEFIS system - iPad and smartphone What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. =C2- =C2- -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Aug 04, 2019
All good suggestions. I'll add turn off your phone and Ipad, remove any power adapters for them from 12 volt sockets. They are all known RF generators. On 8/4/2019 6:46 AM, Charlie England wrote: > > > > I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my > headset into the adapter. > > > The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. > > Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: > > * Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C > voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. > * PS Engineering audio panel. > * VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. > * AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag > * AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but > nav/position lights off. > * MGL iEFIS system > * iPad and smartphone > > What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup > communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. > > -- Art Z. > > Hmmm (pardon the pun). > More details? > Was the handheld powered from ship's power or its internal batteries? > Did you try it with the handheld's rubber ducky antenna? > Does 'on the ground' mean without the engine running & everything > powered off except the handheld? > Have you tested sitting on the ground with engine running and normal > stuff powered up as typical for flight? > If you get the same noise in the above condition, I'd try shutting stuff > down one at a time until everything's off or until the hum stops. > > Charlie > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacKenzie <jmackenzie52(at)outlook.com>
Subject: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Date: Aug 04, 2019
Please remove my email from the list. Thanks ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Kelly McMullen Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 8:03 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight m> All good suggestions. I'll add turn off your phone and Ipad, remove any power adapters for them from 12 volt sockets. They are all known RF generators. On 8/4/2019 6:46 AM, Charlie England wrote: > > > I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my > headset into the adapter. > > > The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. > > Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: > > * Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C > voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. > * PS Engineering audio panel. > * VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. > * AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag > * AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but > nav/position lights off. > * MGL iEFIS system > * iPad and smartphone > > What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup > communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. > > -- Art Z. > > Hmmm (pardon the pun). > More details? > Was the handheld powered from ship's power or its internal batteries? > Did you try it with the handheld's rubber ducky antenna? > Does 'on the ground' mean without the engine running & everything > powered off except the handheld? > Have you tested sitting on the ground with engine running and normal > stuff powered up as typical for flight? > If you get the same noise in the above condition, I'd try shutting stuff > down one at a time until everything's off or until the hum stops. > > Charlie > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacKenzie <jmackenzie52(at)outlook.com>
Subject: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Date: Aug 04, 2019
Please remove my email from the list. Thanks ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Charles Kuss Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:58 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight Art, Do you get the hum if you use the Rubber Ducky antenna? Charlie : During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish f requency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." Here are the details: I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the ground. I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my headset into the adapter. I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm rad io is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily available u nder the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of the airplane, about 3 feet apart. I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try tra nsmitting. The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: * Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C volt age regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. * PS Engineering audio panel. * VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. * AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag * AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position l ights off. * MGL iEFIS system * iPad and smartphone What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Unsubscribing
At 01:13 PM 8/4/2019, you wrote: >Please remove my email from the list. > >Thanks John, I see that you are subscribed to several lists on Matronics . . . so your intent is not clear. You can go to: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ and manage your own subscriptions. Sorry to see you go . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: I think my email client is getting hidebound
. . . Matt tells me that my personal sent-messages portal for aeroelectric.com has been moved to exploit the features in the Barracuda firewall. The firewall manages inbound traffic for all the lists and depending on the rate of spam hits, it may take up to a minute before a request is acknowledged and accepted for relay. First we're bombarded with robo calls at all hours of the day (had to give up my land-line number of 60+ years) and now our valued email server is getting bogged down with rotten eggs as well . . . 3$%#$ (expletive deleted). Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Email and Telephone Security
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially landlines. By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. Simple and cheap. If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend it. I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. Your ISP might have a similar interest. -------- 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=490702#490702 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
Eric, Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... Hope others contribute to this theme.... D On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones(at)charter.net> > > Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially > landlines. > > By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers > except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are > almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the > problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. > Simple and cheap. > > If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on > Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend > it. > > I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I > regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. > Your ISP might have a similar interest. > > -------- > 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=490702#490702 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
And more to the point, call your legislators, both state and federal, and let them know how you feel about 'regulatory' agencies (note the quotes) regulating consumers into helplessness instead of doing their job of regulating the utilities' ability to dump this garbage on us. Don't believe the line about comm companies being unable to stop it. They know where the spam originates; they just have no interest in stopping it, because our 'regulators' have abdicated their duties in the interest of their political bosses' greed for 'political contributions' (euphemism for bribes). Finally, know who, and *what* you're voting for. The inevitable endgame of pure, unrestrained capitalism (supported by bought & paid-for 'regulation') is feudalism. Sorry; rant mode off... Charlie On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:44 AM skywagon185guy . wrote: > Eric, > Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... > Hope others contribute to this theme.... > D > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: > >> emjones(at)charter.net> >> >> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially >> landlines. >> >> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers >> except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are >> almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the >> problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. >> Simple and cheap. >> >> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on >> Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend >> it. >> >> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I >> regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. >> Your ISP might have a similar interest. >> >> -------- >> Eric M. Jones >> www.PerihelionDesign.com >> 113 Brentwood Drive >> Southbridge, MA 01550 >> (508) 764-2072 >> emjones(at)charter.net >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
Another data point on phone communication and email servers... Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've experimented with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. I gave up my landline in favor of cell only. My provider T-mobile coupled with a Samsung android phone alerts to spam calls with near 100% accuracy. It's failure mode is to mis-identify a qualified caller as spam. My story... and it works for me. Chris Stone Rv-8 and Long-eze On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:44 AM skywagon185guy . wrote: > Eric, > Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... > Hope others contribute to this theme.... > D > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: > >> emjones(at)charter.net> >> >> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially >> landlines. >> >> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers >> except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are >> almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the >> problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. >> Simple and cheap. >> >> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on >> Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend >> it. >> >> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I >> regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. >> Your ISP might have a similar interest. >> >> -------- >> 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=490702#490702 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> - >> Electric-List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> ========== >> FORUMS - >> _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> WIKI - >> lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com >> ========== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ========== >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
Good point about Gmail's spam filtering. And since Gmail supports both POP and IMAP, it is perfectly reasonable to use Gmail (or G Suite) on the server side and Eudora or Thunderbird or whatever on the client side. -- Art Z. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:22 AM Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > Another data point on phone communication and email servers... > > Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've experimented > with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
Charlie, thanks for saying this. Too many people I know think "private companies are good, government regulators are bad." This black and white thinking is one of the reasons we are where we are today. On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:11 AM Charlie England wrote: > And more to the point, call your legislators, both state and federal, and > let them know how you feel about 'regulatory' agencies (note the quotes) > regulating consumers into helplessness instead of doing their job of > regulating the utilities' ability to dump this garbage on us. Don't believe > the line about comm companies being unable to stop it. They know where the > spam originates; they just have no interest in stopping it, because our > 'regulators' have abdicated their duties in the interest of their political > bosses' greed for 'political contributions' (euphemism for bribes). > > Finally, know who, and *what* you're voting for. The inevitable endgame of > pure, unrestrained capitalism (supported by bought & paid-for 'regulation') > is feudalism. > > Sorry; rant mode off... > > Charlie > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:44 AM skywagon185guy . > wrote: > >> Eric, >> Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... >> Hope others contribute to this theme.... >> D >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: >> >>> emjones(at)charter.net> >>> >>> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially >>> landlines. >>> >>> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers >>> except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are >>> almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the >>> problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. >>> Simple and cheap. >>> >>> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on >>> Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend >>> it. >>> >>> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I >>> regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. >>> Your ISP might have a similar interest. >>> >>> -------- >>> Eric M. Jones >>> www.PerihelionDesign.com >>> 113 Brentwood Drive >>> Southbridge, MA 01550 >>> (508) 764-2072 >>> emjones(at)charter.net >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
For me, gmail spam blocking is nearly perfect. Ken On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:12 AM Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > Another data point on phone communication and email servers... > > Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've experimented > with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. > > I gave up my landline in favor of cell only. My provider T-mobile coupled > with a Samsung android phone alerts to spam calls with near 100% accuracy. > It's failure mode is to mis-identify a qualified caller as spam. > > My story... and it works for me. > > Chris Stone > Rv-8 and Long-eze > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:44 AM skywagon185guy . > wrote: > >> Eric, >> Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... >> Hope others contribute to this theme.... >> D >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: >> >>> emjones(at)charter.net> >>> >>> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially >>> landlines. >>> >>> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers >>> except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are >>> almost 400 numbers who will never bother me again. This has not solved the >>> problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. >>> Simple and cheap. >>> >>> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on >>> Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend >>> it. >>> >>> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I >>> regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. >>> Your ISP might have a similar interest. >>> >>> -------- >>> 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=490702#490702 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> - >>> Electric-List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >>> ========== >>> FORUMS - >>> _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com >>> ========== >>> WIKI - >>> lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com >>> ========== >>> b Site - >>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >>> target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2019
Great, if you live in a major metro area. But 10 miles out of town on a 4 lane major thoroughfare, and I can get 3Mbit DSL (sometimes), and cell service in the house is a lot like a corded phone; you're 'tethered' to a location near a window or it doesn't work. Meanwhile, one of our Senators just allocated $25million in broadband grant money to a state hospital to install a replacement heliport. Charlie On 8/5/2019 10:04 AM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > Another data point on phone communication and email servers... > > Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've > experimented with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. > > I gave up my landline in favor of cell only. My provider T-mobile > coupled with a Samsung android phone alerts to spam calls with near > 100% accuracy. It's failure mode is to mis-identify a qualified caller > as spam. > > My story... and it works for me. > > Chris Stone > Rv-8 and Long-eze > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:44 AM skywagon185guy . > wrote: > > Eric, > Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... > Hope others contribute to this theme.... > D > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones > wrote: > > > > > Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, > especially landlines. > > By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and > phishers except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At > last count there are almost 400 numbers who will never bother > me again. This has not solved the problem, but I used to get > >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. Simple and cheap. > > If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled > on Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email > programs...) I recommend it. > > I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email > nonsense. I regularly send them my collection of fake email to > Phishing(at)Charter.net. Your ISP might have a similar interest. > > -------- > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com <http://www.PerihelionDesign.com> > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge, MA 01550 > (508) 764-2072 > emjones(at)charter.net <http://charter.net> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
From: Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com>
Date: Aug 07, 2019
I had the same problem in my house in NH with cell service. Usable in one upstairs bedroom. Terrible in the rest of the house. Dropped calls and hard to understand. I installed a "weBoost Connect 4G 470103R Indoor Cell Phone Signal Booster for Home and Office" and the cell service is great in pretty much all the house. Not particularly cheap ($550 new or $440 refurbished) but well worth it for us. We can actually use the phone without problems now. Dick Charlie England wrote: > Great, if you live in a major metro area. But 10 miles out of town on a 4 lane major thoroughfare, and I can get 3Mbit DSL (sometimes), and cell service in the house is a lot like a corded phone; > you're 'tethered' to a location near a window or it doesn't work. Meanwhile, one of our Senators just allocated $25million in broadband grant money to a state hospital to install a replacement heliport. > > Charlie > > On 8/5/2019 10:04 AM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: >> Another data point on phone communication and email servers... >> >> Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've experimented with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. >> >> I gave up my landline in favor of cell only. My provider T-mobile coupled with a Samsung android phone alerts to spam calls with near 100% accuracy. It's failure mode is to mis-identify a >> qualified caller as spam. >> >> My story... and it works for me. >> >> Chris Stone >> Rv-8 and Long-eze >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:44 AM skywagon185guy . > wrote: >> >> Eric, >> Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... >> Hope others contribute to this theme.... >> D >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones > wrote: >> >> >> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, especially landlines. >> >> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and phishers except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count there are almost 400 numbers who will never bother me >> again. This has not solved the problem, but I used to get >20 calls a day and not I get two or three. Simple and cheap. >> >> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled on Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I recommend it. >> >> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email nonsense. I regularly send them my collection of fake email to Phishing(at)Charter.net. Your ISP might have a similar interest. >> >> -------- >> Eric M. Jones >> www.PerihelionDesign.com <http://www.PerihelionDesign.com> >> 113 Brentwood Drive >> Southbridge, MA 01550 >> (508) 764-2072 >> emjones(at)charter.net <http://charter.net> >> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 07, 2019
Subject: Re: Email and Telephone Security
We had been living in a remote fringe cell area. Unreliable voice and no data. Flat topography but areas of thick fir forest between the house and cell tower. I purchased a SolidRF brand Cell Phone Booster. Once I got the YAGI antenna mounted on the second floor exterior wall and correctly aimed at the cell tower we has good voice and 4G data. I was surprised how well the system worked. Chris Stone On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:20 AM Dick Tasker wrote: > dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com> > > I had the same problem in my house in NH with cell service. Usable in > one upstairs bedroom. Terrible in the rest of the house. Dropped calls and > hard to understand. > > I installed a "weBoost Connect 4G 470103R Indoor Cell Phone Signal Booster > for Home and Office" and the cell service is great in pretty much all the > house. Not particularly cheap ($550 new or $440 > refurbished) but well worth it for us. We can actually use the phone > without problems now. > > Dick > > Charlie England wrote: > > Great, if you live in a major metro area. But 10 miles out of town on a > 4 lane major thoroughfare, and I can get 3Mbit DSL (sometimes), and cell > service in the house is a lot like a corded phone; > > you're 'tethered' to a location near a window or it doesn't work. > Meanwhile, one of our Senators just allocated $25million in broadband grant > money to a state hospital to install a replacement heliport. > > > > Charlie > > > > On 8/5/2019 10:04 AM, Christopher Cee Stone wrote: > >> Another data point on phone communication and email servers... > >> > >> Gmail does a better job of spam blocking than any add on I've > experimented with... Tbird, outlook, yahoo, eurdora... etc. > >> > >> I gave up my landline in favor of cell only. My provider T-mobile > coupled with a Samsung android phone alerts to spam calls with near 100% > accuracy. It's failure mode is to mis-identify a > >> qualified caller as spam. > >> > >> My story... and it works for me. > >> > >> Chris Stone > >> Rv-8 and Long-eze > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:44 AM skywagon185guy . > wrote: > >> > >> Eric, > >> Tips like your helps all of us with the same problem.... > >> Hope others contribute to this theme.... > >> D > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 AM Eric M. Jones > wrote: > >> > emjones(at)charter.net > > >> > >> Bob has expressed his frustration regarding phone security, > especially landlines. > >> > >> By this time I would have surrendered mine to the spammers and > phishers except for purchasing a "CPR Callblocker V5000." At last count > there are almost 400 numbers who will never bother me > >> again. This has not solved the problem, but I used to get >20 > calls a day and not I get two or three. Simple and cheap. > >> > >> If anyone is searching for a good Email server, I have settled > on Thunderbird. (After a dozen less-than-great email programs...) I > recommend it. > >> > >> I also keep my ISP informed regarding this spam and email > nonsense. I regularly send them my collection of fake email to > Phishing(at)Charter.net. Your ISP might have a similar interest. > >> > >> -------- > >> Eric M. Jones > >> www.PerihelionDesign.com <http://www.PerihelionDesign.com> > >> 113 Brentwood Drive > >> Southbridge, MA 01550 > >> (508) 764-2072 > >> emjones(at)charter.net <http://charter.net> > >> > > > > > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link > > > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Electrical Analysis of Flight wanted
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Aug 07, 2019
I would welcome any analysis of the electrical performance in this flight data. What are 'Back Volts'? Why is the batt voltage stuck on 8.5 v when it spun the engine with alacrity upon startup? Is the high amperage of the alternator trying to recharge the batt? What about voltage excursions? Should I increase LR3 voltage or is 14-ish OK for SLA batt? Anything else for concern? Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490750#490750 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/10_4_flight_data_edited_154.xls ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)GMAIL.COM>
Date: Aug 07, 2019
Subject: Re: Electrical Analysis of Flight wanted
There isn't much point to posting an excel file when a graphical view gives a much better and easier way to interpret the data. Upload it to Savvy and post a link. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 16:16 jonlaury wrote: > > I would welcome any analysis of the electrical performance in this flight > data. > > What are 'Back Volts'? > Why is the batt voltage stuck on 8.5 v when it spun the engine with > alacrity upon startup? > Is the high amperage of the alternator trying to recharge the batt? > What about voltage excursions? Should I increase LR3 voltage or is 14-ish > OK for SLA batt? > Anything else for concern? > > Thanks > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490750#490750 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/10_4_flight_data_edited_154.xls > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: marking wires, a variation?
From: "fidot" <web(at)79ft.net>
Date: Aug 07, 2019
In the datacenter / networking world, the two kinds the most common are wraparounds and flags that wrap around themselves. If the label maker is truly decent and you're using the right materials, you shouldn't have much issues. A lot of datacenter guys swear by Brady stuff which is on the expensive side, but really good. I have one; though I have not tried their flag and wrap around labels. Explore BMP21 printer (https://www.bradyid.com/en-us/product/bmp21-plus) and it's labels' selection (https://www.bradyid.com/resources/guides/bmp21-plus-labels-guide)... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490753#490753 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electrical Analysis of Flight wanted
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Aug 08, 2019
Thanks Sebastien. Forgot about that resource. I'll repost this with the Savvy graphs if I can find the original AFS 4500 data file. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490766#490766 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 08, 2019
Subject: How to solder :-P
[image: Is-she-a-model-or-a-worker.jpg] -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design
From: "fidot" <web(at)79ft.net>
Date: Aug 11, 2019
Folks, I am rebuilding an electrical on an experimental 2-hole biplane (a Marquart Charger), and I would like y'all's feedback on my wiring design. I have attached the full diagram and the load analysis/voltage drop analysis spreadsheet here, and below I have highlighted the main areas of "not sure" or ones where I'd like some feedback, which will be greatly appreciated! The whole shebang is also posted here: http://79ft.net/entries/2019-08-11-design-v1/, in case you prefer to read it with inline images. The Design The design is based on Figure Z-11 from AeroElectric Connection, with the following tweaks: I'm using the B&C LR3C Voltage Regulator, so it's wiring has been incorporated I dropped the Endurance and Main Battery busses I have tweaked the starting switches circuit, main buss feeder, and how ammeter is hooked up - see below for discussion The diagram is laid out to generally clump the components together as they would be on the airplane. It initially might seem convoluted - but it has a certain flow to it matching the locations of components. Start in bottom right corner for battery/starter/alternator circuitry and go counter clockwise - this will effectively take you "thru the airplane" as the components will be laid out; roughly. Specific Areas of Attention Starting / Mags Circuit See "Mags / Start Circuit" sub-diagram attached at the end. This is a deviation from Z-11, with both switches having to be in the momentary up position for starter to engage. I like this better for two reasons: It makes the act of starting the motor more explicit, and It returns back to correct "running" position automatically I need to test the ergonomics of pressing up a couple switches together. If I don't like it, another alternative would be to replace the "Right Mag" switch circuitry from -5 to -1: making the top position on it non-momentary (as noted on the diagram). This will reduce the "user-friendliness" but will still keep the explicitness, especially with my using pull-to-unlock switches from Honeywell. Main Power Distribution See "Charging and Power Distribution" attachment at the end. Note that: Shunt is set up to be in the "battery" lead. I like "battery lead" style ammeters, showing charge current on the 12-o-clock-plus segment, and discharge current on the 12-o-clock-minus segment. Note that the buss feeder wire is protected by a slow-burn 35A current limiter. In Z-11, that wire is not protected at all. My reasoning for this decision is that this wire is relatively long on my plane (around 4 feet), since fuse block is near the rear cockpit. I wanted to protect it. One area of concern here is that in the event of alternator short, the Ammeter Shunt will be a part of the alternator circuit that will see a lot of current while the 40A slow burn opens up. My gutfeel says it should be able to handle it, but I am not sure. At any rate, figure Z-11 has the same setup with shunt on the alternator's B-Lead. Voltage Regulator Sense Wire LR3C Voltage Regulator needs a separate "voltage sense" wire that one would normally connect to the main buss. Since the regulator in my case is closer to the firewall than to the buss (fuse) block, I am connecting it to the main battery circuitry (jumper wire between Starter and Master contactors). This is somewhat a shorter run and seems that it will be more logical to measure as close to the battery as possible (especially since I'm saving on wire lengths this way). Seems sensible to me. The sense wire will be 20 AWG, about 3' long, and connected via 24 AWG fuselink Voltage Regulator Field Supply Circuit See "Field Supply Circuit" attachment below. I copied the AeroElectric's figure Z-11 wire gauges here. In Z-11, everything upstream of Breaker is 18 AWG, and everything downstream is 20 AWG, but it's not explained why. Is this driven by a requirement to ensure that fuselink survives the short in the circuit in case of crowbaring, and the breaker pops first, w/o endangering the fuselink much (18 AWG allows for 22 AWG fuselink instead of 24 AWG)? Component Locations and Main Connector See "Component Locations" diagram in the attachments. Note that logically, the way one would wire this airplane would be to pre-wire switches and other items that go into the pilot's (back) instrument panel with long pigtails, then install the switches, and tie down wiring behind the panel. Then, the pigtails can be connected to fuse block and loads. Some of the load wires already exist (lighting for example), and they will have to be spliced to wires coming from switches. I have decided instead to locate a kind of "Main Connector" right there near the Fuse Block. A wire comes off of the Fuse Block, goes to the switch on the panel, then switched power is returned to the "Main Connector". Load is on the other side of Main Connector. This works for most with a couple exceptions. This serves a couple purposes: Create a logical "access point" into the main wire bundle, for reading labels, tracing wires later, and such, Simplify installation process Connect to existing load wires that are not being replaced For now, I am thinking about using Molex 0.093 pins in two housings (I have 13 circuits total to connect via this thing, and want to have room for further expansion). I would love suggestions here. One of the requirements is that it should be easily workable with a multimeter for tracing / testing purposes (I technically could've used D-Sub here , but am not due to this precise reason). Separate Switch for Turn and Bank Yes, it's weird to have that. The original electrical had it. I guess, the logic was to be able to shed half an amp of unnecessary load in the event of alternator failure, or it was just done for no good reason. I'm keeping it :). Front Panel Tach It's a Westach gauge (http://www.westach.com/instructions/Y2AT3-2.jpg) that feeds off of a magneto P-Lead. No separate power going to it. Westach asks for a 1/4 A inline fuse. But why? Seems unnecessary (we don't need to fuse P-Leads). Wire going to this tach in my opinion need to be shielded P-Lead wire. Not sure if I'm correct here. I need to tie into one of the P-Leads. I have three options: At magneto: I will effectively have two P-Leads coming off of one of them. I have Bendix mags, and connectors on those might make the whole hookup look ugly. Adds extra wire. At mag switch in the rear panel: just adds extra ~4 feet of wire for no reason. Y-Split the P-lead as it goes along the fuselage: this seems the most optimal wire-management wise, but I am not sure if splicing into a P-lead is kosher. I don't see any good reasons why that would be bad, but I don't know everything. This will likely be a soldered splice unless I find or someone suggests something better. This is my solution of choice at the moment. Panel Lighting I am on the fence on this one. On one hand, I can add a nice LED strip light and dimmer to light the panel up. On the other hand, this is extra weight, and "this is a biplane! you won't fly it at night!" vs. "well what if you find yourself out late" keeps nagging me. Note: I do not have a landing light (though in a biplane... that's somewhat a non-necessity ;) ). I am leaning towards doing it, because doing it now will be easy, and I will have the option to see my gauges at night, even if that Dark and Stormy Night will be a result of bad planning rather than an intentional thing. 10 AWG Feeder for Radios Radio stack was wired via the "Radio Master" switch prior. I was initially going to run separate power feeds to each of the things in the radio stack, but to get to it, I'll need to pull the wings off (yeah...). It's in between pilot's legs attached to the bottom of the cockpit. So, the feeder is staying. The stack has been wired by previous owner recently, and isn't wired badly - with individual fuses for each radio, and a 10 AWG feeder to it and ground "return" from it. I'm just putting this "hose" on a 30A fuse, which is more than enough to protect the wire and support all the loads from that stack. Strobe and Nav on the Same Circuit I am replacing (TailNav, WingNav) + (old heavy strobe on belly) with SkyBeacon and SkySensor on wingtips and nav/strobe on the tail, but I don't have enough wiring in the fuselage and wings to have a separate circuit for strobes. I do not plan to fly IFR (biplane!) so "strobes in the clouds" is not really an issue. When I will have the rag off the airplane, I will add a separate switching circuit for just the strobes. -- Well, if you have read it this far, I really appreciate it, and I will really appreciate any comments. Thanks! Fedor 'Fidot' Fomichev Chickenhouse Charger (was 23RG, now 6781G) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490804#490804 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/6781g_wiring_diagram_129.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/6781g_wiring_load_schedule_137.xlsx http://forums.matronics.com//files/starting_circuit_191.gif http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_distribution_127.gif http://forums.matronics.com//files/field_supply_204.gif http://forums.matronics.com//files/component_locations_709.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2019
That main connector is an unnecessary failure point. There are two crimps and the mating pins, a total of 3 failure points for each circuit. And since there are 13 connections, luck in not on your side. :-) Straight wires with no splices would be much more reliable. How often will it be necessary to unplug that connector? Compare the convenience of unplugging that connector to the inconvenience of troubleshooting and fixing a bad connection. - Consider eliminating the 35 amp ANL fuse. There is a reason the main power bus feeder is not fused in Bob's drawings. If it fails, all electrical power is lost. Compare that danger to the chances of the feeder shorting out. If you practice good workmanship, support the feeder well, and double insulate it where it passes through the firewall, then it is not going to short out. - The shunt location is a matter of personal preference. I prefer to measure alternator output rather than battery current. Or eliminate the shunt altogether, one less thing to fail. The voltmeter will tell if the alternator is working or not. Nice schematic. Keep up the good work. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490807#490807 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Plug/connector question
Date: Aug 12, 2019
The battery on my Excalibur is difficult to access. As a result, I want to bring a wire from the positive side of the battery to a more accessible location so I can hook a battery maintainer to it easily.?? That wire will have an in-line fuse, but I need to terminate it with a plug/connector that will not expose the hot connection to any sort of ground.?? Does anybody have a suggestion about what sort of connector would be appropriate? Thanks for any suggestions. Bill --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plug/connector question
From: "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2019
Trailer light connector Anderson Powerpole TE Connectivity/AMP MATE-N-LOK Delphi Weather-Pack Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490810#490810 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plug/connector question
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2019
On 8/12/2019 10:53 AM, Bill Steer wrote: > > > The battery on my Excalibur is difficult to access. As a result, I > want to bring a wire from the positive side of the battery to a more > accessible location so I can hook a battery maintainer to it easily.?? > That wire will have an in-line fuse, but I need to terminate it with a > plug/connector that will not expose the hot connection to any sort of > ground.?? Does anybody have a suggestion about what sort of connector > would be appropriate? > > Thanks for any suggestions. > > Bill Hi Bill, I'm usually a KISS kind of guy (except when it comes to music). Unless you're planning on start-cart level current, I'd use something like this, which is mfgr'd into many charger wiring harnesses: https://www.amazon.com/Sea-Dog-Polarized-Connector-2-Wire/dp/B000Y89TDM/ref=asc_df_B000Y89TDM/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312430092407&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4395166586976378804&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9013892&hvtargid=pla-569344392136&psc=1 The exposed black pin would be the ground for the a/c electrical system, and the connector can just be tucked out of the way when not in use. The exposed red pin on its mate would be fed by the charger, and shouldn't get powered until the connectors are mated. The q&a for that particular product indicates that the wire size is anything from 14 to 18 gauge (depending on who answers), but even 18 gauge should handle plenty of current from a slow charger. There are better, and much more expensive options; what are your goals? Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plug/connector question
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2019
All my chargers output positive on the charger pin that is not exposed. That means that the exposed aircraft pin would be positive. One could reverse this but that's asking for trouble down the road when a different charger is available away from home etc. I use a cigarette lighter receptacle that happens to be on a manually switched hot buss. Not ideal but it works and for other reasons I wanted one hot lighter receptacle available even if the battery contactor was open. Ken L. On 12/08/2019 3:41 PM, Charlie England wrote: > > > On 8/12/2019 10:53 AM, Bill Steer wrote: >> >> >> The battery on my Excalibur is difficult to access. As a result, I >> want to bring a wire from the positive side of the battery to a more >> accessible location so I can hook a battery maintainer to it >> easily.?? That wire will have an in-line fuse, but I need to >> terminate it with a plug/connector that will not expose the hot >> connection to any sort of ground.?? Does anybody have a suggestion >> about what sort of connector would be appropriate? >> >> Thanks for any suggestions. >> >> Bill > Hi Bill, > > I'm usually a KISS kind of guy (except when it comes to music). Unless > you're planning on start-cart level current, I'd use something like > this, which is mfgr'd into many charger wiring harnesses: > https://www.amazon.com/Sea-Dog-Polarized-Connector-2-Wire/dp/B000Y89TDM/ref=asc_df_B000Y89TDM/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312430092407&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4395166586976378804&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9013892&hvtargid=pla-569344392136&psc=1 > > > The exposed black pin would be the ground for the a/c electrical > system, and the connector can just be tucked out of the way when not > in use. The exposed red pin on its mate would be fed by the charger, > and shouldn't get powered until the connectors are mated. The q&a for > that particular product indicates that the wire size is anything from > 14 to 18 gauge (depending on who answers), but even 18 gauge should > handle plenty of current from a slow charger. > > There are better, and much more expensive options; what are your goals? > > Charlie > > - ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Worth reviewing and thinking about... https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. -------- 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=490830#490830 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Hi Eric, interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation experience designing a system :) But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in another environment ;) Cheers Werner On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: > > Worth reviewing and thinking about... > https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > > Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. > > Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > > -------- > 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=490830#490830 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Ivan Haecker" <hivanhaecker(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
Wow. And I always thought that I was the only one who disliked touchscreens. And I prefer manual elevator trim and manual flaps. My vehicles also have manual transmissions, so that tells you something about my mental state. Ivan Haecker On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:54 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones(at)charter.net> > > Worth reviewing and thinking about... > https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > > Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. > > Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > > -------- > 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=490830#490830 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
From: Earl Schroeder <n233ee(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Some predict that most of the systems will eventually change back to previous control methods away from touch screens. Years ago the control by deviation allowed hundreds of process controllers to be monitored by just a few people. Basically a red pointer showing from behind the green area on the controller display was reason for an employees attention. A study by the military (led by my Son [FAA employee]) determined the control by exception was preferred rather than reading number digits requiring the mind to decide if that was normal or not. This retired GE process control tech (over 30+ yrs experience) has not welcomed touch screens and their digital displays from the beginning. I hope that the change back comes sooner rather than later.. Earl Schroeder. > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > experience designing a system :) > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > another environment ;) > > Cheers Werner > >> On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: >> >> Worth reviewing and thinking about... >> https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens >> >> Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. >> >> Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. >> >> -------- >> 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=490830#490830 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
I just wish that people who design these systems would recognize the fact that 8% of the male population has red/green color blindness. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:40 AM Earl Schroeder wrote: > > > Some predict that most of the =98systems=99 will eventually c hange back to > previous =98control=99 methods away from =98touch =99 screens. > > Years ago the control by deviation allowed hundreds of process controller s > to be monitored by just a few people. Basically a red pointer showing fr om > behind the green area on the controller display was reason for an > employee=99s attention. > > A study by the military (led by my Son [FAA employee]) determined the > control by exception was preferred rather than reading number digits > requiring the mind to decide if that was normal or not. > > This retired GE process control tech (over 30+ yrs experience) has not > welcomed touch screens and their digital displays from the beginning. I > hope that the change back comes sooner rather than later.. Earl Schroede r. > > > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > glastar(at)gmx.net> > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the shi p > > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > > experience designing a system :) > > > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > > another environment ;) > > > > Cheers Werner > > > >> On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones(at)charter.net> > >> > >> Worth reviewing and thinking about... > >> https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > >> > >> Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are > preferable. > >> > >> Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > >> > >> -------- > >> 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=490830#490830 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Subject: Dual Alternator "Failure"
Folks, I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing anything and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I put "failure" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators actually failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: First, the wiring diagram: engine.pdf I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five cycles of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators operating correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth flight, the EFIS alerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the takeoff; it was only a 15 minute flight to home base. I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary belt driven and one backup gear driven. Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from either alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No joy. I even power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage regulator was at fault. No joy. During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It was stupidly hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black glare shield and I know that I need ventilation behind the instrument panel. I chalked this up to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of operation, this is only the second time that that breaker has popped. After resetting the breaker, I checked both alternators independently (turning off each field switch in turn) and confirmed that each was operating normally. I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on landing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 or 14.9 volts from the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of debugging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, yet. I confirmed that both current limiters between the alternators and the battery contactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the current limiters and the battery contactor and it seems solid, no loose nuts. I removed the glare shield and checked the voltage regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to them are tight. -- Art Z. P.S. Yes, the engine was turning :-) so I assume that both alternators were turning. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design
From: "fidot" <web(at)79ft.net>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
Joe, Thanks for commentary! I was not ignoring the thread - just waiting to see if there will be any more comments, to address all of them :). -- > main connector as 3 failure points per circuit: It will probably not gonna get disconnected ever, unless serious repairs are necessary. This connector is weighed against the fact that absence of it will make troubleshooting extremely aggravating and time consuming, should it ever become necessary; given the physical layout of things and that I am retrofitting here (if I was building the whole new panel, I'd architect it with using sub-panels or similar with easy access). It will also make assembling the system much easier (though I understand this is not a strong argument given that my labor on the plane is $0/hour ;) ). Suppose I'm using Molex 0.093 crimped pins. I can greatly improve reliability by paying utmost attention to each pin's crimp, or using a touch of solder if I doubt them (or, just using solder to ensure the connection is electrically sound). I do have a good crimper, having tested a few crappy ones :). Just to give you an example: let's say, my Master Switch circuit isn't doing the right thing. If I have the Main Connector, I effectively have access to the "switch" side of things, as well as the "load" side of things to trace and measure. If I don't have it, I only effectively have access on the load side; and accessing the switch side requires a lot of contortions. Side note: when tracing old wiring (which lead to this project), I did have access to things on a similarly set up "terminal block" - and I still, climbing the XXXth time around the flying wires, managed to twist out my knee such that I was immobile for a couple days What would be great is if someone could suggest the connector type to use here..... - Milspec terminal block: too bulky - "Transformer"-style terminal block with #6 screws - possible, though security of those screws needs to be considered; and it's heavier (relatively) - Molex - I was looking at 0.093 series and the MLX series. I want "backside access" for multimeter probes... --- > consider eliminating the 35 amp ANL fuse. Possible fire hazard vs slightly higher probability of total electrical failure is basically the tradeoff here. I erred on the size of virtually eliminating former at the expense of small increase of probability of the latter (someone accidentally dinging that wire without noticing is also in realm of possibilities, however remote). I do have somewhat an elevated fear of letting the magic smoke out in this ship because of it being a tube and rag, with gas tank between the passenger's legs kind of ship... On the other hand, my reasoning was that I actually am completely non-dependent on electrical system on this plane - while annoying, even at night, it is not required for the safe completion of the flight. Yes, I will lose my tach, engine 3-in-1, radios, and lights - but that's a minor affair in a $100 burger airplane IMHO. Now, an interesting question is what are the chances of the buss feeder ANL opening without a good reason? If they're known to do that, then this might be a consideration... Note that I'm sizing a 35AMP ANL for a setup where all downstream fuses are 5A or less except for one other, buss -> radio stack, feeder wire (which I will try to make as small as I can). My understanding of ANLs is that they will be able to withstand shorted circuits blowing small fuses downstream... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490856#490856 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
A trick that I have used for troubleshooting and testing a wire, when there is no test point, is to poke through the wire insulation with a needle or Exacto knife. Probe that sharp object with the voltmeter. The small hole in the insulation requires little, if any, repairing. Having a connector will make troubleshooting easier. On the other hand, if that connector wasn't there, then there wouldn't be any trouble to troubleshoot. :-) - An ANL fuse is unlikely to blow. However, the crimped terminals and fasteners are unnecessary failure points. And bare terminals present a short circuit hazard. So the fuse is creating a hazard that it is intended to protect against. - The nice thing about building your own airplane is that you get to add lots of little features that are important to you. So go ahead and wire it the way that you want to. I see no major design flaws. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490861#490861 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure"
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2019
On 8/13/2019 7:48 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > Folks, > > I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing > anything and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I > put "failure" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators > actually failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: > > First, the wiring diagram: > engine.pdf > > > I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five > cycles of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators > operating correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth > flight, the EFIS alerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the > takeoff; it was only a 15 minute flight to home base. > > I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary > belt driven and one backup gear driven. > > Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from > either alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No > joy. I even power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage > regulator was at fault. No joy. > > During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had > popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It > was stupidly hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black > glare shield and I know that I need ventilation behind the instrument > panel. I chalked this up to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of > operation, this is only the second time that that breaker has popped. > After resetting the breaker, I checked both alternators independently > (turning off each field switch in turn) and confirmed that each was > operating normally. > > I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on > landing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage > regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 > or 14.9 volts from the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. > > Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of > debugging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, > yet. I confirmed that both current limiters between the alternators > and the battery contactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the > current limiters and the battery contactor and it seems solid, no > loose nuts. I removed the glare shield and checked the voltage > regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to > them are tight. > > -- Art Z. > > P.S. Yes, the engine was turning :-) so I assume that both alternators > were turning. > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. /Deut. > 10:19 Hi Art, Looking at your pdf, the only thing in common is the 'fat' wire from starter to master contactor, then to your main bus. Any circuit protections anywhere along that path? Regardless of where your current failure is located, that's something to think about; any issue along that path can take out both alternators. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
Well I for one wouldn't want my aircraft helm and throttle functions migrated to a touch screen, as appeared to be the case here. For just about everything else small aircraft, they're probably alright. Bill Boyd (whose only aircraft touch screen tech is a Garmin 795 GPS) On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:52 AM Werner Schneider wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > experience designing a system :) > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > another environment ;) > > Cheers Werner > > On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones(at)charter.net> > > > > Worth reviewing and thinking about... > > https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > > > > Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are > preferable. > > > > Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > > > > -------- > > 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=490830#490830 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure"
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
A very heavy electrical load could cause those symptoms. Of course that is highly unlikely also. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490864#490864 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2019
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
Also, a very simple modification is to clock all mechanical gauges so that the needle position for normal readings all point the same direction.=C2 - Left.=C2- Right. Up. Down. Doesn't really matter.=C2- Just all the same direction.=C2- Screws up the look of the panel while on the ground a t airshows, as the scales are all over the place.=C2- But, in the air a s can becomes just verifying that all the needles are pointing in the same di rection. il.com> wrote: Some predict that most of the =98systems=99 will eventually cha nge back to previous =98control=99 methods away from =98t ouch=99 screens. Years ago the control by deviation allowed hundreds of process controllers to be monitored by just a few people.=C2- Basically a red pointer showing from behind the green area on the controller display was reason for an emp loyee=99s attention. A study by the military (led by my Son [FAA employee]) determined the contr ol by exception was preferred rather than reading number digits requiring t he mind to decide if that was normal or not.=C2- This retired GE process control tech (over 30+ yrs experience) has not welc omed touch screens and their digital displays from the beginning.=C2- I h ope that the change back comes sooner rather than later..=C2- Earl Schroe der. > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > t> > > Hi Eric, > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > experience designing a system :) > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > another environment ;) > > Cheers Werner > >> On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: r.net> >> >> Worth reviewing and thinking about... >> https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens >> >> Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferab le. >> >> Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. >> >> -------- >> 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=490830#490830 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > - S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: BNC connectors =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=93?= Tool recommendation/Installation
question
From: "Argonaut36" <fmlibrino(at)msn.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
I am interested in purchasing a wire stripper that can be used for cutting the dielectric in RG400 coax cable to expose the central conductor (I use a blade for the outer sheath and the outer shield). I understand that the central conductor is similar in diameter, but not identical to electrical cable size 16 and I would like a wire stripper that is adjustable so that it can be adjusted to work very precisely with RG 400 coax cable. Any recommendations? I also have a question on installing BNC connectors on RG400 coax cable: the stripping lengths that I use are the following: outer shield: 3/8, dielectric: 3/32, central conductor: 9/32. Are these distances correct? I cant quite get the ferrule to touch the main body of the connector. I assume that no gap is acceptable. Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490867#490867 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
Charlie and Joe, Thanks much for your quick replies. The problem was a blown fuse. Diagnosis was hindered because I had not bothered to update the wiring diagram. I will write this up more verbosely on my blog because I think it will make a good article. Briefly for this list, I have a shared fuse for the overvoltage lamps on the primary and backup voltage regulators. That same circuit also feeds pin 3 on the B&C voltage regulators. That fuse blew. Both the LR3C voltage regulator and the SB1B backup regulator respond the same way to 0 volts on pin 3: they stay in "do nothing" mode. Problems which contributed to the loss of both alternators in flight: - Shared fuse for pin 3 on both voltage regulators. - Inaccurate documentation. The wiring diagram shows independent fuses for each voltage regulator. - Lack of knowledge on my part, which allowed me to share the fuse. - Karma, which made this happen less than an hour after I had been proudly showing my friend how I had dual alternators. Kudos to TJ at B&C Aero. When I called to get educated on what pin 3 does and how the voltage regulator acts in response to 0 volts, he had already read my earlier post here and knew the background of my situation. Kudos to B&C Aero for providing an excellent troubleshooting guide within the LR3C Installation Manual. Step 2 pinpointed the problem. -- Art Z. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:30 PM Charlie England wrote: > On 8/13/2019 7:48 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > > Folks, > > I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing > anything and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I put > "failure" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators actually > failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: > > First, the wiring diagram: > engine.pdf > > > I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five cycles > of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators operating > correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth flight, the EFIS > alerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the takeoff; it was only a 15 > minute flight to home base. > > I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary belt > driven and one backup gear driven. > > Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from either > alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No joy. I even > power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage regulator was at > fault. No joy. > > During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had popped. > I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It was stupidly > hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black glare shield and I > know that I need ventilation behind the instrument panel. I chalked this up > to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of operation, this is only the second > time that that breaker has popped. After resetting the breaker, I checked > both alternators independently (turning off each field switch in turn) and > confirmed that each was operating normally. > > I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on > landing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage > regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 or > 14.9 volts from the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. > > Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of > debugging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, yet. I > confirmed that both current limiters between the alternators and the > battery contactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the current > limiters and the battery contactor and it seems solid, no loose nuts. I > removed the glare shield and checked the voltage regulators. Both were warm > but not hot. All of the wires connected to them are tight. > > Hi Art, > > Looking at your pdf, the only thing in common is the 'fat' wire from > starter to master contactor, then to your main bus. Any circuit protections > anywhere along that path? > > Regardless of where your current failure is located, that's something to > think about; any issue along that path can take out both alternators. > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2019
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure"
Greetings Art, An interesting problem. Hopefully you will have solved it by now, however if not here are some diag nostic tests that=C2- you can easily do. The wring diagram seems like it is adequate, although I wonder why you used a hall sensor to=C2- the auxi liary alternator connected to the B&C regulator 7,1,&2. A charging system of an aircraft (car etc) is a relatively simple deal. The alternator spins and under the right field input voltage sends regulated V OLTAGE out to the ship. The voltage regulator takes bus power (12V or so) a nd controls the VOLTAGE output of the alternator via turning the alternator on and off to maintain the appropriate set voltage. That being the case, there are a couple of places that, using a simple VOM, you can check non-destructively. 1. With master and other switches on check the voltage at regulator pin 6 ( bus voltage in) on each regulator.If you get no voltage here the fault is s omewhere between the battery and pin 6 ie switches, contactors, breakers, w iring etc. 2 if you are getting the appropriate voltage at these pins (screw terminals )=C2- then check the continuity between screw 4 and the field input wire at each alternator. if there is no continuity, it is probably the wire(s). If the continuity is there it may be the regulators (where are they located -- is it a hot place? Dual failures probably mitigate the fact that the regulators, themselves ar e at fault, however I would suspect the bus wiring leading up to the regula tors (screw 6) to be at fault. Although you have a good wiring diagram, many times we (I) make modificatio ns that seem minor which have consequences. I would suspect your switches or circuit breakers. When you tugged on the wires that confirmed physical continuity but not ele ctrical continuity. Check continuity with VOM (multimeter) while pulling. A nother source of non-conductivity is corrosion in the terminals somewhere a long the line. You can use the multimeter to check resistance of these lead s. The breakers that we use are generally thermal and the high temperature beh ind the IP could have been the reason for the trip-- or what?? (did the fir st trip of the breaker happen with high heat in the cabin?") Good luck in hunting---Let us know what you found. Rich -----Original Message----- From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> Sent: Tue, Aug 13, 2019 7:51 pm Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator "Failure" Folks, I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing anythi ng and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I put "failure " in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators actually failed; t hat is just too unlikely. Here are the details: First, the wiring diagram: =C2-engine.pdf I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five cycles of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators operating c orrectly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth flight, the EFIS ale rted that bus voltage was low. I continued the takeoff; it was only a 15 mi nute flight to home base. I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary belt dr iven and one backup gear driven. Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from either a lternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No joy. I even p ower cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage regulator was at fault. No joy. During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It was stupidly hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black glare shield and I k now that I need ventilation behind the instrument panel. I chalked this up to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of operation, this is only the second ti me that that breaker has popped. After resetting the breaker, I checked bot h alternators independently (turning off each field switch in turn) and con firmed that each was operating normally. I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on land ing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage regulators a re set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 or 14.9 volts fr om the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of debuggi ng but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, yet. I confirme d that both current limiters between the alternators and the battery contac tor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the current limiters and the batt ery contactor and it seems solid, no loose nuts. I removed the glare shield and checked the voltage regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to them are tight. =C2- =C2- -- Art Z. P.S. Yes, the engine was turning :-) so I assume that both alternators were turning. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
Subject: Re: How to solder :-P
That's hysterical. . . Wonder who treats the burns. . .!!! On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:03 PM Art Zemon wrote: > [image: Is-she-a-model-or-a-worker.jpg] > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2019
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
Ouch!=C2- The dreaded single point of failure!=C2- (all that redundanc y compromised by a ten cent fuse;) Glad to hear you found it and not (as our fearless leader says) "on a dark and stormy night" -Jeff e> wrote: Charlie and Joe, Thanks much for your quick replies.=C2- The problem was a blown fuse. Diagnosis was hindered because I had not both ered to update the wiring diagram. I will write this up more verbosely on my blog because I think it will make a good article. Briefly for this list, I have a shared fuse for the overvo ltage lamps on the primary and backup voltage regulators. That same circuit also feeds pin 3 on the B&C voltage regulators. That fuse blew. Both the L R3C voltage regulator and the SB1B backup regulator respond the same way to 0 volts on pin 3: they stay in "do nothing" mode. Problems which contributed to the loss of both alternators in flight: - Shared fuse for pin 3 on both voltage regulators. - Inaccurate documentation. The wiring diagram shows independent fuses f or each voltage regulator. - Lack of knowledge on my part, which allowed me to share the fuse. - Karma, which made this happen less than an hour after I had been proud ly showing my friend how I had dual alternators. Kudos to TJ at B&C Aero. When I called to get educated on what pin 3 does a nd how the voltage regulator acts in response to 0 volts, he had already re ad my earlier post here and knew the background of my situation. Kudos to B&C Aero for providing an excellent troubleshooting guide within t he LR3C Installation Manual. Step 2 pinpointed the problem. =C2- =C2- -- Art Z. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:30 PM Charlie England wro te: On 8/13/2019 7:48 PM, Art Zemon wrote: Folks, I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing anyt hing and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I put "failu re" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators actually failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: First, the wiring diagram: =C2-engine.pdf I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five cycle s of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators operating correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth flight, the EFIS a lerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the takeoff; it was only a 15 minute flight to home base. I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary belt driven and one backup gear driven. Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from either alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No joy. I even power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage regulator was a t fault. No joy. During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It was stupidl y hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black glare shield and I know that I need ventilation behind the instrument panel. I chalked this u p to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of operation, this is only the second time that that breaker has popped. After resetting the breaker, I checked b oth alternators independently (turning off each field switch in turn) and c onfirmed that each was operating normally. I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on lan ding. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 or 14.9 volts f rom the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of debu gging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, yet. I confi rmed that both current limiters between the alternators and the battery con tactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the current limiters and the b attery contactor and it seems solid, no loose nuts. I removed the glare shi eld and checked the voltage regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to them are tight. Hi Art, Looking at your pdf, the only thing in common is the 'fat' wire from start er to master contactor, then to your main bus. Any circuit protections anyw here along that path? Regardless of where your current failure is located, that's something to t hink about; any issue along that path can take out both alternators. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com>
Subject: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
Date: Aug 14, 2019
If you actually read the article, THAT's what the Navy says they are moving away from... Touchscreen "controls" are being replaced (as they darn well should) with manual throttles and wheels. I don't think very many of us GA pilots are flying aircraft where the power is controlled by a touchscreen interface, much less the "steering" (ailerons, elevator, and rudder) being done via touch-screen... When it comes to "touch screen interfaces" in GA flying, it's usually to create or change the flight plan, change the screen view, etc. And though I like having both touch- and twist-push-pull controls (a la the more recent navigators from both Garmin and Avidyne), I find the non-touch interfaces are far less intuitive to me... That's why I had to spend hours in the cockpit (and on a simulator at home) learning the "buttonology" for those systems... The touch-screen side is MUCH easier for me -- except in turbulence, when the non-touch alternatives come in handy, even though they are slower to use, and I find the menu structures significantly more challenging to remember. That said, like the "new Navy", I STILL have a strong preference for physical switches and circuit breakers, rather than the "magic boxes" that take their place in many new homebuilt (and even commercial) airplanes. I like being able to literally "put my finger" on the problem circuit breaker or switch... Jim Parker ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
Subject: Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible.
As I was looking about for something to smash the touchscreen at the supermarket self checkout lane, the monitor came over to help. As I told him, "there's a reason the Navy is ripping these things out". They may be OK for some applications, I wouldn't put one in any vehicle, much less one that flies. Rick On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:53 PM wrote: > > If you actually read the article, THAT's what the Navy says they are > moving away from... Touchscreen "controls" are being replaced (as they > darn well should) with manual throttles and wheels. I don't think very > many of us GA pilots are flying aircraft where the power is controlled > by a touchscreen interface, much less the "steering" (ailerons, > elevator, and rudder) being done via touch-screen... > > When it comes to "touch screen interfaces" in GA flying, it's usually to > create or change the flight plan, change the screen view, etc. And > though I like having both touch- and twist-push-pull controls (a la the > more recent navigators from both Garmin and Avidyne), I find the > non-touch interfaces are far less intuitive to me... That's why I had > to spend hours in the cockpit (and on a simulator at home) learning the > "buttonology" for those systems... The touch-screen side is MUCH easier > for me -- except in turbulence, when the non-touch alternatives come in > handy, even though they are slower to use, and I find the menu > structures significantly more challenging to remember. > > That said, like the "new Navy", I STILL have a strong preference for > physical switches and circuit breakers, rather than the "magic boxes" > that take their place in many new homebuilt (and even commercial) > airplanes. I like being able to literally "put my finger" on the > problem circuit breaker or switch... > > Jim Parker > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D Groucho Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2019
The above situation reinforces the recommendation to have a separate fuse for each and every load, no matter how small or insignificant. Fuse are inexpensive. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490876#490876 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: TC wire and dsub
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Date: Aug 15, 2019
Theoretically, extending thermocouple wires using a dsub connector (with, say, gold over bronze contacts) should be ok provided any temperature gradient across the connector is ignored. The thermocouple voltages across the connector cancel out to 0. In practice there could be a problem with corrosion of a thermocouple wire where it meets gold. Is there experience? Thanks, Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: TC wire and dsub
At 08:36 AM 8/15/2019, you wrote: > >Theoretically, extending thermocouple wires using a dsub connector >(with, say, gold over bronze contacts) should be ok provided any >temperature gradient across the connector is ignored. The >thermocouple voltages across the connector cancel out to 0. > >In practice there could be a problem with corrosion of a >thermocouple wire where it meets gold. Gold is electrolytically inert. I think most thermocouple alloys are similarly resistant to oxidation. I've run TC wires though d-subs for decades with good success . . . with one caveat: My tasks were temporary instrumentation installations so I've not personally observed/demonstrated longevity in field service. But given the low reactivity of the alloys involved, I'm pretty confident that they'll last a long time. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 15, 2019
Subject: Flaky EGT Probe
Folks, One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there should be a green bar. Are these things repairable? -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Date: Aug 15, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Art, you seem like the kind of fellow who would appreciate a lengthy blog post: http://bearhawkblue.com/replacing-the-oem-dynon-thermocouple-connectors-with-omega-connectors/ On August 15, 2019 23:05:01 Art Zemon wrote: > Folks, > > One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time it > reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for anything > so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it annoys me to > see three nice green bars and one black space where there should be a green > bar. > > Are these things repairable? > > -- Art Z. > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Hi Art So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in the engine management arsenal! On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: > Folks, > > One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time > it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for > anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it > annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there > should be a green bar. > > Are these things repairable? > > -- Art Z. > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > -- Best... Bob Verwey 082 331 2727 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: TC wire and dsub
At 08:36 AM 8/15/2019, you wrote: > >Theoretically, extending thermocouple wires using a dsub connector >(with, say, gold over bronze contacts) should be ok provided any >temperature gradient across the connector is ignored. The >thermocouple voltages across the connector cancel out to 0. > >In practice there could be a problem with corrosion of a >thermocouple wire where it meets gold. Gold is electrolytically inert. I think most thermocouple alloys are similarly resistant to oxidation. I've run TC wires though d-subs for decades with good success . . . with one caveat: My tasks were temporary instrumentation installations so I've not personally observed/demonstrated longevity in field service. But given the low reactivity of the alloys involved, I'm pretty confident that they'll last a long time. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Revmaster PM alternators
From: "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2019
The subject of the Revmaster PM alternators has come up in the past, regarding the regulators used and the nature of how best to wire them. In summary, I think Professor Nuckolls declared there was not enough detail to offer significant, specific advice. I have a little more detail of a failure that was posted on the SonexBuilders forum and would like to toss this to the AeroElectric group and see what wisdom I might extract. My interest is related to the fact that I have a Revmaster (R2300), the same design as what is noted in the following story. The Revmaster has a dual PM alternator setup as part of the flywheel assembly. Two separate failures with very similar circumstances go as follows: Dual PM alternators with the default, dual regulators. Both planes had both alternators wired to charge full time. One engine did not have any method of shutoff of either regulator (hardwired) and the other may have chosen to always run with both (even though switches may have allowed for single PM operation) One engine had 160 hours running with this configuration and the second had 450 hours. Both had Odyssey PC680 batteries. The 160 hour plane experienced a difficult time starting the engine while exiting KOSH a few weeks back and after wearing down the battery significantly (my assumption, as it was reported that it took 30 minutes of cranking to finally get started with no note of any ground recharging once is started). Once the plane was started and after about 10 minutes in the air, the pilot noticed a smell of smoke and promptly returned to KOSH. I think the plane was eventually trailered back home (to TX) and upon disassembly, the stator(s) were/ was diagnosed as "fried." Please review the included drawing. I've added the relays and selection switches but for the sake of this discussion, imagine the switches for PM selection are both left in the "ON" state. I also have the patent of what I think the 2 wire regulator details include and will dig it out but I think it was posted in the past. I've simplified the regulator in my sketch as an SCR controlled by a black box. An interesting note, the two (20 amp) auto fuses were not blown. I need to verify if one or both of the stators were destroyed and likewise, if all 4 of the PM regulator fuses were OK. The second plane had 450 hours running both alternators full time during those hours. As noted, same battery (PC680). I don't know if this failure had fuse failures for the regulator, I don't believe so. I'll double check the report but the pilot smelled smoke about 6 minutes after takeoff and once he landed and had everything apart he identified that the stator was toast. Again, I'm not sure if both sides had failed or just one. I'll follow up and check. The manufacturer (Remaster) recommended not running both alternators at the same time and pointed to this as a likely contributing factor. He also indicated that the PC680 was partially to blame. His comment was that the RVLA batteries draw too much current. Hmmm, why did the fuses not blow then..... I think I know what the consensus will be regarding the PC680 (not likely a contributor to the debacle). My sense, because the 20 amp inline fuses did not blow, that the stators were not overloaded (else they have the wrong fuse selection)..I've heard that each alternator is capable 18 amps but the detailed specifications are very limited. I plan on checking my engine alternators for open circuit voltage curves and short circuit current. I'm just a little ways away from that... The alternators are (as can be seen) single phase. I believe the two alternators are in phase (I need to verify if it's possible to wire them so they charge out of phase, i.e. the regulator is half wave so it might be that each alternator could provide a half wave charge pulse, out of phase with the other. My theory (aside from agreeing that only one system can run at a time) is that running both on a heavily discharged battery allowed both regulators to operate. At some point, the battery reached a "closer to" full voltage level and as might be expected, one of the regulators started opening the charge circuit from the alternator. If this occurred at the wrong time, with the other regulator running, the inductive voltage spike(s) burned a hole in the stator winding insulation at one or more spots. the result, a fried stator. What do you guys think? I look forward to hearing opinions. Dan Theis Sonex 1362R -------- Scratch building Sonex #1362 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490910#490910 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/revmaster_regulators_111.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/revmaster_regulators_880.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
From: "fidot" <web(at)79ft.net>
Date: Aug 16, 2019
Art, For what it's worth, when I had a similar problem on my EI Engine Monitor, it turned out to be the bad input channel rather than probe. I'd start with trying to move it to another channel (ie, swap two probes) and seeing what happens... unless you've already done that... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490911#490911 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Revmaster PM alternators
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2019
The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. The quantity of electrons flowing is limited by the ability of the magnets to push them. There is no inductive voltage spike when a load is removed from the alternator. The voltage will go up because the electrons being pushed by magnets have no where to go. But the voltage is not induced by a collapsing magnetic field. Alternator windings can fry due to overheating caused by inadequate cooling or due to prolonged high current output. Electrically speaking, there are two separate alternators. But both are contained in one physical enclosure. Operating both alternators simultaneously at full output generates lots of heat which could fry windings. The solution is to redesign the alternator with larger wires and/or better cooling. Or limit the load. Or limit the total output current by operating only one alternator at a time. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490918#490918 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bent EGT Probe Acceptable?
From: "jdubner" <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2019
Would it be permissible to bend an EGT probe as in the attached image and still receive good service from it? This is for avoiding interference with the cowl and other obstructions in a Long-EZ installation. Thanks, Joe -------- RV-8A Independence, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490919#490919 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/bent_egt_probe_example_543.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Revmaster PM alternators
From: "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2019
Thanks Joe, The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. I appreciate your feedback. The short circuit protection meant to protect the battery was not something I had considered as the design intent. I Understand the fixed current model of the PM alternator so what a damaged winding suggests is a weak or less than robust design, as you imply. If you noticed, the ignition circuits are part of the same flywheel assembly and in neither of these cases did the ignition fail. This is evidence to me that the self destructive heat generated by a stator winding was not high enough to propagate the damage beyond the source of the heat (the physical relationship is as the drawing shows, the ignition coils separate the alternator windings). Now that I think of it, the 450 hour plane did have a previous incident where the ignition coil failed and the smell he sensed when the alternator failed led him to expect one of the ignition coils had failed again. Note, with none of these failures did the engine stop running. The ignition coils are redundant. One feeds the upper ignition and one feeds the lower. I doubt I can obtain any forensic data on the failed systems but I will give it a shot and see what might be learned. My goal is to modify (improve) my engine charging system to avoid any of these failures. Thanks again for your feedback Joe. It helps a lot. Dan Theis Sonex 1362R[/quote] -------- Scratch building Sonex #1362 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490920#490920 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 17, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Bob, The Lycoming operating manual says: LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power or less, > without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) > > Fuel Injected Engines. > (1) Slowly move mixture control from =9CFull Rich=9D position toward lean > position. > (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss of power > may or may not be accompanied by roughness. > (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT (also per Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow both ways. I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on each cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. -- Art Z. On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey wrote: > Hi Art > So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in the > engine management arsenal! > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time >> it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it >> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >> should be a green bar. >> >> Are these things repairable? >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >> 10:19 >> > > > -- > Best... > Bob Verwey > 082 331 2727 > > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 17, 2019
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
You're so right, Joe. And for anyone interested, here is the full write-up on my blog: https://cheerfulcurmudgeon.com/2019/08/17/dual-alternator-failure/ Cheers, -- Art Z. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:07 PM user9253 wrote: > > The above situation reinforces the recommendation to have a separate fuse > for each and every load, no matter how small or insignificant. Fuse are > inexpensive. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bent EGT Probe Acceptable?
From: "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
My guess is that there should be no problems. The temperature sensing thermocouple element is actually the welded junction of the two dissimilar metals that make up the thermocouple. Disturbing the stainless protective housing, especially outside the hose clamp area, SHOULD have no effect. Jerry King -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490932#490932 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: TC wire and dsub
From: "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
I might be more concerned when using Type J (Iron / Constantan) thermocouples. You sure would want to make every effort to keep any moisture out and away from the iron. Jerry King -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490933#490933 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Jared, Yes, indeed; I did appreciate that. I would have replaced flaky connectors, too. I have an MGL system so the only connectors in the EGT circuit are the screw terminals on the RDAC <http://www.mglavionics.co.za/rdacxf.html>. -- Art Z. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:46 PM Jared Yates wrote: > Art, you seem like the kind of fellow who would appreciate a lengthy blog > post: > > http://bearhawkblue.com/replacing-the-oem-dynon-thermocouple-connectors-with-omega-connectors/ > > On August 15, 2019 23:05:01 Art Zemon wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time >> it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it >> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >> should be a green bar. >> >> Are these things repairable? >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >> 10:19 >> > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Good thought. I can easily try that since I have several unused channels. -- Art Z. On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:03 PM fidot wrote: > > Art, > > For what it's worth, when I had a similar problem on my EI Engine Monitor, > it turned out to be the bad input channel rather than probe. I'd start with > trying to move it to another channel (ie, swap two probes) and seeing what > happens... unless you've already done that... -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RobCaldwell.net" <rob(at)robcaldwell.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 08/17/19
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Sorry to disturb the flow of this thread. However, I have tried repeatedly to unsubscribe from this list, followed the instructions to the letter, even contacted the admin with no success. If anyone can give me a hand I would be greatly appreciative. Please unsubscribe: rob(at)robcaldwell.net Thank you! > On Aug 18, 2019, at 2:30 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > > * > > ======================== > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&C hapter 19-08-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Ch apter 19-08-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > > ======================== ======================= > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== ======================= > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Sat 08/17/19: 5 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 06:13 AM - Re: Revmaster PM alternators (user9253) > 2. 06:34 AM - Bent EGT Probe Acceptable? (jdubner) > 3. 09:02 AM - Re: Revmaster PM alternators (dj_theis) > 4. 06:39 PM - Re: Flaky EGT Probe (Art Zemon) > 5. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED (Art Zemon) > > > > ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Revmaster PM alternators > From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> > > > The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery > from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. The quantity > of electrons flowing is limited by the ability of the magnets to push them. > There is no inductive voltage spike when a load is removed from the alternator. > The voltage will go up because the electrons being pushed by magnets have > no where to go. But the voltage is not induced by a collapsing magnetic field. > Alternator windings can fry due to overheating caused by inadequate cooling or > due to prolonged high current output. Electrically speaking, there are two > separate alternators. But both are contained in one physical enclosure. Operating > both alternators simultaneously at full output generates lots of heat which > could fry windings. The solution is to redesign the alternator with larger > wires and/or better cooling. Or limit the load. Or limit the total output > current by operating only one alternator at a time. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490918#490918 > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bent EGT Probe Acceptable? > From: "jdubner" <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> > > > Would it be permissible to bend an EGT probe as in the attached image and still > receive good service from it? This is for avoiding interference with the cowl > and other obstructions in a Long-EZ installation. > > Thanks, > Joe > > -------- > RV-8A > Independence, OR > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490919#490919 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/bent_egt_probe_example_543.jpg > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Revmaster PM alternators > From: "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> > > > Thanks Joe, > > The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery > from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. > > I appreciate your feedback. The short circuit protection meant to protect the > battery was not something I had considered as the design intent. I Understand > the fixed current model of the PM alternator so what a damaged winding suggests > is a weak or less than robust design, as you imply. > > If you noticed, the ignition circuits are part of the same flywheel assembly and > in neither of these cases did the ignition fail. This is evidence to me that > the self destructive heat generated by a stator winding was not high enough > to propagate the damage beyond the source of the heat (the physical relationship > is as the drawing shows, the ignition coils separate the alternator windings). > > Now that I think of it, the 450 hour plane did have a previous incident where the > ignition coil failed and the smell he sensed when the alternator failed led > him to expect one of the ignition coils had failed again. Note, with none of > these failures did the engine stop running. The ignition coils are redundant. > One feeds the upper ignition and one feeds the lower. > > I doubt I can obtain any forensic data on the failed systems but I will give it > a shot and see what might be learned. > > My goal is to modify (improve) my engine charging system to avoid any of these > failures. > > Thanks again for your feedback Joe. It helps a lot. > > Dan Theis > Sonex 1362R[/quote] > > -------- > Scratch building Sonex #1362 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490920#490920 > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ > > > From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flaky EGT Probe > > Bob, > > The Lycoming operating manual says: > > LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power or less, >> without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) >> >> Fuel Injected Engines. >> (1) Slowly move mixture control from =9CFull Rich=9D position > toward lean >> position. >> (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss of power >> may or may not be accompanied by roughness. >> (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. > > > I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT (also per > Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow both ways. > > I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on each > cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey wrote: > >> Hi Art >> So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in the >> engine management arsenal! >> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time >>> it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >>> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it >>> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >>> should be a green bar. >>> >>> Are these things repairable? >>> >>> -- Art Z. >>> >>> -- >>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >>> >>> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >>> 10:19 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best... >> Bob Verwey >> 082 331 2727 >> >> > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ > > > From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED > > You're so right, Joe. > > And for anyone interested, here is the full write-up on my blog: > https://cheerfulcurmudgeon.com/2019/08/17/dual-alternator-failure/ > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:07 PM user9253 wrote: > >> >> The above situation reinforces the recommendation to have a separate fuse >> for each and every load, no matter how small or insignificant. Fuse are >> inexpensive. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RobCaldwell.net" <rob(at)robcaldwell.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 08/17/19
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Sorry to disturb the flow of this thread. However, I have tried repeatedly to unsubscribe from this list, followed the instructions to the letter, even contacted the admin with no success. If anyone can give me a hand I would be greatly appreciative. Please unsubscribe: rob(at)robcaldwell.net Thank you! > On Aug 18, 2019, at 2:30 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > > * > > ======================== > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&C hapter 19-08-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Ch apter 19-08-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > > ======================== ======================= > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== ======================= > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Sat 08/17/19: 5 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 06:13 AM - Re: Revmaster PM alternators (user9253) > 2. 06:34 AM - Bent EGT Probe Acceptable? (jdubner) > 3. 09:02 AM - Re: Revmaster PM alternators (dj_theis) > 4. 06:39 PM - Re: Flaky EGT Probe (Art Zemon) > 5. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED (Art Zemon) > > > > ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Revmaster PM alternators > From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> > > > The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery > from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. The quantity > of electrons flowing is limited by the ability of the magnets to push them. > There is no inductive voltage spike when a load is removed from the alternator. > The voltage will go up because the electrons being pushed by magnets have > no where to go. But the voltage is not induced by a collapsing magnetic field. > Alternator windings can fry due to overheating caused by inadequate cooling or > due to prolonged high current output. Electrically speaking, there are two > separate alternators. But both are contained in one physical enclosure. Operating > both alternators simultaneously at full output generates lots of heat which > could fry windings. The solution is to redesign the alternator with larger > wires and/or better cooling. Or limit the load. Or limit the total output > current by operating only one alternator at a time. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490918#490918 > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bent EGT Probe Acceptable? > From: "jdubner" <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> > > > Would it be permissible to bend an EGT probe as in the attached image and still > receive good service from it? This is for avoiding interference with the cowl > and other obstructions in a Long-EZ installation. > > Thanks, > Joe > > -------- > RV-8A > Independence, OR > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490919#490919 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/bent_egt_probe_example_543.jpg > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Revmaster PM alternators > From: "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> > > > Thanks Joe, > > The purpose of a fuse in the alternator output circuit is to protect the battery > from short circuits. Alternator output is self current limiting. > > I appreciate your feedback. The short circuit protection meant to protect the > battery was not something I had considered as the design intent. I Understand > the fixed current model of the PM alternator so what a damaged winding suggests > is a weak or less than robust design, as you imply. > > If you noticed, the ignition circuits are part of the same flywheel assembly and > in neither of these cases did the ignition fail. This is evidence to me that > the self destructive heat generated by a stator winding was not high enough > to propagate the damage beyond the source of the heat (the physical relationship > is as the drawing shows, the ignition coils separate the alternator windings). > > Now that I think of it, the 450 hour plane did have a previous incident where the > ignition coil failed and the smell he sensed when the alternator failed led > him to expect one of the ignition coils had failed again. Note, with none of > these failures did the engine stop running. The ignition coils are redundant. > One feeds the upper ignition and one feeds the lower. > > I doubt I can obtain any forensic data on the failed systems but I will give it > a shot and see what might be learned. > > My goal is to modify (improve) my engine charging system to avoid any of these > failures. > > Thanks again for your feedback Joe. It helps a lot. > > Dan Theis > Sonex 1362R[/quote] > > -------- > Scratch building Sonex #1362 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490920#490920 > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ > > > From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flaky EGT Probe > > Bob, > > The Lycoming operating manual says: > > LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power or less, >> without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) >> >> Fuel Injected Engines. >> (1) Slowly move mixture control from =9CFull Rich=9D position > toward lean >> position. >> (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss of power >> may or may not be accompanied by roughness. >> (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. > > > I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT (also per > Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow both ways. > > I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on each > cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey wrote: > >> Hi Art >> So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in the >> engine management arsenal! >> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the time >>> it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >>> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it >>> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >>> should be a green bar. >>> >>> Are these things repairable? >>> >>> -- Art Z. >>> >>> -- >>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >>> >>> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >>> 10:19 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best... >> Bob Verwey >> 082 331 2727 >> >> > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ > > > From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED > > You're so right, Joe. > > And for anyone interested, here is the full write-up on my blog: > https://cheerfulcurmudgeon.com/2019/08/17/dual-alternator-failure/ > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:07 PM user9253 wrote: > >> >> The above situation reinforces the recommendation to have a separate fuse >> for each and every load, no matter how small or insignificant. Fuse are >> inexpensive. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: TC wire and dsub
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Thanks, Jan de Jong On 16-8-2019 04:25, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 08:36 AM 8/15/2019, you wrote: >> >> >> Theoretically, extending thermocouple wires using a dsub connector >> (with, say, gold over bronze contacts) should be ok provided any >> temperature gradient across the connector is ignored. The >> thermocouple voltages across the connector cancel out to 0. >> >> In practice there could be a problem with corrosion of a thermocouple >> wire where it meets gold. > > Gold is electrolytically inert. I think > most thermocouple alloys are similarly > resistant to oxidation. I've run > TC wires though d-subs for decades with > good success . . . with one caveat: > > My tasks were temporary instrumentation > installations so I've not personally > observed/demonstrated longevity in > field service. But given the low > reactivity of the alloys involved, > I'm pretty confident that they'll > last a long time. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Art, About the leaning steps.... I would suggest one additional comment/step: As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, one should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the lean side as quickly as possible. When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered in. Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise economy. After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in lean mode, one can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT or CHT to set the final mixture for lean cruise. On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 6:45 PM Art Zemon wrote: > Bob, > > The Lycoming operating manual says: > > LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power or less, >> without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) >> >> Fuel Injected Engines. >> (1) Slowly move mixture control from =9CFull Rich=9D positio n toward lean >> position. >> (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss of power >> may or may not be accompanied by roughness. >> (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. > > > I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT (also per > Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow both ways. > > I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on each > cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey wrote: > >> Hi Art >> So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in th e >> engine management arsenal! >> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the tim e >>> it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >>> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But it >>> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >>> should be a green bar. >>> >>> Are these things repairable? >>> >>> -- Art Z. >>> >>> -- >>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >>> >>> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >>> 10:19 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best... >> Bob Verwey >> 082 331 2727 >> >> >> >> > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Whether going slow or fast through peak area is highly dependent on the power setting in use at the time. If 65% or less, it is immaterial whether you go slow or fast, you won't hurt anything. Generally more desirable to establish peak at 65%, then adjust to final power you desire with throttle. Otherwise, as you say, establish a known fuel flow that is assured to be LOP for the power setting, go straight from rich to that setting, and then find peak from the lean side, knowing the first to reach peak will be the richest cylinder and the rest are leaner. On 8/18/2019 11:44 AM, skywagon185guy . wrote: > Art, > About the leaning steps.... > I would suggest one additional comment/step: > As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, > one should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the > lean side as quickly as possible. > When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most > prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on > power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered > in. Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise > economy. After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in > lean mode, one can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT > or CHT to set the final mixture for lean cruise. > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 6:45 PM Art Zemon > wrote: > > Bob, > > The Lycoming operating manual says: > > LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power > or less, without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) > > Fuel Injected Engines. > (1) Slowly move mixture control from Full Rich position toward > lean position. > (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss > of power may or may not beaccompanied by roughness. > (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. > > > I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT > (also per Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow > both ways. > > I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on > each cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey > wrote: > > Hi Art > So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized > tool in the engine management arsenal! > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon > wrote: > > Folks, > > One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most > of the time it reads zero (too low to register). I don't > actually use the EGT for anything so I'm not very excited > about spending money to fix it. But it annoys me to see > three nice green bars and one black space where there should > be a green bar. > > Are these things repairable? > > -- Art Z. > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in > Egypt. /Deut. 10:19 > > > > -- > Best... > Bob Verwey > 082 331 2727 > > > > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. > /Deut. 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
That's been recommended by some of the 'big names', and makes some sense. But my recent experience with a new-to-me RV-6 with a ~15+ year old Dynon engine monitor is that a 'quick pull' seems to confuse its lean function, and it can't seem to detect lean of peak. That also makes some intuitive sense, since EGT never really 'peaks'. Anyone have this experience with later engine monitors? Art, if the probe does turn out to be bad, do some ebay deep diving. If you're willing to wait a few weeks (and you're not hung up on "buy 'Murcun", there are some good deals on Chinese probes. Charlie On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 1:51 PM skywagon185guy . wrote: > Art, > About the leaning steps.... > I would suggest one additional comment/step: > As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, on e > should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the lean sid e > as quickly as possible. > When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most > prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on > power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered in . > Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise economy. > After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in lean mode, o ne > can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT or CHT to set th e > final mixture for lean cruise. > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 6:45 PM Art Zemon wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> The Lycoming operating manual says: >> >> LEANING WITH MANUAL MIXTURE CONTROL. (Economy cruise, 75% power or less, >>> without flowmeter or EGT gauge.) >>> >>> Fuel Injected Engines. >>> (1) Slowly move mixture control from =9CFull Rich=9D positi on toward lean >>> position. >>> (2) Continue leaning until slight loss of power is noted (loss of power >>> may or may not be accompanied by roughness. >>> (3) Enrich until engine runs smoothly and power is regained. >> >> >> I tried this method and compared the results with using the EGT (also pe r >> Lycoming's operating manual). I got the same fuel flow both ways. >> >> I learned the manual method in airplanes that lacked an EGT probe on eac h >> cylinder. It's quick and doesn't require me to interrupt my scan. >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:18 AM Bob Verwey wrote: >> >>> Hi Art >>> So how is it that you dont use your EGT? To me it is a prized tool in >>> the engine management arsenal! >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Art Zemon wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> One of my four EGT probes is flaky. Sometimes it works. Most of the >>>> time it reads zero (too low to register). I don't actually use the EGT for >>>> anything so I'm not very excited about spending money to fix it. But i t >>>> annoys me to see three nice green bars and one black space where there >>>> should be a green bar. >>>> >>>> Are these things repairable? >>>> >>>> -- Art Z. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >>>> >>>> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >>>> 10:19 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best... >>> Bob Verwey >>> 082 331 2727 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. >> 10:19 >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Gents, I encourage both of you to read the Lycoming operator's manual for the O-360 and IO-360. You can download it here: https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO%20%26%20TIO-360%20Oper%20Manual%2060297-12.pdf The document is quite specific about how to lean the engine and when running LOP is permissible and how much hotter than peak. Executive summary: - 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT - less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak Cheers, -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kelly McMullen wrote: > kellym(at)aviating.com> > > Whether going slow or fast through peak area is highly dependent on the > power setting in use at the time. If 65% or less, it is immaterial > whether you go slow or fast, you won't hurt anything. Generally more > desirable to establish peak at 65%, then adjust to final power you > desire with throttle. > Otherwise, as you say, establish a known fuel flow that is assured to be > LOP for the power setting, go straight from rich to that setting, and > then find peak from the lean side, knowing the first to reach peak will > be the richest cylinder and the rest are leaner. > > On 8/18/2019 11:44 AM, skywagon185guy . wrote: > > Art, > > About the leaning steps.... > > I would suggest one additional comment/step: > > As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, > > one should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the > > lean side as quickly as possible. > > When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most > > prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on > > power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered > > in. Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise > > economy. After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in > > lean mode, one can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT > > or CHT to set the final mixture for lean cruise. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chuck Ryan <chuckryan4(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:45 PM Art Zemon wrote: > Gents, > > I encourage both of you to read the Lycoming operator's manual for the > O-360 and IO-360. You can download it here: > https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO%20%26%20TIO-360%20Oper%20Manual%2060297-12.pdf > The document is quite specific about how to lean the engine and when > running LOP is permissible and how much hotter than peak. > > Executive summary: > > - 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT > - less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kelly McMullen > wrote: > >> kellym(at)aviating.com> >> >> Whether going slow or fast through peak area is highly dependent on the >> power setting in use at the time. If 65% or less, it is immaterial >> whether you go slow or fast, you won't hurt anything. Generally more >> desirable to establish peak at 65%, then adjust to final power you >> desire with throttle. >> Otherwise, as you say, establish a known fuel flow that is assured to be >> LOP for the power setting, go straight from rich to that setting, and >> then find peak from the lean side, knowing the first to reach peak will >> be the richest cylinder and the rest are leaner. >> >> On 8/18/2019 11:44 AM, skywagon185guy . wrote: >> > Art, >> > About the leaning steps.... >> > I would suggest one additional comment/step: >> > As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, >> > one should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the >> > lean side as quickly as possible. >> > When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most >> > prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on >> > power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered >> > in. Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise >> > economy. After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in >> > lean mode, one can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT >> > or CHT to set the final mixture for lean cruise. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Subject: Re: Flaky EGT Probe
Art, my copy flips that: [image: image.png] Operating at or above 75% at peak egt is generally considered to be hazardous to exhaust valves. Under 75% makes peak operation ok, as mentioned in the document. The doc doesn't seem to address lean of peak; not surprising since it's almost 15 years old. IIRC, there are Lyc docs with later publication dates that hedge a bit on that 75%/peak statement, but virtually no one operates there, anyway. Almost nothing is lost by going 20-30 lean of peak, assuming mixture distribution allows it. Charlie On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 3:45 PM Art Zemon wrote: > Gents, > > I encourage both of you to read the Lycoming operator's manual for the > O-360 and IO-360. You can download it here: > https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO%20%26%20TIO-360%20Oper%20Manual%2060297-12.pdf > The document is quite specific about how to lean the engine and when > running LOP is permissible and how much hotter than peak. > > Executive summary: > > - 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT > - less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kelly McMullen > wrote: > >> kellym(at)aviating.com> >> >> Whether going slow or fast through peak area is highly dependent on the >> power setting in use at the time. If 65% or less, it is immaterial >> whether you go slow or fast, you won't hurt anything. Generally more >> desirable to establish peak at 65%, then adjust to final power you >> desire with throttle. >> Otherwise, as you say, establish a known fuel flow that is assured to be >> LOP for the power setting, go straight from rich to that setting, and >> then find peak from the lean side, knowing the first to reach peak will >> be the richest cylinder and the rest are leaner. >> >> On 8/18/2019 11:44 AM, skywagon185guy . wrote: >> > Art, >> > About the leaning steps.... >> > I would suggest one additional comment/step: >> > As one pulls the Mixture knob for leaning, when you get near peak EGT, >> > one should develop a habit of "zipping" thru peak and getting on the >> > lean side as quickly as possible. >> > When on the rich side and coming up on Peak EGT, there is a region most >> > prone to cause engine problems; pinging, detonation, etc. depending on >> > power setting, atmospherics, etc.. That region should be not lingered >> > in. Getting into the lean side does a nice job of cooling and cruise >> > economy. After some practice in noting where the mixture knob sits in >> > lean mode, one can do a fast "pull" from rich to lean, and then use EGT >> > or CHT to set the final mixture for lean cruise. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 08/17/19
At 07:50 AM 8/18/2019, you wrote: >Sorry to disturb the flow of this thread=85. >However, I have tried repeatedly to unsubscribe >from this list, followed the instructions to the >letter, even contacted the admin with no >success. If anyone can give me a hand I would be greatly appreciative. > >Please unsubscribe: rob(at)robcaldwell.net When you went to the matronics/subscribe page and un-checked your participation on this list, did you subsequently receive a an email asking for verification of your request . . . and did you affirm that request? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RobCaldwell.net" <rob(at)robcaldwell.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 08/17/19
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Yes Sir, I did all those things. Even checked my spam folder. I will say the site is quite archaic and difficult to ascertain various functions. Not intuitive. > On Aug 18, 2019, at 2:09 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 07:50 AM 8/18/2019, you wrote: >> Sorry to disturb the flow of this thread=C2=85>> . However, I have tried repeatedly to unsubscribe from this list, followed the instructions to the letter, even contacted the admin with no success. If anyone can give me a hand I would be greatly appreciative. >> >> Please unsubscribe: rob(at)robcaldwell.net > When you went to the matronics/subscribe page > and un-checked your participation on this list, > did you subsequently receive a an email > asking for verification of your request . . . > and did you affirm that request? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Lycoming POH
From: Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2019
Art Zemon wrflyote: Executive summary: 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak I think that's kind of scrambled, Art... the engine won't run 150 F lean of peak. What the Lycoming POH refers to is 150 ROP as best power... Beyond that, running at peak EGT above 65% is not going to have good results... The wording of the POH is misleading, unfortunately. For instance, Lycoming wrote: Maximum Power Cruise (approximately 75% power) Never lean beyond 150F on rich side of peak EGT unless aircraft operator's manual shows otherwise. So, which way is beyond, leaner or richer? What they mean is do not run leaner than 150 ROP at 75% power or greater. But they do their best to conceal that information. If you refer to Lycoming SP700, "There are Experts Everywhere" Lycoming explains that their engines can run just fine lean of peak. It's just that Lycoming believes most pilots are too stupid to do so correctly, and so they'll damage their engines... at least , that's what it says in SP700. So the guidance intended, if we can puzzle our way through the byzantine wording, is that 65% power or less, run anywhere you want, peak is a good place. Above 65% power, run RICH enough or LEAN enough to keep CHTs below 380 F. Paul, Talmudic service publication reader mode ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 19, 2019
Subject: Re: Lycoming POH
Thanks for correcting my scrambled interpretation, Paul. Yet another reason why I am sticking to the simple method at 65% of leaning until I experience a loss of power and then enrichening until the engine runs smoothly again. I may not get the absolutely perfectly most optimal fuel flow but my engine seems healthy and I am happy with the gallons per hour (if not the $$$ per gallon). -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:27 PM Paul Millner wrote: > Art Zemon wrflyote: > > Executive summary: > > =C2=B7 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT > > =C2=B7 less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak > > > I think that's kind of scrambled, Art... the engine won't run 150 F lean > of peak. What the Lycoming POH refers to is 150 ROP as best power... > > Beyond that, running at peak EGT above 65% is not going to have good > results... > > > The wording of the POH is misleading, unfortunately. For instance, > Lycoming wrote: Maximum Power Cruise (approximately 75% power) =93 Never lean > beyond 150=C2=B0F on rich side of peak EGT unless aircraft operator's man ual > shows otherwise. > > So, which way is beyond, leaner or richer? What they mean is do not run > leaner than 150 ROP at 75% power or greater. But they do their best to > conceal that information. > > > If you refer to Lycoming SP700, "There are Experts Everywhere" Lycoming > explains that their engines can run just fine lean of peak. It's just tha t > Lycoming believes most pilots are too stupid to do so correctly, and so > they'll damage their engines... at least , that's what it says in SP700. > > > So the guidance intended, if we can puzzle our way through the byzantine > wording, is that 65% power or less, run anywhere you want, peak is a good > place. > > Above 65% power, run RICH enough or LEAN enough to keep CHTs below 380 F. > > > Paul, Talmudic service publication reader mode > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bent EGT Probe Acceptable?
From: "jdubner" <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2019
Thanks, Jerry. That's what I was thinking too although I have not heard of it being done. -------- RV-8A Independence, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490959#490959 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Lycoming POH
Date: Aug 19, 2019
I found the articles written by John Deakin in the =9CPelican=99s Perch=9D very informative, they used to be on AvWeb but I don=99t know if they are still there. They are written for large Continentals, but the concepts are valid on other engines. As Paul has said, above 75% power lean with care as it is possible to get into detonation which can be very poor for the health of your engine and you/your wallet. But above 6000ft most normally aspirated engines won=99t pull more than 75%. Below 75% I lean aggressively to reduce fuel burn =93 as I live in a land where gas is expensive ($8.50 a gallon =93 I really wish I hadn=99t done that sum) if I can save a gallon an hour it is attractive. I have found a fuel flow /rpm number where I am happy to leave the engine. It does take some experience with your particular installation to get to know what the numbers are. CHTs are cooler than running ROP for the same airspeed. It does take some care to run LOP safely, start up high in a low workload cruise so it is possible to monitor temperatures closely. Once you have some experience it is possible to run LOP nearly all the time once the initial climbing is done. Peter From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com On Behalf Of Art Zemon Sent: 19 August 2019 13:03 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lycoming POH Thanks for correcting my scrambled interpretation, Paul. Yet another reason why I am sticking to the simple method at 65% of leaning until I experience a loss of power and then enrichening until the engine runs smoothly again. I may not get the absolutely perfectly most optimal fuel flow but my engine seems healthy and I am happy with the gallons per hour (if not the $$$ per gallon). -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:27 PM Paul Millner > wrote: Art Zemon wrflyote: Executive summary: * 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT * less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak I think that's kind of scrambled, Art... the engine won't run 150 F lean of peak. What the Lycoming POH refers to is 150 ROP as best power... Beyond that, running at peak EGT above 65% is not going to have good results... The wording of the POH is misleading, unfortunately. For instance, Lycoming wrote: Maximum Power Cruise (approximately 75% power) =93 Never lean beyond 150=C2=B0F on rich side of peak EGT unless aircraft operator's manual shows otherwise. So, which way is beyond, leaner or richer? What they mean is do not run leaner than 150 ROP at 75% power or greater. But they do their best to conceal that information. If you refer to Lycoming SP700, "There are Experts Everywhere" Lycoming explains that their engines can run just fine lean of peak. It's just that Lycoming believes most pilots are too stupid to do so correctly, and so they'll damage their engines... at least , that's what it says in SP700. So the guidance intended, if we can puzzle our way through the byzantine wording, is that 65% power or less, run anywhere you want, peak is a good place. Above 65% power, run RICH enough or LEAN enough to keep CHTs below 380 F. Paul, Talmudic service publication reader mode -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lycoming POH
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2019
The articles have been moved a time or two. I believe this is still a good link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120119070724/http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/list.html On 8/19/2019 2:58 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > I found the articles written by John Deakin in the Pelicans Perch > very informative, they used to be on AvWeb but I dont know if they are > still there. They are written for large Continentals, but the concepts > are valid on other engines. As Paul has said, above 75% power lean with > care as it is possible to get into detonation which can be very poor for > the health of your engine and you/your wallet. But above 6000ft most > normally aspirated engines wont pull more than 75%. > > Below 75% I lean aggressively to reduce fuel burn as I live in a land > where gas is expensive ($8.50 a gallon I really wish I hadnt done > that sum) if I can save a gallon an hour it is attractive. I have found > a fuel flow /rpm number where I am happy to leave the engine. It does > take some experience with your particular installation to get to know > what the numbers are. CHTs are cooler than running ROP for the same > airspeed. It does take some care to run LOP safely, start up high in a > low workload cruise so it is possible to monitor temperatures closely. > Once you have some experience it is possible to run LOP nearly all the > time once the initial climbing is done. > > Peter > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > *On Behalf Of *Art Zemon > *Sent:* 19 August 2019 13:03 > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Lycoming POH > > Thanks for correcting my scrambled interpretation, Paul. Yet another > reason why I am sticking to the simple method at 65% of leaning until I > experience a loss of power and then enrichening until the engine runs > smoothly again. I may not get the absolutely perfectly most optimal fuel > flow but my engine seems healthy and I am happy with the gallons per > hour (if not the $$$ per gallon). > > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:27 PM Paul Millner > wrote: > > Art Zemon wrflyote: > > Executive summary: > > 75% power or greater, run at peak EGT > > less than 75% power, run up to 150 degrees F lean of peak > > I think that's kind of scrambled, Art... the engine won't run 150 F > lean of peak. What the Lycoming POH refers to is 150 ROP as best > power... > > Beyond that, running at peak EGT above 65% is not going to have good > results... > > The wording of the POH is misleading, unfortunately. For instance, > Lycoming wrote: Maximum Power Cruise (approximately 75% power) > Never lean beyond 150F on rich side of peak EGT unless aircraft > operator's manual shows otherwise. > > So, which way is beyond, leaner or richer? What they mean is do not > run leaner than 150 ROP at 75% power or greater. But they do their > best to conceal that information. > > If you refer to Lycoming SP700, "There are Experts Everywhere" > Lycoming explains that their engines can run just fine lean of peak. > It's just that Lycoming believes most pilots are too stupid to do so > correctly, and so they'll damage their engines... at least , that's > what it says in SP700. > > So the guidance intended, if we can puzzle our way through the > byzantine wording, is that 65% power or less, run anywhere you want, > peak is a good place. > > Above 65% power, run RICH enough or LEAN enough to keep CHTs below > 380 F. > > Paul, Talmudic service publication reader mode > > > -- > > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. /Deut. 10:19 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2019
Late Post: I've been down the troubleshooting road a few times with my Z-14 (dual bus/bat/alt). I had to relearn this a few times but fully get it now - I treat LR3C and it's step-by-step Troubleshooting Guide as the very first step for any charging system problem. And not skipping a step is step 0. Glad you found and solved the problem. > Kudos to TJ at B&C Aero. When I called to get educated on what pin 3 > does and how the voltage regulator acts in response to 0 volts, he had > already read my earlier post here and knew the background of my situation. > > Kudos to B&C Aero for providing an excellent troubleshooting guide > within the LR3C Installation Manual. Step 2 pinpointed the problem. > > -- Art Z. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2019
From: Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
=C2-is the troubleshooting guide available on their website? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM, Bill Watson wrot e: Late Post: I've been down the troubleshooting road a few times with my Z-14 (dual bus/ bat/alt).=C2- I had to relearn this a few times but fully get it now - I treat LR3C and it's step-by-step Troubleshooting Guide as the very first st ep for any charging system problem.=C2- And not skipping a step is step 0 .=C2- Glad you found and solved the problem. Kudos to TJ at B&C Aero. When I called to get educated on what pin 3 do es and how the voltage regulator acts in response to 0 volts, he had alread y read my earlier post here and knew the background of my situation. Kudos to B&C Aero for providing an excellent troubleshooting guide within the LR3C Installation Manual. Step 2 pinpointed the problem. =C2- =C2- -- Art Z. | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" - SOLVED
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2019
The B&C LR3C Troubleshooting Guide in included in the Installation Manual. http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/LR3C_Installation_Manual.pdf -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490988#490988 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BNC connectors =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=93?= Tool recommendation/Installation
question
From: "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Check out these Ebay items: eBay item number: 303261899740 eBay item number: 123868770273 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491000#491000 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Subject: Circuit for simple fuel quantity indicator
I have conventional linear fuel sender units, 0 ohms empty and 180 ohms in the full position. I wish to display approximate fuel status with 5 LED's, which light up as quantity increases. In the empty state a red LED will be indicating. 12v system. Knowing you guys, this is a simple "back of a napkin sketch" for some of you! Any ideas appreciated. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Circuit for simple fuel quantity indicator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
A Google search turned up these two results for homemade LED fuel gauge. - https://www.xjbikes.com/forums/threads/diy-led-digital-fuel-gauge.25289/ - http://www.mez.co.uk/ms13-new.html -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491002#491002 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Circuit for simple fuel quantity indicator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Radio Shack's 1980 edition of "Engineer's Notebook" by Forrest M. Mims, III has a schematic of a LED Bargraph Readout using a LM339 on page 107. It refers to a Popular Electronics article on pages 92 - 97 of the September 1978 issue available as a PDF here: https://americanradiohistory.com/index.htm "American Radio History" has copies of hundreds of old books and magazines about electronics, radio and television. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491003#491003 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Subject: Re: Circuit for simple fuel quantity indicator
Gee thanks Joe, really appreciate the trouble....I seem to not be that good at finding stuff on Google.. On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 14:38, user9253 wrote: > > Radio Shack's 1980 edition of "Engineer's Notebook" by Forrest M. Mims, > III has a schematic of a LED Bargraph Readout using a LM339 on page 107. > It refers to a Popular Electronics article on pages 92 - 97 of the > September 1978 issue available as a PDF here: > https://americanradiohistory.com/index.htm > "American Radio History" has copies of hundreds of old books and > magazines about electronics, radio and television. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491003#491003 > > -- Best... Bob Verwey 082 331 2727 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Subject: google searching, was: Circuit for simple fuel quantity
indicator
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Google is bad these days. Way too many ads. You might have better luck with Bing or Duckduckgo. However, an image search on google is still helpful, for example, an image search for LED FUEL LEVEL brings up some circuit ideas https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1290&bih=914&ei=buxfXfafK4azggep8rCYAg&q=led+fuel+level&oq=led+fuel+level&gs_l=img.12..0j0i5i30.1268.15873..19060...0.0..0.47.557.14......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i30j0i8i30j0i24.EM45HPzp_4A&ved=0ahUKEwj2jrHrjpnkAhWGmeAKHSk5DCMQ4dUDCAU -Kent > On Aug 23, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Bob Verwey wrote: > > Gee thanks Joe, really appreciate the trouble....I seem to not be that good at finding stuff on Google. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BNC connectors =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=93?= Tool recommendation/Installation
question
From: "Argonaut36" <fmlibrino(at)msn.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2019
Thanks, John. I did a search on ebay (worldwide and no filter selected) for the item numbers listed in your post, but nothing came up. Could you please provide alternate methods to find these items on ebay or on other websites? Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491013#491013 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2019
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Re:_BNC_connectors_=C3=A2?= =?UTF-8?Q?=82=AC=9C_Tool_recommendation/Installation_question?
He's in the UK.=C2- The item numbers he posted don't work here in the Co lonies.=C2- See: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y2z3ydo8 ...and... https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6kg44b8 ...for his search results. Eric com> wrote: Thanks, John. I did a search on ebay (worldwide and no filter selected) for the item numb ers listed in your post, but nothing came up.=C2- Could you please provid e alternate methods to find these items on ebay or on other websites? Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: BNC connectors =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C3=A2=9C?=
Tool recommendation/Installation question At 01:24 PM 8/23/2019, you wrote: >He's in the UK. The item numbers he posted don't work here in the >Colonies. See: > >https://preview.tinyurl.com/y2z3ydo8 This is a two blade stripper . . . recommend a 3-blad stripper that offers removal of jacket, shield AND inner insulation Emacs! Here's one example of several https://tinyurl.com/y33rwjzv That crimp tool is generic and offered by dozens of sellers with a wide range of prices. Price is not generally indicative of quality . . .but I think I've only seen one unsatisfactory batch of these critters off eBay in the past 20 years. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2019
From: Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Re:_BNC_connectors_=C3=A2?= =?UTF-8?Q?=82=AC=9C_Tool_recommendation/Installation_question?
I used the advanced search feature to search by item number. Neither of th ese numbers is good. Charlie uk.eu> wrote: > Check out these Ebay items: eBay item number: 303261899740 eBay item number: 123868770273 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491000#491000 - S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BNC connectors =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C3=A2=82=AC=9C?=
Tool recommen
From: "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Aug 24, 2019
Thank you Eric, I hope that has helped Charlie John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491021#491021 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2019
From: Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Re:_BNC_c?= =?UTF-8?Q?onnectors_=C3=83=C2=A2=C3=A2=9A=C2=AC=C3=A2?=
=?UTF-8?Q?=82=AC=C5=93_Tool_recommen? It certainly did. Thanks hn(at)tiptonuk.eu> wrote: > Thank you Eric, I hope that has helped Charlie John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491021#491021 - S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
I pulled and replaced fuses one at a time until I isolated the circuit that is generating the noise in my handheld. It is the MGL EFIS, believe it or not. After identifying the fuse, I started disconnecting individual devices. The circuit contains two MGL Challenger 10.4 inch screens and the MGL iBOX (the backend brains box of the system). The screens are the sources of the noise. When I pull the power connector off the back of a screen, I get much less noise. Any thoughts on this? I can't very well wrap my EFIS screens in Faraday cages. At this point, I am pretty much ready to give up on the notion of a handheld radio as a backup communication device. -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Art Zemon wrote: > >> During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld >> radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a >> low-ish frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the >> past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." >> >> Here are the details: >> >> I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on >> the ground. >> >> I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my >> headset into the adapter. >> >> I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm >> radio is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily >> available under the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second >> comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of >> the airplane, about 3 feet apart. >> >> I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that >> I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off >> the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try >> transmitting. >> >> The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. >> >> Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: >> >> - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C >> voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. >> - PS Engineering audio panel. >> - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. >> - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag >> - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position >> lights off. >> - MGL iEFIS system >> - iPad and smartphone >> >> What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup >> communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. >> > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Is the handheld using aircraft power or internal batteries? -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491037#491037 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Can a remote antenna be connected? It might make a difference if the antenna is just a couple of feet farther away from the MGL EFIS. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491038#491038 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Hi Art, I should have thought of that when you 1st described the problem. One of the other EFIS makers had a similar issue early in production; the display itself was radiating at its scan rate (typically 30-60 Hz). I can't remember what was done to cure the problem back then. If it were me, I'd play with the handheld a bit, changing frequencies to see if some are better/worse than others, and then contact MGL directly with as much data as possible. They seem to be 'stand up' people, so I'd bet on them at least trying to help you. Ranier Lamers of MGL posts occasionally on the VAF forum, so they do pay attention to builders. Charlie Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 6:49 AM Art Zemon wrote: > I pulled and replaced fuses one at a time until I isolated the circuit > that is generating the noise in my handheld. It is the MGL EFIS, believe it > or not. After identifying the fuse, I started disconnecting individual > devices. The circuit contains two MGL Challenger 10.4 inch screens and the > MGL iBOX (the backend brains box of the system). The screens are the > sources of the noise. When I pull the power connector off the back of a > screen, I get much less noise. > > Any thoughts on this? I can't very well wrap my EFIS screens in Faraday > cages. At this point, I am pretty much ready to give up on the notion of a > handheld radio as a backup communication device. > > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Art Zemon wrote: >> >>> During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld >>> radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a >>> low-ish frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the >>> past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." >>> >>> Here are the details: >>> >>> I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on >>> the ground. >>> >>> I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my >>> headset into the adapter. >>> >>> I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm >>> radio is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily >>> available under the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second >>> comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of >>> the airplane, about 3 feet apart. >>> >>> I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum >>> that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I >>> turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did >>> not try transmitting. >>> >>> The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. >>> >>> Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: >>> >>> - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C >>> voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. >>> - PS Engineering audio panel. >>> - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. >>> - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag >>> - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but >>> nav/position lights off. >>> - MGL iEFIS system >>> - iPad and smartphone >>> >>> What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup >>> communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. >>> >> > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. > 10:19 > Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Appareo Stratus ESG ADS-B transponder OSH Special
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
I have an OSH special promotion code to receive a free Stratus 3i ADS-B-In receiver when purchasing an Appareo Stratus transponder from a dealer during the month of August. I am not going to use this code and could share it with someone who reads the AeroElectric list. The code will expire in one week and can only be used one time. If interested, email me: Joe 9253 Fran at frontier dot com There are no spaces in my email address. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491039#491039 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Internal batteries -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 8:03 AM user9253 wrote: > > Is the handheld using aircraft power or internal batteries? > > -------- > Joe Gores -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Charlie, I already posted on the MGL users' forum. Hopefully, I will hear back soon. I figured I should close the loop here, too. Cheers, -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 8:45 AM Charlie England wrote: > Hi Art, > > I should have thought of that when you 1st described the problem. One of > the other EFIS makers had a similar issue early in production; the display > itself was radiating at its scan rate (typically 30-60 Hz). I can't > remember what was done to cure the problem back then. If it were me, I'd > play with the handheld a bit, changing frequencies to see if some are > better/worse than others, and then contact MGL directly with as much > data as possible. They seem to be 'stand up' people, so I'd bet on them at > least trying to help you. Ranier Lamers of MGL posts occasionally on the > VAF forum, so they do pay attention to builders. > > Charlie > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_-5307110112801134938_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 6:49 AM Art Zemon wrote: > >> I pulled and replaced fuses one at a time until I isolated the circuit >> that is generating the noise in my handheld. It is the MGL EFIS, believe it >> or not. After identifying the fuse, I started disconnecting individual >> devices. The circuit contains two MGL Challenger 10.4 inch screens and the >> MGL iBOX (the backend brains box of the system). The screens are the >> sources of the noise. When I pull the power connector off the back of a >> screen, I get much less noise. >> >> Any thoughts on this? I can't very well wrap my EFIS screens in Faraday >> cages. At this point, I am pretty much ready to give up on the notion of a >> handheld radio as a backup communication device. >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Art Zemon wrote: >>> >>>> During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld >>>> radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a >>>> low-ish frequency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the >>>> past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." >>>> >>>> Here are the details: >>>> >>>> I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on >>>> the ground. >>>> >>>> I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my >>>> headset into the adapter. >>>> >>>> I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm >>>> radio is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily >>>> available under the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second >>>> comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of >>>> the airplane, about 3 feet apart. >>>> >>>> I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum >>>> that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I >>>> turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did >>>> not try transmitting. >>>> >>>> The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. >>>> >>>> Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: >>>> >>>> - Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C >>>> voltage regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. >>>> - PS Engineering audio panel. >>>> - VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. >>>> - AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag >>>> - AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but >>>> nav/position lights off. >>>> - MGL iEFIS system >>>> - iPad and smartphone >>>> >>>> What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup >>>> communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. >>>> >>> -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
At 07:56 AM 8/25/2019, you wrote: > >Can a remote antenna be connected? It might make a difference if >the antenna is just a couple of feet farther away from the MGL EFIS. > >-------- >Joe Gores This is the easiest solution . . . and it will markedly improve hand-held performance. Assuming it's intended to back up the panel mounted comm, consider crafting some way of reconnecting the ship's normal comm antenna to the hand held. Some builders have routed their comm antenna coax such that it passed aft through the cockpit but with a set of connectors that would allow disconnection. Extra coax 'slack' was coiled against the side wall and held with a suitable retainer/cover (velcro'ed on?). When the coiled breakout was opened and extended, the antenna side of the feeder was connection to the hand held with this or some similar arrangement. See pictures 05, 06 and 09 here: https://tinyurl.com/y32yn7cl There have been numerous instances of LCD screen radiation from instruments un-friendly to the cockpit RF environment. Connecting the hand held to a remotely mounted antenna fixed the noise and improved performance as well . . . win-win . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ryan Southam <ryansoutham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Date: Aug 25, 2019
It is very well known for some EFIS systems to radiate some nasty RF. One t hing that sometimes works is running a completely separate earth from a scr ew on the case to ground. Secondly, I have had good success with handheld radio and extraneous RF by taking the headset fly lead and wrapping it a couple of times around and RF choke (ferrite bead/choke). The ones that are in plastic housings that cli p together. I found that it was often about two or three wraps that worked not just passing the cable through once. It made no difference to do this on the headset leads bit certainly did on the fly lead from the radio itself. Easy, cheap solution to try. This is a very Heath Robinson fix but has worked in the past for me. ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list -server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Art Zemon Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 1:57:55 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight Charlie, I already posted on the MGL users' forum. Hopefully, I will hear back soon. I figured I should close the loop here, too. Cheers, -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 8:45 AM Charlie England > wrote: Hi Art, I should have thought of that when you 1st described the problem. One of th e other EFIS makers had a similar issue early in production; the display it self was radiating at its scan rate (typically 30-60 Hz). I can't remember what was done to cure the problem back then. If it were me, I'd play with t he handheld a bit, changing frequencies to see if some are better/worse tha n others, and then contact MGL directly with as much data as possible. They seem to be 'stand up' people, so I'd bet on them at least trying to help y ou. Ranier Lamers of MGL posts occasionally on the VAF forum, so they do pa y attention to builders. Charlie [X] Virus-free. www.avast.com On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 6:49 AM Art Zemon > wrote: I pulled and replaced fuses one at a time until I isolated the circuit that is generating the noise in my handheld. It is the MGL EFIS, believe it or not. After identifying the fuse, I started disconnecting individual devices . The circuit contains two MGL Challenger 10.4 inch screens and the MGL iBO X (the backend brains box of the system). The screens are the sources of th e noise. When I pull the power connector off the back of a screen, I get mu ch less noise. Any thoughts on this? I can't very well wrap my EFIS screens in Faraday cag es. At this point, I am pretty much ready to give up on the notion of a han dheld radio as a backup communication device. -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Art Zemon > wrote: During my flight home from AirVenture, I decided to test my handheld radio in flight. There was so much hum that it was unusable. This was a low-ish f requency hum, not pulsing. Definitely not what I have heard in the past as a higher frequency "alternator whine." Here are the details: I have the Yaesu Vertext FTA 550 handheld VHF radio. It works great on the ground. I plugged in the Yaesu headset adapter into the radio. I plugged my headset into the adapter. I have a second comm antenna on the airplane but, since the second comm rad io is not installed, I have the coax with BNC connector readily available u nder the front of the instrument panel. I connected the second comm antenna to the handheld. The two comm antennas are mounted on top of the airplane, about 3 feet apart. I tuned to a nearby ASOS. The audio was buried under such a loud hum that I could barely hear it. I tried a different ASOS; same result. I turned off the comm radio in my panel and the hum was still present. I did not try tra nsmitting. The in-panel comm radio (a VAL COM 2000) does not have any hum. Other devices in the airplane which were turned on at the time: * Lycoming engine with primary and backup B&C alternators with B&C volt age regulators. Ignition is from two newly rebuilt magnetos. * PS Engineering audio panel. * VAL NAV 2000 VOR/ILS/GS receiver. * AeroLEDS landing lights on wig-wag * AeroLEDS Pulsar NSP wingtip lights with strobes on but nav/position l ights off. * MGL iEFIS system * iPad and smartphone What ideas do you have? Carrying a handheld radio for backup communication is kind of pointless if I can't communicate with it. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Fly Lead? Is that the wire that connects to the Flyback transformer? :-) -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491053#491053 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 25, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Bob, I tried an external antenna. No difference in noise. I have two antennas installed in the airplane and (so far) only one comm radio. So the other coax is hanging down with a BNC connector on it so I can attach it to my handheld. I got similar noise in-flight whether I used the external antenna or the little whip antenna. I'll see what MGL says but I suspect that I just won't be able to easily use the handheld for a backup. The key seems to be proximity to the EFIS screen. If I move the handheld a few more feet farther away) then the noise decreases. Maybe I have to put the handheld on the floor behind me, instead of in my lap. -- Art Z. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:29 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 07:56 AM 8/25/2019, you wrote: > > > Can a remote antenna be connected? It might make a difference if the > antenna is just a couple of feet farther away from the MGL EFIS. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > This is the easiest solution . . . and it will markedly improve > hand-held performance. Assuming it's intended to back > up the panel mounted comm, consider crafting some way > of reconnecting the ship's normal comm antenna to > the hand held. Some builders have routed their > comm antenna coax such that it passed aft through > the cockpit but with a set of connectors that would > allow disconnection. Extra coax 'slack' was coiled > against the side wall and held with a suitable > retainer/cover (velcro'ed on?). When the coiled > breakout was opened and extended, the antenna > side of the feeder was connection to the hand > held with this or some similar arrangement. > > See pictures 05, 06 and 09 here: > > https://tinyurl.com/y32yn7cl > > There have been numerous instances of LCD screen > radiation from instruments un-friendly to the > cockpit RF environment. Connecting the hand > held to a remotely mounted antenna fixed the > noise and improved performance as well . . . > win-win . . . > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
At 08:10 PM 8/25/2019, you wrote: >Bob, > >I tried an external antenna. No difference in noise. I have two >antennas installed in the airplane and (so far) only one comm radio. >So the other coax is hanging down with a BNC connector on it so I >can attach it to my handheld. I got similar noise in-flight whether >I used the external antenna or the little whip antenna. > >I'll see what MGL says but I suspect that I just won't be able to >easily use the handheld for a backup. The key seems to be proximity >to the EFIS screen. If I move the handheld a few more feet farther >away) then the noise decreases. Maybe I have to put the handheld on >the floor behind me, instead of in my lap. Interesting . . . does the hand-held have an adjustable squelch? Can it be tightened to quiet the noise? If you disconnect the antenna, does the noise go away? what kind of airplane again? You wrote before: >When I pull the power connector off the back of a screen, I get much less noise.< You say 'much less' . . . not zero . . . same kind of noise or different 'voice'. >. . . ready to give up on the notion of a handheld radio as a backup communication device.< This MIGHT be a function of the brand of hand held. If a remote antenna doesn't mitigate the problem, perhaps the radio has a local vulnerability right through the case. Can you borrow another brand to try? It's been a long time since I've heard of a radiating screen problem . . . it used to be pretty common. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: ARINC Wiring Shield?
Folks, I am about to integrate one of the new Garmin 175 GPS receivers into my airplane and that involves a couple of ARINC wire pairs. I am surprised to see that the MGL-to-Garmin integration guide suggests shielded twisted pair wiring. From my read of the signaling, ARINC uses a voltage differential between the wires so it should be immune to noise and not require shielding (much like the CAN bus). Is shielding actually required (or even commonly suggested) for ARINC wire pairs? -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Bob, answers to questions interspersed below On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:54 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 08:10 PM 8/25/2019, you wrote: > > Bob, > > I tried an external antenna. No difference in noise. I have two antennas > installed in the airplane and (so far) only one comm radio. So the other > coax is hanging down with a BNC connector on it so I can attach it to my > handheld. I got similar noise in-flight whether I used the external antenna > or the little whip antenna. > > I'll see what MGL says but I suspect that I just won't be able to easily > use the handheld for a backup. The key seems to be proximity to the EFIS > screen. If I move the handheld a few more feet farther away) then the noise > decreases. Maybe I have to put the handheld on the floor behind me, instead > of in my lap. > > > Interesting . . . does the hand-held have > an adjustable squelch? Can it be tightened > to quiet the noise? If you disconnect the > antenna, does the noise go away? > The radio is a Yaesu FTA 550. I run it from AA batteries so it is completely disconnected from the airplane (unless I connect the external antenna). I can adjust the squelch but if I turn the squelch high enough to cut the noise, ASOS transmissions don't break the squelch when I am 20 miles or so from the airport (where I want to be listening to the ASOS). I did not try disconnecting the antenna and listening for noise, since I only focused on configurations where the radio was actually usable. what kind of airplane again? > Bede BD-4C, all aluminum > You wrote before: > > >When I pull the power connector off > the back of a screen, I get much less noise.< > > You say 'much less' . . . not zero . . . same > kind of noise or different 'voice'. > Same noise. There are two identical EFIS screens. If I hold the radio where it would be if I were flying, and disconnect the screen in front of the pilot, there is less noise. The copilot's screen is still powered on. If I pull the fuse for the EFIS system (both screens, iBox "brains" box, magnetometer, and AHRS) then the noise goes away entirely. > > >. . . ready to give up on the notion of a > handheld radio as a backup communication device.< > > This MIGHT be a function of the > brand of hand held. If a remote antenna > doesn't mitigate the problem, perhaps > the radio has a local vulnerability right > through the case. > > Can you borrow another brand to try? > I have an old Icom. I'll give it a try. > > It's been a long time since I've heard > of a radiating screen problem . . . it > used to be pretty common. > > Bob . . . > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2019
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
If it works on the bench - I would say there's nothing wrong with the 480. The pins in the tray would be my next investigation point. Make sure you have good power and ground in the tray! -----Original Message----- >From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> >Sent: Aug 26, 2019 2:53 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 480 problems > > >My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > >I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > >Sheldon Olesen > >Sent from my iPad > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Sheldon, If I recall the 480 was not a Garmin product but, is owned by Garmin so I what I will explain is really aimed at GNS430's but, maybe also the 480. The 430 chassis box is/was very sensitive when installed a bit too far back in the aircraft panel. And, what has happened, is when the 430 is slid into the chassis, some of the pins would not make 100% contact with the chassis pin sockets. Fix is to loosen the chassis mounting screws and pull it forward such that it's forward edge is even with the instrument panel surface. And, thus, the 430 can now slide a bit further back into chassis and the failing pins will make contact with the chassis socket pin receivers. Dave On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:53 AM saolesen wrote: > > My GNS 480 won=99t turn on. I=99ve checked the wiring to the radio tray and > there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to > a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in > the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I > replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that tak e > care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket > junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no > problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for > some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 > hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switchin g > from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have > since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
What Dave said, and also check both the pins and their mating socket terminals, to be sure none have backed out of the housing slightly. I really like subD connectors, but failure to fully seat and pins/sockets backing out slightly (often almost undetectable with the naked eye) can both cause problems. I had a similar problem with an old Narco 810, a couple of decades ago. Charlie On 8/26/2019 2:58 PM, skywagon185guy . wrote: > Sheldon, > If I recall the 480 was not a Garmin product but, is owned by Garmin > so I what I will explain is really aimed at GNS430's but, maybe also > the 480. > The 430 chassis box is/was very sensitivewheninstalled a bit too far > back in the aircraft panel. And, what has happened, is when the 430 > is slid into the chassis, some of the pins would not make 100% contact > with the chassis pin sockets. > Fix is to loosen the chassis mounting screws and pull it forward such > that it's forward edge is even with the instrument panel surface. > And, thus, the 430 can now slide a bit further back into chassis and > the failing pins will make contact with the chassis socket pin receivers. > Dave > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:53 AM saolesen > wrote: > > > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio > tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also > attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just > fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there > was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power > and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the > problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. > Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems > with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for > some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio > have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by > switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave > Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working > normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Erik Anderson <erik_anderson(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: Re: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight
Art, I run an iEFIS Explorer with a Sporty=99s SP-400 as my backup comm in m y Long-EZ, no problems. Well, I could probably make some of the intercom wir ing more elegant. Now, the SP-400 is normally plugged into a winglet antenna, but it also work s fine with just the aerial; I=99ve tested it. I=99d use it, if the aerial antenna didn=99t sit right where I=99d like to have m y left elbow. Is it possible you=99re running very old software? MGL actually added a bit of clock dithering to reduce EMI, but that update was...4 years ago. > > 1 December 2015 version A 1.0.2.6 > > > Added: Spread spectrum clocking on all peripherals, RS232, CAN bus as well as LCD display. This =9Cspreads=9D EMI spurious emissions over a larger frequency band thereby reducing peak power at any one specific frequ ency. This aids in suppressing radio RX noise from EFIS in compromised insta llations. > From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Comm Interference In Flight > > I pulled and replaced fuses one at a time until I isolated the circuit tha t > is generating the noise in my handheld. It is the MGL EFIS, believe it or > not. After identifying the fuse, I started disconnecting individual > devices. The circuit contains two MGL Challenger 10.4 inch screens and the > MGL iBOX (the backend brains box of the system). The screens are the > sources of the noise. When I pull the power connector off the back of a > screen, I get much less noise. > > Any thoughts on this? I can't very well wrap my EFIS screens in Faraday > cages. At this point, I am pretty much ready to give up on the notion of a > handheld radio as a backup communication device. > > -- Art Z. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2019
Subject: GNS 480 problems
My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
From: "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Hi Art, I think it might be a case of belt and suspenders but in the industrial arena, it is not uncommon for vendors implementing CAN networks to recommend twisted + shielded cabling. https://www.belden.com/hubfs/resources/technical/technical-data/english/773105T.pdf?hsLang=en Granted, an airplane is not as electrically noisy as a modern manufacturing site but as I expect the more learned contibutors to the forum will advocate, following the vendors recommended installation practices is usually good advice. Best regards, Dan. -------- Scratch building Sonex #1362 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491072#491072 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
At 08:34 AM 8/27/2019, you wrote: > >Hi Art, > >I think it might be a case of =9Cbelt and >suspenders=9D but in the industrial arena, it is >not uncommon for vendors implementing CAN >networks to recommend twisted + shielded cabling. Yeah . . . probably . . . but about the only way you can buy twisted pair is under a shield. I've probably got a few thousand feed of 2x22S . . . how many feet do you need . . . send me a mailing address Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: saolesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2019
Subject: Re: GNS 480 problems
Thanks Dave and Charlie. I had a chance to go to the hangar briefly, so I checked the where the tray is placed. It is actually slightly proud on one side and even on the other. I noticed the panel screw was slightly loose so I tightened it , but that didnt fix the problem. Ill have more time tomorrow so Ill check out the pin depth placement. I had the back of the tray off to get a pin in for the position source for the ADS-B out transponder. That may have have moved the pins adversely. Thanks again! Sheldon Olesen Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:53 PM, saolesen wrote: > > > My GNS 480 wont turn on. Ive checked the wiring to the radio tray and there is the proper voltage at the proper pins. I also attached the 480 to a bench power supply and it turned on just fine. Sliding the radio back in the tray and turning it on there was nothing. So my question is: If I replace the female power and ground pins in the 37 pin dsub will that take care of the problem? I am thinking there is wear at the pin-socket junction. Is there something else I should look at? I have had no problems with the tray and the radio prior to this, so I am looking for some one who has solved the problem before. The plane and radio have 902 hours of use. > > I also had transmission problems recently which were resolved by switching from the Bose Lemo plug to the standard jacks and Dave Clarks. I have since switched back and everything is working normally again. > > Sheldon Olesen > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
"Yeah . . . probably . . . but about the only way=C2- you can buy twisted pair is under a shield." This is not quite true, Bob.=C2- There are several examples of twisted wi re cables that do not have shields.=C2- The most ubiquitous example is Et hernet, also known as 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T and 1000BASE-T. These three media are basically the same but are modified slightly to accommodate faster and faster data transmission.=C2- They are defined in the IEEE 802 standard. =C2-These 3 cables are hardly distinguishable by the naked eye except for color coded plastic jackets, and they contain no shielding.=C2-They only contain 4 twisted wire pairs that are held in close proximity to each othe r by the jacket. It was determined by defense contractors back in the 1980s that twisted wir es will accomplish two things.=C2- First, each pair keeps its magnetic fi eld to a bare minimum by ensuring that the twisted wires are in close proxi mity to each other.=C2- As current flow in one direction on one wire, its mate carries the return current back to its source.=C2- The resulting op posite magnetic fields from each wire cancel each other out due to their cl ose proximity. This means that their twin magnetic fields do not interfere with the other twisted wire pairs' magnetic fields.=C2- Second, if the tw isted wire pair transmitters and receivers are differential instead of sing le-ended, they can reject offending magnetic fields, because the injected v oltages are the same in the two wires, due to their proximity to each other . The differential receiver sees the offending voltages but rejects them du e to its design. The major defense contractors have known about this technique for a while n ow and have implemented them in both wire cables and printed circuit boards to reduce the chances of electromagnetic interference.=C2- Minor defense contractors and commercial companies have taken a much longer time to disc over how to transmit signals from point A to B and have made painstaking mi stakes that have affected their schedules and reliability tremendously.=C2 - In many cases, they still haven't figured it out. All of this came about because of increasing signal speeds.=C2- Most peop le think of signal speeds in terms of clock speed.=C2- The correct way of looking at it is the signal's rising and edge times. The true electromagne tic spectra of these rising and falling edges can be studied by use of the Fourier transform.=C2- This transform will reconstruct the edges using di screte frequency spectra, whose frequencies extend harmonically beyond the clock speed. In other words, the frequencies generated by a simple clock or signal pulse go way beyond what you will see on the signal's oscilloscope waveform.=C2- Then by using Maxwell's equations, one can study how the fi elds radiate out and come up with solutions. Today's technology is much different than 1980s technology, with spectra go ing into the microwave region. In the commercial world, major companies lik e Intel have had to develop and rely on tools that study both motherboard a nd IC layouts to minimize interference from closely placed components.=C2 - They have developed techniques like microstrip and stripline to minimiz e electromagnetic interference, much like what twisted wire pairs do.=C2- They do not rely on shielding, because they're keeping each signal's offen ding magnetic fields to a bare minimum, even when located microns from each other.=C2- The two methods mentioned above were borrowed from the radar world. In other words, it took RF engineers to solve computer engineers' pr oblems as speeds increased. In my opinion, the EFIS manufacturers are behind the 8-ball, mostly because their engineers have not been exposed to what I say above.=C2- Furthermo re, these companies are really run by software engineers who are living in the ideal world and have no clue about signals and their spectra and how to control them. I've seen several examples of EFIS manufacturers solve "glit ches" with software.=C2- These software patches are only band-aids and co ntinue to proliferate in future designs, because they don't truly understan d the problem.=C2- As band-aids accumulate, the EFIS functionalities beco me even more quirky.=C2- I see this in many other products, and people ex plain them away as "just a glitch." Shields are used by the "experts" for two reasons.=C2- One is to provide a more uniform controlled impedance to transmit RF power and receive weak R F energy.=C2- Two is for physical integrity such as the wire telling the ignition mag to turn on and off. That wire could easily be replaced with a twisted wire pair, but shielding provides better physical protection.=C2- You could run it in a PVC pipe and accomplish the same thing. I know this all sounds mysterious to most people, but I know for a fact tha t 3 defense manufacturers started looking at signal integrity problems star ting in the 1980s when things started getting faster, and glitches started popping up.=C2- These 3 companies wrote design manuals for their engineer s to follow.=C2- These books were cook books designed to avoid previously made mistakes. They actually have review boards that ensure the guidelines were followed.=C2- If you don't follow them, you better have a damn good reason why you didn't. I know of several cases where design engineers actu ally came up with better ideas, and the design manuals were revised.=C2- In all cases, reliability and problem free operation overrode other factors . Henador Titzoff wrote: At 08:34 AM 8/27/2019, you wrote: --> AeroElectric-List messageposted by: "dj_theis" Hi Art, I think it might be a case of =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93belt and suspenders=C3 =A2=82=AC=EF=BD but in theindustrial arena, it is not uncommon for ve ndors implementing CANnetworks to recommend twisted + shieldedcabling. =C2- Yeah . . . probably . . . but about the only way =C2- you can buy twisted pair is under a shield. I've =C2- probably got a few thousand feed of 2x22S . . . =C2- how many feet do you need . . . send me a mailing =C2- address =C2- Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
From: "bcone1381" <bcone1964(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2019
I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than 100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within 10 feet of the magnetometer. The Whelen lights have four wires. One ground wire, one sync wire to sync up the strobes, and two 12Vdc power wires, one for the Nav Light, and one for the Strobe. In order to apply Garmin's "Twisted Sheilded Pair" demand, am I right in thinking I should run three twisted shield pairs, one for each power wire, and one for the sync, having each of these three wires twisted with a ground wire? Then I think I'll run the ground and shielding to the ground block at the inside of my firewall. -------- Brooks Cone Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491095#491095 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
>This is not quite true, Bob. There are several examples of twisted wire cables that do not have shields. The most ubiquitous example is Ethernet, also >known as 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T and 1000BASE-T. But where would we find Cat5 cable on an airplane? I was speaking of wire I might pull from inventory at Beech . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 12:03 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the >wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, >plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin >instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than >100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within >10 feet of the magnetometer. > >The Whelen lights have four wires. One ground wire, one sync wire >to sync up the strobes, and two 12Vdc power wires, one for the Nav >Light, and one for the Strobe. > >In order to apply Garmin's "Twisted Sheilded Pair" demand, am I >right in thinking I should run three twisted shield pairs, one for >each power wire, and one for the sync, having each of these three >wires twisted with a ground wire? Then I think I'll run the ground >and shielding to the ground block at the inside of my firewall. No . . . was there any wire supplied with the Whelen parts? Just keeping the 4 wires together under a single jacket should suffice. The Whelen kits used to include wing wire (used to be twisted trio under shield) . . . any wire included these days? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 12:03 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the >wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, >plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin >instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than >100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within >10 feet of the magnetometer. > >The Whelen lights have four wires. One ground wire, one sync wire >to sync up the strobes, and two 12Vdc power wires, one for the Nav >Light, and one for the Strobe. > >In order to apply Garmin's "Twisted Sheilded Pair" demand, am I >right in thinking I should run three twisted shield pairs, one for >each power wire, and one for the sync, having each of these three >wires twisted with a ground wire? Then I think I'll run the ground >and shielding to the ground block at the inside of my firewall. No . . . was there any wire supplied with the Whelen parts? Just keeping the 4 wires together under a single jacket should suffice. The Whelen kits used to include wing wire (used to be twisted trio under shield) . . . any wire included these days? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 12:03 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the >wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, >plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin >instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than >100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within >10 feet of the magnetometer. What model of tip lights are you installing? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 12:03 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the >wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, >plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin >instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than >100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within >10 feet of the magnetometer. > >The Whelen lights have four wires. One ground wire, one sync wire >to sync up the strobes, and two 12Vdc power wires, one for the Nav >Light, and one for the Strobe. > >In order to apply Garmin's "Twisted Sheilded Pair" demand, am I >right in thinking I should run three twisted shield pairs, one for >each power wire, and one for the sync, having each of these three >wires twisted with a ground wire? Then I think I'll run the ground >and shielding to the ground block at the inside of my firewall. No . . . was there any wire supplied with the Whelen parts? Just keeping the 4 wires together under a single jacket should suffice. The Whelen kits used to include wing wire (used to be twisted trio under shield) . . . any wire included these days? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 12:03 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >I am building a Bearhawk Patrol and am installing the wiring in the >wing to accommodate Whelen LED wing tip nave lights and strobes, >plus a Garmin Magnetometer. I need to comply with the Garmin >instructions which say the electrical conductors passing more than >100mA current should be a twisted shielded pair if they pass within >10 feet of the magnetometer. What model of tip lights are you installing? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2019
Well, my Dynon Skyview screens use Cat5 wire between the 2 screens to sync data updates and common data like altimeter setting, etc. Not required but eases syncing of things. Otherwise, no, I don't think of any uses for ethernet cabling in aircraft. On 8/28/2019 11:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >This is not quite true, Bob. There are several examples of twisted > wire cables that do not have shields. The most ubiquitous example is > Ethernet, also >known as 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T and 1000BASE-T. > > But where would we find Cat5 cable > on an airplane? I was speaking of wire > I might pull from inventory at Beech . . . > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
From: "bcone1381" <bcone1964(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2019
The Whelen product is called Orion 600. Model number is OR6001. The light has a pig tail on it, no other wiring. Here is a link to the installation guide. https://www.whelen.com/install/146/14662.pdf -------- Brooks Cone Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491105#491105 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2019
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
I used Ethernet cable as an example of twisted wire without a shield being in use. For aircraft use, twisted wire pairs without a shield are easy to find - th ey're in in Beech inventory.=C2- All you do is twist 2 same length Tefzel wires by holding one end in a vise and putting the other 2 ends in a drill .=C2- The drill will twist them together.=C2- Remember that the wires d o not have to be tightly wound, which makes them awkward to work with and a dds weight.=C2- They only have to be wound enough to keep them in close p roximity.=C2- Also, you don't really need a drill.=C2- You can hand twi st them, because they don't have to be tightly wound. The trick to a well designed, highly reliable system is to run as many sign als as possible using twisted wire pairs.=C2- This minimizes offenders th at may induce voltages in signal wires that aren't twisted (stragglers).=C2 - Even power wires to black boxes should be twisted, because power surges can also create magnetic fields. Henador Titzoff wrote: >This is not quite true, Bob.=C2- There are several examples oftwisted wi re cables that do not have shields.=C2- The most ubiquitousexample is Eth ernet, also >known as 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T and1000BASE-T. =C2-=C2- But where would we find Cat5 cable =C2-=C2- on an airplane? I was speaking of wire =C2-=C2- I might pull from inventory at Beech . . . =C2- Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
At 03:15 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >Well, my Dynon Skyview screens use Cat5 wire between the 2 screens >to sync data updates and common data like altimeter setting, etc. >Not required but eases syncing of things. Otherwise, no, I don't >think of any uses for ethernet cabling in aircraft. . . . but of course. I've seen some products exploit the value of crimp on RJ series connectors. I've got some transceivers that have RJ45 connectors on the microphone. The logical extension of using those connectors is to exploit the constellation of off-the-shelf connectors, wire and tooling. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
At 05:53 PM 8/28/2019, you wrote: > >The Whelen product is called Orion 600. Model number is >OR6001. The light has a pig tail on it, no other wiring. Here is a >link to the installation guide. >https://www.whelen.com/install/146/14662.pdf > >-------- >Brooks Cone >Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build Okay, go talk to this guy on eBay . . . he has just what you need https://tinyurl.com/y6ounn6l Extend all 4 wires into the cockpit grounding NOTHING at the wing tip. Ground the shield at the firewall. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2019
Hello everyone, first time poster here. I would love it if you guys would review my Z-13/8. Thanks in advance! This diagram is Bob's Z-13/8 with VERY FEW modifications. I'll point them out in the pics below. First here are the pics, sorry they are so big but I'm thinking this is the only way you will be able to read anything. I am aware of how to size wires per AC 43.13. However, I went with what the manufacturer recommended instead (which was always bigger than AC43.13 or right on). This is why I have at times two different gauges for the same circuit size. Yes I know in most instances I can use 22 awg where I speced 20 awg. I already have plenty of both sizes so no worry there. Would you all mind taking some time to look it over for any blatant errors? Mega thank you for taking the time. First up is the top of the diagram where the backup B&C SD-8 is. The changes here are the shunt and ANL positions. I have already installed two ANL fuses on my firewall as I would prefer both battery and alternator lines be protected. Many find it unnecessary which may be the case but it's already done and installed. I have also removed the shunt for the backup alternator because if I am ever running on it I will know my e-bus is sized right for the current and I can simply monitor bus voltage. If you REALLY think I need a shunt give me a good reason and I may install one but at this time I don't see the point. (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh)1 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr Next up is the lower meatier part of the diagram. I eliminated the electronic ignition and put in for mags instead. I know many like having a dedicated start button but I really like the left mag also being your start switch. This method is also wired such that the right mag must be off to send power to the starter. As far as mag switches and the batt/alt switch they are locking toggles. The mags lock in off and on with momentary up. The batt/alt switch locks in all three positions. All switches are Honeywell TL series. You will also notice that I changed to a B&C main 60amp alternator and eliminated the low voltage lamp since Dynon will do this on its own. Also, the battery bus only has a cigarette USB plug and a dome light on it. Finally, Bob shows a 20awg wire feeding the E-bus from the main bus which seemed quite small to me. I up sized it to 14awg. (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs)2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr On to the buses. Here is the main bus. I also tried to include any future provisions such as the second EFIS even though I don't currently plan it. The IFD-440 however is in the plan and I'm installing a tray for it now. You will also notice the amp numbers on the right side of the description. This is what I could find for MAXIMUM current draw on the device. (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3)main (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr Now the E-bus. I really tried to minimize what I put on this to the essentials but really the end goal was to keep it below 7 ish amps (which is why the xsponder is still there) So far the MAXIMUM current amounts add up to 7.35 amps not including the contactor which is fairly low. (the master at this point would be off so don't worry about that 1 amp) At 2500 engine RPM by the B&C numbers you should get about 7.6 amps. It's also worth noting that in my emergency checklist for this situation I would unplug/turn off everything on the battery bus. (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf)ebus (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr I also am posting the picture of my panel layout if that helps anyone. (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ)FINAL PANEL (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr I posted this on another forum first and someone brought up two questions which could probably be answered here. 1. The e-bus is being fed with 2 15 amp fuses (one on the bat bus and one on the e-bus). Is this a mistake? 2. Can someone explain why there is a fusible link and a CB on the alt field circuit? Seriously thanks to everyone who helps me look over this big part of my project. As always if you have questions or comments I welcome it all! :D Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491111#491111 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2019
On 8/28/2019 10:22 PM, jcarne wrote: > > Hello everyone, first time poster here. I would love it if you guys would review my Z-13/8. Thanks in advance! > > This diagram is Bob's Z-13/8 with VERY FEW modifications. I'll point them out in the pics below. > > First here are the pics, sorry they are so big but I'm thinking this is the only way you will be able to read anything. > > I am aware of how to size wires per AC 43.13. However, I went with what the manufacturer recommended instead > (which was always bigger than AC43.13 or right on). This is why I have at times two different gauges for the same circuit size. > Yes I know in most instances I can use 22 awg where I speced 20 awg. I already have plenty of both sizes so no worry there. > > Would you all mind taking some time to look it over for any blatant errors? Mega thank you for taking the time. > > First up is the top of the diagram where the backup B&C SD-8 is. > The changes here are the shunt and ANL positions. I have already > installed two ANL fuses on my firewall as I would prefer both battery > and alternator lines be protected. Many find it unnecessary which may > be the case but it's already done and installed. I have also removed the > shunt for the backup alternator because if I am ever running on it I will > know my e-bus is sized right for the current and I can simply monitor bus > voltage. If you REALLY think I need a shunt give me a good reason and I > may install one but at this time I don't see the point. > > (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh)1 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > > Next up is the lower meatier part of the diagram. I eliminated the electronic > ignition and put in for mags instead. I know many like having a dedicated > start button but I really like the left mag also being your start switch. This method > is also wired such that the right mag must be off to send power to the starter. As far as > mag switches and the batt/alt switch they are locking toggles. The mags lock in off and > on with momentary up. The batt/alt switch locks in all three positions. All switches are > Honeywell TL series. You will also notice that I changed to a B&C main 60amp > alternator and eliminated the low voltage lamp since Dynon will do this on > its own. Also, the battery bus only has a cigarette USB plug and a dome > light on it. Finally, Bob shows a 20awg wire feeding the E-bus from the main > bus which seemed quite small to me. I up sized it to 14awg. > > (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs)2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > > On to the buses. Here is the main bus. I also tried to include any future > provisions such as the second EFIS even though I don't currently plan it. > The IFD-440 however is in the plan and I'm installing a tray for it now. You > will also notice the amp numbers on the right side of the description. This is > what I could find for MAXIMUM current draw on the device. > > (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3)main (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > > Now the E-bus. I really tried to minimize what I put on this to the essentials but really the end goal was to keep it below 7 ish amps > (which is why the xsponder is still there) So far the MAXIMUM current amounts add up to 7.35 amps not including the contactor > which is fairly low. (the master at this point would be off so don't worry about that 1 amp) At 2500 engine RPM by the B&C numbers > you should get about 7.6 amps. It's also worth noting that in my emergency checklist for this situation I would > unplug/turn off everything on the battery bus. > > (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf)ebus (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > > I also am posting the picture of my panel layout if that helps anyone. > > (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ)FINAL PANEL (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > > > I posted this on another forum first and someone brought up two questions which could probably be answered here. > > 1. The e-bus is being fed with 2 15 amp fuses (one on the bat bus and one on the e-bus). Is this a mistake? > 2. Can someone explain why there is a fusible link and a CB on the alt field circuit? > > Seriously thanks to everyone who helps me look over this big part of my project. As always if you have questions or comments I welcome it all! :D > Quickie on the field circuit: The link protects the wire between the bus to the breaker; otherwise a short in that wire would see the full fury of available current on the bus. The CB is there so the overvoltage module can trip it, opening the field circuit, if there's an overvoltage fault in the regulator. The field circuit is one of the few circuits where you might get a 'false positive' due to a short term transient, so a single reset of the protection device could be warranted. Philosophy (at least for most of us on this forum) is that virtually all other activations of circuit protection should be analyzed on the ground. Any item that's flight-critical should have a backup, meaning that troubleshooting (circuit resetting) in flight is unnecessary. Haven't looked closely at your ebus circuit yet, but a 15A fuse is not terribly robust, so a fault on the bus could conceivably blow both fuses at once. Not saying to fuse bigger than the wire can stand, but you might consider bigger feed wires and/or use circuit protection that has a much longer time constant than a fuse (ANL type device, or my preference: fusible link). Welcome aboard! Charlie (like I promised...) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wires that pass near a Magnetometer
From: "bcone1381" <bcone1964(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
I'm very grateful and very impressed with your help on this Bob! Thanks so much. Brooks -------- Brooks Cone Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491116#491116 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Two 15 amp fuses are not a mistake. Suppose that a short circuit blows the battery fuse. Now what is going to stop high current from flowing through the diode? I agree with you that a shunt is not needed. An ammeter is good for troubleshooting. But fly the plane and save troubleshooting until on the ground. The EFIS voltmeter is all that is needed to tell if the alternator is working or not. I agree with Charlie that the 15 amp fuses are too small. When two fuses are in series (main fuse and branch fuse), a hard short circuit could blow both unless there is a very large difference in fuse sizes. Having fuses in series is usually not a good idea. The ANL fuse for the main power bus is an unnecessary failure point. But since you have already installed it, insulate it well. Try to eliminate potential sparks after a forced landing. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491117#491117 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com>
Subject: Z-13/8 review request
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Jereme, I'm a complete novice when it comes to the actual electronics involved, so I'll leave it to Bob and the other experts to comment on those aspects. But I did notice on the e-bus diagram that your GPS is NOT wired to the e-bus. If you're flying IFR (or at night), wouldn't the ability to navigate be fairly critical at that point? Personally, I think I'd want that on the e-bus, but maybe I'm nuts... I also noticed you DO have the Garmin G5 on the e-bus. I'm sure you know Garmin offers a backup battery, with up to 4 hours endurance. If you include that battery in your plans, could you safely remove the G5 from the e-bus? I know it's a tiny load, but every little bit helps, right? Jim Parker ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
On 8/28/2019 10:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: > On 8/28/2019 10:22 PM, jcarne wrote: >> >> >> Hello everyone, first time poster here. I would love it if you guys >> would review my Z-13/8. Thanks in advance! >> >> This diagram is Bob's Z-13/8 with VERY FEW modifications. I'll point >> them out in the pics below. >> >> First here are the pics, sorry they are so big but I'm thinking this >> is the only way you will be able to read anything. >> >> I am aware of how to size wires per AC 43.13. However, I went with >> what the manufacturer recommended instead >> (which was always bigger than AC43.13 or right on). This is why I >> have at times two different gauges for the same circuit size. >> Yes I know in most instances I can use 22 awg where I speced 20 awg. >> I already have plenty of both sizes so no worry there. >> >> Would you all mind taking some time to look it over for any blatant >> errors? Mega thank you for taking the time. >> >> First up is the top of the diagram where the backup B&C SD-8 is. >> The changes here are the shunt and ANL positions. I have already >> installed two ANL fuses on my firewall as I would prefer both battery >> and alternator lines be protected. Many find it unnecessary which may >> be the case but it's already done and installed. I have also removed >> the >> shunt for the backup alternator because if I am ever running on it I >> will >> know my e-bus is sized right for the current and I can simply monitor >> bus >> voltage. If you REALLY think I need a shunt give me a good reason and I >> may install one but at this time I don't see the point. >> >> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh)1 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh) by Jereme >> Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >> >> Next up is the lower meatier part of the diagram. I eliminated the >> electronic >> ignition and put in for mags instead. I know many like having a >> dedicated >> start button but I really like the left mag also being your start >> switch. This method >> is also wired such that the right mag must be off to send power to >> the starter. As far as >> mag switches and the batt/alt switch they are locking toggles. The >> mags lock in off and >> on with momentary up. The batt/alt switch locks in all three >> positions. All switches are >> Honeywell TL series. You will also notice that I changed to a B&C >> main 60amp >> alternator and eliminated the low voltage lamp since Dynon will do >> this on >> its own. Also, the battery bus only has a cigarette USB plug and a dome >> light on it. Finally, Bob shows a 20awg wire feeding the E-bus from >> the main >> bus which seemed quite small to me. I up sized it to 14awg. >> >> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs)2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs) by Jereme >> Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >> >> On to the buses. Here is the main bus. I also tried to include any >> future >> provisions such as the second EFIS even though I don't currently plan >> it. >> The IFD-440 however is in the plan and I'm installing a tray for it >> now. You >> will also notice the amp numbers on the right side of the >> description. This is >> what I could find for MAXIMUM current draw on the device. >> >> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3)main (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3) by >> Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >> >> Now the E-bus. I really tried to minimize what I put on this to the >> essentials but really the end goal was to keep it below 7 ish amps >> (which is why the xsponder is still there) So far the MAXIMUM >> current amounts add up to 7.35 amps not including the contactor >> which is fairly low. (the master at this point would be off so don't >> worry about that 1 amp) At 2500 engine RPM by the B&C numbers >> you should get about 7.6 amps. It's also worth noting that in my >> emergency checklist for this situation I would >> unplug/turn off everything on the battery bus. >> >> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf)ebus (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf) by >> Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >> >> I also am posting the picture of my panel layout if that helps anyone. >> >> (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ)FINAL PANEL (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ) >> by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on >> Flickr >> >> >> I posted this on another forum first and someone brought up two >> questions which could probably be answered here. >> >> 1. The e-bus is being fed with 2 15 amp fuses (one on the bat bus and >> one on the e-bus). Is this a mistake? >> 2. Can someone explain why there is a fusible link and a CB on the >> alt field circuit? >> >> Seriously thanks to everyone who helps me look over this big part of >> my project. As always if you have questions or comments I welcome it >> all! :D >> > Quickie on the field circuit: The link protects the wire between the > bus to the breaker; otherwise a short in that wire would see the full > fury of available current on the bus. The CB is there so the > overvoltage module can trip it, opening the field circuit, if there's > an overvoltage fault in the regulator. The field circuit is one of the > few circuits where you might get a 'false positive' due to a short > term transient, so a single reset of the protection device could be > warranted. > > Philosophy (at least for most of us on this forum) is that virtually > all other activations of circuit protection should be analyzed on the > ground. Any item that's flight-critical should have a backup, meaning > that troubleshooting (circuit resetting) in flight is unnecessary. > > Haven't looked closely at your ebus circuit yet, but a 15A fuse is > not terribly robust, so a fault on the bus could conceivably blow both > fuses at once. Not saying to fuse bigger than the wire can stand, but > you might consider bigger feed wires and/or use circuit protection > that has a much longer time constant than a fuse (ANL type device, or > my preference: fusible link). > > Welcome aboard! > > Charlie > (like I promised...) More stuff, as time permits & we see stuff. Apologies if info gets duplicated from others' posts. Should have mentioned wire sizes on the field circuit: 'rule of thumb' around here is keeping wire size to minimum #22, for physical durability/workability. So #22 fuse link>#18 wire>CB>#20>field. You can drop to #20 after the CB because a 5A CB will protect #20 wire. General 'fusing' (circuit protection) thinking: Always remember what the devices are supposed to do, and ask whether they're proper and in the proper location for the job. ex: Endurance bus feeds. The #13 wire from the main bus to the endurance bus is unprotected, and fed by a #4 wire. The 15A fuse at the alt feed point fuses the bus from that source, but its job is to protect the *wire*, so it should be at the other end of the wire. (Which means that it's not needed; you already have a 15A fuse at the main bat bus (source) *and another* 15A fuse at the bat contactor, feeding the main bat bus.) I'd consider using a fuse link at the bat contactor to protect #14 wire, and ask whether you really need additional fusing on the path to the endurance bus. Logic: Even if a catastrophic failure takes out the link, the only extra losses would be your dome light & cigarette plug. Oh yeah; might be a good idea to ponder future actual use of the cigarette plug. Most lighter sockets are set up for much higher currents than 5A. One thing I've used mine for is 'quick & dirty' ground power (plane is wired differently from your diagram, allowing the cig socket to power the main bus without powering up the master contactor). If you ever think you'll need to charge the battery through the cig socket, upsizing that wire & fuse might be worth considering. Current shunts: My purchased -6 has one (rarely reads correctly due to flaky fuse holders); my under-construction -7 will not have any. I was an electronics tech in several previous lives, and very rarely saw any use for an ammeter unless I was troubleshooting/repairing an already-failed device. Trying to use one while literally 'on the fly' makes zero sense to me. Devices in an a/c will either work correctly or they won't. Current variations are way down the list of possible troubleshooting methods to find a defective device while in flight (like, don't even try). Flight critical devices should have backups; non-flight-critical ones are...non-critical. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
From: "jsajpf" <john.friday_adis(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Do a web search for FAA Report DOT/FAA/CT 86/40, Aircraft Electromagnetic Compatibility" and review discussions on shielding. Section 3.3.1 deals with shielding ARINC 429 signal wires. The doc is somewhat dated now, having come out after the first generation of airplanes making heaving use of the ARINC 429 protocol were certified. Its been a foundational document in developing design and analysis assumptions (at least in large transport category airplanes). The principles remain valid even in the age of AFDX/ARINC 664 ethernet based protocols. I personally wouldn't want want to spend the energy justifying (if even only to myself) deviating from installation recommendations in this matter. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491123#491123 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
On 8/29/2019 1:12 PM, Charlie England wrote: > On 8/28/2019 10:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: >> On 8/28/2019 10:22 PM, jcarne wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello everyone, first time poster here. I would love it if you guys >>> would review my Z-13/8. Thanks in advance! >>> >>> This diagram is Bob's Z-13/8 with VERY FEW modifications. I'll point >>> them out in the pics below. >>> >>> First here are the pics, sorry they are so big but I'm thinking this >>> is the only way you will be able to read anything. >>> >>> I am aware of how to size wires per AC 43.13. However, I went with >>> what the manufacturer recommended instead >>> (which was always bigger than AC43.13 or right on). This is why I >>> have at times two different gauges for the same circuit size. >>> Yes I know in most instances I can use 22 awg where I speced 20 >>> awg. I already have plenty of both sizes so no worry there. >>> >>> Would you all mind taking some time to look it over for any blatant >>> errors? Mega thank you for taking the time. >>> >>> First up is the top of the diagram where the backup B&C SD-8 is. >>> The changes here are the shunt and ANL positions. I have already >>> installed two ANL fuses on my firewall as I would prefer both battery >>> and alternator lines be protected. Many find it unnecessary which may >>> be the case but it's already done and installed. I have also >>> removed the >>> shunt for the backup alternator because if I am ever running on it I >>> will >>> know my e-bus is sized right for the current and I can simply >>> monitor bus >>> voltage. If you REALLY think I need a shunt give me a good reason >>> and I >>> may install one but at this time I don't see the point. >>> >>> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh)1 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6xoGh) by Jereme >>> Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >>> >>> Next up is the lower meatier part of the diagram. I eliminated the >>> electronic >>> ignition and put in for mags instead. I know many like having a >>> dedicated >>> start button but I really like the left mag also being your start >>> switch. This method >>> is also wired such that the right mag must be off to send power to >>> the starter. As far as >>> mag switches and the batt/alt switch they are locking toggles. The >>> mags lock in off and >>> on with momentary up. The batt/alt switch locks in all three >>> positions. All switches are >>> Honeywell TL series. You will also notice that I changed to a B&C >>> main 60amp >>> alternator and eliminated the low voltage lamp since Dynon will do >>> this on >>> its own. Also, the battery bus only has a cigarette USB plug and a >>> dome >>> light on it. Finally, Bob shows a 20awg wire feeding the E-bus from >>> the main >>> bus which seemed quite small to me. I up sized it to 14awg. >>> >>> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs)2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zWqs) by Jereme >>> Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >>> >>> On to the buses. Here is the main bus. I also tried to include any >>> future >>> provisions such as the second EFIS even though I don't currently >>> plan it. >>> The IFD-440 however is in the plan and I'm installing a tray for it >>> now. You >>> will also notice the amp numbers on the right side of the >>> description. This is >>> what I could find for MAXIMUM current draw on the device. >>> >>> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3)main (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeK3) by >>> Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >>> >>> Now the E-bus. I really tried to minimize what I put on this to the >>> essentials but really the end goal was to keep it below 7 ish amps >>> (which is why the xsponder is still there) So far the MAXIMUM >>> current amounts add up to 7.35 amps not including the contactor >>> which is fairly low. (the master at this point would be off so >>> don't worry about that 1 amp) At 2500 engine RPM by the B&C numbers >>> you should get about 7.6 amps. It's also worth noting that in my >>> emergency checklist for this situation I would >>> unplug/turn off everything on the battery bus. >>> >>> (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf)ebus (https://flic.kr/p/2h6zeLf) by >>> Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr >>> >>> I also am posting the picture of my panel layout if that helps anyone. >>> >>> (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ)FINAL PANEL (https://flic.kr/p/2gV4VSZ) >>> by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on >>> Flickr >>> >>> >>> I posted this on another forum first and someone brought up two >>> questions which could probably be answered here. >>> >>> 1. The e-bus is being fed with 2 15 amp fuses (one on the bat bus >>> and one on the e-bus). Is this a mistake? >>> 2. Can someone explain why there is a fusible link and a CB on the >>> alt field circuit? >>> >>> Seriously thanks to everyone who helps me look over this big part of >>> my project. As always if you have questions or comments I welcome >>> it all! :D >>> >> Quickie on the field circuit: The link protects the wire between the >> bus to the breaker; otherwise a short in that wire would see the full >> fury of available current on the bus. The CB is there so the >> overvoltage module can trip it, opening the field circuit, if there's >> an overvoltage fault in the regulator. The field circuit is one of >> the few circuits where you might get a 'false positive' due to a >> short term transient, so a single reset of the protection device >> could be warranted. >> >> Philosophy (at least for most of us on this forum) is that virtually >> all other activations of circuit protection should be analyzed on the >> ground. Any item that's flight-critical should have a backup, meaning >> that troubleshooting (circuit resetting) in flight is unnecessary. >> >> Haven't looked closely at your ebus circuit yet, but a 15A fuse is >> not terribly robust, so a fault on the bus could conceivably blow >> both fuses at once. Not saying to fuse bigger than the wire can >> stand, but you might consider bigger feed wires and/or use circuit >> protection that has a much longer time constant than a fuse (ANL type >> device, or my preference: fusible link). >> >> Welcome aboard! >> >> Charlie >> (like I promised...) > More stuff, as time permits & we see stuff. Apologies if info gets > duplicated from others' posts. > > Should have mentioned wire sizes on the field circuit: 'rule of thumb' > around here is keeping wire size to minimum #22, for physical > durability/workability. So #22 fuse link>#18 wire>CB>#20>field. You > can drop to #20 after the CB because a 5A CB will protect #20 wire. > > General 'fusing' (circuit protection) thinking: Always remember what > the devices are supposed to do, and ask whether they're proper and in > the proper location for the job. ex: Endurance bus feeds. The #13 wire > from the main bus to the endurance bus is unprotected, and fed by a #4 > wire. The 15A fuse at the alt feed point fuses the bus from that > source, but its job is to protect the *wire*, so it should be at the > other end of the wire. (Which means that it's not needed; you already > have a 15A fuse at the main bat bus (source) *and another* 15A fuse at > the bat contactor, feeding the main bat bus.) I'd consider using a > fuse link at the bat contactor to protect #14 wire, and ask whether > you really need additional fusing on the path to the endurance bus. > Logic: Even if a catastrophic failure takes out the link, the only > extra losses would be your dome light & cigarette plug. > > Oh yeah; might be a good idea to ponder future actual use of the > cigarette plug. Most lighter sockets are set up for much higher > currents than 5A. One thing I've used mine for is 'quick & dirty' > ground power (plane is wired differently from your diagram, allowing > the cig socket to power the main bus without powering up the master > contactor). If you ever think you'll need to charge the battery > through the cig socket, upsizing that wire & fuse might be worth > considering. > > Current shunts: My purchased -6 has one (rarely reads correctly due to > flaky fuse holders); my under-construction -7 will not have any. I was > an electronics tech in several previous lives, and very rarely saw any > use for an ammeter unless I was troubleshooting/repairing an > already-failed device. Trying to use one while literally 'on the fly' > makes zero sense to me. Devices in an a/c will either work correctly > or they won't. Current variations are way down the list of possible > troubleshooting methods to find a defective device while in flight > (like, don't even try). Flight critical devices should have backups; > non-flight-critical ones are...non-critical. > > Charlie Oh, forgot: You can reduce the number of failure points in the primary alt B lead path by moving its ANL tie point to the shunt side of the other ANL. As drawn, the alt current must pass through both ANLs, and all their related terminals, to get to the airframe's B+ circuit. Also, *if* I'm reading the drawing correctly, the shunt in its current (pardon the pun) position will show you the alt's charge current going into the battery, but will not show you the total current output from the alternator. If that's your goal, then nothing wrong with it. But since the bus feed is before the shunt, the shunt won't see that load. Remember, during normal ops, the alternator carries *all* the electrical loads of the a/c; the battery is only supplying current when starting, or after an alternator failure (or total loads exceed alternator capacity & output voltage drops below battery voltage). Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
> > to the breaker; otherwise a short in that wire would see the full fury > of available current on the bus. The CB is there so the overvoltage > module can trip it, opening the field circuit, if there's an overvoltage > fault in the regulator. The field circuit is one of the few circuits > where you might get a 'false positive' due to a short term transient, so > a single reset of the protection device could be warranted. > > Philosophy (at least for most of us on this forum) is that virtually all > other activations of circuit protection should be analyzed on the > ground. Any item that's flight-critical should have a backup, meaning > that troubleshooting (circuit resetting) in flight is unnecessary. > > Haven't looked closely at your ebus circuit yet, but a 15A fuse is not > terribly robust, so a fault on the bus could conceivably blow both fuses > at once. Not saying to fuse bigger than the wire can stand, but you > might consider bigger feed wires and/or use circuit protection that has > a much longer time constant than a fuse (ANL type device, or my > preference: fusible link). > > Welcome aboard! > > Charlie > (like I promised...) > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ok I don't think I can quote multiple posts at once. If that is not the case I would love to hear how to do it. That description on the field circuit makes sense now Charlie. I am also in the camp that troubleshooting should be done on the ground. This is a big part of why I'm using fuses instead of CBs. I did not change the two 15 amp fuses to feed the e-bus from what Bob has drawn. The e-bus will be no more than 7-8 amps so I'm not sure up sizing is needed. However, I am by no means an expert here, I simply went with what Bob had on the drawing in that location. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491125#491125 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
user9253 wrote: > Two 15 amp fuses are not a mistake. Suppose that a short circuit blows the > battery fuse. Now what is going to stop high current from flowing through the diode? > I agree with you that a shunt is not needed. An ammeter is good for > troubleshooting. But fly the plane and save troubleshooting until on the > ground. The EFIS voltmeter is all that is needed to tell if the alternator is working or not. > I agree with Charlie that the 15 amp fuses are too small. When two fuses > are in series (main fuse and branch fuse), a hard short circuit could blow both > unless there is a very large difference in fuse sizes. Having fuses in series is usually not a good idea. > The ANL fuse for the main power bus is an unnecessary failure point. But > since you have already installed it, insulate it well. Try to eliminate potential > sparks after a forced landing. Ok I think I put out some confusion on the whole 15 amp fuse deal so let me lay it out more clearly. Now that I look at my drawing there is actually 3 15 amp fuses to feed the E-bus. I added in an inline fuse between the battery and the battery bus. My reasoning being that I AM NOT going to mount my battery bus on the firewall but instead inside the cockpit, therefor I felt it necessary to protect the wire which will be longer than 6 inches. Now the way Bob has it drawn in one of his versions is off of the battery bus there is a 15 amp fuse that feeds to the e-bus where another 15 amp fuse connects the feed to the e-bus. That being said, I am all ears if there is a better way of doing this or if I simply need to upsize all them fuses? Could a guy not just do a fusible link off the battery side of the master relay instead of the 15 amp inline? This may be a better approach here. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491126#491126 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.co wrote: > Jereme, > > I'm a complete novice when it comes to the actual electronics involved, > so I'll leave it to Bob and the other experts to comment on those > aspects. > > But I did notice on the e-bus diagram that your GPS is NOT wired to the > e-bus. If you're flying IFR (or at night), wouldn't the ability to > navigate be fairly critical at that point? Personally, I think I'd want > that on the e-bus, but maybe I'm nuts... > > I also noticed you DO have the Garmin G5 on the e-bus. I'm sure you > know Garmin offers a backup battery, with up to 4 hours endurance. If > you include that battery in your plans, could you safely remove the G5 > from the e-bus? I know it's a tiny load, but every little bit helps, > right? > > Jim Parker It is my understanding that the backup battery I will have on the Skyview will allow me to still navigate (I'm going to look into the manual on this one though so don't take my word for it). Is it legal for IFR work, no. If I'm only running on my e-bus for some reason in IFR do I care about the legality of it, heck no. I would love to have the IFD-440 on the e-bus but I think it simply draws too much current. I'm only able to put about 8 amps on the e-bus. You are correct on the G5 but I want my attitude indicators to have multiple power sources if I'm going to fly IFR. It is such a small load that it still seems worth it to me even despite having a battery backup. However, this is something I could move if needed. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491128#491128 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
The Skyview will allow you to navigate IF you have either the Dynon 250 or 2020 GPS installed as its primary GPS source driving its moving map. Totally selectable between Dynon GPS and IFD for navigation. On 8/29/2019 5:15 PM, jcarne wrote: > > > > It is my understanding that the backup battery I will have on the Skyview will allow me to still navigate (I'm going to look into the manual on this one though so don't take my word for it). Is it legal for IFR work, no. If I'm only running on my e-bus for some reason in IFR do I care about the legality of it, heck no. > > I would love to have the IFD-440 on the e-bus but I think it simply draws too much current. I'm only able to put about 8 amps on the e-bus. > > You are correct on the G5 but I want my attitude indicators to have multiple power sources if I'm going to fly IFR. It is such a small load that it still seems worth it to me even despite having a battery backup. However, this is something I could move if needed. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491128#491128 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
> Charlie > Oh, forgot: You can reduce the number of failure points in the primary > > alt B lead path by moving its ANL tie point to the shunt side of the > other ANL. As drawn, the alt current must pass through both ANLs, and > all their related terminals, to get to the airframe's B+ circuit. Also, > *if* I'm reading the drawing correctly, the shunt in its current (pardon > the pun) position will show you the alt's charge current going into the > battery, but will not show you the total current output from the > alternator. If that's your goal, then nothing wrong with it. But since > the bus feed is before the shunt, the shunt won't see that load. > Remember, during normal ops, the alternator carries *all* the electrical > loads of the a/c; the battery is only supplying current when starting, > or after an alternator failure (or total loads exceed alternator > capacity & output voltage drops below battery voltage). > > Charlie > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus Yes this is one thing I have gona back and forth on. It was either make the current from the alternator go through two ANL devices to charge the battery or only 1 to feed the bus. I'm not sure I follow the reduction in failure points. If you take the alt b lead to the shunt side of the lower ANL won't that result in the alt b lead having to go through two ANL devices to feed the bus? If the lower ANL tripped or failed wouldn't that also result in no battery or primary alt power to the bus? The shunt in the current position is what I intended when I installed it. In the end I don't really see the shunt as that valuable of a tool so I'll keep it where it is I suppose. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491130#491130 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Kellym wrote: > The Skyview will allow you to navigate IF you have either the Dynon 250 > or 2020 GPS installed as its primary GPS source driving its moving map. > Totally selectable between Dynon GPS and IFD for navigation. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491128#491128 > > > [/quote] Kelly, thanks for the clarification. I will be running their GPS-2020 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491131#491131 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Ok I saved this one for last as there is a lot of GREAT info in this one Charlie. > > duplicated from others' posts. > > Should have mentioned wire sizes on the field circuit: 'rule of thumb' > around here is keeping wire size to minimum #22, for physical > durability/workability. So #22 fuse link>#18 wire>CB>#20>field. You can > drop to #20 after the CB because a 5A CB will protect #20 wire. (understood) > > General 'fusing' (circuit protection) thinking: Always remember what the > devices are supposed to do, and ask whether they're proper and in the > proper location for the job. ex: Endurance bus feeds. The #13 wire from > the main bus to the endurance bus is unprotected, and fed by a #4 wire. (I'm a bit confused on this last sentence. The main bus to e-bus feeder is 14 awg (which I upsized from Bob's 20awg as it seemed a bit small to me). If this is a mistake let me know.) > The 15A fuse at the alt feed point fuses the bus from that source, but > its job is to protect the *wire*, so it should be at the other end of > the wire. (Which means that it's not needed; you already have a 15A fuse > at the main bat bus (source) *and another* 15A fuse at the bat > contactor, feeding the main bat bus.) I'd consider using a fuse link at > the bat contactor to protect #14 wire, and ask whether you really need > additional fusing on the path to the endurance bus. Logic: Even if a > catastrophic failure takes out the link, the only extra losses would be > your dome light & cigarette plug. Ya you have summed up my confusion on this one pretty well. I am now thinking fuselink at the battery contactor but figured Bob had some sort of reason for the two fuses between the two buses. > > Oh yeah; might be a good idea to ponder future actual use of the > cigarette plug. Most lighter sockets are set up for much higher currents > than 5A. One thing I've used mine for is 'quick & dirty' ground power > (plane is wired differently from your diagram, allowing the cig socket > to power the main bus without powering up the master contactor). If you > ever think you'll need to charge the battery through the cig socket, > upsizing that wire & fuse might be worth considering. Oh how interesting, hadn't thought of that. I will ponder that one. > > Current shunts: My purchased -6 has one (rarely reads correctly due to > flaky fuse holders); my under-construction -7 will not have any. I was > an electronics tech in several previous lives, and very rarely saw any > use for an ammeter unless I was troubleshooting/repairing an > already-failed device. Trying to use one while literally 'on the fly' > makes zero sense to me. Devices in an a/c will either work correctly or > they won't. Current variations are way down the list of possible > troubleshooting methods to find a defective device while in flight > (like, don't even try). Flight critical devices should have backups; > non-flight-critical ones are...non-critical. Totally agree, at this point I think the shunt is only there since I already have it installed. > > Charlie > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus For anyone else that is interested here is my firewall and what I have to work with. There is a lot of time in "fireproofing" this bad boy which is why I'm not wanting to change anything on it. (https://flic.kr/p/TiyRKL)firewall (https://flic.kr/p/TiyRKL) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491132#491132 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
Answers inserted; formatting is weird because I still get the list via email. On 8/29/2019 7:56 PM, jcarne wrote: > > Ok I saved this one for last as there is a lot of GREAT info in this one Charlie. > > >> duplicated from others' posts. >> >> Should have mentioned wire sizes on the field circuit: 'rule of thumb' >> around here is keeping wire size to minimum #22, for physical >> durability/workability. So #22 fuse link>#18 wire>CB>#20>field. You can >> drop to #20 after the CB because a 5A CB will protect #20 wire. (understood) >> >> General 'fusing' (circuit protection) thinking: Always remember what the >> devices are supposed to do, and ask whether they're proper and in the >> proper location for the job. ex: Endurance bus feeds. The #13 wire from >> the main bus to the endurance bus is unprotected, and fed by a #4 wire. (I'm a bit confused on this last sentence. The main bus to e-bus feeder is 14 awg (which I upsized from Bob's 20awg as it seemed a bit small to me). If this is a mistake let me know.) >> The 15A fuse at the alt feed point fuses the bus from that source, but >> its job is to protect the *wire*, so it should be at the other end of >> the wire. (Which means that it's not needed; you already have a 15A fuse >> at the main bat bus (source) *and another* 15A fuse at the bat >> contactor, feeding the main bat bus.) I'd consider using a fuse link at >> the bat contactor to protect #14 wire, and ask whether you really need >> additional fusing on the path to the endurance bus. Logic: Even if a >> catastrophic failure takes out the link, the only extra losses would be >> your dome light & cigarette plug. >> Ya you have summed up my confusion on this one pretty well. I am now thinking fuselink at the battery contactor but figured Bob had some sort of reason for the two fuses between the two buses. I confess I hadn't pulled up z13-8 to see the original configuration. Looking at it now, I think Bob's logic is: #14 from bat contactor to bat bus is unfused because of 6" rule; it would need protection (fuselink?) if the bat bus is remoted, as you thought. I think the 'ebus15A' fuse feeding S704-1>etc protects the downstream wire (other side of relay) from the battery. The #20 fuselink from endur-bus to that wire protects the wire from current supplied through the diode from the main bus. I confess I don't know why he used #20 link to protect #14 wire, unless he's looking at protecting the #16 going to the main bus. I missed the 6" rule for the main>endur-bus wire; no need for protection if 6" rule is observed in your install. >> >> >> Oh yeah; might be a good idea to ponder future actual use of the >> cigarette plug. Most lighter sockets are set up for much higher currents >> than 5A. One thing I've used mine for is 'quick & dirty' ground power >> (plane is wired differently from your diagram, allowing the cig socket >> to power the main bus without powering up the master contactor). If you >> ever think you'll need to charge the battery through the cig socket, >> upsizing that wire & fuse might be worth considering. >> Oh how interesting, hadn't thought of that. I will ponder that one. >> Current shunts: My purchased -6 has one (rarely reads correctly due to >> flaky fuse holders); my under-construction -7 will not have any. I was >> an electronics tech in several previous lives, and very rarely saw any >> use for an ammeter unless I was troubleshooting/repairing an >> already-failed device. Trying to use one while literally 'on the fly' >> makes zero sense to me. Devices in an a/c will either work correctly or >> they won't. Current variations are way down the list of possible >> troubleshooting methods to find a defective device while in flight >> (like, don't even try). Flight critical devices should have backups; >> non-flight-critical ones are...non-critical. >> Totally agree, at this point I think the shunt is only there since I already have it installed. >> >> >> Charlie >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > For anyone else that is interested here is my firewall and what I have to work with. There is a lot of time in "fireproofing" this bad boy which is why I'm not wanting to change anything on it. > > (https://flic.kr/p/TiyRKL)firewall (https://flic.kr/p/TiyRKL) by Jereme Carne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151084592@N02/), on Flickr > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
On 8/29/2019 7:37 PM, jcarne wrote: > > >> Charlie >> Oh, forgot: You can reduce the number of failure points in the primary >> >> alt B lead path by moving its ANL tie point to the shunt side of the >> other ANL. As drawn, the alt current must pass through both ANLs, and >> all their related terminals, to get to the airframe's B+ circuit. Also, >> *if* I'm reading the drawing correctly, the shunt in its current (pardon >> the pun) position will show you the alt's charge current going into the >> battery, but will not show you the total current output from the >> alternator. If that's your goal, then nothing wrong with it. But since >> the bus feed is before the shunt, the shunt won't see that load. >> Remember, during normal ops, the alternator carries *all* the electrical >> loads of the a/c; the battery is only supplying current when starting, >> or after an alternator failure (or total loads exceed alternator >> capacity & output voltage drops below battery voltage). >> >> Charlie >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > Yes this is one thing I have gona back and forth on. It was either make the current from the alternator go through two ANL devices to charge the battery or only 1 to feed the bus. I'm not sure I follow the reduction in failure points. If you take the alt b lead to the shunt side of the lower ANL won't that result in the alt b lead having to go through two ANL devices to feed the bus? If the lower ANL tripped or failed wouldn't that also result in no battery or primary alt power to the bus? > > The shunt in the current position is what I intended when I installed it. In the end I don't really see the shunt as that valuable of a tool so I'll keep it where it is I suppose. > > You're right; I got a little cross-eyed looking across the split in the print. :-) You do still have the issue of only measuring battery charge current, omitting measurement of bus loads from measurement. The z13-8 design has the bus fed directly from the master contactor, so the shunt measures all alternator output. Your choice on how to wire that, but even the FAA considers the master contactor to be protection for the bus wire. Z13-8 protects the shunt in addition to the alt B-lead by placing the protection at the battery end (start contactor) of the B-lead. Remember, the alternator can't hurt the wire; we're protecting the wire (and shunt) from the battery. I just use a soldered-in fuselink for the B-lead, with no shunt, eliminating the multiple failure points created by the shunt terminals & shunt. I confess that I really like soldered-in fuselinks, in places that will only blow after a (low probability) catastrophic fault. I trust my soldering (old school electronics tech) more than any other connection method for areas that should never need to be touched again. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 review request
From: "jcarne" <jeremejcarne(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2019
> > You're right; I got a little cross-eyed looking across the split in the > print. :-) You do still have the issue of only measuring battery charge > current, omitting measurement of bus loads from measurement. The z13-8 > design has the bus fed directly from the master contactor, so the shunt > measures all alternator output. Your choice on how to wire that, but > even the FAA considers the master contactor to be protection for the bus > wire. > > Z13-8 protects the shunt in addition to the alt B-lead by placing the > protection at the battery end (start contactor) of the B-lead. Remember, > the alternator can't hurt the wire; we're protecting the wire (and > shunt) from the battery. I just use a soldered-in fuselink for the > B-lead, with no shunt, eliminating the multiple failure points created > by the shunt terminals & shunt. > > I confess that I really like soldered-in fuselinks, in places that will > only blow after a (low probability) catastrophic fault. I trust my > soldering (old school electronics tech) more than any other connection > method for areas that should never need to be touched again. > > Charlie Haha no worries Charlie. I think you have gotten through my thick skull on this one. I was unaware that the ANL fuses are really there to protect from the battery (although I am aware that circuit protection is for the wiring). In addition, you are correct on the shunt placement and what it measures. I don't see the need to have bus current other than a "cool" factor but maybe I'm wrong. So this leads me to three possibilities that I would like to run by you. As I understand it right now I will have a shunt that is unprotected from the battery as well as more failure points in the unprotected string (seems like an extremely low risk in my mind but I'm electron challenged and it's still a risk nevertheless) Here are the options (that I can think of): 1. Keep my setup as is (in the firewall pic I sent previously) and install a hall effect sensor on the bus feed line if I really wanted feeder current. This still leaves the shunt unprotected from the battery. 2. Eliminate the shunt as shown on my firewall and either move it or install a hall effect sensor upstream of my ANL limiters. This method would seem to solve most of it but will leave two blank bolts on my firewall and require a longer copper bar to connect my contactor to the ANL limiters. 3. Wire/run bar to my ANL limiters and then take the main bus feed off of the shunt. This methoud would probably be the easiest but it would look weird and the placement of the two ANL devices and shunt would look weird. Anyways, let me know what you think. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491136#491136 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ARINC Wiring Shield?
From: Rob Turk <matronics(at)rtist.nl>
Date: Aug 30, 2019
In addition, the shielding may help to gain mechanical strength and chafing protection. Rob On 8/27/2019 3:34 PM, dj_theis wrote: > > Hi Art, > > I think it might be a case of belt and suspenders but in the industrial arena, it is not uncommon for vendors implementing CAN networks to recommend twisted + shielded cabling. > > https://www.belden.com/hubfs/resources/technical/technical-data/english/773105T.pdf?hsLang=en > > Granted, an airplane is not as electrically noisy as a modern manufacturing site but as I expect the more learned contibutors to the forum will advocate, following the vendors recommended installation practices is usually good advice. > > Best regards, > > Dan. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2019
Subject: Questions about Z-35 Aux Battery
Folks, I have a few questions about Z-35, non-cranking aux battery and bus: It seems like the Aux Batt Master Switch serves to separate the aux batt from the main bus, not to de-energize the aux battery bus. Is the intention to leave the aux batt bus powered at all times, and to turn off aux bus users individually? Also, would using a starter switch as illustrated be an effective solution to prevent brown-outs of equipment on the aux battery bus? Thanks for your time, Dave [image: image.png] ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2019
Subject: Re: Questions about Z-35 Aux Battery
Disregard my brownout mod--that's what the switch is for. Still curious about turning things off individually though. --Dave On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM David Saylor wrote: > Folks, I have a few questions about Z-35, non-cranking aux battery and bus: > > It seems like the Aux Batt Master Switch serves to separate the aux batt > from the main bus, not to de-energize the aux battery bus. > > Is the intention to leave the aux batt bus powered at all times, and to > turn off aux bus users individually? > > Also, would using a starter switch as illustrated be an effective solution > to prevent brown-outs of equipment on the aux battery bus? > > Thanks for your time, > > Dave > > [image: image.png] > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Questions about Z-35 Aux Battery
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2019
Since the aux battery is connected directly to the aux battery bus, there is no way to shut off power to the aux bus. Your logic is correct. Shut off individual loads. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491142#491142 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Speaking of Aux Batteries
Here's a work-in-progress z-figure I've been massaging off and on for a few months. http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ZxxP3_1BAT_DualAlt_BO-Boost.pdf One goal of several is to exploit the higher capacity pad-driven alternators . . . a thing we considered with Z10-20 a few years back. This has the three layer architecture of Z10-8 along with the e-bus, brown-out boost that was discussed here on the list a few months back. The value of an aux battery goes away . . . good thing . . . you almost can't have too few batteries. We're still stuck with one . . . only one. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fast Return Investment 9000% ROI after 1 day
From: "CaptainCaptain" <mattykolej(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 01, 2019
You will never need it if you investments are exact. You should work on your decisions and your strategy. The easiest decision is using a crypto bot https://safetrading.today/bots/cryptohopper/ This variant suits most people. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491150#491150 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2019
Subject: Terra TX10
From: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com>
Gentlemen =93 I have a Terra TX10 that I would like to add a frequency to. I have a manual, but can=99t find it. Anybody have a copy you=99d be willing to share? Neal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2019
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: 9009 Audio Isolation Amplifier eCB
A builder has inquired about availability of the bare etched circuit board to build the AEC9009, DIY audio isolation amplifier Emacs! See: https://tinyurl.com/hn28p2q There's a minimum quantity that I can order for these boards . . . I'd be willing to order some solder-masked, silk-screened boards that would have to sell for $25/ea. Are there a couple more Listers out there interested in fabricating this appliance? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Can Someone PLEASE Help Me Identify This Packard Terminal
End???
Date: Sep 03, 2019
Greetings Knower Of All Things That Dwelleth Behind My Keyboard!!! I have this terminal end and I cannot seem to find a replacement from Amazon Aircraft Supply or eBay Airplane Inc. It is a Packard terminal end that clips into the plastic field wire plug of the B&C SD-60 Alternator and it is designed for 18 to 20 AWG wire. All of the plugs I find online have a Square looking socket that are designed for more heavy gauge wire such as 14 AWG and they all have a square socket designed for more heavy gauge male spade This one has a "butt cheek" style socket that is designed for a more thin male spade. MANY THANKS!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 03, 2019
Subject: Re: Can Someone PLEASE Help Me Identify This Packard
Terminal End??? When you say 'thin' do you mean narrower than the typical 1/4" spade terminal, or literally thinner spade? Here's a link to Sta-Kon's catalog; they show both 1/4" & .187" width, with most for .032" thickness and a few for .020" thickness. Various wire sizes available. Scroll through the 'terminal' (quite a ways down for the blade terminals) and 'disconnects' sections. Your pics look like a typical spade terminal in either 1/4 or .187 width, but hard to tell with no reference. https://www.electronicfasteners.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/linecard_tb_stakon.pdf Charlie On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:58 PM wrote: > Greetings Knower Of All Things That Dwelleth Behind My Keyboard!!! > > I have this terminal end and I cannot seem to find a replacement from > Amazon Aircraft Supply or eBay Airplane Inc. > > It is a Packard terminal end that clips into the plastic field wire plug > of the B&C SD-60 Alternator and it is designed for 18 to 20 AWG wire. > > All of the plugs I find online have a Square looking socket that are > designed for more heavy gauge wire such as 14 AWG and they all have a > square socket designed for more heavy gauge male spade > > This one has a "butt cheek" style socket that is designed for a more thin > male spade. > > MANY THANKS!!! > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Can Someone PLEASE Help Me Identify This Packard
Terminal End???
Date: Sep 03, 2019
Charlie, THANKS for the information!!! Nathan from B&C responded to me and he is going to send me a couple. The part is called a Yazaki 71162090. https://nexelec.com/YAZAKI-71162090/ Thanks again!!! Bill From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com On Behalf Of Charlie England Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 2:06 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Can Someone PLEASE Help Me Identify This Packard Terminal End??? When you say 'thin' do you mean narrower than the typical 1/4" spade terminal, or literally thinner spade? Here's a link to Sta-Kon's catalog; they show both 1/4" & .187" width, with most for .032" thickness and a few for .020" thickness. Various wire sizes available. Scroll through the 'terminal' (quite a ways down for the blade terminals) and 'disconnects' sections. Your pics look like a typical spade terminal in either 1/4 or .187 width, but hard to tell with no reference. https://www.electronicfasteners.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/linecard_t b_stakon.pdf Charlie On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:58 PM > wrote: Greetings Knower Of All Things That Dwelleth Behind My Keyboard!!! I have this terminal end and I cannot seem to find a replacement from Amazon Aircraft Supply or eBay Airplane Inc. It is a Packard terminal end that clips into the plastic field wire plug of the B&C SD-60 Alternator and it is designed for 18 to 20 AWG wire. All of the plugs I find online have a Square looking socket that are designed for more heavy gauge wire such as 14 AWG and they all have a square socket designed for more heavy gauge male spade This one has a "butt cheek" style socket that is designed for a more thin male spade. MANY THANKS!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Sep 03, 2019
Subject: Re: Speaking of Aux Batteries
Bob, I like the concept of having the brown-out booster incorporated into the core diagram. I think that you have stuff on the endurance bus that would be hard for the brownout booster to run, In particular, the transponder and the comm radio. My dual 10-inch screen EFIS consumes 2.8 amps typical, 6.25 amps max. The Trig mode S transponder is rated at 3 amps typical and 3 amps max. The comm radio is 0.5 amps typical, 3 amps max. So I would be happy with a brownout booster that could handle just the EFIS at 2.8 amps, maybe 6 amps. As your diagram is drawn, were I planning my electrical system I would think that I needed a brownout booster that could supply 12.25 amps. That's a big difference. I think it would be cool to lose the endurance bus and add a light that comes on when a) the airplane is running on the backup alternator, and b) the battery is discharging. The light could say something like "DON'T PANIC BUT IT'S TIME TO SHED SOME LOAD." Then add a brownout booster bus that has only the equipment on it that needs to operate correctly during engine start, i.e., the engine instruments. -- Art Z. On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 11:26 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > Here's a work-in-progress z-figure I've been > massaging off and on for a few months. > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ZxxP3_1BAT_DualAlt_BO-Boost.pdf > > One goal of several is to exploit the higher capacity > pad-driven alternators . . . a thing we considered > with Z10-20 a few years back. > > This has the three layer architecture of Z10-8 along > with the e-bus, brown-out boost that was discussed > here on the list a few months back. > > The value of an aux battery goes away . . . good > thing . . . you almost can't have too few batteries. > We're still stuck with one . . . only one. > > Bob . . . > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Speaking of Aux Batteries
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Sep 03, 2019
I suspect you are looking at spec sheets rather than real numbers. My Dynon labeled Trig 1090ES transponder runs well below 0.5 amps. My SL-30 Nav-com is also down around 0.2 amps in receive mode. Each of my 10" screens draws 2.5-3.5 amps depending on whether the backup battery is charging. So, I have one switch that turns off one 10" screen and the GTN-650. That leaves me VHF nav and com, VFR GPS on single 10" screen and transponder. However, without the GTN-650, the transponder does not output ADSB data, just mode C. Doesn't bother me, because I am already in emergency mode if I am load shedding. Or I can leave the GTN-650 on (3.5 amps) and just turn off the second screen. All depends on how much load needs to be shed for given situation. On 9/3/2019 6:45 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > Bob, > > I like the concept of having the brown-out booster incorporated into the > core diagram. > > I think that you have stuff on the endurance bus that would be hard for > the brownout booster to run, In particular, the transponder and the comm > radio. My dual 10-inch screen EFIS consumes 2.8 amps typical, 6.25 amps > max. The Trig mode S transponder is rated at 3 amps typical and 3 amps > max. The comm radio is 0.5 amps typical, 3 amps max. > > So I would be happy with a brownout booster that could handle just the > EFIS at 2.8 amps, maybe 6 amps. As your diagram is drawn, were I > planning my electrical system I would think that I needed a brownout > booster that could supply 12.25 amps. That's a big difference. > > I think it would be cool to lose the endurance bus and add a light that > comes on when a) the airplane is running on the backup alternator, and > b) the battery is discharging. The light could say something like "DON'T > PANIC BUT IT'S TIME TO SHED SOME LOAD." > > Then add a brownout booster bus that has only the equipment on it that > needs to operate correctly during engine start, i.e., the engine > instruments. > > -- Art Z. > > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 11:26 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote:


August 01, 2019 - September 03, 2019

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-pb