AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bw
April 05, 2003 - April 14, 2003
Sam
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
| Subject: | Bolder Technologies still operating? |
While looking for some other things on the J.C. Whitney
site, I ran across this critter:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/product.jhtml?CATID=141565&FID=967&BQ=jcw2
also find other folks still showing the Secure Start
product in their online catalogs:
https://secure2.lswwm.com/cgi-bin/cart006/BOL900XLT.html?id=JzpyTgko
Last time I knew, this product used a very small, 1 a.h.
sealed lead acid cell made by Bolder Technologies. See:
http://www.industryweek.com/CurrentArticles/asp/articles.asp?ArticleID=346
http://www.chipcenter.com/power/powp006.htm
http://www.edgar-online.com/brand/businessweek/glimpse/glimpse.pl?symbol=BOL
D
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2001/04/02/daily7.html
As near as I can tell, Bolder is out of existence . . . yet here
the folks still offering the product. I was unable to find any
recent postings about the health and welfare of Bolder or
any other company producing the amazing little 1 a.h. cells
that will dump nearly 1000A . . .
If any of you run across this product in a store, I'd appreciate
it if you could get the name of a manufacturer and/or distributor
off the box.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bolder Technologies still operating? |
Hi Bob,
Just found abit f news on Bolder Tech.:
http://202.66.146.82/listco/sg/gpbatteries/annual/2002/chairst.pdf
Looks like they got bought out.
I pass on anything else I find.
BTW, would these batteries make a good backup battery for my electric
ignition????
Thanks,
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bolder Technologies still operating?
>
> While looking for some other things on the J.C. Whitney
> site, I ran across this critter:
>
> http://www.jcwhitney.com/product.jhtml?CATID=141565&FID=967&BQ=jcw2
>
> also find other folks still showing the Secure Start
> product in their online catalogs:
>
> https://secure2.lswwm.com/cgi-bin/cart006/BOL900XLT.html?id=JzpyTgko
>
>
> Last time I knew, this product used a very small, 1 a.h.
> sealed lead acid cell made by Bolder Technologies. See:
>
> http://www.industryweek.com/CurrentArticles/asp/articles.asp?ArticleID=346
> http://www.chipcenter.com/power/powp006.htm
>
http://www.edgar-online.com/brand/businessweek/glimpse/glimpse.pl?symbol=BOL
D
> http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2001/04/02/daily7.html
>
>
> As near as I can tell, Bolder is out of existence . . . yet here
> the folks still offering the product. I was unable to find any
> recent postings about the health and welfare of Bolder or
> any other company producing the amazing little 1 a.h. cells
> that will dump nearly 1000A . . .
>
> If any of you run across this product in a store, I'd appreciate
> it if you could get the name of a manufacturer and/or distributor
> off the box.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bolder Technologies still operating? |
Here is an html withthe same message:
http://www.gpbatteries.com.sg/newproducts.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bolder Technologies still operating?
>
> While looking for some other things on the J.C. Whitney
> site, I ran across this critter:
>
> http://www.jcwhitney.com/product.jhtml?CATID=141565&FID=967&BQ=jcw2
>
> also find other folks still showing the Secure Start
> product in their online catalogs:
>
> https://secure2.lswwm.com/cgi-bin/cart006/BOL900XLT.html?id=JzpyTgko
>
>
> Last time I knew, this product used a very small, 1 a.h.
> sealed lead acid cell made by Bolder Technologies. See:
>
> http://www.industryweek.com/CurrentArticles/asp/articles.asp?ArticleID=346
> http://www.chipcenter.com/power/powp006.htm
>
http://www.edgar-online.com/brand/businessweek/glimpse/glimpse.pl?symbol=BOL
D
> http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2001/04/02/daily7.html
>
>
> As near as I can tell, Bolder is out of existence . . . yet here
> the folks still offering the product. I was unable to find any
> recent postings about the health and welfare of Bolder or
> any other company producing the amazing little 1 a.h. cells
> that will dump nearly 1000A . . .
>
> If any of you run across this product in a store, I'd appreciate
> it if you could get the name of a manufacturer and/or distributor
> off the box.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bolder Technologies still operating? |
Here is the whole story of the bankruptcy and buy out:
http://www.irasia.com/listco/sg/gpbatteries/press/p011220.htm
I wonder why my emails to aeroelectric always staggerin after 15 or so
minutes and sometomes longer and out of chronological sequence???
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bolder Technologies still operating?
>
> While looking for some other things on the J.C. Whitney
> site, I ran across this critter:
>
> http://www.jcwhitney.com/product.jhtml?CATID=141565&FID=967&BQ=jcw2
>
> also find other folks still showing the Secure Start
> product in their online catalogs:
>
> https://secure2.lswwm.com/cgi-bin/cart006/BOL900XLT.html?id=JzpyTgko
>
>
> Last time I knew, this product used a very small, 1 a.h.
> sealed lead acid cell made by Bolder Technologies. See:
>
> http://www.industryweek.com/CurrentArticles/asp/articles.asp?ArticleID=346
> http://www.chipcenter.com/power/powp006.htm
>
http://www.edgar-online.com/brand/businessweek/glimpse/glimpse.pl?symbol=BOL
D
> http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2001/04/02/daily7.html
>
>
> As near as I can tell, Bolder is out of existence . . . yet here
> the folks still offering the product. I was unable to find any
> recent postings about the health and welfare of Bolder or
> any other company producing the amazing little 1 a.h. cells
> that will dump nearly 1000A . . .
>
> If any of you run across this product in a store, I'd appreciate
> it if you could get the name of a manufacturer and/or distributor
> off the box.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | JCWhitney heaters |
While cruising the JC Whitney site I also noticed some small 12volt
heaters/defrosters. I think these would work perfect for most airplanes
especially for defrosting. This would save the hassles of doing a heater
muff and somewhat complicated duct work.
Anyone try these? Any thoughts?
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
Aerocomp 7SL
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bolder Technologies still operating? |
Johnson Controls had a lisence to produce TMF batteries and it apears they
made only a few before the lisence ran out:. I copied an article that
outlines this. The last paragraph has a lnk to a fellow looking for more TMF
battteries for his electric drag bike.....
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:nFNbdZieXNQC:solstice.crest.org/efficie
ncy/ev-list-archive/9910/msg00337.html+optima+inspira+battery&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
This is G o o g l e's cache of
http://solstice.crest.org/efficiency/ev-list-archive/9910/msg00337.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled
the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page
without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:nFNbdZieXNQC:solstice.crest.org/efficie
ncy/ev-list-archive/9910/msg00337.html+optima+inspira+battery&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for
its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: optima inspira battery
----
----
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Subject Index]
Re: Johnson controls
----
Subject: Re: Johnson controls
From: Bill Dube <billdube(at)killacycle.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 17:05:11
----
>The Cloud dragster had some of those in it also, of 2 different sizes. They
>are a bit smaller than the Hawker's smallest, and appeared to be of 6 cel
>spiral style, like Optimas, and were black cased with blue letter labels.
>The connectors didn't look very robust, and were of an odd style off the
>side I had not seen before.
>
>I should have gotten pictures, but figured they were very close to
>production from the look of the blue on black "Inspira" labels, and
although
>they were probably there, I don't recall seeing any "prototype" stickers.
>
>Not relabeled Boulders from what I can tell, but actual JCs.
>
>Erik
>EKO Systems
>
>> Not sure about the tranny, but I've heard he no longer runs Hawkers.
>> Switched to a Johnson Control thin-film battery. And no, I don't
>> know where he, or anyone else got them. (Prototype/beta, etc.)
>>
>> My understanding is they are called "Inspira"(?) batteries and are
>> relabelled Bolder Batteries.
>> GF
Here are the facts.
The Inspira battery is manufactured by Johnson Controls under license from
Bolder Technologies. Johnson Controls (JCI) has an exclusive license to
make TMF style batteries for Automobile starting batteries. The exclusivity
runs out in a few years.
Inspiras come in several different sizes. I believe they make 3, 4.5 and 6
amp-hr versions. They are still in the prototype stage of development. From
what I've observed, they apparently don't have as much power density that
Bolder cells. I suspect that JCI is using a cast-on strap similar in nature
to an Optima. That is, a portion of the positive plate sticks up from the
top of the jelly roll in one quadrant, while the negative sticks up in
another. These "tabs" are then connected via cast-on jumpers to adjacent
cells and the output terminals. (This is speculation, keep in mind.) The
tabs are typically the weak spot of the design and limit maximum current
flow.
Bolder's design has the entire edge of each plate bonded to a cast-on cap
at either end of the cell. This results in minimum resistance, uniform
current density, and maximum power density (more correctly, specific power.)
A single, 1 amp-hr Bolder cell can take a 1,000 amp load. Three in
parallel can take 3,000 amps. I don't think that a 3 amp-hr JCI Inspira can
go to 3,000 amps without damage. I would be surprised if the 6 amp-hr
Inspira can.
Bill Dube' billdube(at)killacycle.com
check my website at:
http://www.killacycle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bolder Technologies still operating? |
Okay my last post on this... This article from a trade journal mentions TMF
being a "great white hope"
http://www.batteriesinternational.com/default.asp?Page=6&SID=5143&ISS=42
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Could someone crimp a few D-Subs for me? |
I would be happy to do it for you. Let me know if you want me to. Tim
Rhodenbaugh timrhod(at)aol.com I,m in ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Ammeters |
>
>
>Running b-leads from both the main and backup alternator through my
>VM-1000 Ammeter hall-sensor is exactly what I want to do. However, I
>haven't found a way to get both fat wires through the hole. Any suggestions?
How big are your alternators and how big is the hole
in the hall sensor?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PM Alternator run ok without battery? |
<>
It will certainly generate without an external exciter current, but that
may not be the only issue.
I have several projects going. One is an acro biplane with very little
electrical requirement. M14 power (air start), so not powering anything
except some gauges and a radio. Cranking only powers a Slick Start box for
the M9-35M mags (not the same as the M9-F mags), and maybe an electric primer
solenoid.
Just got back from S&F, had a nice conversation with Bill Bainbridge
about the B&C SK10. Looks to be about the same physical size as the Deere
and Thermo King units I've seen, but set up to bolt directly to the M14
generator drive pad. Spec sheet says 3.9 lbs in the M14 configuration, 12.2
amps @13V @5000 alternator RPM. That's 2000 crank RPM with an M14, as the
accessory case has 2.5 speed-up gearing on the generator shaft. Probably
about 13 amps at full throttle.
Back to the "battery disconnected" question. Bill mentioned the need for
a "PM OV-filter" kit. The alternator comes with a regulator. I think he was
talking about B&C #504-1, but maybe not, you know how things are at a busy
show booth. Might be an S704-1, a OVM-14, and a capacitor. Bill said some
of the M14 acro guys have ignored battery maintenance (no high amp crank
load) and terminal corrosion has "disconnected" a few batteries. Apparently
that drives system voltage to high levels. I don't understand the physics
very well.
Bob, the Connection doesn't have much on PM alternators. Z-11 and Z-25
do show the battery always connected, given that S704-1 is energized. Any
chance of a short tutorial here? How does a PM regulator work, and why would
system voltage jump with the battery disconected?
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | #22 size pin removal tool...S-Tec installation |
Hey listers,
Anyone out there have a #22 size pin removal/insertion tool? It would be smaller
than the tool that you would use on your UPSAT gear (I have one of those).
It is for the high density connectors (like S-Tec).
If so, where did you get it? I've already tried mouser/digikey/altex...all they
have is the bigger ones. I know that this is a fairly inexpensive tool...but
when you don't have one it's worth a fortune...!
I've already sent a zap to the connector manufacturer - but I thought I'd try you
guy/gals too!
Thanks for your assistance,
Ralph Capen
Wiring my 6A in Richardson, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I was flying my new LongEZ last evening. (28 hours now)
>
>I noticed that my VM1000 amp gauge was fluxuating from 11 amps then 8,6,4,
>then back to 11 and so on. Cycling over about 1 min.
>
>The induction pick up is inline of the charging wire off of the alt. to
>the battery, 2 ga. wire since it also doubles as the power to the starter,
>both of which are of course out back.
>
>Does this sound normal.
>
>I run one Elec Ign. the usual VFR stuff and the strodes were on.
>
>Nip alt, B&C voltage reg (LR3), ship wiring as in Z-9.
No, it doesn't. Loads on the alternator
should be relatively steady in cruising flight.
If strobes are on, you might see a little
"kick" in displayed current each time
the strobes fire. Your observed current
values oscillate over a factor of 3:1 . . .
You cannot MAKE the display show this kind
of variation without turning lots of stuff
ON and then back OFF over the period of
of the observed excursions.
Just for grins, you might slip the wire
out of the center of the sensor for a few
flights and see what the ammeter shows.
We would expect it to be zero or very
close to it all the time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Could someone crimp a few D-Subs for me? |
Tim, thanks for the offer, but someone already beat you to it. This list is
the best!
Regards,
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
TimRhod(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Could someone crimp a few D-Subs for me?
I would be happy to do it for you. Let me know if you want me to. Tim
Rhodenbaugh timrhod(at)aol.com I,m in ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Might also be a bad diode in the alternator.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ampers
>
> >
> >I was flying my new LongEZ last evening. (28 hours now)
> >
> >I noticed that my VM1000 amp gauge was fluxuating from 11 amps then
8,6,4,
> >then back to 11 and so on. Cycling over about 1 min.
> >
> >The induction pick up is inline of the charging wire off of the alt. to
> >the battery, 2 ga. wire since it also doubles as the power to the
starter,
> >both of which are of course out back.
> >
> >Does this sound normal.
> >
> >I run one Elec Ign. the usual VFR stuff and the strodes were on.
> >
> >Nip alt, B&C voltage reg (LR3), ship wiring as in Z-9.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Loads on the alternator
> should be relatively steady in cruising flight.
> If strobes are on, you might see a little
> "kick" in displayed current each time
> the strobes fire. Your observed current
> values oscillate over a factor of 3:1 . . .
> You cannot MAKE the display show this kind
> of variation without turning lots of stuff
> ON and then back OFF over the period of
> of the observed excursions.
>
> Just for grins, you might slip the wire
> out of the center of the sensor for a few
> flights and see what the ammeter shows.
> We would expect it to be zero or very
> close to it all the time.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | VOR Localizer mod to GPS Localizer |
I've been looking for an inexpensive GPS Localizer and have come to the
conclusion that they do not exist. Specifically, I'm looking for a 3
1/8" instrument to dedicate solely to the GPS localizer function.
There have been several relatively cheap VOR localizer instruments
available through E-Bay. Some are yellow tagged, most are not.
I have heard that VOR Localizer can be modified to work with a GPS.
Is such a mod possible? If so, what is involved and could a homebuilder
make the mod?
Does anyone have a recommendation for a shop to make such a mod?
How expensive is it to modify a non-working instrument to work with GPS?
Would a yellow tagged instrument be worth the extra money?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <swedan(at)pcmagic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED post lights for instrument lighting? |
For a possible emergency panel light, (or at least a great map reading light),
I've discovered a great folding LED light, made by Energizer that lights up an
area. It can be bought from Wal-Mart (Their SKU number is, I believe, 0968489)
for about 9 dollars plus tax & less batteries. I was told about it by another
pilot who is also a Boy Scout leader. The boys in his scout troop use them
all the time.
It is flat, with a swivel on one side so it opens up like a cell phone. It also
has a little hinge with holes in it that enables it to be hung on the wall.
(If I were to mount it in a plane, I'd use something more substantial). When
I'm travelling and sleeping in a place that doesn't have a light switch convenient
to the bed, I use it so I can read before I go to sleep without getting
out of bed to turn off the light. I put this light on my chest folded at an angle
to light the book. THERE ARE NO HOT SPOTS OF LIGHT. Powered by 4 AA batteries,
it uses 1 or 2 white LEDs at a time by a selectable switch. If one LED
is selected, the manufacturer claims 200 hours from the batteries. I have no
reason to doubt that figure. If 2 LEDs are selected, I would assume 100 hours
of use per set of batteries. I don't worry if I fall asleep with it on, because
it just keeps going, and going, and going. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
The construction is interesting. Each LED is encased in a plastic tube that runs
in front of a reflector. The light from the LED is carried up the tube, then
reflected so that there is VERY even light.
Using 1 LED, I am able to read a large map (with all the colors) very easily.
I have not tested it much on night vision, but it is dim enough so I don't think
it affects it greatly. I think it would make an excellent light to illuminate
the whole instrument panel using the 2 LED setting, but I have not tested
it in a plane yet. If you install it in your plane, it can be used to read your
checklist & visually check control settings without turning on the master before
start-up.
The scouts use it to light their tents, and I've used it on walks at night. Even
though it is not very bright to illuminate the path far away, it sure lets
me see where I'm stepping and where the path leads for about 10-15 feet without
moving it around.
Wal-mart also sells an LED light that illuminates a spot using a single LED, made
by Brinkmann, about $13. It illuminates a spot. Wal-Mart sells it for under
$13, including batteries. The SKU number is 000933027. I use it like a pen
light - but it illuminates further because it uses a lens to focus the light.
It is also much larger in diameter, and waterproof. It possibly floats. It
would seem to be a good light for pre-flighting a plane in the dark and an emergency
light if you're downed.
Both of these lights have long illumination duration from batteries, no filaments
to break, and near white light. I really like them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Localizer mod to GPS Localizer |
In a message dated 4/6/2003 11:58:55 AM Central Standard Time,
charleyb(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> I've been looking for an inexpensive GPS Localizer and have come to the
> conclusion that they do not exist. Specifically, I'm looking for a 3
> 1/8" instrument to dedicate solely to the GPS localizer function.
>
Good Morning Charlie,
I am sure you will get much more authoritative answers from some of the
electrically sophisticated on this list, but I would like to comment from an
old aviators view
point. I believe you are desirous of obtaining a low cost Course Deviation
Indicator (CDI) to use with your GPS. Is that not the case?
You will find that almost all CDI instruments are just galvanic meters which
read zero with the needle in the center. With a plus voltage applied, the
needle will swing one way and with a minus voltage applied they will swing
the other direction.
Almost all navigation sources have an output so that they can drive the CDI.
I think you will find the voltages used to drive the needles will be in the
order of plus or minus three to five volts DC.
What you need to know is the range of voltage that is output by your GPS on
the pins that drive the CDI. You can then choose a meter action that will
give you what you want, Some of those old W.W.II meters had very fine and
reliable actions.
You should be able to find one that will do what you want at very low cost.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the data comes from a VOR,
Localizer or GPS. The needle just responds to the voltage applied
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Buffering loads on stick grip switches . . . |
>Comments/Questions: Hello Bob....I've been trying to find an alternative
>to the very expensive Stick grips available.
>
>I bought a gaming stick called "Seitek" and it looks promising. I pulled
>it apart and isolated the stick from the base unit. The stick has several
>small microswitches and a "coolie hat" switch. It looks very space-age!
>
>I don't kid myself that these small devices could switch my high current
>items like trim motors, but perhaps with the correct relays installed....?
>
>Hence my question; What is a good relay selection to install between these
>(milliamp?) switches and the actuator to do the heavy lifting. Functions
>I'd want to switch are;
>
>1) PPT (perhaps the small microswitch is enough alone for this function)
Probably so.
>2) 4-way trim
>3) Air brake up and down
I've uploaded a set of exemplar drawings that
show how to control permanent magnet motors with
relays at http://216.55.140.222/temp/PM_Motor_Relays.pdf
The common theme throughout these drawings are the pair
of single pole, double throw relays that control motor power.
Note that in the relaxed state, the normally closed contacts
put a dead short across the motor. This is a very useful
technique for reducing coasting of the motor after power
is removed. Energizing one relay or the other puts (+)
power on alternate leads of the motor to control direction.
Obviously, the relay's contacts must be sufficiently
rated for satisfactory service life depending on the
motor load. MAC servos draw perhaps 200 mA . . . ANY
relay will handle this load. Our S704-1 relays will
handle up to 30A . . . and their package/terminal
configuration makes them attractive for installation
and wiring irrespective of how much you load
the contacts.
Hope this helps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: JCWhitney heaters |
>
>While cruising the JC Whitney site I also noticed some small 12volt
>heaters/defrosters. I think these would work perfect for most airplanes
>especially for defrosting. This would save the hassles of doing a heater
>muff and somewhat complicated duct work.
>
>Anyone try these? Any thoughts?
The heat output of almost any electric heater has the
potential for being a disappointment. Consider that you
MIGHT have as much as 20 . . . naw, let's say 30 amps
of left-over alternator output just looking for a good
task to do. 30A at 14V works out to 420 watts or about
1400 BTU per hour.
Hot liquid aux heaters for cars tend to be rated in the
10,000 to 30,000 BTU/hour heating capacity . . and
most cars are better insulated and tighter with respect
cabin heat lost to the outside than an airplane.
I had an EZ builder go for a 28V/60A system in his airplane
so that he could run two 20A heaters for a total of 1120
watts and 3800 BTU. He reported that he could choose
between either warm toes or keeping the canopy defrosted
but not both. He remarked later that his daughter's
hair dryer put out more snort than his cabin heaters.
The heat you can pick off an exhaust muff will be much
more than you can practically generate electrically.
The garden variety, plug in the wall heaters you find
in hardware stores are 1500W/5000BTU devices. I've
used these to defrost and pre-warm a car sitting in
the driveway . . . takes about 30 min on a really
cold morning with the car sitting still . . . move
a 150 MPH slipstream over the car at local ambient
temps, an the usefulness of the 1500W heater becomes
problematical.
I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying it but be
aware of the numbers and the fact that your available
energy from most alternators is going to be very
limited.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Might also be a bad diode in the alternator.
I wouldn't expect the wandering display. Once the
battery is charged, loads on the alternator are
same as system loads. A diode out will cripple an
alternator . . . limit its max output current
but this is a fixed condition . . .
I'm assuming that his bus voltage was constant
during the observed oscillation . . . meaning that
whatever was going on, the alternator/regulator
combination was meeting requirements for ship's
loads . . . this means that ship's loads were
wandering or the ammeter's electronics were
hosed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Localizer mod to GPS Localizer |
>
>
>I've been looking for an inexpensive GPS Localizer and have come to the
>conclusion that they do not exist. Specifically, I'm looking for a 3
>1/8" instrument to dedicate solely to the GPS localizer function.
>
>There have been several relatively cheap VOR localizer instruments
>available through E-Bay. Some are yellow tagged, most are not.
>
> I have heard that VOR Localizer can be modified to work with a GPS.
>Is such a mod possible? If so, what is involved and could a homebuilder
>make the mod?
> Does anyone have a recommendation for a shop to make such a mod?
> How expensive is it to modify a non-working instrument to work with GPS?
> Would a yellow tagged instrument be worth the extra money?
The CDI needle in a VOR/LOC/CDI instrument is simply a
meter that reads, as I recall, about 10 microamps
per dot of deviation. This has been the "standard"
instrument for displaying the output of the VOR/LOC
receiver. IF your GPS receiver is one of the TSO'd
critters, then it has outputs intended to interface
with the "standard" OBS/VOR/LOC instrument head.
This feature will let you fly your year 2003 GPS
as if it were a year 1960 VOR/LOC receiver . . .
what a concept.
If you have the TSO'd receiver, and you want to fly
any kind of IFR, then you'll need the analog display.
This might be a display shared with the VOR/LOC
receiver wherein you can switch the instrument between
the two receivers with an 18 pole, two position
switch (relay deck discussed here on the list about
a year ago).
If it's NOT a TSO'd receiver, then your output is
likely limited to the NMEA-0183 serial data output.
You can drive the CDI of an instrument with aid
of a converter like that offer by
http://www.porcine.com
in the form of their smart coupler.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: JCWhitney heaters |
Thanks Bob for the reply. Just what this list is for!! I'll go the
conventional route.
Darwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: JCWhitney heaters
>
> >
> >While cruising the JC Whitney site I also noticed some small 12volt
> >heaters/defrosters. I think these would work perfect for most airplanes
> >especially for defrosting. This would save the hassles of doing a heater
> >muff and somewhat complicated duct work.
> >
> >Anyone try these? Any thoughts?
>
> The heat output of almost any electric heater has the
> potential for being a disappointment. Consider that you
> MIGHT have as much as 20 . . . naw, let's say 30 amps
> of left-over alternator output just looking for a good
> task to do. 30A at 14V works out to 420 watts or about
> 1400 BTU per hour.
>
> Hot liquid aux heaters for cars tend to be rated in the
> 10,000 to 30,000 BTU/hour heating capacity . . and
> most cars are better insulated and tighter with respect
> cabin heat lost to the outside than an airplane.
>
> I had an EZ builder go for a 28V/60A system in his airplane
> so that he could run two 20A heaters for a total of 1120
> watts and 3800 BTU. He reported that he could choose
> between either warm toes or keeping the canopy defrosted
> but not both. He remarked later that his daughter's
> hair dryer put out more snort than his cabin heaters.
>
> The heat you can pick off an exhaust muff will be much
> more than you can practically generate electrically.
>
> The garden variety, plug in the wall heaters you find
> in hardware stores are 1500W/5000BTU devices. I've
> used these to defrost and pre-warm a car sitting in
> the driveway . . . takes about 30 min on a really
> cold morning with the car sitting still . . . move
> a 150 MPH slipstream over the car at local ambient
> temps, an the usefulness of the 1500W heater becomes
> problematical.
>
> I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying it but be
> aware of the numbers and the fact that your available
> energy from most alternators is going to be very
> limited.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
0V = OFF.
I had planned on running the ground return for all of them through a
rotary potentiometer, but now that I start looking, I can't find a
potentiometer that controls four outputs. Are there any reasonably
priced, small, single-turn potentiometers that control four outputs?
I haven't figured out how many watts I need to deal with yet, so this
idea might require too big a potentiometer.
My next idea was to power the annunciators with a small solid state
dimmer module, and to use relays to control the ground return from
each annunciator. But that requires a relay for each annunciator, so
I'm not happy about the complexity. Is there a cheap, reliable and
easy to install solid state solution I can use instead of relays?
The only simple solution I've thought of is to run the ground returns
for all annunciators through a single potentiometer. The intensity
will vary depending on how many annunciators are lit, but the vast
majority of cases will only have one lit at a time, so this might be
workable. Are there pitfalls to this idea that I haven't thought of?
What other solutions are there?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
Kevin, why do you want to dim the annunciators? Maybe the simplest
solution is to keep a post-it note on board for the once every ten years
when an annunciator comes on at night and it bothers you. I used to do
that to cover the non-dimming high beam indicator on a car I had years
ago (the darn thing was amazingly bright, I could see the blue light on
my face).
If you still want to dim them, since they are LED's, they have minuscule
power. Hence, a small pot could be used on each of them. Get a little
3K board mount pot, hook it up and try it. You could hook an ammeter in
series, just to check that the power can be handled (P=VI).
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 291 hours
www.rvforum.org
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
> annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
> yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
> there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
>
> I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
> unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
> periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
> driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
> 0V = OFF.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
>
>I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
>annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
>yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
>there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
>
>I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
>unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
>periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
>driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
>0V = OFF.
Okay, this means that they all share a common ground. To apply
equal dimming to the entire array, select a zener diode (1-watt
1N4700 series is fine) that provides the right voltage drop
for the dim position. Put this zener in series with the ground
for all lamps. Put a bright/dim toggle switch in parallel with
the zener. Close the switch for max-bright operation, open
for dimmmed operation.
See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/annun_dim.gif
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator Recommendation - Subaru EA-81 |
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
After reading a BK's AeroElectric and ended up with a dead alternator,
I'm looking to replace the alternator included with my Subaru EA-81 from
Stratus with one that works with an external voltage regulator. Has
anybody had any good experience with any particular brand, etc.?
Thanks!
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ - Zodiac 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
>
>
>>
>>I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
>>annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
>>yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
>>there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
>>
>>I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
>>unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
>>periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
>>driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
>>0V = OFF.
>
> Okay, this means that they all share a common ground. To apply
> equal dimming to the entire array, select a zener diode (1-watt
> 1N4700 series is fine) that provides the right voltage drop
> for the dim position. Put this zener in series with the ground
> for all lamps. Put a bright/dim toggle switch in parallel with
> the zener. Close the switch for max-bright operation, open
> for dimmmed operation.
>
> See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/annun_dim.gif
>
> Bob . . .
>
Thanks for the help Bob. This will work, once I figure out what
value zener I need. I'll try using one of the dimming modules I
bought from B&C, and temporarily hook it up to one of the LEDs to
figure out how much voltage it takes to get the intensity I want in
the dim position.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | LED post lights for instrument lighting? |
I will let you know when I have done a setup with the new 20000 Millicad
LEDS
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED post lights for instrument lighting?
-->
>-->
>
>
>HI BOB and all,
>
>Have you got any ideal, examples for LED post lights for cockpit
>instrument lighting?
This is possible but for the moment, difficult
to do practically. Output beam-width LEDs is narrow
compared to the more spherical output from lamps.
Getting an LED to illuminate a post light fixture
in the same manner as the incandescent lamp would
take some doing. The light fixtures I've purchased
from RS in the past for my LV Warn indicators appears
to have been discontinued. I'm looking for a new fixture
that gives me the nice scattering pattern in front
of the LED as the old one did . . . it's not a plug-n-
play situation across the spectrum of fixtures.
There are LEDs with sufficient light output to do
what you propose but the physics on which they
operate makes them a less than idea substitute.
Bob . . .
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | Multiple GPS feeds |
Just a side note,
The anywhere map is happy to drive a autopilot.
So the hook op would like this
Antenna---------GPS---------Anywheremap-------------autopilot---------se
rvo-------------wings and tail------------air
On a another note something like the Garmin etrex at $100 USD makes a
lovely 12 channel GPS that will work for 24 hours on a set of AA
batteries and could be useful outside the aircraft.
Plus 2 is better than one for redundancy.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scot
Stambaugh
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Multiple GPS feeds
-->
Steve,
The GPS 35 is a complete 12 channel GPS receiver, not just an
antenna. once power is applied, it finds satellites and gathers a
longitude and latitude position coordinates as well as developing a
error
metric and a number of other variables that it can offer to whatever
devise
it is connected to, such as a Trutrak A/P or a Chelton Flight Systems
EFIS
or Control Vision's Anywhere moving map package. The interface to the
GPS
35 is a RS-232 two way serial connection that reports the various
information to the above instruments. RS-232 is intended to be a
point-to-point protocol, which means one unit on each end of the
cable. Since the above mentioned units assume that there is only one
device on the other end of the cable it only sends the information that
is
requested of it. So, consider this situation. If you have one GPS 35
and
you connect it to the Trutrak and also the GTX 327. The GTX 327 may
only
request Lat/Lon information and never ask for any of the other data that
the unit makes available, but the Trutrak wants to also request position
error data for example. What could happen is the Trutrack would send a
command to the GPS requesting a position error message and the GPS
promptly
replies. The GTX 327 is connected to the same wire and gets the
position
error message same as the Trutrak but one of two things will happen.
The
design engineer for the GTX 327 assumed that this would always be a
point-to-point connection and that all messages are for him only and
would
attempt to decipher the "position error" message as Lat/Lon. It would
either get confused and declare an error, or worse, it would somehow
convince itself that the data string is a Lat/Lon and treat it as
such. Now everything is hosed.
Now, onto your original question, GPS antenna signals should be able to
be
split and shared between GPS receivers but the signal is not real
strong. It dissipates over long cable runs and should be carefully
managed
when adding additional loads to it such as making it drive two GPS's.
You
can purchase GPS amplifiers for long cable runs or just to boost the
signal
but you need to know what your doing because if you don't need to boost
the
signal that much and you give the GPS receiver too much signal that will
cause signal distortion. A reduction in signal power to the GPS
receiver
will usually result in a difficultly for the receiver to detect and
acquire
as many satellites. This increases position error and can cause signal
loss conditions more often.
Sorry for the long dissertation. I am in a similar situation, with a
GPS
35 driving my CFS EFIS-2000 and needing (but not wanting) a second GPS
35
to drive my Anywhere map PDA system as a backup.
good luck,
scot
>
>
>Can a GPS antenna feed more than 1 GPS device?
>
>Trutrak Flight Systems says no, Garmin says yes.
>
>Which is it and anybody have experience doing this?
>
>Specically I want to feed GPS signal to my Digitrak autopilot and GTX
>327 transponder. I have a GPS 35 receiver as recommended by Trutrak
>Flight Systems.
>
>Steve
>Rv7A
>Wiring
>
>
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED post lights for instrument lighting? |
Bob;
Have you looked at the "inverted cone" style of LED where the Viewing Angle
is 180 deg?
Mouser 512-QL484 (plus color code) from Fairchild. Smaller case than normal
but shape provides 180 deg VU angle.
I have not tried them.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED post lights for instrument lighting?
>
> >
> >
> >HI BOB and all,
> >
> >Have you got any ideal, examples for LED post lights for cockpit
> >instrument lighting?
>
> This is possible but for the moment, difficult
> to do practically. Output beam-width LEDs is narrow
> compared to the more spherical output from lamps.
> Getting an LED to illuminate a post light fixture
> in the same manner as the incandescent lamp would
> take some doing. The light fixtures I've purchased
> from RS in the past for my LV Warn indicators appears
> to have been discontinued. I'm looking for a new fixture
> that gives me the nice scattering pattern in front
> of the LED as the old one did . . . it's not a plug-n-
> play situation across the spectrum of fixtures.
>
> There are LEDs with sufficient light output to do
> what you propose but the physics on which they
> operate makes them a less than idea substitute.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
Hi Kevin-
I was wrestling with using incandescents for my annunciator and the need for a
PTT on it- In earlier discussions on the A-list Bob basically said to toss this
plan and go with LEDs, so I've been experimenting. (oh, no!) Something I've been
playing with is using one of these:
http://mpja.com/directview.asp?product=4057+MD
It's a "DC Motor Speed Control" using a 555 timer for PWM for $16. It's set up
with a forward/reverse switch on the board and comes with a small motor. It
arrived as a "kit" so I had to dust off the soldering iron and I was amazed it
actually worked- very fine control of the motor from a crawl to full speed. I
removed the switch and wired a project board up with a bunch of different LEDs
I
bought from the same outfit (cheap!), mostly three LEDs in series with an
appropriate resistor in a variety of colors for experimentation. It takes them
from full bright down to about half brightness. I'm planning on using this thing
to power my annunciator (ten arrays of 3 LEDs ea.) and all my panel legends
(backlit through engraved overlay- 20 "arrays" of 3 LEDs ea. for a total of less
than 2 amps total draw, assuming 20 mA per LED, and my math is right. 8-) (the
thing is rated for 10 amps)
The only thing I can't dim is the "starter on" and "fuel pump on" annunciators
as
these monitor actual voltage at each, but I don't particularly see a problem as
these aren't normally lit in cruise, or at least shouldn't be.
One problem is the pot controlling the output pulse width is soldered to the
board and will have to be mounted remotely on the panel. The one supplied with
the kit is labeled "50KB" and seems a little cheesy as the output flickers
somewhat as it rotates- it is stable when not being turned. Can somebody
recommend a suitable, quality substitute for this pot? All three leads are
connected in the circuit.
Mark Phillips
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
> annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
> yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
> there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
>
> I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
> unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
> periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
> driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
> 0V = OFF.
>
> I had planned on running the ground return for all of them through a
> rotary potentiometer, but now that I start looking, I can't find a
> potentiometer that controls four outputs. Are there any reasonably
> priced, small, single-turn potentiometers that control four outputs?
> I haven't figured out how many watts I need to deal with yet, so this
> idea might require too big a potentiometer.
>
> My next idea was to power the annunciators with a small solid state
> dimmer module, and to use relays to control the ground return from
> each annunciator. But that requires a relay for each annunciator, so
> I'm not happy about the complexity. Is there a cheap, reliable and
> easy to install solid state solution I can use instead of relays?
>
> The only simple solution I've thought of is to run the ground returns
> for all annunciators through a single potentiometer. The intensity
> will vary depending on how many annunciators are lit, but the vast
> majority of cases will only have one lit at a time, so this might be
> workable. Are there pitfalls to this idea that I haven't thought of?
>
> What other solutions are there?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to dim multiple annunciator lights? |
Kevin
Just completed wiring a Velocity. The instuments utilize a fibre optic
system. We used a pot to contol the brightness.
You may have to experiment with the total ohms of the pot.
Make sure it's a linear pot.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to dim multiple annunciator lights?
>
> I've started pondering how to control the intensity of several
> annunciator lights, but I haven't come up with a solution that I like
> yet. I figure I can't be the first builder with this problem, so
> there must be several good ideas I haven't thought of yet.
>
> I've got four LED annunciators that I need to deal with. All will be
> unlit most of the time, but they could be illuminated for long
> periods if they are annunciating a system failure. All of them are
> driven by a 12V signal when they are in the ON state. I.e 12V = ON,
> 0V = OFF.
>
> I had planned on running the ground return for all of them through a
> rotary potentiometer, but now that I start looking, I can't find a
> potentiometer that controls four outputs. Are there any reasonably
> priced, small, single-turn potentiometers that control four outputs?
> I haven't figured out how many watts I need to deal with yet, so this
> idea might require too big a potentiometer.
>
> My next idea was to power the annunciators with a small solid state
> dimmer module, and to use relays to control the ground return from
> each annunciator. But that requires a relay for each annunciator, so
> I'm not happy about the complexity. Is there a cheap, reliable and
> easy to install solid state solution I can use instead of relays?
>
> The only simple solution I've thought of is to run the ground returns
> for all annunciators through a single potentiometer. The intensity
> will vary depending on how many annunciators are lit, but the vast
> majority of cases will only have one lit at a time, so this might be
> workable. Are there pitfalls to this idea that I haven't thought of?
>
> What other solutions are there?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JCWhitney heaters |
| From: | Jim Ziegler <jcz(at)espllc.com> |
Amazing and refreshing to see the word "problematical"
used correctly.......
>
> The garden variety, plug in the wall heaters you find
> in hardware stores are 1500W/5000BTU devices. I've
> used these to defrost and pre-warm a car sitting in
> the driveway . . . takes about 30 min on a really
> cold morning with the car sitting still . . . move
> a 150 MPH slipstream over the car at local ambient
> temps, an the usefulness of the 1500W heater becomes
> problematical.
>
> I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying it but be
> aware of the numbers and the fact that your available
> energy from most alternators is going to be very
> limited.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
jcz(at)espllc.com (Jim Ziegler)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Recommendation - Subaru EA-81 |
>
>After reading a BK's AeroElectric and ended up with a dead alternator,
>I'm looking to replace the alternator included with my Subaru EA-81 from
>Stratus with one that works with an external voltage regulator. Has
>anybody had any good experience with any particular brand, etc.?
What brand came on it? If you change much, you may have to
build new brackets. Satisfactory performance may not
hang so much on getting an alternator with external regulator
as it does on getting a known superior brand (Nipon Denso
for one) and paying attention to mechanical concerns like
balancing the rotor for long bearing life and tolerance
for high-pulley ratios that make the alternator run fast
in airplanes.
Let's start with what you had before. What brand was it
and how did it fail?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
Hi Bob,
I did build my own Crowbar following your schematic diagram. I first bench tested
the circuit using a variable power supply and set the trip voltage to 16.2
V as you recommended. The circuit seemed to be operating perfectly. So, I installed
the unit in my panel and further tested with a small, very old, ATV battery.
Now I'm getting a lot of false trips when turning switches from on to
off. I allowed the battery to drain down to about 10 to 11 and even tried re-adjusting
the trip point of the OVM. Still the same. My guess is that I'm getting
a quick positive voltage spike when I remove a load (switch off) from the
battery, so for trouble-shooting purposes I tried putting a 100 uf electrolytic
cap across the terminals. This did eliminated the false trips...? So do
you think my circuit is defective? Shouldn't it be able to ignore these spikes?
Perhaps these spikes are normal and my old battery doesn't have enough capacity
? FWIW, I'm using all polyfuses in my panel and the OVM is tripping a 5
amp polyfuse. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Clay
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JCWhitney heaters |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I have one other observation regarding cabin heat. Internal combustion
engines are at best only about 50% thermally efficient (much less for
aircraft). This means that for every gallon of gas burned, less than half
of it is available for thrust.
Engines are often rated in terms of kilowatts instead of horsepower. Small
aircraft engines operate in the range of 100kW to 200kW of output. This
means,
because of their imperfect efficiency, they reject more than their rated
100kW to
200kW in the form of heat. The waste heat is lost through exhaust gas and
through the cooling systems (air, oil, water).
What this all implies is that it is MUCH more efficient to tap into your
engine's
waste heat rejection (cooling) system, whether it be the exhaust mounted
heat muff, the oil cooler, or a water heated exchanger. The heat your engine
generates is waste that must be transferred to the air around the airplane
anyway.
Another way to look at it is that you have the choice to tap into this
free heat
source, or you can make the engine generate extra electricity in order to
produce even more heat. A 1500W heater takes at least 1.1horsepower, and
a 5kW heater will require an additional 3.7horsepower. If you have an O-320
it is rejecting more than 200kW in cooling loss. A very small percentage
of this
will keep the cabin nice and warm.
Regards,
Matt Prather
N34RD
>
>>
>> The garden variety, plug in the wall heaters you find
>> in hardware stores are 1500W/5000BTU devices. I've
>> used these to defrost and pre-warm a car sitting in
>> the driveway . . . takes about 30 min on a really
>> cold morning with the car sitting still . . . move
>> a 150 MPH slipstream over the car at local ambient
>> temps, an the usefulness of the 1500W heater becomes
>> problematical.
>>
>> I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying it but be
>> aware of the numbers and the fact that your available
>> energy from most alternators is going to be very
>> limited.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: #22 size pin removal tool...S-Tec |
installation
>
>
>Hey listers,
>
>Anyone out there have a #22 size pin removal/insertion tool? It would be
>smaller than the tool that you would use on your UPSAT gear (I have one of
>those). It is for the high density connectors (like S-Tec).
>
>If so, where did you get it? I've already tried
>mouser/digikey/altex...all they have is the bigger ones. I know that this
>is a fairly inexpensive tool...but when you don't have one it's worth a
>fortune...!
>
>I've already sent a zap to the connector manufacturer - but I thought I'd
>try you guy/gals too!
http://www.tecratools.com/pages/datacom/extraction.html #35232
http://www.e-sci.com/jensen/RENDER/1/56/510/W510.html #080B044
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/catalogpages/2002/236.pdf #91285-1
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T031/0110.pdf #91285-1
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/613/539.pdf #571-912851
http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/pd/0160-0009/0160-0010/0160-0010
91285-1 (other one is HD20)
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>I did build my own Crowbar following your schematic diagram. I first
>bench tested the circuit using a variable power supply and set the trip
>voltage to 16.2 V as you recommended. The circuit seemed to be operating
>perfectly. So, I installed the unit in my panel and further tested with a
>small, very old, ATV battery. Now I'm getting a lot of false trips when
>turning switches from on to off. I allowed the battery to drain down to
>about 10 to 11 and even tried re-adjusting the trip point of the
>OVM. Still the same. My guess is that I'm getting a quick positive
>voltage spike when I remove a load (switch off) from the battery, so for
>trouble-shooting purposes I tried putting a 100 uf electrolytic cap across
>the terminals. This did eliminated the false trips...? So do you think
>my circuit is defective? Shouldn't it be able to ignore these spikes?
>Perhaps these spikes are normal and my old battery doesn't have enough
>capacity ? FWIW, I'm using all polyfuses in my panel an!
>d the OVM is tripping a 5 amp polyfuse. Any suggestions would be
>appreciated.
Try a smaller bypass . . . 100uf is a tad heavy. A 10uF tantalum
would be about right if you want to put it right in the crowbar
ovm. Solder (+) to SCR anode, (-) to SCR cathode.
Alternatively, tying the 100uF capacitor to another protected
feed from the bus would be beneficial to both the OVM and
other devices in your system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Hall Effect Ammeters |
My alternators are a B&C 60 amp and a B&C SD-8. The sensor hole is
approximately 1/2 inch dia.
Charlie
---------------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hall Effect Ammeters
>
>
> >
> >
> >Running b-leads from both the main and backup alternator through my
> >VM-1000 Ammeter hall-sensor is exactly what I want to do. However, I
> >haven't found a way to get both fat wires through the hole. Any suggestions?
>
> How big are your alternators and how big is the hole
> in the hall sensor?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Ammeters |
>
>
>My alternators are a B&C 60 amp and a B&C SD-8. The sensor hole is
>approximately 1/2 inch dia.
Hmmm . . . teh 60A alternator would be quite happy on
a 4AWG or even 6AWG wire, the SD-8 is okay on as small
as 16AWG wire. You should be able to get these through
a 1/2" hole.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 Interface with FADEC |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>Just returned from Sun N Fun and some conversations wi/ the Velocity folks
>and
>the Aerosance (FADEC) folks. In a dual battery aircraft with 2 x 17AH
>batteries
>ganged for start, the FADEC will brown out and the engine will not start
>reliably.
>
>Question: I know that you were looking into a solution to this and wonder
>if it
>has been completed.
I won't belabor my disappointment that folks who
sell products claimed to be suited for use in airplanes
won't work in an airplane because of dumb reasons that
require users to accommodate the shortcoming . . .
If it were my airplane, I'd build a little voltage booster
illustrated in http://216.55.140.222/temp/Fadec_Boost.gif
This is a Royer oscillator diagram . . . VERY popular in
50's through 70's as high voltage power supplies in vehicular
powered systems. This push-pull power oscillator has a
primary winding suited to an 8-12v input. The secondary winding
is scaled to give you something on the order of 4 volts output
at 12v input.
Under normal operations, a 12 to 14.6 volt bus supply to the
FADEC goes through the transformer secondary and diode
rectifier with a nominal, but acceptable voltage drop. When
you hit the starter button, the power supply is energized and
it boosts the battery voltage by about 4V at 12V dropping to
2.7V at 8V in. This voltage is ADDED to the sagging battery
voltage during cranking only and makes sure the FADEC sees
10.5 volts or better during cranking.
>We are installing the Z-14 system and have one channel of the FADEC on each
>battery bus. Thus when we crossfeed for starting, we risk the brownout. One
>solution Aerosance recommends is to install a larger battery on the 60 amp
>alternator circuit. A 35 AH battery would work as we would then not have to
>crossfeed for start and the FADEC would get full voltage from the 17AH
>battery
>on the 20 amp alternator circuit. The downside of this is more weight and we
>would lose the battery rotation system you recommend.
>
>Question: Could we put 2 17's in parallel for the large battery? Any risks in
>this approach besides adding parts count? We would then have a 3 year
>rotation
>cycle of 17 AH batteries.
You can certainly do that too . . . but the extra 17 pounds
of battery, contactor and wiring seems like a hell of a penalty
to pay to add super-whizzy technology to your engine that's
never going to re-coupe additional costs by any savings
of fuel (does this system let you run cheap plugs?).
The Royer box would be about 2 x 3 x 5 inches and
weigh about a pound.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas pekar <niagaratom(at)yahoo.com> |
I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me a part
or model #, many thanks tom pekar
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barton Guderian <bguderia(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Standby Battery Charging |
Hello Group:
I am new to group and am so glad to have found it as I am "knowlege
challenged" when it comes to electrical theory and application but can
apply solutions with some competence.
I am flying an aircraft powered by an auto engine. The aircraft is
wired more like a car than an airplane. It has the basic 12 volt
system that any auto
would have. I have two batteries, two coils, two ignition modules and
a distributor with a dual pick-up triggering device.
The main battery is a regular car battery , what amp hour rating I don't
know but it is the battery that would be used in a 1985 Ford
Thunderbird V-6
3.8Liter engine. The standby battery is a sealed motorcycle size
battery rated at I believe 12 amp hour. At present I have a 1 ohm
resistor in line with a wire
running to the main bus bar to keep the standby battery charged. I did
not engineer this, it was on the airframe when I bought it.and the
previous owner said it would work OK. Other aircraft with this
configuration use a line from the main bus to the standby battery with
some diodes in line to regulate the amount of charge that goes from the
main battery to the standby battery.
My question is this. What is the best method to keep the standby
battery properly charged from the main battery and what should I have in
line to best accomplish
this task.
If I have not included enough info for an answer please contact me at
my e-mail address.
Thank you.
Bart Guderian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 Interface with FADEC |
> If it were my airplane, I'd build a little voltage booster
> illustrated in http://216.55.140.222/temp/Fadec_Boost.gif
>
> This is a Royer oscillator diagram . . . VERY popular in
> 50's through 70's as high voltage power supplies in vehicular
> powered systems. This push-pull power oscillator has a
> primary winding suited to an 8-12v input. The secondary winding
> is scaled to give you something on the order of 4 volts output
> at 12v input.
>
> Under normal operations, a 12 to 14.6 volt bus supply to the
> FADEC goes through the transformer secondary and diode
> rectifier with a nominal, but acceptable voltage drop. When
> you hit the starter button, the power supply is energized and
> it boosts the battery voltage by about 4V at 12V dropping to
> 2.7V at 8V in. This voltage is ADDED to the sagging battery
> voltage during cranking only and makes sure the FADEC sees
> 10.5 volts or better during cranking.
>
> You can certainly do that too . . . but the extra 17 pounds
> of battery, contactor and wiring seems like a hell of a penalty
> to pay to add super-whizzy technology to your engine that's
> never going to re-coupe additional costs by any savings
> of fuel (does this system let you run cheap plugs?).
>
> The Royer box would be about 2 x 3 x 5 inches and
> weigh about a pound.
>
Bob -
Could you refine this box with specific ratings, specs, etc. for the components.
I'd like to try this option first before going for the third battery or the 35AH
battery.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Will a single 17 AH RG battery start a contintenental IO550
consistently?
If so couldnt Z-14 be used as two independent electrical systems one
for starting the other for consistent voltage to FADEC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Multiple GPS feeds |
Thanks for the correct Todd. After further research I found out what you
just stated is true with one difference. The data stream definition that
the GPS35 is given must be the same for all of the devices who are
expecting the stream or I think they will get data that they don't expect
and could puck on it.
Sorry for the previous inaccuracies. I will endeavor to be more accurate
before offering info in the future.
>
>Actually, GPS devices that support a serial interface typically support
>the NMEA data stream protocol. The NMEA protocol defines a continuous
>stream of data that the GPS provides. Although the GPS is not "required"
>to provide all of the data types defined by the NMEA. For instance, a
>GPS-35 receiver as Scott mentions is a complete GPS unit that provides an
>NMEA data stream. However, you can't program in a course or waypoints like
>you can on a panel or handheld GPS. Thus the GPS-35 has no clue where you
>want to go, only which way you're going. As such, it cannot provide cross
>track error information which is part of the data stream definition. Thus
>a GPS-35 cannot drive a Navaid autopilot even with the smartcoupler
>because it has no course information to determine if your off track.
>
>But I digress . . .
>The NMEA is a data stream and is not a request protocol as Scott mentions
>below. This data stream is a one way communication from GPS to whatever is
>connected at the other end. Some GPS's can be configured to send different
>optional data types, but this is not done by a device requesting
>information. The data continually streams out of teh receiver, and the
>autopilot/transponder/moving map just sucks it up. Thus it is possible to
>hook up this one way data stream to more than one device as Garmin
>indicated. As such, a single GPS receiver CAN drive the NMEA data stream
>to more than one device. However, If the discussion with TruTrack
>was relating to hooking up multiple GPS antenna's, then the answer to
>that is no, you can't hookup a single antenna to more than one receiver.
>
> Todd Houg
> RV9A - N194TH - reserved
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scot Stambaugh [SMTP:sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:37 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Multiple GPS feeds
>
>
>
>Steve,
>
>The GPS 35 is a complete 12 channel GPS receiver, not just an
>antenna. once power is applied, it finds satellites and gathers a
>longitude and latitude position coordinates as well as developing a error
>metric and a number of other variables that it can offer to whatever devise
>it is connected to, such as a Trutrak A/P or a Chelton Flight Systems EFIS
>or Control Vision's Anywhere moving map package. The interface to the GPS
>35 is a RS-232 two way serial connection that reports the various
>information to the above instruments. RS-232 is intended to be a
>point-to-point protocol, which means one unit on each end of the
>cable. Since the above mentioned units assume that there is only one
>device on the other end of the cable it only sends the information that is
>requested of it. So, consider this situation. If you have one GPS 35 and
>you connect it to the Trutrak and also the GTX 327. The GTX 327 may only
>request Lat/Lon information and never ask for any of the other data that
>the unit makes available, but the Trutrak wants to also request position
>error data for example. What could happen is the Trutrack would send a
>command to the GPS requesting a position error message and the GPS promptly
>replies. The GTX 327 is connected to the same wire and gets the position
>error message same as the Trutrak but one of two things will happen. The
>design engineer for the GTX 327 assumed that this would always be a
>point-to-point connection and that all messages are for him only and would
>attempt to decipher the "position error" message as Lat/Lon. It would
>either get confused and declare an error, or worse, it would somehow
>convince itself that the data string is a Lat/Lon and treat it as
>such. Now everything is hosed.
>
>Now, onto your original question, GPS antenna signals should be able to be
>split and shared between GPS receivers but the signal is not real
>strong. It dissipates over long cable runs and should be carefully managed
>when adding additional loads to it such as making it drive two GPS's. You
>can purchase GPS amplifiers for long cable runs or just to boost the signal
>but you need to know what your doing because if you don't need to boost the
>signal that much and you give the GPS receiver too much signal that will
>cause signal distortion. A reduction in signal power to the GPS receiver
>will usually result in a difficultly for the receiver to detect and acquire
>as many satellites. This increases position error and can cause signal
>loss conditions more often.
>Sorry for the long dissertation. I am in a similar situation, with a GPS
>35 driving my CFS EFIS-2000 and needing (but not wanting) a second GPS 35
>to drive my Anywhere map PDA system as a backup.
>
>good luck,
>
>scot
>
>
> >
> >
> >Can a GPS antenna feed more than 1 GPS device?
> >
> >Trutrak Flight Systems says no, Garmin says yes.
> >
> >Which is it and anybody have experience doing this?
> >
> >Specically I want to feed GPS signal to my Digitrak autopilot and GTX 327
> >transponder.
> >I have a GPS 35 receiver as recommended by Trutrak Flight Systems.
> >
> >Steve
> >Rv7A
> >Wiring
> >
> >
>
>
>eJ8+IjcFAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
>b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAAAIAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL
>AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAXQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy1s
>aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tAAAA
>AB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAgAAAAYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9u
>aWNzLmNvbQADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAiAAAAJ2Flcm9lbGVjdHJpYy1saXN0QG1h
>dHJvbmljcy5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAlAAAAU01UUDpBRVJPRUxFQ1RSSUMtTElTVEBNQVRST05J
>Q1MuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAeAPZfAQAAACAAAABhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBt
>YXRyb25pY3MuY29tAAIB918BAAAAXQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGFlcm9lbGVj
>dHJpYy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3Mu
>Y29tAAAAAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAC+XsBBIABACoAAABSRTogQWVy
>b0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3Q6IE11bHRpcGxlIEdQUyBmZWVkcwBDDgEFgAMADgAAANMHBAAEABcAHwAZ
>AAUANgEBIIADAA4AAADTBwQABAAXAA8AHwAFACwBAQmAAQAhAAAAMzk4QTUxNTczNzE1M0U0OEI5
>MUFCMDgxMDY3RkIzODUA+AYBA5AGAKQRAAAhAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwAp
>AAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AACCvZk0+8IBHgBwAAEAAAAqAAAAUkU6IEFlcm9FbGVj
>dHJpYy1MaXN0OiBNdWx0aXBsZSBHUFMgZmVlZHMAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABwvs0maxk4mxWqOlI
>V7q1Q40zQVt8AAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFAAAAHRob3VnQGF0dGdsb2Jh
>bC5uZXQAAwAGEGDJfyADAAcQohQAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAEFDVFVBTExZLEdQU0RFVklDRVNUSEFU
>U1VQUE9SVEFTRVJJQUxJTlRFUkZBQ0VUWVBJQ0FMTFlTVVBQT1JUVEhFTk1FQURBVEFTVFJFQU1Q
>Uk9UT0NPTFRIRU5NRUFQUk9UT0MAAAAAAgEJEAEAAAB3DgAAcw4AAP0cAABMWkZ1XBRaNj8ACgED
>AfcCpAPjAgBjaMEKwHNldDAgBxMCg0MAUA7mcHJxMg/mfRMKgAjIIDsJbzI1NUsCgAqBdgiQd2sL
>gGTaNAxgYwBQCwNjAEELYMBuZzEwMzMLpg/gCGN0dQdAbHksIFxHUAXwAQAUcGMHkXRDD3AFQHN1
>cHAJESCuYRiQBnEHQCALgHQEkMpmANBlGEB5cBgAFzKHGJcYUBowTk1FQRfAixhwGSF0CXBhbSAR
>MIhvdG8I4S4gVBuG+xzGF8FmC4AHkRkgBaACMJ0LgHUIYAQgHFVvZhv0vxhTG3IXkhzBFHABAHMd
>QMxBbBhQCGBnaCEHBAAkIG4c4CAiCXBxdeppCXEiGEBvIYYZEBdAPyAyG3IgdBpgB5EehGQg7mIa
>0Bt2HUBGBbELgBxQHwBwGBAXcBkgF5EtMzXmIAlwGBBpdgSQGRAGQfsFoAJAIAeAH0ECIAQgI0Hd
>HwJtC1APsCE0dQMAG1I/GHEhlhkQA6Abvh1ASG/udxfgBJAXcHkIYB8QAHD+JyyDCcAckQuAHvMI
>cA+g0yAwBcB3YRpgbxmxBCD4bGlrGjAvFSAwMEIKsL8ewCUxBcAPcBTQG4BsJtD/F5EdQh+hIRUo
>8g9wI1IfEP8KQTEQG4AJcC8DMSACMCRS/GdvF3ACIBrBNhAYACKguzEhLwInNkE3MAuAZyIR+x+x
>FRBoF3AsIS9RI3Iklp0FAG8EERxgANBrIASQ9wNgJ+ICEHIAwCqCN7UjQf8KsQVAJVocVR6DLCAq
>kTQ1OyinOgVkBRApgBkRTmHmdgtwJtBhdRzwGnAJAN8FQC6xPLEsICKkcwDAACD3MIErYQXAYgWQ
>QeAwwSwhvzVWMJQ8GiRhAQAZ0W0esX8ZoCBQLxEFwCBAJWE7Yi6XCqIKhAqAQkHwIEkXwP5pCcEE
>ER1AShFIdB1nKuP/HAozgSM2GSAjwgeQLIMeJPcpz0QhCQB3HUIjQRwKKuPvAiA18TgxKzFtLAEa
>kDyD/wNSF4MkYTYQGHAusiMyHyH/HsAXACbBIOUc4DYhO6AU0O0dQFMDcCEzJ1PxA5FEMPsfEh6g
>ZwhwJsEkYQ+gTHH/SZABIDYxNtFCECqCGYElyL0XcGJJQRhQI0EjRWRRMv8m8UuBF+NNJjjxPAod
>RBwDvx8lGqQcYwQgCGA9lGUioN8pNiiBTHEbckHnLztRAID3GNAU0ASQLwRgFHBcoQDA+HAgah+g
>GII7gCrBBUDfGLA0NSwhPTI7EWkCYBox+yRwImBvO5AYsFpEUTYcCv8kYQRgNkEYUTJyJaFbxE5B
>/kcKwEcBGaFJkFIhCYA5KR8ZITjxZYEXkik3Q0FO30DlG39nv2jILmlJJWUEAB5jH6AAkDyiQuJU
>cnX/cjA7cjEgBCApIQtgXINltf9ckmYxUeAiQAUga7U2wQnw/1kQVlAXcG1RRmFhEgCALqD/BcAk
>YRhTI0Mu+mXiZjFrV/91VW6fKSdIawyCHVAEcCbQRy6AIoB8GVJWORvgLcEHsDE5NFRIfkFJwT8E
>kCmACzF72QsDMcAzNj8BQBWgAUAcwlRREHQxNmt+QIJCTwUQZwuAGYFN8UnRYWdlgkNIdoFUgSGD
>CxOBVmktMTQ0AUDxMcAxODABQAzQheN8oOpGA2E6DINiD9Ap8gYADwGQBtBB4CKRW1NNVOxQOgQQ
>iGZAI+AHQFGy+i4rMV1IdXygBmACMId3b4cwIdAxMBdwQREwAxEwDjQXcAHQFjAgMTI64DM3IFBN
>itd8wId3OmEEkG8zEFRRBRBjLfsxwBxQQDxhA2BSASIAKzExith1YmpUUYd3UmXWOg/gj3FFj7ZM
>kEGTAP5NdJpYUAmADzCD/4UJgKT3C7ZIg4JAPpMfKjKDQ2USb1RyJvCTAIgNPIlfimQ+90h6iFAu
>sSxIeh1iF5IpAf8q7I2gHxAzcTMCa+oXcCNy/2NTA5JIg3VVHUAygRohGND/dsIq4hjAMcAJgDmz
>HqGVUL8YkFNxF0AsIC0DJtBnGHC/NiEe4kh0CQAWACwgdSTi/0xxczKog2UhPzMfEQWwSZD/WRCm
>swQgLqAlIU5BF9FPcf8acFyhGSA7tEh0B4CP4kxT/xkgH3AG0CmRIEFVJEGQByH/ZXEYNTnUR8J2
>1FNXF9Iwwf9IdGTEVBgc8BdwOXJOMhkgx3IxO1E7kEEvUDDiGSDuQzOxHPADoEYxwCKQiDHGeZpx
>X0FFRkkF8Eh03wWxCFACMANgAyBWBAAqkfFWUUFueTYUYqkKsDuA/4NhpBEdYhm5dxIhNEh0n+aS
>UijgMjMRYHR3UzH/ODEZRVQVRkMYYglwGNI0hP+vAh+SsfVF3GEDBuBBISgC/3JAKlIiAbzmWnJ1
>YgEAV4PXVsGntjFTLRzwLTFTHLf/F3A3xAeABiJRMiwDMpEcgH838VfiJVVIdBqQZXGkEVP/C4Aa
>IsH3KlUmwSwCqtIYoP9V8SDGNkFmgxrBUTJIdFu1/77TVQklRsnjOcI3c1fSNIT/Rct3RUh0TTUm
>wSBBLCDKMv83QR8hAJAEgVpEqcEXID9E/3DBLxIPcEEhUTKfpUxiSHQ/LxNUJDnCu2W0Nq2jbHPJ
>u3VUWJ/QMje6VdtlT2MBzeIawdNbIEwYcC/+TDKRPBpMYh7AKYQ7kDwx/y0hzeElZFUkIHhIdG1S
>LAP/AMAx4B7hQZELYGVxWfbZ+P82shgxJHDa0003qbZIdDu0cxwD4FJleByQK2GkEVf/GGIwgTPR
>D3AYwEKhI0HZ2P9ykumDV9OntlGyYMO7eFwpfzLBqbY7tJnWYMYhVStQdP/dKaVCwyLcCrKNQxQc
>kDXx/yQBpuQPsDSE5q/vKvQzTkH/2dpaElEyJVK9cVpRFgCrAb8DEAMg6dS6Vc5GAJBnyGH/qFEe
>wCmR4FLbKcxVYOIg4/8jQetEB0AxIU9CxO/F9b5Z/2DEGHElEpnVHuE2QeBSN9D/ICE3gkxi60Sj
>RQ5QtnBY0N1GdGN0wFVCbVIi7nwkQO/vZ8Bw3jWkEUniIASKKWD/VTP1EVbjRHFBwVfy2TDj0P/0
>ozukN1ExAaygD6A5s+tF61XhImB37AduYsEaIcwh/zMQJWIg5RwGXJMe4t42YMO/HHGv005BmBQ5
>cqQRTg4x/S6yefmjIzIiYAsRSGsTsf83UiRhR4SCplxEHzBwoHUZ/2th+9Dl0RrgImEz0f+CZXX/
>VsES5aVBovLrgTVQV2JEMP+9YPxQoyBr6k9B5FUY1CM2/25RTiAS5ZCiOREJEnExZVD/gFCmssJB
>rLCoMtCFckBPMf8bZBl20JBzEArwXrLsoYNh/9g2NhEwQXzgrBMlAVjlQkD/JPDlgywhs5bjMVyT
>QNa9YrtWI6QRWS8hyYajIHBFcP+hITDBdROggVgw8dCngeBS/yFOrKFjU8SSZfAtAh3ImBTvWhIy
>EvxBV4NrTNAOQLDy/0d0WxBckkQ31rRbEXhhL1b/LWgS5R4ED8NR4LOy2CF38v+CwG0la+u1gG6x
>s6Iz+voT/8mGMWId9XExtYC/kD9TarD9YBFks6D142nhHfWklOz7/2xFJEX6IjFgXpR/AXSROzL/
>S4FYMccgdJFewfyWNllGo/vZQa2jY5yw9JKjRScy4KH3pki6U8PTY25RfyBlA+6q/9gSVoI466fW
>SeEOwSWEJzH/buLg0HVxFSVV0KyAQBghQ+8gQpjAi8A6FUkqsT8UZVD/adALwdXoxuFx8mtQu9ts
>8vNi0/EQQ0a78LayvRCGcO+PQd+Df2BckihaElrS5UL9a4Epa0LZMGJBn5biRQXRT20DT6G4qGMh
>UERtwHO/tkOz1JuQugBkMRU6Z2Xwf6jxY7Gem3FQxoB/joAgQWHeEDEwOjChAI4AIBA0LzMvjVMt
>MDW7hnB31HeV8odwmCM+mH/LmY+alSKeQyBKcCAWsB5sLtEHsFzVm/BqaGS9C7BAdAI50Ulw37B0
>nXV9YqZDoxFONBhWlSJuyTH7lNNvtD9ivLQ2tc2DUP9RvXeyR4BgTNA7Uf9CefHhf2K86SDHIsPS
>QcW4sMIwZP/xENcT6IDqACgA67DKkTDE+9WiZm1T6gAGENCQI4JMEH/lQnbyZLOU4jP2eiHxEET/
>grHaROrQq/GoMBtE/RVc1d/q4dUwv3DEQXuWPkwQ1xP/TjTX4Tz3CFGh4YpRxDSawB+0J7XMak2e
>Q1zVUnY3PkFqxvSQ+cFivFlfCl+8LT1+b39/gI+Bnz195/sJAINaLfrjXY+2oOMwjOH+RqygrhBb
>sILIRFPgUYZB/9XCdJHl8BvSy3LxkM3RTgDv8LCbsupyt5NpLtFIkoLI7+DRXlWuIijVJ6tB37Qq
>UP/iwJuQ80Hf8aYR4GYKMoLI38ES1EKqcKHhAkFk39H14PfVQBDhzxVND+Afoa1wwHB/hhNqNn5P
>lD+VT5ZfgowheiEToEV74BlQmEGCyEKd8LB3KlFeUl+wIFUqUXswczwAYhwAmcM8Iw7wZf8OQKkR
>3fICppLIVXAZYLthflMbspphnmMp4J4SwHAm/6XRr2JN466ki5uS36K/o8/vpN+XH4MxXlNSD4BD
>kVMA1knBCILJUDMSTe90mmG+YYShD4Bd5RsgEKBA3wENkfQu7HGCyVVOL1MAVUJTQ1JJQkUDmmG2
>AHRwOi8vd9WuUC6rey8TQGJZECgAx/DgqIxeU0ZBUZphg1LXre+u9rExL4SfLrYArDr+U8dwKhFQ
>APwTX7Cx367347Wzgsk3LUTc0Zm0rb/7rsmbZC+qX4LJmbVx8dPx/HM6ui+u9j9wvnK8H70q/kEq
>ER0RvrCxf66ctcLC0v+oup4bw3+u559EG7KwPm9D3z+htn/EecDvgthPoJfDA//LD672aIDjsasi
>xYqJ+8rv/67YDsGKJ6G/1m/Xf9iPpf4r2k9Zq32DAADcwAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAAwCAEP//
>//9AAAcwoLzIYDL7wgFAAAgwoLzIYDL7wgELAACACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAA
>AAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA
>UoUAALcNAAADAAmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAB4AE4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA
>AABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADguMAALABeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMA
>GIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAAAAAAAwAagAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUA
>AAAAAAAeACmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAqgAggBgAAAAAA
>wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AK4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAAB
>AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAAAMADTT9NwAASWQ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv6tc" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
If there is anyone with any electronics experience out there that is
familiar with Jim Weir's article this month, I could use a little help. HE
makes a warning circuit that has a tone that goes from high to low pitch. I
would like it to go from off to on. He says it's easy, you just have to
make a "comparator buffer amplifier". I guess "easy" is a relative term.
Anyway, if you have any idea how to do this, I would appreciate the help.
Thanks,
Keith Hughes
RV-6 finish
Denver CO.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob Will a single 17 AH RG battery start a contintenental IO550
>consistently?
> If so couldnt Z-14 be used as two independent electrical systems
> one
>for starting the other for consistent voltage to FADEC.
Yes, it will . . . and what you propose would
work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DRE-244e Intercom wiring |
>
>
>I bought a DRE-244e Intercom off of Ebay and it came without any wiring
>diagrams. If anybody has one of these units could I get wiring diagram or a
>pinout description? Thanks.
That one's not in my list of installation drawings.
Try contacting the manufacturer. The webpage for
your intercom is at:
http://www.drecomm.com/244eproduct.htm
Their customer service department can be
e-mailed at:
mailto:cs(at)drecomm.com
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
>
>1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a -22
>volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39 volt to a
>-11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output impedance. In
>our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an instrument to survive
>on the main bus during an engine start on most aircraft.
Please cite the basis for this opinion. What is the amplitude,
waveform and duration of any transients you have observed and
> . . . . . All of our
>instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
>requirement.
2). It is our understanding the industry standard for most electronic
>aircraft instrument installation is to install on an avionics or radio bus.
>We just installed an Apollo GX-60, SL-30, ACU, MX-20, SL-15, Garmin GTX 327,
>550/20 encoder, NSD-360 H.S.I. and many other pieces of equipment, and the
>install documentation made it clear that these instruments should be
>installed on the radio or avionics bus (isolating them from the starting
>sequence).
It is indeed a "practice" originally promulgated by the notion
that the root cause of lots of dead transistors at Cessna
and elsewhere was "spikes" from the starter. This was the
early days of low voltage, germanium transistors that
were showing up in audio and power supply circuits in the
current crop of aircraft radios. I cannot attest to studies done
elsewhere but at Cessna, there were NO actual spikes captured,
quantified and deemed antagonistic to our radios. When we
added the avionics master, the problems mostly went away
so the "practice" was called a success and we drove happily
onward.
Nearly 40 years later some folks assume that the "practice"
is now a "standard" and that the standard has some foundation
in real physics for its existence. I've been designing electronics
for aircraft for nearly 40 years and not once have I identified
any transients on the bus that reside outside the DO-160
test envelope. Therefore, I've not perceived a need to
have my customers protect my products with anything like
an "avionics bus".
>3). Our definition of a sophisticated circuit (when referring to power
>supplies), is one that would require fly back transformers to drive plasma
>displays or TFT backlights, one that uses floating step-up power to allow
>top side differential measurement, and high efficiency and charge pump
>units.
>
>4). We know that our instruments can handle input voltage spikes in excess
>of +/- 250 volts and over 400 microseconds AC input impedance. This is
>approximately 100 times the energy limitation of DO-160 and much better than
>other aviation equipment that we have tested.
>We feel that the industry needs published data on the voltage spikes
>produced during the start sequence for normal aircraft, worst case normal,
>abnormal and worst case abnormal. Most manufacturers have solved the
>uncertainty by going to a radio or avionics bus that is switched off during
>engine start.
If such stresses exist in the course of operating an
airplane, I could not agree more. I would have assumed that EI
has studied and quantified the problem and made an
engineering judgment as to whether or not their products
could/should be designed to withstand the worst case or
powered instead from a "protected" bus.
>We have been producing TSO'd equipment for over 20 years that can survive
>the somewhat hostile aircraft electrical environment, but would prefer that
>the UBG-16 be operated from a source that is protected from the starting
>sequence.
>
>We are always open to suggestions and new ideas. Thank you for your input.
>David Campbell
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
+ slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
My Tektronix 220 could not capture a single transient at
ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
data acquisition systems.
Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
Bob . . .
(-----------------------------------------)
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( -C. F. Kettering )
(-----------------------------------------)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning circuit |
>
>If there is anyone with any electronics experience out there that is
>familiar with Jim Weir's article this month, I could use a little help. HE
>makes a warning circuit that has a tone that goes from high to low pitch. I
>would like it to go from off to on. He says it's easy, you just have to
>make a "comparator buffer amplifier". I guess "easy" is a relative term.
>Anyway, if you have any idea how to do this, I would appreciate the help.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Keith Hughes
Need more input. What's the circuit do for you
and how would you like for it to do different?
Can you scan and email the article?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Must strobe feed wires be shielded? I am cobbling together a strobe system,
using Whelen lights and I intend to buy one of those power supplies from
strobes-r-us.com. I wish to mount the PS somewhere in the center section.
Can I just run regular 18AWG wire from the PS to the wing tips?
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Quickie Q-200
Web site: http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/page1.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv6tc" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning circuit |
I'll see if I can get it scanned and send it to you guys.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Warning circuit
>
> Need more input. What's the circuit do for you
> and how would you like for it to do different?
> Can you scan and email the article?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
>
>
>Must strobe feed wires be shielded? I am cobbling together a strobe system,
>using Whelen lights and I intend to buy one of those power supplies from
>strobes-r-us.com. I wish to mount the PS somewhere in the center section.
>
>Can I just run regular 18AWG wire from the PS to the wing tips?
These wired DO carry fast-risetime voltage and current pulses
that are worthy of shields and the twisted-trio configuration
supplied with a contemporary strobe installation kit.
Why would you NOT want to shield it? The wire isn't expensive.
But then, you could give it a try. The outcome cannot be anything
worse than having to replace the wire later.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Thanks for the prompt reply, Bob.
The problem is, I'm running wire for the strobe and the position lights
through a narrow (3/8" I.D.?) piece of tubing that runs down through my
composite wing. I installed this tube 15 years ago when I built the wing
and there is no practical way to enlarge it. I hope to squeeze all the
wires through this opening. My reasoning is that I could run 5 pieces of
18AWG more easily than a cable and the two for the position lights.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
> >
> >
> >Must strobe feed wires be shielded? I am cobbling together a strobe
system,
> >using Whelen lights and I intend to buy one of those power supplies from
> >strobes-r-us.com. I wish to mount the PS somewhere in the center
section.
> >
> >Can I just run regular 18AWG wire from the PS to the wing tips?
>
>
> These wired DO carry fast-risetime voltage and current pulses
> that are worthy of shields and the twisted-trio configuration
> supplied with a contemporary strobe installation kit.
>
> Why would you NOT want to shield it? The wire isn't expensive.
> But then, you could give it a try. The outcome cannot be anything
> worse than having to replace the wire later.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
>
>
>Thanks for the prompt reply, Bob.
>
>The problem is, I'm running wire for the strobe and the position lights
>through a narrow (3/8" I.D.?) piece of tubing that runs down through my
>composite wing. I installed this tube 15 years ago when I built the wing
>and there is no practical way to enlarge it. I hope to squeeze all the
>wires through this opening. My reasoning is that I could run 5 pieces of
>18AWG more easily than a cable and the two for the position lights.
>
>Sam
Understand . . . no magic wands I can wave here
and make it okay and I've never had the chance
to try it myself. You're charting new territory.
Hope it works okay.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Standby Battery Charging |
>
>
>Hello Group:
>
>I am new to group and am so glad to have found it as I am "knowlege
>challenged" when it comes to electrical theory and application but can
>apply solutions with some competence.
>My question is this. What is the best method to keep the standby
>battery properly charged from the main battery and what should I have in
>line to best accomplish this task.
>
>If I have not included enough info for an answer please contact me at
>my e-mail address.
Bart, the easiest way to add a second battery of ANY
size is illustrated in Figure Z-30 of the 'Connection
which you can download at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
you might also find this article useful . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED post lights for instrument lighting? |
Here is another source of 12V LED's that may be used for instrument
ilumination
http://www.visibolts.com/sys-tmpl/door/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Z-14 Interface with FADEC |
I recently read a article in a Motorcycle magazine that related the
troubleshooting of a Honda Gold Wing 1800 (a recent model). The owner
was on a long cross country trip and stopped for lunch. When he returned
the starter would spin the motor but it wouldn't start. Two Honda
dealerships, much conferring with Honda, and many thousands of dollars
of troubleshooting later the bike would still not start. The editor of
the magazine was called in to see if he could help. I brought a new
battery with him and a volt meter. He determined that when the starter
was cranking the original battery voltage would drop below 10 volts. He
installed the new battery and the bike roared to life. Is this what the
FADEC's are going to bring to the aviation world?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Interface with FADEC
>
>
>Bob -
>
>Just returned from Sun N Fun and some conversations wi/ the Velocity
folks
>and
>the Aerosance (FADEC) folks. In a dual battery aircraft with 2 x 17AH
>batteries
>ganged for start, the FADEC will brown out and the engine will not
start
>reliably.
>
>Question: I know that you were looking into a solution to this and
wonder
>if it
>has been completed.
I won't belabor my disappointment that folks who
sell products claimed to be suited for use in airplanes
won't work in an airplane because of dumb reasons that
require users to accommodate the shortcoming . . .
If it were my airplane, I'd build a little voltage booster
illustrated in http://216.55.140.222/temp/Fadec_Boost.gif
This is a Royer oscillator diagram . . . VERY popular in
50's through 70's as high voltage power supplies in vehicular
powered systems. This push-pull power oscillator has a
primary winding suited to an 8-12v input. The secondary winding
is scaled to give you something on the order of 4 volts output
at 12v input.
Under normal operations, a 12 to 14.6 volt bus supply to the
FADEC goes through the transformer secondary and diode
rectifier with a nominal, but acceptable voltage drop. When
you hit the starter button, the power supply is energized and
it boosts the battery voltage by about 4V at 12V dropping to
2.7V at 8V in. This voltage is ADDED to the sagging battery
voltage during cranking only and makes sure the FADEC sees
10.5 volts or better during cranking.
>We are installing the Z-14 system and have one channel of the FADEC on
each
>battery bus. Thus when we crossfeed for starting, we risk the brownout.
One
>solution Aerosance recommends is to install a larger battery on the 60
amp
>alternator circuit. A 35 AH battery would work as we would then not
have to
>crossfeed for start and the FADEC would get full voltage from the 17AH
>battery
>on the 20 amp alternator circuit. The downside of this is more weight
and we
>would lose the battery rotation system you recommend.
>
>Question: Could we put 2 17's in parallel for the large battery? Any
risks in
>this approach besides adding parts count? We would then have a 3 year
>rotation
>cycle of 17 AH batteries.
You can certainly do that too . . . but the extra 17 pounds
of battery, contactor and wiring seems like a hell of a penalty
to pay to add super-whizzy technology to your engine that's
never going to re-coupe additional costs by any savings
of fuel (does this system let you run cheap plugs?).
The Royer box would be about 2 x 3 x 5 inches and
weigh about a pound.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Go to an electrician and get some wire pulling lube. Chamfer the tube
opening and have a go at it with all the wires at once. You can use the tube
as the ground wire if cleaned, using Aluminum wire connection compound and
appropriate clamps.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
> >
> >
> >Thanks for the prompt reply, Bob.
> >
> >The problem is, I'm running wire for the strobe and the position lights
> >through a narrow (3/8" I.D.?) piece of tubing that runs down through my
> >composite wing. I installed this tube 15 years ago when I built the wing
> >and there is no practical way to enlarge it. I hope to squeeze all the
> >wires through this opening. My reasoning is that I could run 5 pieces of
> >18AWG more easily than a cable and the two for the position lights.
> >
> >Sam
>
> Understand . . . no magic wands I can wave here
> and make it okay and I've never had the chance
> to try it myself. You're charting new territory.
> Hope it works okay.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Is it possible for Sam to use one wire for each strobe using the center
conductor for positive current and the shield for the negative (Instead
of two wires - one for positive and one for ground)?? Could the same
thing be done for the position light?
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 11:15 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
>
> -->
>
> Thanks for the prompt reply, Bob.
>
> The problem is, I'm running wire for the strobe and the
> position lights through a narrow (3/8" I.D.?) piece of tubing
> that runs down through my composite wing. I installed this
> tube 15 years ago when I built the wing and there is no
> practical way to enlarge it. I hope to squeeze all the wires
> through this opening. My reasoning is that I could run 5
> pieces of 18AWG more easily than a cable and the two for the
> position lights.
>
> Sam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Must strobe feed wires be shielded? I am cobbling
> together a strobe
> system,
> > >using Whelen lights and I intend to buy one of those power
> supplies
> > >from strobes-r-us.com. I wish to mount the PS somewhere in the
> > >center
> section.
> > >
> > >Can I just run regular 18AWG wire from the PS to the wing tips?
> >
> >
> > These wired DO carry fast-risetime voltage and current pulses
> > that are worthy of shields and the twisted-trio configuration
> > supplied with a contemporary strobe installation kit.
> >
> > Why would you NOT want to shield it? The wire isn't expensive.
> > But then, you could give it a try. The outcome cannot
> be anything
> > worse than having to replace the wire later.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rondefly" <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
My question to Jon's suggestion would be, If you go that way why use
shielded at all. Wouldn't you be taking away the shield by having it be part
of the conductor? You can get shelding by itself and just put it where it
will interfere with other circuits and use 18AWG to fit in the tubing.
Ron Triano Quicker one Q-200, 90% Done with 90% to go
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
Finley
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
Is it possible for Sam to use one wire for each strobe using the center
conductor for positive current and the shield for the negative (Instead
of two wires - one for positive and one for ground)?? Could the same
thing be done for the position light?
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 11:15 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
>
> -->
>
> Thanks for the prompt reply, Bob.
>
> The problem is, I'm running wire for the strobe and the
> position lights through a narrow (3/8" I.D.?) piece of tubing
> that runs down through my composite wing. I installed this
> tube 15 years ago when I built the wing and there is no
> practical way to enlarge it. I hope to squeeze all the wires
> through this opening. My reasoning is that I could run 5
> pieces of 18AWG more easily than a cable and the two for the
> position lights.
>
> Sam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Must strobe feed wires be shielded? I am cobbling
> together a strobe
> system,
> > >using Whelen lights and I intend to buy one of those power
> supplies
> > >from strobes-r-us.com. I wish to mount the PS somewhere in the
> > >center
> section.
> > >
> > >Can I just run regular 18AWG wire from the PS to the wing tips?
> >
> >
> > These wired DO carry fast-risetime voltage and current pulses
> > that are worthy of shields and the twisted-trio configuration
> > supplied with a contemporary strobe installation kit.
> >
> > Why would you NOT want to shield it? The wire isn't expensive.
> > But then, you could give it a try. The outcome cannot
> be anything
> > worse than having to replace the wire later.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Since we are on the strobe kick again, I never have convinced myself
that 18 gauge is necasarry with the Whelen strobes. 22 certainly would
be easier for Sam to run in his small tube. It seems Old Bob has run 22
with success.
If they have 21J of energy, which with the Cometflash is spread out in 4
pulses over 200ms, each pulse is 5.25J in 2ms.
At 500 volts, 5.25J, 2ms, that equates to 5.25A peak.
Over the duration of the 21J Cometflash, 500V, 200ms, that works out to
be an average current of .21A.
Over an entire minute which is 45 pulses according to Whelen, 945J,
500V, 60s, figures out at 0.03A average.
At 5.25A, the I
2R losses are 11W based on 22 gauge, 16 ohm/1000, 25'
run. Over the duration of the 21J Cometflash, 0.08W. Over the entire
minute, 0.0004W.
None of this seems to concern me so I don't see the need for anything
over 22 gauge. I know there must be something, so WHAT AM I MISSING?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z-14 Interface with FADEC |
>
>I recently read a article in a Motorcycle magazine that related the
>troubleshooting of a Honda Gold Wing 1800 (a recent model). The owner
>was on a long cross country trip and stopped for lunch. When he returned
>the starter would spin the motor but it wouldn't start. Two Honda
>dealerships, much conferring with Honda, and many thousands of dollars
>of troubleshooting later the bike would still not start. The editor of
>the magazine was called in to see if he could help. I brought a new
>battery with him and a volt meter. He determined that when the starter
>was cranking the original battery voltage would drop below 10 volts. He
>installed the new battery and the bike roared to life. Is this what the
>FADEC's are going to bring to the aviation world?
Only when the designers don't understand the world in which
they propose to sell product. When consumers buy their
products anyhow and quietly work around the shortcomings,
there will be no pressure to change . . . Folks who make
the "rules" don't understand the world they make rules
about either so we can't look for help there. It's
up to the knowledgeable consumer to vote with their
checkbook and communicate good critical review by means of
their choice.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I am designing a switch module called the "AutoE-bus'Witch" that does the following:
It contains the E-bus switch, the bus isolating diode, and a low voltage warning
light. Exactly how this device will function is still in doubt, and suggestions
would be appreciated.
Here's what I think so far: (ON-ON-ON toggle switch): General notes--Isolator Diode
always active, LED on switch is red/green and red LED on panel have bright/dim
jumper. Device is for 14.5 VDC (key parts are not available in higher voltage
for now but will be later). Led color always indicates status of main bus
volts.
Up Position-ON; Aux power selected ON. LED red if Main Bus Volts Low, otherwise
green.
Center Position-- AUTO; LED normally green, automatic switch aux power to E-bus
if needed. LED then red
Down Position-- OFF; E-bus switch open (OFF), LED normally OFF but LED red if Main
Bus Volts Low.
Questions: What max sustained current is expected through the E-bus switch? Is
the control logic here okay? What other features might be desirable in this "Single-Switch
Solution".
Thanks for all your help.
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
--Dave Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
>
>Is it possible for Sam to use one wire for each strobe using the center
>conductor for positive current and the shield for the negative (Instead
>of two wires - one for positive and one for ground)?? Could the same
>thing be done for the position light?
Sharing ground between the two systems would couple strobe
tube noises right into the 14v distribution system any
time the nav lights are on. Shields can be used for
effective ground returns and a single shielded wire might
go into a tight tube easier than two separate strands.
Sam, you might see if you can get a shielded trio and a
shielded single to share the tube you have. If push
comes to shove, you might consider dropping your strobe
wires down to a 22AWG trio . . . that was discussed
earlier on the list.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
In my little non-crowbar OVM (doesn't blow a fuse or trip a breaker...just disconnects
the line), There is a glitch filter to take care of nuisance trips. I
haven't yet sold one of these because I can't get any test feedback. (Sitting
in the shell of my Glastar going Vroom Vroom doesn't do it.) Anyone interested
in testing it?
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
- James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
- Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
In a message dated 4/8/2003 8:47:03 AM Central Standard Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> Since we are on the strobe kick again, I never have convinced myself
> that 18 gauge is necessary with the Whelen strobes. 22 certainly would
> be easier for Sam to run in his small tube. It seems Old Bob has run 22
> with success.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
Just for what it's worth, my tip tanks came from the manufacturer with a one
quarter inch OD aluminum tube glassed in place to serve as a conduit to the
running lights.
I don't recall the dimensions just now, but I think that tubing has an ID
around .185 inch.
I measured #22 Tefzel wire and found that it measured something under .060.
That allowed seven wires to fit through the tubing comfortably. I had
planned on using wire lube (as suggested by Cy) and pulling it through with a
one wire snake.
However, I bundled the seven wires together, taped the end tightly and, using
another old house wiring technique, just shoved the bundle through the
conduit.
It worked even better than I had anticipated.
I have had no noise in the audio system and the strobes seem to flash quite
brightly. As I mentioned before, I did check with Whelen before I decided on
that course of action. They thought it should be OK. It was, and still IS!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Thanks Bob, appreciate the reply. One more question if you don't mind.
Which power supply do you have and do you know the amount of energy it
puts out per flash? Thanks for the help.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
In a message dated 4/8/2003 8:47:03 AM Central Standard Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> Since we are on the strobe kick again, I never have convinced myself
> that 18 gauge is necessary with the Whelen strobes. 22 certainly
would
> be easier for Sam to run in his small tube. It seems Old Bob has run
22
> with success.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
Just for what it's worth, my tip tanks came from the manufacturer with a
one
quarter inch OD aluminum tube glassed in place to serve as a conduit to
the
running lights.
I don't recall the dimensions just now, but I think that tubing has an
around .185 inch.
I measured #22 Tefzel wire and found that it measured something under
.060.
That allowed seven wires to fit through the tubing comfortably. I had
planned on using wire lube (as suggested by Cy) and pulling it through
with a
one wire snake.
However, I bundled the seven wires together, taped the end tightly and,
using
another old house wiring technique, just shoved the bundle through the
conduit.
It worked even better than I had anticipated.
I have had no noise in the audio system and the strobes seem to flash
quite
brightly. As I mentioned before, I did check with Whelen before I
decided on
that course of action. They thought it should be OK. It was, and still
IS!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | DRE-244e Intercom wiring |
When I go to the airport I will see if I can get a copy of it for you as
well.
Great intercom. Great people too.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DRE-244e Intercom wiring
>
>
> III"
>
> >
> >
> >I bought a DRE-244e Intercom off of Ebay and it came without any wiring
> >diagrams. If anybody has one of these units could I get wiring
> diagram or a
> >pinout description? Thanks.
>
> That one's not in my list of installation drawings.
> Try contacting the manufacturer. The webpage for
> your intercom is at:
> http://www.drecomm.com/244eproduct.htm
> Their customer service department can be
> e-mailed at:
>
> mailto:cs(at)drecomm.com
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Lights |
RV7 Matronics List
I bought a bunch of different panel lights and LED's from various companies - I
need one for low oil pressure, one for low fuel pressure, and one for low voltage
warning lights.
Hands down the B&C Electrical - # S-888-1-2 - light is best I have seen. You can
get it in different colors and it's $12.00 - save yourself the trouble and
get one of these first - just get one and you'll see what i mean. Many of the
LED's were not bright enough and some you could not see very well if it was
mounted on the right side of the panel and you were on the left side.
my 2 cents for the day.
Sun'N Fun was a blast - the RV is the right thing to be building. In the lower
price range the Zenith 601 was a hot ticket.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fluxuating Amp meter |
| From: | "Terry Lamp" <tlamp(at)genesishcs.org> |
04/08/2003 01:29:54 PM
I just started flying my new Long EZ and noticed that the VM 1000 amp meter
fluxuates from 11 to 8 to 6 to 4 tahn recycles. This is about a 30 sec
cycle. While flying, about 2400 RPM.
Inductive pickup is around the cable from the Nipindenso alternator to the
battery.
Wired pretty much as per Z-9 and run the LAR3 from B&C.
Is this a normal reading?
Running strobes, one elec. ign., Garmin 150XL and and intercomm.
Thanks,
Terry
Long EZ
Ohio
*************************************************************************
*****************Confidentiality Notice:******************************
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any
attachments, is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named above (addressee). This e-mail may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of the communication or its
substance is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to this e-mail indicating you are not the intended
recipient and immediately destroy all copies of this e-mail. Receipt
by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
privileged information.
**********************************************************************************
*eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content*
**********************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rhett Westerman" <Rhettwesterman(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fluxuating Amp meter |
I would say that fluctuation is extreme. Mine fluxuates too but between 0
and 6. I have adjusted the zero output per vision but have not replaced the
unit as vision says that it is likely not bad. It is just annoying as I have
to keep some current draw on to stop the low amp beeps. I've tried e/t with
grounding etc and no joy.
best,
Rhett
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Terry
Lamp
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fluxuating Amp meter
I just started flying my new Long EZ and noticed that the VM 1000 amp meter
fluxuates from 11 to 8 to 6 to 4 tahn recycles. This is about a 30 sec
cycle. While flying, about 2400 RPM.
Inductive pickup is around the cable from the Nipindenso alternator to the
battery.
Wired pretty much as per Z-9 and run the LAR3 from B&C.
Is this a normal reading?
Running strobes, one elec. ign., Garmin 150XL and and intercomm.
Thanks,
Terry
Long EZ
Ohio
*************************************************************************
*****************Confidentiality Notice:******************************
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any
attachments, is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named above (addressee). This e-mail may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of the communication or its
substance is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to this e-mail indicating you are not the intended
recipient and immediately destroy all copies of this e-mail. Receipt
by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
privileged information.
****************************************************************************
******
*eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content*
****************************************************************************
******
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Lights |
http://www.bandc.biz/
above is the link to the site with the light for sale
I bought a bunch of different panel lights and LED's from various companies - I
need one for low oil pressure, one for low fuel pressure, and one for low voltage
warning lights.
Hands down the B&C Electrical - # S-888-1-2 - light is best I have seen. You can
get it in different colors and it's $12.00 - save yourself the trouble and get
one of these first - just get one and you'll see what i mean. Many of the LED's
were not bright enough and some you could not see very well if it was mounted
on the right side of the panel and you were on the left side.
my 2 cents for the day.
Sun'N Fun was a blast - the RV is the right thing to be building. In the lower
price range the Zenith 601 was a hot ticket.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Lights |
And on the site the part # is WLA - not what I previously mentioned - sorry about
that
http://www.bandc.biz/
above is the link to the site with the light for sale
I bought a bunch of different panel lights and LED's from various companies - I
need one for low oil pressure, one for low fuel pressure, and one for low voltage
warning lights.
Hands down the B&C Electrical - # S-888-1-2 - light is best I have seen. You can
get it in different colors and it's $12.00 - save yourself the trouble and get
one of these first - just get one and you'll see what i mean. Many of the LED's
were not bright enough and some you could not see very well if it was mounted
on the right side of the panel and you were on the left side.
my 2 cents for the day.
Sun'N Fun was a blast - the RV is the right thing to be building. In the lower
price range the Zenith 601 was a hot ticket.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Harware locations versus noise. |
>
>Comments/Questions: Alternator Voltage Regulators are these considered
>"noisy" items that sould be on the hot side of the firewall away from
>radios or are they benign and canbe located on the cabin side without any
>noise problems?
You can mount them where-ever . . . if there are any noise issues,
they will involve CONDUCTED noise that travels over wiring
as opposed to RADIATED noise that jumps from antagonist to
victim.
Mount them where it makes the most sense for ease of maintenance.
Practice good system architecture as described in appendix
Z drawings and the likelihood of any noise problems is
low and easy to fix if they do show up.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rino <lacombr(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>
> Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
>
> Bob . .
What about the billions of cars on the road today WITHOUT an avionics
SWITCH ? Do they not have any electronics on board?
Rino
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
Snipped from Bob's comments in reply to the EI discussion
See My comments following yours below
> Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
> at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
> + slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
> My Tektronix 220 could not capture a single transient at
> ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
> at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
> equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
>
> This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
> airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
> 25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
> recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
> data acquisition systems.
>
> Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
>
> Bob . . .
Bob;
I cannot find any info on your Tek 220 but I assume its similar to the Tek
221, a 5 mHz scope. Also 8,000 samples per sec is also extremely slow. It
takes more like 200,000,000 SPS.
That scope is way too slow to see transients that I have observed during
starting and stopping of a bare bones auto setup with all the normal built
in suppression removed.
Sure it will display a huge very slow transient but not the fast ones or the
ringing multiple transients usually following the major event.
This takes a scope of triggering on a 50Mhz (nominal) or higher frequency
pulse (rise times of a few nanoseconds), having a horizontal single sweep
speed set to at least 10 nanoseconds per division and either very high speed
storage or a camera. Most of the available analog storage scopes are too
slow in the storage mode. A single sweep is too faint for normal single shot
vu and only the higher speed horizontal triggering modules will even
trigger. As the transient is a single shot event there must be some way to
hole it for human display. Thus either a fast storage scope or scope camera.
The best way to see if there is a transient is with a good Transient
Voltmeter but they are expensive and special purpose.
Yet these sharp fast high voltage transients will pass thru a 10-100 mfd
electrolytic cap on the input of an electronic instrument and damage
internal CMOS etc IC's. The cap's reactance (in ohms) increases to a large
number at the frequencies of interest. I have demonstrated this years ago
and thus I install transorbs in all my designs. This is the design choice of
the auto industry and we should learn from their experience.
For the last 20 or more years autos have Transorbs built into most (if not
all) electronic modules, including the IGN system. Not usually a discrete
item but part of one or more IC's. These Transorbs are special super fast
response Zener diodes, in fact normal Zener diodes are not fast enough to
stop the transient from getting past.
Thus if you try to find transients on most any modern automobile you will
not find them even with the proper equipment. The many internal Transorbs
are clipping them on the way to the Lighter so there are none left to
detect.
On the other hand it would appear that even modern aircraft electrical
designs (consider the FADEC low V issues) fail to address the "lessens
learned" in the auto industry regarding starting and shutdown voltages and
transients (which in many cases cannot even be seen with the normally used
test equipment).
While the transients I am addressing are not always present, they sometimes
do damage equipment and unless special test procedures are used they are
simply not seen and thus do not exist in the minds of many design engineers.
In conclusion:
I am saying I do not think your test methods ( I know it, if your Tek scope
is as I believe it is regarding frequency response etc.) are capable of
seeing potentially damaging transients and your test article (an auto) has
already designed in transient suppressors so any transients you are looking
for are already clipped and thus even with proper test setup would not be
found.
The auto industry learned the hard way and as near as I can find, many in
the aircraft industry are not considering the lessens learned in the auto
industry. As aircraft electrical systems move from mags and generators to
alternators and solid state electronics, and avionics become more complex,
the auto and aircraft electrical design needs will continue to converge.
This is not to say the aircraft instruments/avionics should not be designed
to withstand the fast transients and low voltage starting issues, but
knowing how to protect for fast transients (for under a dollar) is a simple
fix for homebuilders and the low voltage issues with FADEC, RMI and EI among
others is up to the individual designer to consider.
Properly selected and connected transorbs and a backup battery are simple
solutions IF your decision is to use an instrument that is not fully
internally protected. The key to me is knowing what is needed.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>
>
> Snipped from Bob's comments in reply to the EI discussion
>
> See My comments following yours below
>
>> Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
snip
>
> This takes a scope of triggering on a 50Mhz (nominal) or higher
> frequency pulse (rise times of a few nanoseconds), having a horizontal
> single sweep speed set to at least 10 nanoseconds per division and
> either very high speed storage or a camera. Most of the available analog
> storage scopes are too slow in the storage mode. A single sweep is too
> faint for normal single shot vu and only the higher speed horizontal
> triggering modules will even trigger. As the transient is a single shot
> event there must be some way to hole it for human display. Thus either a
> fast storage scope or scope camera.
Do you know what is causing these high frequency/energy transients on
the power bus? I am guess it could be arcing of relay contacts. I also
wonder how far from the transient source is the energy carried before being
rolled-off in the uncontrolled impedance environment that is the powerbus.
Interesting discussion.
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
So why not install a transorb in the electronic supply line and be done with
the problem. Are they that expensive?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
> Snipped from Bob's comments in reply to the EI discussion
>
> See My comments following yours below
>
> > Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
> > at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
> > + slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
> > My Tektronix 220 could not capture a single transient at
> > ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
> > at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
> > equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
> >
> > This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
> > airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
> > 25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
> > recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
> > data acquisition systems.
> >
> > Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> > who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> > of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
> Bob;
>
> I cannot find any info on your Tek 220 but I assume its similar to the Tek
> 221, a 5 mHz scope. Also 8,000 samples per sec is also extremely slow. It
> takes more like 200,000,000 SPS.
>
> That scope is way too slow to see transients that I have observed during
> starting and stopping of a bare bones auto setup with all the normal built
> in suppression removed.
>
> Sure it will display a huge very slow transient but not the fast ones or
the
> ringing multiple transients usually following the major event.
>
> This takes a scope of triggering on a 50Mhz (nominal) or higher frequency
> pulse (rise times of a few nanoseconds), having a horizontal single sweep
> speed set to at least 10 nanoseconds per division and either very high
speed
> storage or a camera. Most of the available analog storage scopes are too
> slow in the storage mode. A single sweep is too faint for normal single
shot
> vu and only the higher speed horizontal triggering modules will even
> trigger. As the transient is a single shot event there must be some way to
> hole it for human display. Thus either a fast storage scope or scope
camera.
>
> The best way to see if there is a transient is with a good Transient
> Voltmeter but they are expensive and special purpose.
>
> Yet these sharp fast high voltage transients will pass thru a 10-100 mfd
> electrolytic cap on the input of an electronic instrument and damage
> internal CMOS etc IC's. The cap's reactance (in ohms) increases to a large
> number at the frequencies of interest. I have demonstrated this years ago
> and thus I install transorbs in all my designs. This is the design choice
of
> the auto industry and we should learn from their experience.
>
> For the last 20 or more years autos have Transorbs built into most (if not
> all) electronic modules, including the IGN system. Not usually a discrete
> item but part of one or more IC's. These Transorbs are special super fast
> response Zener diodes, in fact normal Zener diodes are not fast enough to
> stop the transient from getting past.
>
> Thus if you try to find transients on most any modern automobile you will
> not find them even with the proper equipment. The many internal Transorbs
> are clipping them on the way to the Lighter so there are none left to
> detect.
>
> On the other hand it would appear that even modern aircraft electrical
> designs (consider the FADEC low V issues) fail to address the "lessens
> learned" in the auto industry regarding starting and shutdown voltages and
> transients (which in many cases cannot even be seen with the normally used
> test equipment).
>
> While the transients I am addressing are not always present, they
sometimes
> do damage equipment and unless special test procedures are used they are
> simply not seen and thus do not exist in the minds of many design
engineers.
>
> In conclusion:
> I am saying I do not think your test methods ( I know it, if your Tek
scope
> is as I believe it is regarding frequency response etc.) are capable of
> seeing potentially damaging transients and your test article (an auto) has
> already designed in transient suppressors so any transients you are
looking
> for are already clipped and thus even with proper test setup would not be
> found.
>
> The auto industry learned the hard way and as near as I can find, many in
> the aircraft industry are not considering the lessens learned in the auto
> industry. As aircraft electrical systems move from mags and generators to
> alternators and solid state electronics, and avionics become more complex,
> the auto and aircraft electrical design needs will continue to converge.
>
> This is not to say the aircraft instruments/avionics should not be
designed
> to withstand the fast transients and low voltage starting issues, but
> knowing how to protect for fast transients (for under a dollar) is a
simple
> fix for homebuilders and the low voltage issues with FADEC, RMI and EI
among
> others is up to the individual designer to consider.
>
> Properly selected and connected transorbs and a backup battery are simple
> solutions IF your decision is to use an instrument that is not fully
> internally protected. The key to me is knowing what is needed.
>
> Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>
>
>Snipped from Bob's comments in reply to the EI discussion
>
>See My comments following yours below
>
> > Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
> > at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
> > + slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
> > My Tektronix 220 could not capture a single transient at
> > ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
> > at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
> > equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
> >
> > This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
> > airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
> > 25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
> > recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
> > data acquisition systems.
> >
> > Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> > who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> > of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob;
>
>I cannot find any info on your Tek 220 but I assume its similar to the Tek
>221, a 5 mHz scope. Also 8,000 samples per sec is also extremely slow. It
>takes more like 200,000,000 SPS.
It's a 1 GigaSamples/second digital storage scope.
See http://www.metricsales.com/c_tektronix/40W_10992_4.pdf
It's specified as capable of capturing a 10 nS pulse.
>That scope is way too slow to see transients that I have observed during
>starting and stopping of a bare bones auto setup with all the normal built
>in suppression removed.
>Sure it will display a huge very slow transient but not the fast ones or the
>ringing multiple transients usually following the major event.
>
>This takes a scope of triggering on a 50Mhz (nominal) or higher frequency
>pulse (rise times of a few nanoseconds), having a horizontal single sweep
>speed set to at least 10 nanoseconds per division and either very high speed
>storage or a camera. Most of the available analog storage scopes are too
>slow in the storage mode. A single sweep is too faint for normal single shot
>vu and only the higher speed horizontal triggering modules will even
>trigger. As the transient is a single shot event there must be some way to
>hole it for human display. Thus either a fast storage scope or scope camera.
>
>The best way to see if there is a transient is with a good Transient
>Voltmeter but they are expensive and special purpose.
I've built them with fast peak-hold circuits . . . not difficult.
>Yet these sharp fast high voltage transients will pass thru a 10-100 mfd
>electrolytic cap on the input of an electronic instrument and damage
>internal CMOS etc IC's. The cap's reactance (in ohms) increases to a large
>number at the frequencies of interest. I have demonstrated this years ago
>and thus I install transorbs in all my designs. This is the design choice of
>the auto industry and we should learn from their experience.
Sure . . . Transorbs are fine devices, we use them by the fist-full
in lots of products. We also apply the usual high quality capacitors
and series devices to raise the apparent source impedance of the
stress . . . this is all jelly-bean technology. The stuff we bolt
to airplanes is now routinely tested for the effects of lighting
strike to the airframe and while it raises complexity of i/o in
terms of parts count, none of the parts are expensive or exotic.
>For the last 20 or more years autos have Transorbs built into most (if not
>all) electronic modules, including the IGN system. Not usually a discrete
>item but part of one or more IC's. These Transorbs are special super fast
>response Zener diodes, in fact normal Zener diodes are not fast enough to
>stop the transient from getting past.
>
>Thus if you try to find transients on most any modern automobile you will
>not find them even with the proper equipment. The many internal Transorbs
>are clipping them on the way to the Lighter so there are none left to
>detect.
>
>On the other hand it would appear that even modern aircraft electrical
>designs (consider the FADEC low V issues) . . .
Yup, another big name company found that the boot
in their rear was their own . . . happens all the time.
> . . . fail to address the "lessens
>learned" in the auto industry regarding starting and shutdown voltages and
>transients (which in many cases cannot even be seen with the normally used
>test equipment).
Your stretching it a tad here my friend . . . define "normally used" . . .
The folks who crafted DO-160 comprise the talents of hundreds of
engineers from virtually every company in the US with an interest
in aviation including manufacturers, consumer groups and government.
If you think you and I are the only ones to ever have discussed
transients, either real or imagined, you are mistaken. The equipment
and test methods used to define DO-160 recommendations for testing
are the best available. Experiments are repeated and/or reviewed
by multiple investigators and confirmed before being pronounced valid.
I can quote from my own experience but much of my success has
to give credit for many lessons learned as exemplified by
the contents of DO-160 and the experience-base that was tapped
to create the document. And "we're" still learning. DO-160
chapters are constantly being re-evaluated and revised as
new threats arise or better techniques for meeting them are
devised.
>While the transients I am addressing are not always present, they sometimes
>do damage equipment and unless special test procedures are used they are
>simply not seen and thus do not exist in the minds of many design engineers.
If you believe my head is in the sand somewhere, please cite
an experiment I can go duplicate that supports your assertion.
Let's turn the engineering community on to a hazard heretofore
unknown to the standing committee on DO-160. We can co-author
a paper and become famous.
>In conclusion:
> I am saying I do not think your test methods ( I know it, if your Tek scope
>is as I believe it is regarding frequency response etc.) are capable of
>seeing potentially damaging transients and your test article (an auto) has
>already designed in transient suppressors so any transients you are looking
>for are already clipped and thus even with proper test setup would not be
>found.
Fair enough. The first time I did the automotive experiment
was on my '72 or '73 Vega . . . don't think it had any transorb
protected systems in it. That was when I was working at Electro-Mech
and the 'scope would have been a Tek 465.
My wife's uncle has an older Chevy pickup he's really proud of.
I'll see if he'll let me hook my 'scope to it. But the fellow
from E.I. was alluding to the existence of killer spikes far
outside the range of stresses his own products could survive
in spite of the fact his products could take on DO-160 without
breaking a sweat. Although not stated directly, the implication
is that DO-160 has badly missed the mark with respect to spikes
that spark in the dark.
>The auto industry learned the hard way and as near as I can find, many in
>the aircraft industry are not considering the lessens learned in the auto
>industry. As aircraft electrical systems move from mags and generators to
>alternators and solid state electronics, and avionics become more complex,
>the auto and aircraft electrical design needs will continue to converge.
>
>This is not to say the aircraft instruments/avionics should not be designed
>to withstand the fast transients and low voltage starting issues, but
>knowing how to protect for fast transients (for under a dollar) is a simple
>fix for homebuilders and the low voltage issues with FADEC, RMI and EI among
>others is up to the individual designer to consider.
I think they HAVE taken capitalized on many lessons learned - else DO-160
would not have come into existence. Now, whether or not folks who
supply product to the industry know how to take advantage of these
lessons is another matter. I'm aware of discussions with folks from
a REALLY BIG name company who have stepped into a $millions$ pothole
for not taking time to study and use lessons learned. It's now
getting down to debating the definition of "is" . . .
>Properly selected and connected transorbs and a backup battery are simple
>solutions IF your decision is to use an instrument that is not fully
>internally protected. The key to me is knowing what is needed.
Don't disagree with much of what you've written. But none
of this addresses the issue with respect to E.I. To date, the
writer had given no data and only regurgitated 40 year old
mantras. I've asked no more of him than I would of any fellow
engineer. Cite the reviewed and repeatable experiments either
of his own work or that of others to support his position that
explains why his customers need to pamper his products. Could
he be overlooking the $1 solution?
Spikes of the nature you've cited have no energy in them.
Self inductance of just power lead wires significantly
raises source impedance of any such spike as to render
it nearly toothless. When I've watched the bus with slower
equipment, my interest was in transients that carried
some real energy. Those tens-of-nanosecond wide events
are like cap pistols at a good July 4th celebration.
They're easy to filter and/or clamp off with ordinary
techniques. Whether they exist or not I can deduce
no reason for a credible designer to hide behind an
avionics master switch protected bus.
I've designed dozens of black boxes, some that include
microprocessors that run have run the DO-160 test
gauntlet including lightning stroke. They all run happily tied
right to the main bus of the airframe . . . I wouldn't THINK
of offering a product that couldn't handle ANYTHING a normally
operating airplane throws at it. As you and I have both noted,
it's EASY.
All I expect from E.I. is to be good engineers and
back up their expectations and claims with good data
from repeatable experiments, spread the word on good
information, debunk bad information and make Carl
Sagan proud of us all.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>
> >
> > Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> > who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> > of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
> >
> > Bob . .
>
>
>What about the billions of cars on the road today WITHOUT an avionics
>SWITCH ? Do they not have any electronics on board?
sho'nuf do . . . and they all benefit from a plethora
of components and techniques designed to deal comfortably
with anything the car (or any other vehicle) can throw
at it. It's all tinker-toy technology. See my other post.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dewittw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
Just got back from Sun 'n Fun. There I attended a forum presented by
Approach Systems who claim to have a product that will let you "Wire an
avionics stack in LESS THAN 3 hours with Fast Stack.".
The packed tent heard about a system that's been on the market since
Oshkosh 2002. This company makes a "hub" consisting of 8 layers of PC
boards and custom built connecting cables to provide all the interconnect
wiring for your avionics stack. You tell them what particular avionics
items you have in your panel and how long the cables must be. However,
they leave it up to you to connect buss power, ground, lighting and
antennas as well as mount the avionics boxes in the panel.
They suggest that it will save hours of build time and debugging,
especially for the segment of the homebuilding public who dread
wiring their avionics stack. Approach Systems also claims that their
system makes it easy to change or add boxes in the future to your
stack. Some of their systems have been put in certified aircraft with 337s.
On initial hearing, seemed like these folks may have something. If you
haven't heard about them, check out their web site, www.approach-systems.com
Any comments from someone who has bought one of their systems or have heard
their presentation?
DeWitt Whittington A&P
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
dewittw(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
In a message dated 4/8/03 9:49:11 AM Central Daylight Time, kycshann(at)kyol.net
writes:
> Which power supply do you have and do you know the amount of energy it
> puts out per flash? Thanks for the help.
>
Good Evening Shannon,
I have the Whelen A490A power supplies. One on the tail and one in each wing
tip. They are connected with a trigger wire so that they flash together.
The ad in the Aircraft Spruce catalog says that it produces an accumulated 34
joules of energy. Any idea what that means?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rino" <lacombr(at)nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> What about the billions of cars on the road today WITHOUT an avionics
> SWITCH ? Do they not have any electronics on board?
>
> Rino
In a way as the ign switch turns off the radios etc during the starting
process.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
Well under $1.00 for the larger powered ones.
As far as I am concerned that would be the solution however I would put one
on the unit side of the (fuse or CB) as failure of the device could produce
a hard short to ground (along with perhaps dozens of other components.
However they are very hard to damage.
I have yet to find an auto designed device with out such protection. Not
sure about items designed to be on the auto acc buss as that buss is off
during engine start and or is 3 rd party designed for the acc buss.
In any event the main components of the auto electic system have supression
and that supression stops things before getting to the ass buss.
At least that is what I have found in limited investigation of auto systems
etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
> So why not install a transorb in the electronic supply line and be done
with
> the problem. Are they that expensive?
>
> Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
>
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
Sorry about your scope but I stand by my commenst that there is nothing to
see as modern autos are already supressed. As for aircraft I do not know
about the latest designs and production models. However to think that we
experimental builders will always spend the big bucks for the latest state
of the art in avionics is as you say head in the sand. Most of us cannot
afford the latest for a $20-50K panel and need to put up with either older
designs still in production and whle new not new designs.
The fix is so simple. $5 worth of transorbs and the worry is gone.
The transients I have seen will travel all over your system and while I
agree the energi is tiny its huge to a CMOS gate in an IC.
As for the experts hopefully the ones who designed the FADEC that will not
work at 8V were not part of your team that came up with your new specs.
I do not waht to start another time consuming discussion as again we see the
same issue in a different light.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
> >
> >
> >Snipped from Bob's comments in reply to the EI discussion
> >
> >See My comments following yours below
> >
> > > Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
> > > at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
> > > + slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
> > > My Tektronix 220 could not capture a single transient at
> > > ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
> > > at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
> > > equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
> > >
> > > This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
> > > airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
> > > 25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
> > > recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
> > > data acquisition systems.
> > >
> > > Where am I going wrong? Where did the hundreds
> > > who have participated in the crafting and maintenance
> > > of DO-160 over the past two decades go astray?
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >Bob;
> >
> >I cannot find any info on your Tek 220 but I assume its similar to the
Tek
> >221, a 5 mHz scope. Also 8,000 samples per sec is also extremely slow. It
> >takes more like 200,000,000 SPS.
>
> It's a 1 GigaSamples/second digital storage scope.
> See http://www.metricsales.com/c_tektronix/40W_10992_4.pdf
> It's specified as capable of capturing a 10 nS pulse.
>
> >That scope is way too slow to see transients that I have observed during
> >starting and stopping of a bare bones auto setup with all the normal
built
> >in suppression removed.
>
>
> >Sure it will display a huge very slow transient but not the fast ones or
the
> >ringing multiple transients usually following the major event.
> >
> >This takes a scope of triggering on a 50Mhz (nominal) or higher frequency
> >pulse (rise times of a few nanoseconds), having a horizontal single sweep
> >speed set to at least 10 nanoseconds per division and either very high
speed
> >storage or a camera. Most of the available analog storage scopes are too
> >slow in the storage mode. A single sweep is too faint for normal single
shot
> >vu and only the higher speed horizontal triggering modules will even
> >trigger. As the transient is a single shot event there must be some way
to
> >hole it for human display. Thus either a fast storage scope or scope
camera.
> >
> >The best way to see if there is a transient is with a good Transient
> >Voltmeter but they are expensive and special purpose.
>
> I've built them with fast peak-hold circuits . . . not difficult.
>
>
> >Yet these sharp fast high voltage transients will pass thru a 10-100 mfd
> >electrolytic cap on the input of an electronic instrument and damage
> >internal CMOS etc IC's. The cap's reactance (in ohms) increases to a
large
> >number at the frequencies of interest. I have demonstrated this years ago
> >and thus I install transorbs in all my designs. This is the design choice
of
> >the auto industry and we should learn from their experience.
>
> Sure . . . Transorbs are fine devices, we use them by the fist-full
> in lots of products. We also apply the usual high quality capacitors
> and series devices to raise the apparent source impedance of the
> stress . . . this is all jelly-bean technology. The stuff we bolt
> to airplanes is now routinely tested for the effects of lighting
> strike to the airframe and while it raises complexity of i/o in
> terms of parts count, none of the parts are expensive or exotic.
>
>
> >For the last 20 or more years autos have Transorbs built into most (if
not
> >all) electronic modules, including the IGN system. Not usually a discrete
> >item but part of one or more IC's. These Transorbs are special super fast
> >response Zener diodes, in fact normal Zener diodes are not fast enough to
> >stop the transient from getting past.
> >
> >Thus if you try to find transients on most any modern automobile you will
> >not find them even with the proper equipment. The many internal Transorbs
> >are clipping them on the way to the Lighter so there are none left to
> >detect.
> >
> >On the other hand it would appear that even modern aircraft electrical
> >designs (consider the FADEC low V issues) . . .
>
> Yup, another big name company found that the boot
> in their rear was their own . . . happens all the time.
>
>
> > . . . fail to address the "lessens
> >learned" in the auto industry regarding starting and shutdown voltages
and
> >transients (which in many cases cannot even be seen with the normally
used
> >test equipment).
>
> Your stretching it a tad here my friend . . . define "normally used" .
. .
> The folks who crafted DO-160 comprise the talents of hundreds of
> engineers from virtually every company in the US with an interest
> in aviation including manufacturers, consumer groups and government.
>
> If you think you and I are the only ones to ever have discussed
> transients, either real or imagined, you are mistaken. The equipment
> and test methods used to define DO-160 recommendations for testing
> are the best available. Experiments are repeated and/or reviewed
> by multiple investigators and confirmed before being pronounced valid.
>
> I can quote from my own experience but much of my success has
> to give credit for many lessons learned as exemplified by
> the contents of DO-160 and the experience-base that was tapped
> to create the document. And "we're" still learning. DO-160
> chapters are constantly being re-evaluated and revised as
> new threats arise or better techniques for meeting them are
> devised.
>
>
> >While the transients I am addressing are not always present, they
sometimes
> >do damage equipment and unless special test procedures are used they are
> >simply not seen and thus do not exist in the minds of many design
engineers.
>
> If you believe my head is in the sand somewhere, please cite
> an experiment I can go duplicate that supports your assertion.
> Let's turn the engineering community on to a hazard heretofore
> unknown to the standing committee on DO-160. We can co-author
> a paper and become famous.
>
>
> >In conclusion:
> > I am saying I do not think your test methods ( I know it, if your Tek
scope
> >is as I believe it is regarding frequency response etc.) are capable of
> >seeing potentially damaging transients and your test article (an auto)
has
> >already designed in transient suppressors so any transients you are
looking
> >for are already clipped and thus even with proper test setup would not be
> >found.
>
> Fair enough. The first time I did the automotive experiment
> was on my '72 or '73 Vega . . . don't think it had any transorb
> protected systems in it. That was when I was working at Electro-Mech
> and the 'scope would have been a Tek 465.
>
> My wife's uncle has an older Chevy pickup he's really proud of.
> I'll see if he'll let me hook my 'scope to it. But the fellow
> from E.I. was alluding to the existence of killer spikes far
> outside the range of stresses his own products could survive
> in spite of the fact his products could take on DO-160 without
> breaking a sweat. Although not stated directly, the implication
> is that DO-160 has badly missed the mark with respect to spikes
> that spark in the dark.
>
>
> >The auto industry learned the hard way and as near as I can find, many in
> >the aircraft industry are not considering the lessens learned in the auto
> >industry. As aircraft electrical systems move from mags and generators to
> >alternators and solid state electronics, and avionics become more
complex,
> >the auto and aircraft electrical design needs will continue to converge.
> >
> >This is not to say the aircraft instruments/avionics should not be
designed
> >to withstand the fast transients and low voltage starting issues, but
> >knowing how to protect for fast transients (for under a dollar) is a
simple
> >fix for homebuilders and the low voltage issues with FADEC, RMI and EI
among
> >others is up to the individual designer to consider.
>
> I think they HAVE taken capitalized on many lessons learned - else
DO-160
> would not have come into existence. Now, whether or not folks who
> supply product to the industry know how to take advantage of these
> lessons is another matter. I'm aware of discussions with folks from
> a REALLY BIG name company who have stepped into a $millions$ pothole
> for not taking time to study and use lessons learned. It's now
> getting down to debating the definition of "is" . . .
>
> >Properly selected and connected transorbs and a backup battery are simple
> >solutions IF your decision is to use an instrument that is not fully
> >internally protected. The key to me is knowing what is needed.
>
> Don't disagree with much of what you've written. But none
> of this addresses the issue with respect to E.I. To date, the
> writer had given no data and only regurgitated 40 year old
> mantras. I've asked no more of him than I would of any fellow
> engineer. Cite the reviewed and repeatable experiments either
> of his own work or that of others to support his position that
> explains why his customers need to pamper his products. Could
> he be overlooking the $1 solution?
>
> Spikes of the nature you've cited have no energy in them.
> Self inductance of just power lead wires significantly
> raises source impedance of any such spike as to render
> it nearly toothless. When I've watched the bus with slower
> equipment, my interest was in transients that carried
> some real energy. Those tens-of-nanosecond wide events
> are like cap pistols at a good July 4th celebration.
>
> They're easy to filter and/or clamp off with ordinary
> techniques. Whether they exist or not I can deduce
> no reason for a credible designer to hide behind an
> avionics master switch protected bus.
>
> I've designed dozens of black boxes, some that include
> microprocessors that run have run the DO-160 test
> gauntlet including lightning stroke. They all run happily tied
> right to the main bus of the airframe . . . I wouldn't THINK
> of offering a product that couldn't handle ANYTHING a normally
> operating airplane throws at it. As you and I have both noted,
> it's EASY.
>
> All I expect from E.I. is to be good engineers and
> back up their expectations and claims with good data
> from repeatable experiments, spread the word on good
> information, debunk bad information and make Carl
> Sagan proud of us all.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | THANK YOU BOB! YOU ARE PROVIDING A GREAT SERVICE |
I do not want anyone to think I am picking on Bob.
He is the only one who has taken the time and interest to help the
experimental aviation community build safe electrical systems. Copying SPAM
Can's is not the way to go. I know of NO WHERE else where one can get good
reliable info in any form much less clearly written for the masses.
I have many feet of manuals, info, etc. on my shelf and find that IF I could
only have one it would be Bob's bible. Yes, its on my shelf and has been for
years!
For anyone not a true expert (real not self proclaimed) its best to follow
ALL of the info in the book. Selective use is not a good idea. Bob has
developed a total safe solution to an electrical system. Its a total system
and should be used as such unless Bob approves otherwise.
While I disagree with Bob from time to time its perhaps only 1% of the
total.
Paul
EAA 55789, TC, FA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
>
>
>The ad in the Aircraft Spruce catalog says that it produces an accumulated 34
>joules of energy. Any idea what that means?
>
Not exactly sure what you are expecting for an answer. I'm an
electrical engineer so forgive me if I tell you more than you want to
know. A joule is a measurement of energy. Your 34 joules is 34
watt-seconds or 34 watts for one second. The power supply stores this
amount of energy in an internal storage capacitor. When the strobe is
triggered, the flash is approximately 2 milliseconds (2/1000 seconds)
long, so the 34 watt-seconds is used up in the flash tube in this 2mS
with the flash tube turning this electrical energy into light energy.
To dissipate this 34 joules of energy the strobe tube is using the
equivalent of 17,000 watts for the 2 mS duration of the flash. So your
34 joules is 34 watts for one-second or 17,000 watts for 0.002 seconds.
During the time between flashes, the power supply is recharging the
capacitor to get ready for the next flash.
Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
I have a brand new, never unpacked, fully factory warranteed UPSAT MX20
that I'm selling for under dealer cost. Retail $7300, my price, $5100. I
can also do a deep discount on a new GX 60 to drive it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | howto for units using less then 12V |
Dear all,
I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm using Bob's pwr
filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they realy happen).
Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the best way to
transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5 to 6V, can I
integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
Many thanks for your help
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
Listers,
I looked at this system several years ago when it was first introduced. In
my opinion, except
for the convenience of swapping similar radio systems in the future, it
doesn't add much value
to the overall stack wiring. And even then, it confines you to the limits
of the their original
wiring solutions for your original radios. (I.E., future radios may require
more interconnections..)
The conventional approach of defining a wire bundle between radios
certainly offers more
flexibility in future updates.
There seems to be a level of hesitation to wire ones own radio stack.
There shouldn't be.
Like building the plane itself, it's just another discipline that you will
learn how to perform.
It's part of the learning experience that goes along with building.
Pick out your dream stack, then work with someone with experienced to
develop the schematics.
Then wire that stack on the bench. If you don't have the proper tools, see
if you can borrow them.
If that's not possible, then contract out to have just the stack wired. It's
then easy for you to
complete the installation into your aircraft.
I've posted an example of this process at
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com.01.19.200
3/
If you have overcome your fears of building an aircraft, you certainly can
overcome the
fears of wiring up the radios....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Wonderful hours of flying!
Just got back from Sun 'n Fun. There I attended a forum presented by
Approach Systems who claim to have a product that will let you "Wire an
avionics stack in LESS THAN 3 hours with Fast Stack.".
The packed tent heard about a system that's been on the market since
Oshkosh 2002. This company makes a "hub" consisting of 8 layers of PC
boards and custom built connecting cables to provide all the interconnect
wiring for your avionics stack. You tell them what particular avionics
items you have in your panel and how long the cables must be. However,
they leave it up to you to connect buss power, ground, lighting and
antennas as well as mount the avionics boxes in the panel.
They suggest that it will save hours of build time and debugging,
especially for the segment of the homebuilding public who dread
wiring their avionics stack. Approach Systems also claims that their
system makes it easy to change or add boxes in the future to your
stack. Some of their systems have been put in certified aircraft with 337s.
On initial hearing, seemed like these folks may have something. If you
haven't heard about them, check out their web site, www.approach-systems.com
Any comments from someone who has bought one of their systems or have heard
their presentation?
DeWitt Whittington A&P
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
dewittw(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | howto for units using less then 12V |
Werner,
It really depends on the power needed for those devices. Low
power devices could use a simple linear regulator, much like
Bob's adjustable output light dimmer circuit, but with a fixed
output. Higher power devices might require a switching type
converter. Both approaches should inherently offer spike
filtering.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
N925RV 2008 wonderful hours of flying!
Dear all,
I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm
using Bob's pwr
filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they
realy happen).
Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the
best way to
transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5
to 6V, can I
integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
Many thanks for your help
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
| Subject: | Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
I heard their presentation at an EAA Chapter meeting. I was very skeptical
at first after spending 20 years working on nuclear reactor instrumentation
in the Navy. After listening to their presentation, however, I wound up
buying one of the hubs and a cable for an intercom (it's the only "avionics"
piece I have so far). I haven't wired them up yet, but the quality is
excellent. Additionally, one of the wires (PTT) on the intercom cable wasn't
long enough to reach the back seat of the RV8 I'm building so they fixed the
cable and paid shipping both ways. The reason I went ahead and purchased now
was that they were offering a 10% discount if you purchased within a certain
time of the presentation at the meeting. This is supposed to be a forever
10% discount not a one time thing. We'll see if that's true when I need to
purchase additional cables. They will also take the hubs and standard
stocked cables back as a trade-in when you change your avionics.
Ken
> Whittington"
>
> Just got back from Sun 'n Fun. There I attended a forum presented by
> Approach Systems who claim to have a product that will let you "Wire an
> avionics stack in LESS THAN 3 hours with Fast Stack.".
>
> The packed tent heard about a system that's been on the market since
> Oshkosh 2002. This company makes a "hub" consisting of 8 layers of PC
> boards and custom built connecting cables to provide all the interconnect
> wiring for your avionics stack. You tell them what particular avionics
> items you have in your panel and how long the cables must be. However,
> they leave it up to you to connect buss power, ground, lighting and
> antennas as well as mount the avionics boxes in the panel.
>
> They suggest that it will save hours of build time and debugging,
> especially for the segment of the homebuilding public who dread
> wiring their avionics stack. Approach Systems also claims that their
> system makes it easy to change or add boxes in the future to your
> stack. Some of their systems have been put in certified aircraft
> with 337s.
>
> On initial hearing, seemed like these folks may have something. If you
> haven't heard about them, check out their web site,
> www.approach-systems.com
>
> Any comments from someone who has bought one of their systems or
> have heard
> their presentation?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GNS 430 AND GTX 327 TALK |
4/8/2003
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<<......skip...... Having done this in my plane, I can tell you the links.
First, the 430
sends a serial data stream to the 327 which, among other things, tells
the 327 when the ground speed is above 40 knots. This signal can be
used to switch the transponder from standby to altitude and vice versa,
a nice feature. It is a remarkably common thing to hear ATC asking a
pilot who just took off to switch his transponder on. The 327 sends
back a serial data stream to the 430 which includes the altitude
information the transponder is receiving from the altitude encoder. The
430 uses this data to refine/compare the altitude data gathered from the
GPS receiver in some fashion. I can't tell you exactly how the 430 uses
the altitude data, but it does inform me if I turn off the transponder
with a message like "not receiving altitude information". Possibly, it
will inform one of differences greater than some amount between the two
altitude systems, I don't know. Alex Peterson Maple Grove, MN>>
4/8/2003
Hello Alex, I also have a GNS 430 and GTX 327 in my panel (not yet flown).
Panel was built by a professional and I have the pin out / wiring diagrams,
but cannot figure out what is going on between the two boxes.
Can you please tell me the pins on both boxes that would be sending any
altitude or airspeed between them -- either direction? Many thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
Hi DeWitt -
We have been looking at avionics and were very impressed with the Approach
Sytems box. We did not attend their briefing, but have talked them at OSH and
Sun N Fun. We have also been getting quotes from various avionics houses, like
Pacific Coast, for an avionics stack. For Garmin's stuff, you have to have the
dealer provide the harness for the stack and for our proposed stack, this is
between 450 and 600 dollars. UPS is now requiring the same if you install one of
their new CNX-80's. With a dealer's harness, we also would have to wire up the
power and antennae. When we compare this to the cost of an Approach IFR box and
cabling for the same stack, they come out significantly more expensive.
Pros & Cons:
1. Flexibility for the future to change out a piece of avionics. However, I
believe their buss is hardwired (vice software controlled), so it could become
outdated as hardware avionics take their usual leap forward every 3-4 years.
2. I am still unclear about how they handle the interface between an autopilot
and the stack. If you have a harness made by a dealer, they will provide the
output/input for such pieces of equipment.
Keep us posted on your research.
Thanks,
John
>Just got back from Sun 'n Fun. There I attended a forum presented by
>Approach Systems who claim to have a product that will let you "Wire an
>avionics stack in LESS THAN 3 hours with Fast Stack.".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
| Subject: | Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
I have the Pro-G wiring package from Approach systems with intercom,
transponder, radio, and encoder connected to it.
It really is a nice system that allows fast connection of the avionics stack.
The hub is very well made (looks good too) and takes care of all
interconnections between units. As well, all grounding of shielded wires is
taken care of as well. I found the unit a bit expensive to start ($880 for the
hub and cables from $79 to $150) but I will use this system again on my next
plane.
The biggest advantage is future update of the instrument panel. Say you want to
change radios or add a GPS. You install the unit in the panel (the longest
part) connect the cable to the hub, connet power and ground (and a few others
if required) and you're done.
While wiring the radio to the intercom, or transponder to the encoder is not
too difficult, the Appoarch Systems hub makes it so simple and professional
looking.
Plus the guys who work there have been very helpful in providing me with all
the information to make my decision and how everything works.
Highly recommended,
Steve
RV7A
Quoting Ken Simmons :
>
> I heard their presentation at an EAA Chapter meeting. I was very skeptical
> at first after spending 20 years working on nuclear reactor instrumentation
> in the Navy. After listening to their presentation, however, I wound up
> buying one of the hubs and a cable for an intercom (it's the only
> "avionics"
> piece I have so far). I haven't wired them up yet, but the quality is
> excellent. Additionally, one of the wires (PTT) on the intercom cable
> wasn't
> long enough to reach the back seat of the RV8 I'm building so they fixed
> the
> cable and paid shipping both ways. The reason I went ahead and purchased
> now
> was that they were offering a 10% discount if you purchased within a
> certain
> time of the presentation at the meeting. This is supposed to be a forever
> 10% discount not a one time thing. We'll see if that's true when I need to
> purchase additional cables. They will also take the hubs and standard
> stocked cables back as a trade-in when you change your avionics.
>
> Ken
>
> > Whittington"
> >
> > Just got back from Sun 'n Fun. There I attended a forum presented by
> > Approach Systems who claim to have a product that will let you "Wire an
> > avionics stack in LESS THAN 3 hours with Fast Stack.".
> >
> > The packed tent heard about a system that's been on the market since
> > Oshkosh 2002. This company makes a "hub" consisting of 8 layers of PC
> > boards and custom built connecting cables to provide all the interconnect
> > wiring for your avionics stack. You tell them what particular avionics
> > items you have in your panel and how long the cables must be. However,
> > they leave it up to you to connect buss power, ground, lighting and
> > antennas as well as mount the avionics boxes in the panel.
> >
> > They suggest that it will save hours of build time and debugging,
> > especially for the segment of the homebuilding public who dread
> > wiring their avionics stack. Approach Systems also claims that their
> > system makes it easy to change or add boxes in the future to your
> > stack. Some of their systems have been put in certified aircraft
> > with 337s.
> >
> > On initial hearing, seemed like these folks may have something. If you
> > haven't heard about them, check out their web site,
> > www.approach-systems.com
> >
> > Any comments from someone who has bought one of their systems or
> > have heard
> > their presentation?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
| From: | Jim Ziegler <jcz(at)espllc.com> |
Bob:
You clearly have a great deal of practical experience in designing
electric/electronic equipment to meet not only the requirements of
DO-160, but also your own additional requirements (e.g. lightning) based
on your experience.
I would like to request (urge, beg?) you to share this knowledge with
those of us who would like to try our hand at doing some of our own
design work. For example, practical tips on power filtering and
conditioning, including suggested parts and/or rules for part selection,
rules for protecting various types of inputs and outputs, e.g.
thermocouple, digital, high and low level analog, etc.
I think this would make a great paper to add to your website, and
perhaps a revenue source, like your existing aeroelectric notebook. I
for one would be willing to purchase same.
If such a resource already exists, please point me to it.
Thanks.
jcz(at)espllc.com (Jim Ziegler)
--
jcz(at)espllc.com (Jim Ziegler)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
This reminded me of another thing I left out of my previous reply. I
believe Garmin requires installation by an approved shop for a valid
warranty. According to Approach Systems (they have documents to verify
this), you can do your own install of Garmin products and retain the
warranty if you use Approach Systems' hub/cable system.
Ken
---snip---
For Garmin's stuff, you have to have the dealer provide the harness for
the stack and for our proposed stack, this is between 450 and 600
dollars.
---snip---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
In a message dated 04/09/03 05:23:08 AM, Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com
writes:
> Pick out your dream stack, then work with someone with experienced to
> develop the schematics. Then wire that stack on the bench. If you don't
> have the proper tools, see if you can borrow them. If that's not possible,
> then contract out to have just the stack wired. It's then easy for you to
> complete the installation into your aircraft.
>
How is this different from contracting Approach Systems to 'Pre-Wire" the
avionics stack? If you change it down the road (which is very unlikely in
the near term, say 10-15 years), have Approach Systems mod the
interconnections.
Certainly is a lot simplier than having 4 or 5 unwanted sets of wiring under
your panel which NO-One can follow.
There is no way to describe what it's like to try and sort out an avionics
gremlin only to find there are 8 (EIGHT) sets of com installations, complete
with 8 different coax-cables which are dead-ended on both ends and still
wrapped so tight in a wire bundle that you can't move anything without taking
it all apart and starting over.
Gary
3 weeks and counting into fixing the wiring in an AA1C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Hey Old Bob,
So, if I understand you correctly, the power supplies are in the
wingtips next to the strobes? That means that the #22 wire you are
running to the strobes that we discussed earlier is actually just the
24VDC power feed to the power supplies?
If that's true, that throws a wrench in my plans/thoughts. I though the
#22 wire you ran was from the power supply to the strobes, the shielded
wire that is usually 18-3 from Whelen. From what it sounds now, if I
understand correct, the #22 is actually just your power feed. At 24V,
#22 will easily feed the 3-4 amps the power supplies need.
The 34J is an amount of energy. A Joule is a Watt-second, or could be
similarily shown as a kilowatt-hour as in our homes. If your supplies
deliver 34J in 0.002 seconds, that works out to be 34/0.002, or 17000
Watts of power. Divide the power by the Voltage, in this case Whelen
specifies about 500-600V from the power supplies to the strobes, and
that works out to have a peak current of about 34A. Make sense?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
In a message dated 4/8/03 9:49:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net
writes:
> Which power supply do you have and do you know the amount of energy it
> puts out per flash? Thanks for the help.
>
Good Evening Shannon,
I have the Whelen A490A power supplies. One on the tail and one in each
wing
tip. They are connected with a trigger wire so that they flash
together.
The ad in the Aircraft Spruce catalog says that it produces an
accumulated 34
joules of energy. Any idea what that means?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
Another point that Approach makes is that they are a dealer for UPS and their
cabling/buss is acceptable to UPS regarding the installation of the CNX-80.
However, I believe that you still pay a premium for the Approach system for
either Garmin or UPS stacks. If I'm wrong, I'd sure like to know. It is a very
nice system.
Cheers,
John
>This reminded me of another thing I left out of my previous reply. I
>believe Garmin requires installation by an approved shop for a valid
>warranty. According to Approach Systems (they have documents to verify
>this), you can do your own install of Garmin products and retain the
>warranty if you use Approach Systems' hub/cable system.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>---snip---
>
>For Garmin's stuff, you have to have the dealer provide the harness for
>the stack and for our proposed stack, this is between 450 and 600
>dollars.
>
>---snip---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring |
System
I looked at the Approach system for my panel, it was $1500. Then I talked
to John Stark at Stark Avionics, http://www.mindspring.com/~jts7/index.htm
he'll do the same job for $400. I chose "B"
>
>
>Another point that Approach makes is that they are a dealer for UPS and their
>cabling/buss is acceptable to UPS regarding the installation of the CNX-80.
>However, I believe that you still pay a premium for the Approach system for
>either Garmin or UPS stacks. If I'm wrong, I'd sure like to know. It is a
>very
>nice system.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
> >This reminded me of another thing I left out of my previous reply. I
> >believe Garmin requires installation by an approved shop for a valid
> >warranty. According to Approach Systems (they have documents to verify
> >this), you can do your own install of Garmin products and retain the
> >warranty if you use Approach Systems' hub/cable system.
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---snip---
> >
> >For Garmin's stuff, you have to have the dealer provide the harness for
> >the stack and for our proposed stack, this is between 450 and 600
> >dollars.
> >
> >---snip---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
In a message dated 4/9/03 12:09:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> So, if I understand you correctly, the power supplies are in the
> wingtips next to the strobes? That means that the #22 wire you are
> running to the strobes that we discussed earlier is actually just the
> 24VDC power feed to the power supplies?
>
> If that's true, that throws a wrench in my plans/thoughts. I though the
> #22 wire you ran was from the power supply to the strobes, the shielded
> wire that is usually 18-3 from Whelen. From what it sounds now, if I
> understand correct, the #22 is actually just your power feed. At 24V,
> #22 will easily feed the 3-4 amps the power supplies need.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
No, the power supplies are in the wing about six inches inboard of the wing
tip fuel tanks. They are mounted on the front face of the spar. The strobe
lights are mounted within the space provided in the nose of the wing tip fuel
tanks for the running lights.
The # 22 wires run from the power supplies to the strobe lights through the
one quarter inch OD aluminum tubing that was installed by the manufacturer of
the tip tanks as a means of getting wiring to the running lights. Total run
from the power supply to the strobe is about three and a half feet.
The #22 wires replace the leads you describe. The directions from Whelen
suggested mounting the power supplies so as to provide for minimum length
runs of the high voltage wires. Mounting them in the outer portions of the
wings was one of their suggestions.
I have encountered absolutely no noise problem with my strobes.
Mine were very early production fiberglass wing tip fuel tanks. The
manufacturer went to a three-eighths of an inch tubing on his later fuel
tanks.
Did I do a better job of describing the installation this time?
Happy skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
Yes, Bob, that makes it all clear. I guess my only concern now is that
my power supplies might put out a bit more energy (42J vs. 34J). Also,
my run is about 15 feet, whereas yours is only about 3. I'm still in
contact with Whelen on this topic.
Bob N, do you have anything else to add to this discussion? Are my
calculations anywhere close from my previous emails about this topic?
Am I missing something?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
In a message dated 4/9/03 12:09:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> So, if I understand you correctly, the power supplies are in the
> wingtips next to the strobes? That means that the #22 wire you are
> running to the strobes that we discussed earlier is actually just the
> 24VDC power feed to the power supplies?
>
> If that's true, that throws a wrench in my plans/thoughts. I though
the
> #22 wire you ran was from the power supply to the strobes, the
shielded
> wire that is usually 18-3 from Whelen. From what it sounds now, if I
> understand correct, the #22 is actually just your power feed. At 24V,
> #22 will easily feed the 3-4 amps the power supplies need.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
No, the power supplies are in the wing about six inches inboard of the
wing
tip fuel tanks. They are mounted on the front face of the spar. The
strobe
lights are mounted within the space provided in the nose of the wing tip
fuel
tanks for the running lights.
The # 22 wires run from the power supplies to the strobe lights through
the
one quarter inch OD aluminum tubing that was installed by the
manufacturer of
the tip tanks as a means of getting wiring to the running lights. Total
run
from the power supply to the strobe is about three and a half feet.
The #22 wires replace the leads you describe. The directions from Whelen
suggested mounting the power supplies so as to provide for minimum
length
runs of the high voltage wires. Mounting them in the outer portions of
the
wings was one of their suggestions.
I have encountered absolutely no noise problem with my strobes.
Mine were very early production fiberglass wing tip fuel tanks. The
manufacturer went to a three-eighths of an inch tubing on his later fuel
tanks.
Did I do a better job of describing the installation this time?
Happy skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED post lights for instrument lighting? |
Dan Branstrom wrote:
>
>
> For a possible emergency panel light, (or at least a great map
> reading light), I've discovered a great folding LED light, made by
> Energizer that lights up an area. It can be bought from Wal-Mart
> (Their SKU number is, I believe, 0968489) for about 9 dollars plus
> tax & less batteries. I was told about it by another pilot who is
> also a Boy Scout leader. The boys in his scout troop use them all
> the time.
Dan,
Is that the Energizer Folding LED? I didn't find anything with that SKU,
but I found the Energizer with UPC 39800 04553. You got my attention.
The first store didn't have it, but the second did. It really looks
interesting, but I haven't taken it apart yet (or used it at night).
Regards,
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Must strobe feed wires be shielded? |
The resistance of the wire you want to use (22 AWG) it is less than 0.02
ohms per foot. For a 15 foot length that gives you 0.3 ohms. If you
have a 500V supply supplying 42J in 2 mS that is 42A. Calculating out
the voltage drop due to this current gives you a drop of approximately
12V. This means that you are losing less than 3% of the energy in the
pulse (500V - 12V). If you do the same calculations with 18 AWG you
find you are losing about 1%. So the difference is 2% - not
significant. The total energy dissipation in the wire created by 42A
for 2mS is equivalent to an average current of 1.8A - well within the
rating of 22AWG wire.
So... Common sense and good engineering says this should work just fine
- especially of you have a problem fitting 18 AWG wire.
Dick Tasker
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>
>Yes, Bob, that makes it all clear. I guess my only concern now is that
>my power supplies might put out a bit more energy (42J vs. 34J). Also,
>my run is about 15 feet, whereas yours is only about 3. I'm still in
>contact with Whelen on this topic.
>
>Bob N, do you have anything else to add to this discussion? Are my
>calculations anywhere close from my previous emails about this topic?
>Am I missing something?
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Must strobe feed wires be shielded?
>
>
>In a message dated 4/9/03 12:09:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
>kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
>
>
>
>>So, if I understand you correctly, the power supplies are in the
>>wingtips next to the strobes? That means that the #22 wire you are
>>running to the strobes that we discussed earlier is actually just the
>>24VDC power feed to the power supplies?
>>
>>If that's true, that throws a wrench in my plans/thoughts. I though
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>#22 wire you ran was from the power supply to the strobes, the
>>
>>
>shielded
>
>
>>wire that is usually 18-3 from Whelen. From what it sounds now, if I
>>understand correct, the #22 is actually just your power feed. At 24V,
>>#22 will easily feed the 3-4 amps the power supplies need.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Good Morning Shannon,
>
>No, the power supplies are in the wing about six inches inboard of the
>wing
>tip fuel tanks. They are mounted on the front face of the spar. The
>strobe
>lights are mounted within the space provided in the nose of the wing tip
>fuel
>tanks for the running lights.
>
>The # 22 wires run from the power supplies to the strobe lights through
>the
>one quarter inch OD aluminum tubing that was installed by the
>manufacturer of
>the tip tanks as a means of getting wiring to the running lights. Total
>run
>from the power supply to the strobe is about three and a half feet.
>
>The #22 wires replace the leads you describe. The directions from Whelen
>
>suggested mounting the power supplies so as to provide for minimum
>length
>runs of the high voltage wires. Mounting them in the outer portions of
>the
>wings was one of their suggestions.
>
>I have encountered absolutely no noise problem with my strobes.
>
>Mine were very early production fiberglass wing tip fuel tanks. The
>manufacturer went to a three-eighths of an inch tubing on his later fuel
>
>tanks.
>
>Did I do a better job of describing the installation this time?
>
>Happy skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
We have a quote from John and we'll probably go with him. His quote for wiring
the stack is: $600 and that includes the new CNX-80.
John
>I looked at the Approach system for my panel, it was $1500. Then I talked
>to John Stark at Stark Avionics, http://www.mindspring.com/~jts7/index.htm
>he'll do the same job for $400. I chose "B"
>
>
>>
>>
>>Another point that Approach makes is that they are a dealer for UPS and their
>>cabling/buss is acceptable to UPS regarding the installation of the CNX-80.
>>However, I believe that you still pay a premium for the Approach system for
>>either Garmin or UPS stacks. If I'm wrong, I'd sure like to know. It is a
>>very
>>nice system.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>John
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring |
System
>
>
>We have a quote from John and we'll probably go with him. His quote for
>wiring
>the stack is: $600 and that includes the new CNX-80.
That must be a heck of a stack, mine is Bluemountain, SL30, GX60, Microair
Txp, encoder, DRE-224e and that was only $400. $100 more for a psudo-audio
panel (which I thought was a little high for 4 toggle switches, I may do
that myself).
When I saw the hub I thought it was a great idea, but at that price
difference there's no way I can justify it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Stainless steel firewall fitting for wires |
Bought my 1.25" X 18" stainless steel "grab bar" at Lowe's for $17.94 + tax.
- Was "made in Taiwan".
Returned the Franklin Brass brand to Home Depot because was "MADE IN CHINA" (my
wife bought it and didn't look).
David Carter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I have a question about the use of a battery box with a sealed lead acid battery
(RG Battery). I know that one is not really required with this type of battery,
but is any harm likely if one is used?
I built a fiberglass battery box some years ago, when I assumed that I would be
using a wet battery. The battery box mounts under the baggage compartment floor,
and the floor actually serves as the lid on the box. Do I need to re-design
the battery installation, or will what I have likely work?
Thanks in advance
BillB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Dual E.I. bus configuration |
Bob.
In planning the electrical system for my RV-8, I was leaning heavily towards
using the Aerosance FADEC to control the engine. However, after reading of the
brownout problems during start, I'm now leaning towards dual Lightspeed
ignitions instead.
I'm planning a system based on drawing Z-13, with one battery and a backup SD-8
alternator.
With dual electronic ignitions, should I put both of them on the hot battery
bus? Or should I put one on the hot battery bus and one on the essential bus?
The only reason I can see for splitting them is to prevent engine failure in
the extremely remote chance that the short link between the battery and the hot
battery bus is compromised somehow.
Speaking of short links... the asterisk label in your drawings indicates wiring
lengths of 6" or less, with no protection for the wire. Is the assumption that
no fusible link is required if the wire run is kept very short? Why 6" as
opposed to any other number?
Thanks.
-Geoff
http://tax.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: howto for units using less then 12V |
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm using Bob's pwr
>filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they realy happen).
>Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the best way to
>transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5 to 6V, can I
>integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
>
>Many thanks for your help
>
>Werner
>
The simplest way is to use a 3-terminal linear regulator preset for the
desired voltage.
Try a Google search on 'LM7805 regulator'. The '5' indicates a 5 volt
regulator.
http://www.iguanalabs.com/7805kit.htm
shows a good photo of the device. Remember that rated current requires a
heat sink.
Poke around the various sites hit by the Google search to get a feel for
what you need to do.
Most gadgets designed for 6 volts will work fine using a 5 volt regulator.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
In a message dated 4/9/03 6:08:07 PM Central Daylight Time, richard(at)riley.net
writes:
> When I saw the hub I thought it was a great idea, but at that price
> difference there's no way I can justify it.
>
>
Good Evening Richard and All,
Has anyone checked the weight difference? How about the extra space needed
to mount the hub?
Happy skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: howto for units using less then 12V |
Or you could look for a LM7806 and get what you really need.for a six
volt device - a six volt source. All the other comments apply regarding
heat sink, etc.
Look at www.digikey.com (minimum order or $5.00 service charge) or
www.mouser.com (no minimum order). You can follow the links on these
sites for data sheets for the parts that show you how to use them.
Basically you will need the regulator, two capacitors and maybe a heat
sink (depending on the power output required).
Dick Tasker
Charlie & Tupper England wrote:
>
>Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm using Bob's pwr
>>filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they realy happen).
>>Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the best way to
>>transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5 to 6V, can I
>>integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
>>
>>Many thanks for your help
>>
>>Werner
>>
>>
>>
>The simplest way is to use a 3-terminal linear regulator preset for the
>desired voltage.
>
>Try a Google search on 'LM7805 regulator'. The '5' indicates a 5 volt
>regulator.
>
>http://www.iguanalabs.com/7805kit.htm
>
>shows a good photo of the device. Remember that rated current requires a
>heat sink.
>
>Poke around the various sites hit by the Google search to get a feel for
>what you need to do.
>Most gadgets designed for 6 volts will work fine using a 5 volt regulator.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Approach-Systems Avionics Wiring System |
>
>In a message dated 4/9/03 6:08:07 PM Central Daylight Time, richard(at)riley.net
>writes:
>
> > When I saw the hub I thought it was a great idea, but at that price
> > difference there's no way I can justify it.
> >
> >
>
>Good Evening Richard and All,
>
>Has anyone checked the weight difference? How about the extra space needed
>to mount the hub?
The hub is pretty small, and it can be well back behind the panel, but it
does weigh something. I'd guess the advantage (again) is for the live
wiring job but not by much. The advantage the hub has is ease of adding
new units to the system - but how often does that happen in a panel's lifetime?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Howto for units using less then 12V |
| From: | <max.johansson(at)nokia.com> |
Werner, if you already have a spike filter you probably can
be using any standard three pin regulator (like a 7806
for 6V) after it for your gadgets. Nomally they die when
they experience a 40V spike. Select a device having just
one mounting hole and screw it directly to the frame
for heatsinking, no insulation or ground lead is needed.
Add two small 0.01 uF capacitors from the input and
output terminals to ground to keep the regulator stable.
If you really need some 5V, just connect a diode in
series from the 6V output in order to get an extra
5.2 volt supply. Total output available is 1 amp.
And if you just need a 5V output, use a 7805 regulator.
regards, Max - flying C42 in Helsinki
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: howto for units using less then 12V
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm using Bob's pwr
> filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they realy happen).
> Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the best way to
> transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5 to 6V, can I
> integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
>
> Many thanks for your help, Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Labels - What do you need??? |
RV7 Matronics List
Jim Irwin - Pres. and CEO of Aircraft Spruce has asked me to assemble a list of
all the labels homebuilders might want for their airplane instrument panels.
I purchased one of their sheets and it was lacking many - such as "low oil pressure"
which you might put under a panel light - and "low fuel pressure", Low Oil
Pressure
Jim said this list has not been updated for a long time and wanted my input - so
I ask you all to help.
what do you want. We all need them and the sheet is only like $3.50 - but they
are nice labels.
Please send your requests to me directly at wings97302(at)yahoo.com & in the subject
put "Instrument labels"
thanks very much for your help
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Labels - What do you need??? |
> Jim Irwin - Pres. and CEO of Aircraft Spruce has asked me to
> assemble a list of all the labels homebuilders might want for
> their airplane instrument panels.
How about - "This airplane built exclusively with parts from Wicks Aircraft"
or
"Spruce service and support sucks" in 12 inch letters. I'll take one of each
for my wings.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Labels - What do you need??? |
How about - "This airplane built exclusively with parts from Wicks Aircraft"
or
"Spruce service and support sucks" in 12 inch letters. I'll take one of each
for my=A0 wings.
John Slade
...Uh John, please don't hold back, Chrissi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage Regulator- Use internal? |
Searching for a "generic" voltage regulator- is this thing equivalent to
the "mythical" VR166?
Search for VR301 at:
http://www.partsamerica.com/default.asp?BypassRedirect=True
....or try this direct link, but it's a long one and may require the
cut/paste routine:
http://www.partsamerica.com/PartDetails.asp?SourceArea=SHOP&SourcePage=SEARCHRESULTS&QueryID=677841&QueryCounter=1&MfrCode=GPS&MfrPartNumber=VR301
While hunting, it seems that none of the major suppliers in my area
(Autozone, Advance Auto Parts, NAPA) have anything listed as "VR166" but
there are a lot (such as above) that appear to be similar. Digging in
the archives revealed some others such as the VR749 which Bob says
should be fine.
Then I ran across this from one of Bobs' replies:
http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
The listing there shows a bunch of the internal/replaceable regs
installed inside the alternator- Has anyone used one of these
successfully, and if so, how do you determine which terminal is sense &
which is field? Any problems using them? They seem to offer a huge
advantage is weight/space saving, and cost half or less than the bigger
"boxes".
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Labels - What do you need??? |
| From: | "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com> |
G'Day All,
Given current electrical systems are now employing dual batteries and dual alternators,
please consider doubling up on a few labels rather than having to buy
a second sheet..
Perhaps:
2 x MAIN
2 x AUX
1 x MAIN MASTER
1 x AUX MASTER
2 x LOW VOLTS WARN
2 x CROSSFEED, [X-FEED]
1 x L IGN
1 x R IGN
1 x STARTER
1 x ENGAGED
1 X MAIN FLD
1 X AUX FLD
30 X ON
30 X OFF
Cheers,
Wayne Blackler
IO-360 Long EZ
Seattle, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Julia [mailto:wings97302(at)yahoo.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Panel Labels - What do you
need???
Jim Irwin - Pres. and CEO of Aircraft Spruce has asked me to assemble a list of
all the labels homebuilders might want for their airplane instrument panels.
I purchased one of their sheets and it was lacking many - such as "low oil pressure"
which you might put under a panel light - and "low fuel pressure", Low Oil
Pressure
Jim said this list has not been updated for a long time and wanted my input - so
I ask you all to help.
what do you want. We all need them and the sheet is only like $3.50 - but they
are nice labels.
Please send your requests to me directly at wings97302(at)yahoo.com & in the subject
put "Instrument labels"
thanks very much for your help
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: howto for units using less then 12V |
Hello Charlie,
many thanks, exactly the anwser I was looking for!
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie & Tupper England" <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: howto for units using less then 12V
>
> Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> >
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I'm building several "handheld" gadgets in my plane, I'm using Bob's pwr
> >filter, to protect this gadgets from power spikes (if they realy happen).
> >Now several of them are using only 5V, or 6V. What is the best way to
> >transform the board-voltage of 12-14V down to a stabilised 5 to 6V, can I
> >integrate such thing into the pwr filter design?.
> >
> >Many thanks for your help
> >
> >Werner
> >
> The simplest way is to use a 3-terminal linear regulator preset for the
> desired voltage.
>
> Try a Google search on 'LM7805 regulator'. The '5' indicates a 5 volt
> regulator.
>
> http://www.iguanalabs.com/7805kit.htm
>
> shows a good photo of the device. Remember that rated current requires a
> heat sink.
>
> Poke around the various sites hit by the Google search to get a feel for
> what you need to do.
> Most gadgets designed for 6 volts will work fine using a 5 volt regulator.
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Approach-Systems Avionics |
Gary,
First off, if your plane has 4-5 (or more) unwanted sets of wiring
under the panel, somebody hasn't been doing your repairs properly. Quite
typical for the inexpensive Spam Can avionics shops. In my opinion, that's
completely unacceptable.
What I want out of my experimental aircraft implementation is,
1)full knowledge of what is in my panel wiring, 2)the flexibility to modify
it myself, and 3)to keep the costs down to a minimum.
Learning to wire your own avionics is not that difficult,
especially if you get help from somebody else that has already done it, or
does it for a living. That person can help you draw the schematics and
assure the accuracy of the wiring.
If you feel you're not capable of doing all the wiring, or don't
have the proper tools, have a shop just wire up the radio stack, with all
the outside-the-stack wires long enough for you to complete the hookup. That
approach is still less expensive than the Approach-Systems box..... And if
your knowledgeable in how it was done the first time, upgrades are not that
big a deal....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs of fun!
In a message dated 04/09/03 05:23:08 AM,
writes:
> Pick out your dream stack, then work with someone with
experienced to
> develop the schematics. Then wire that stack on the bench. If you
don't
> have the proper tools, see if you can borrow them. If that's not
possible,
> then contract out to have just the stack wired. It's then easy for
you to
> complete the installation into your aircraft.
>
How is this different from contracting Approach Systems to
'Pre-Wire" the
avionics stack? If you change it down the road (which is very
unlikely in
the near term, say 10-15 years), have Approach Systems mod the
interconnections.
Certainly is a lot simplier than having 4 or 5 unwanted sets of
wiring under
your panel which NO-One can follow.
There is no way to describe what it's like to try and sort out an
avionics
gremlin only to find there are 8 (EIGHT) sets of com installations,
complete
still
wrapped so tight in a wire bundle that you can't move anything
without taking
it all apart and starting over.
Gary
3 weeks and counting into fixing the wiring in an AA1C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
Can't imagine why it wouldn't work.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Box
>
> I have a question about the use of a battery box with a sealed lead acid
battery (RG Battery). I know that one is not really required with this type
of battery, but is any harm likely if one is used?
>
> I built a fiberglass battery box some years ago, when I assumed that I
would be using a wet battery. The battery box mounts under the baggage
compartment floor, and the floor actually serves as the lid on the box. Do I
need to re-design the battery installation, or will what I have likely work?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> BillB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Approach-Systems Avionics |
Fred,
I agree with everything you have said in your posts on this subject. But,
how do you handle the warranty issues? Garmin and others seem to indicate
that the warranty is void if the harness is not made by an avionics shop.
I have been designing and wiring process control instrumentation for the
last twenty years and have no doubt that I can produce my own harness, but
the warranty is a real concern.
Vince
>From: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "'Aeroelectric List'"
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Approach-Systems Avionics
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:55:23 -0400
>
>
>
> Gary,
>
> First off, if your plane has 4-5 (or more) unwanted sets of
>wiring
>under the panel, somebody hasn't been doing your repairs properly. Quite
>typical for the inexpensive Spam Can avionics shops. In my opinion, that's
>completely unacceptable.
> What I want out of my experimental aircraft implementation is,
>1)full knowledge of what is in my panel wiring, 2)the flexibility to modify
>it myself, and 3)to keep the costs down to a minimum.
> Learning to wire your own avionics is not that difficult,
>especially if you get help from somebody else that has already done it, or
>does it for a living. That person can help you draw the schematics and
>assure the accuracy of the wiring.
> If you feel you're not capable of doing all the wiring, or don't
>have the proper tools, have a shop just wire up the radio stack, with all
>the outside-the-stack wires long enough for you to complete the hookup.
>That
>approach is still less expensive than the Approach-Systems box..... And if
>your knowledgeable in how it was done the first time, upgrades are not that
>big a deal....
>
>Fred Stucklen
>RV-6A N926RV Reserved
>RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs of fun!
>
>
> In a message dated 04/09/03 05:23:08 AM,
> writes:
>
> > Pick out your dream stack, then work with someone with
>experienced to
> > develop the schematics. Then wire that stack on the bench. If
>you
>don't
> > have the proper tools, see if you can borrow them. If that's not
>possible,
> > then contract out to have just the stack wired. It's then easy
>for
>you to
> > complete the installation into your aircraft.
> >
> How is this different from contracting Approach Systems to
>'Pre-Wire" the
> avionics stack? If you change it down the road (which is very
>unlikely in
> the near term, say 10-15 years), have Approach Systems mod the
> interconnections.
>
> Certainly is a lot simplier than having 4 or 5 unwanted sets of
>wiring under
> your panel which NO-One can follow.
>
> There is no way to describe what it's like to try and sort out an
>avionics
> gremlin only to find there are 8 (EIGHT) sets of com
>installations,
>complete
>still
> wrapped so tight in a wire bundle that you can't move anything
>without taking
> it all apart and starting over.
>
> Gary
> 3 weeks and counting into fixing the wiring in an AA1C
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tyco EV200 power relay needs no diode ? |
> In my Rotax 912S electric power system, I'd like to replace the battery
relay by a Tyco EV200 power relay shown in
http://www.ciitech.com/doc_generator.asp?doc_id=1280 . Reason: it has a hold
power consumption of only 1.7 W at 12 VDC. Do you see any reason for not
using it in an OBAM Europa?
Hi Bob and all,
I'm having a try at those EV200 contactors. In the spec sheet at CII
Technologies they say
"No coil back EMF- Built-in coil economizer limits back EMF to zero volts"
Am I right in understanding an external diode is not necessary ?
Thanks
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Recommendation - Subaru EA-81 |
>
>After reading a BK's AeroElectric and ended up with a dead alternator,
>I'm looking to replace the alternator included with my Subaru EA-81 from
>Stratus with one that works with an external voltage regulator. Has
>anybody had any good experience with any particular brand, etc.?
>
>Thanks!
>Don Honabach
>Tempe, AZ - Zodiac 601HDS
If your alternator happens to be the same as the stock Subaru
you can get one for a 1982 or older subaru. It is the same
exact dimentions as the newer style. This alternator has an
external regulator and fits all the stock brackets. However
stratus may uses a smaller alternator to save some weight.
I am not sure. Got mine on ebay. There was another there
a few days ago from the same seller. I had mine tested
and it put out 40 amps. The alternator guy recomended
locktiting the through bolts that hold the alternator together
to safeguard against the prop vibration. He was also shocked
at what the price I paid was (cheap).
check Item # 2410113207
on ebay for a picture
Jim Pollard
ch601hds
ea81
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Stephan <holger(at)selover.net> |
Hi all,
We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
are also readily available.
Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
throw something together.
Thanks
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tyco EV200 power relay needs no diode ? |
That's right. The two wires that you hook up to are not the two ends of the
coil. There is a small printed circuit board on the side of the relay doing
some magic between the control wires, and the actual relay coil.
Dave in Wichita
>
> > In my Rotax 912S electric power system, I'd like to replace the battery
> relay by a Tyco EV200 power relay shown in
> http://www.ciitech.com/doc_generator.asp?doc_id=1280 . Reason: it has a
hold
> power consumption of only 1.7 W at 12 VDC. Do you see any reason for not
> using it in an OBAM Europa?
>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> I'm having a try at those EV200 contactors. In the spec sheet at CII
> Technologies they say
> "No coil back EMF- Built-in coil economizer limits back EMF to zero volts"
> Am I right in understanding an external diode is not necessary ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gilles
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Recommendation - Subaru EA-81 |
I recently bought a Pontiac Firefly 1988 alternator
that I got rebuilt and tested to 55 amps. It is a
Nippodenso alternator with internal regulator, but I
suppose it could be modified.
> Honabach"
> >
> >After reading a BK's AeroElectric and ended up with
> a dead alternator,
> >I'm looking to replace the alternator included with
> my Subaru EA-81 from
> >Stratus with one that works with an external
> voltage regulator. Has
> >anybody had any good experience with any particular
> brand, etc.?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Don Honabach
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://tax.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit |
I used to be an A-7 pilot and Avionics Officer, and also attended quarterly
F-16 software meetings in the 1980s.
Are you planning to use a "Mux Bus" (multiplexor bus) (like F-16) or hard
wire each sensor to the computer (like A-7)?
I've almost forgotten the two different types of Mux buses: Original F-16
mux bus had dedicated data lines from each sensor, hard wired into the mux
bus harness - hard to modify because it took a hardware mod/expansion for
each thing you later wanted to add.
The later, better, preferred, at that time, was called something else
(star? ring?) - you could add a new sensor which had its own mux interface
device without any other physical wiring harness mods - the new device
contained the "new" bus interface stuff. Essentially, it was a "software
bus" instead of a "hard wired bus".
What is a CAN bus?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Stephan" <holger(at)selover.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
> embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
> is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
> use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
> find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
> are also readily available.
>
> Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
> Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
> solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
> throw something together.
>
> Thanks
>
> Holger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
Darwin N. Barrie previously wrote << From: <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> Subject:
JCWhitney heaters Date: Apr 05, 2003. While cruising the JC Whitney site I
also noticed some small 12volt heaters/defrosters. I think these would work
perfect for most airplanes
especially for defrosting. This would save the hassles of doing a heater
muff and somewhat complicated duct work.Anyone try these? Any thoughts?
Darwin N. Barrie>>
4/10/2003
Hello Darwin, For personal warmth in the cockpit you might want to consider
heated clothing. Check out <> or 800-646-5916.
The motorcycle types use this gear and can ride around exposed to the wind
blast in the winter time. Uses very little wattage.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
Hey Guys,
In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I
got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring
they provided with the engine will/may not work properly.
In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection
points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed
back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground is
implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The first
is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style 'idiot'
light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for reasons
unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if the light
isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final connector is
labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus suggests hooking
this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V positive when the
engine starter is engaged.
My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this
last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source
to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron
parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator and
how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that
having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't
running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is
only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS
design principles.
I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any
comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic
questions, my apologies in advance :)
Thanks!
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ - 601HDS
---- Stratus' Email ----
....the one on the right is the ign. for ignition or 12 volts
with the key on. if that wire comes from the solynoid starter wire a
problem occures if the eng. starts right up the alternater does
not have voltage long enough to excite and
start charging. so it needs to come from a costant 12v source.
=09
hope that helps Mykal,Stratus.
-------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
I purchased the nifty J.C.Whitney 12V heater/defroster some time back. I
found that it takes 20 min to defrost the light skim of windshield frost that
we occasionally get here in Portland Or. If you think you want one, I'll
sell you mine, Cheap!. LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator- Use internal? |
VR-166 is a Standard "brand" regulator and comes in regular and premium
(higher quality parts) Standard is VR-166 and HQ is VR-166X.
For ford alternators on AMC 76-78, Fords 70-92, and Jeep 76-77.
If no local independent dealer has the STandard line and or cannot order for
you I suspect NAPA can cross it to their system if you say "Its a Standard
part number".
NOTE My NAPA book lists a VR 166 ( note the NAPA # does not have the "-" in
the part #) and that does not look like the right part.
Standard is a widely stocked Brand by independents
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Phillips" <ripsteel(at)edge.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltage Regulator- Use internal?
>
> Searching for a "generic" voltage regulator- is this thing equivalent to
> the "mythical" VR166?
>
> Search for VR301 at:
> http://www.partsamerica.com/default.asp?BypassRedirect=True
>
> ....or try this direct link, but it's a long one and may require the
> cut/paste routine:
>
>
http://www.partsamerica.com/PartDetails.asp?SourceArea=SHOP&SourcePage=SEARC
HRESULTS&QueryID=677841&QueryCounter=1&MfrCode=GPS&MfrPartNumber=VR301
>
> While hunting, it seems that none of the major suppliers in my area
> (Autozone, Advance Auto Parts, NAPA) have anything listed as "VR166" but
> there are a lot (such as above) that appear to be similar. Digging in
> the archives revealed some others such as the VR749 which Bob says
> should be fine.
>
> Then I ran across this from one of Bobs' replies:
> http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
>
> The listing there shows a bunch of the internal/replaceable regs
> installed inside the alternator- Has anyone used one of these
> successfully, and if so, how do you determine which terminal is sense &
> which is field? Any problems using them? They seem to offer a huge
> advantage is weight/space saving, and cost half or less than the bigger
> "boxes".
>
> Mark Phillips
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit |
| From: | Holger Stephan <holger(at)selover.net> |
Hi David,
I haven't even heard about the Mux Bus before (but this is also not my
professional field). Hey, they sent you in retirement and then just
changed all the acronyms without telling you!
The CAN bus (Controller Area Network) is used in noisy electrical
environment (i.e. vehicles) to connect several self-identifying nodes
with their attached sensors to a bus. There can be one or more data
processors (computers) getting the data from the bus.
I think it will make our solution more flexible as you can connect any
data collecting device to the computer, as long as it speaks CAN. In
addition it allows for a simpler redundancy and a more robust and fast
signal transfer.
You'll find more information if you google for "CAN bus", or here:
http://canopen.org/.
Holger
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 19:08, David Carter wrote:
I used to be an A-7 pilot and Avionics Officer, and also attended quarterly
F-16 software meetings in the 1980s.
Are you planning to use a "Mux Bus" (multiplexor bus) (like F-16) or hard
wire each sensor to the computer (like A-7)?
I've almost forgotten the two different types of Mux buses: Original F-16
mux bus had dedicated data lines from each sensor, hard wired into the mux
bus harness - hard to modify because it took a hardware mod/expansion for
each thing you later wanted to add.
The later, better, preferred, at that time, was called something else
(star? ring?) - you could add a new sensor which had its own mux interface
device without any other physical wiring harness mods - the new device
contained the "new" bus interface stuff. Essentially, it was a "software
bus" instead of a "hard wired bus".
What is a CAN bus?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Stephan" <holger(at)selover.net>
To:
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
> embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
> is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
> use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
> find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
> are also readily available.
>
> Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
> Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
> solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
> throw something together.
>
> Thanks
>
> Holger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tyco EV200 power relay needs no diode ? |
>
> That's right. The two wires that you hook up to are not the two ends of
the
> coil. There is a small printed circuit board on the side of the relay
doing
> some magic between the control wires, and the actual relay coil.
>
> Dave in Wichita
Dave,
Thanks
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring for
eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these devices
use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a connection
to ground, but what are the other two for?
Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are, including the
connectors?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Approach-Systems Avionics |
Vince,
I too have been doing this for years. The way I've gotten around the
warranty issue is to work under the supervision of an avionics shop. I draw
up all the schematics, and wire the stack. My avionics guy has the option of
checking my work out, but usually doesn't as he knows what I'm capable of
doing. He signs off all the warrantee cards, and I send them in......
This is why it's important to utilize your contacts in the avionics
areas. What other can do is go directly to an avionics shop and work out a
deal with them. The builder does all the documentation, wires the stack,
and, for a nominal fee, they check it out and send in the warranty cards. If
the builder can't perform the wiring choir, then contract the avionics shop
to just wire up the stack and send in the warranty cards. This usually meets
the radio manufactures mandate for an avionics shop made harness....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs of flying
Fred,
I agree with everything you have said in your posts on this subject.
But,
how do you handle the warranty issues? Garmin and others seem to
indicate
that the warranty is void if the harness is not made by an avionics
shop.
I have been designing and wiring process control instrumentation for
the
last twenty years and have no doubt that I can produce my own
harness, but
the warranty is a real concern.
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 10461 Setser |
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Dave Setser (setser(at)attbi.com) on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 at 05:31:52
>
>Wednesday, April 9, 2003
>
>Dave Setser
>
>,
>Email: setser(at)attbi.com
>Comments/Questions: Hi Bob,
>
>I've been following the AeroElectric thread for information on EMI/EMC and
>noise, specifically in relation to the noise-infested Strikefinder in my
>Piper. I was looking through the topics in your book, and noticed you
>have a section on EMC and noise.
>
>Might I find some information in your book on troubleshooting noise
>sources that could be affecting my Strikefinder? If so, I'll order a copy
>ASAP.
Hmmm . . . sorta. What kinds of problems are you having and
have you identified that antagonists?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>
>
>Agreed. But that does not alter my reply to his question as there is sort of
>an avionics master switch for the radios etc. After all, Ford etc does not
>want to get the rep of causing aftermarket electronics to fail simply
>because that equipment is "poorly designed".
Ford wouldn't put up with it. I've often suggested to
my compatriots at RAC that automotive stuff is better
designed and better tested than the things we put on
airplanes. After all, we do a recall on a starter generator
for a years production on a bizjet and we're dealing with
perhaps 20-30 customers and maybe 60 generators. A paltry
$million$ with mechanic's hours thrown in. If an alternator
manufacturer stubs their toe on an automotive product,
their exposure for the year can be say, $200/car for
a million cars . . .
> And who knows, perhaps today's
>aftermarket radios may be internally protected and there is no need for the
>aux buss in autos.
I bet that if we investigated the real reason for killing
the accessory bus on cars during cranking, we'll find that
it's to remove extra loads from the battery during cranking,
not to protect things tied to the accessory bus . . . Even
today, my accessory bus unhooks both a/c blowers . . . those
things draw 25-30A total when on hi . . a significant percentage
to total load when you need 150-200A for cranking.
>However, they ALL also have transient protection either built in or on the
>supply lines for designed in electronics that must be on all the time (as
>far as I have been able to tell). At least every electronic part since (or
>perhaps even before) the GM HEI Ign system was used has had effective
>transient protection.
>
>The real issue is what does one do on an aircraft with electrical equipment
>that is not designed to meet the latest requirements.
But EI claims their product exceeds all requirements
but is still vulnerable to undocumented but vicious
stresses from ordinary airplanes.
>I have avionics etc that were designed before the latest requirements and to
>suggest I not use them because the mfgr may have failed to follow the latest
>rules seems foolish to me. I feel one must recognize the real world of those
>who cannot afford the very latest and/or boycott those with less than
>perfect designs.
Latest? The meat of DO-160 testing has been in place for
over 20 years. Major changes incorporated in last revisions
deal more aggressively with RFI/EMI and lightning issues.
The basic "spike" resistance has been in place for two decades
or more.
I did a pitch trim controller for the Lears about 1979 that
got retrofitted to the fleet . . . lots of c-mos and discrete
devices in the 60v class. Rudimentary attention DO-160 produced
black boxes that run from the main bus and look right down
the "gun barrel" of starters with 1000+ amp inrush currents
and (if one is truly fearful of starters) are still drawing
something on the order of 600A when the contactors open.
Most of those systems are coming back for environmental
issues . . . corrosion. They reside inside the vertical fin.
All these systems got was whatever DO-160 asked us to
do back then. They've lived quite happily tied right
to the main bus for thousands of hours.
>Thus if E.I. suggests some "pampering" the decision to me is go along and
>"pamper it" or go elsewhere.
Why should we NOT make our displeasure known to the
supplier of any product wherein the application
or design is founded on bad physics or ignorance of
simple fixes recognized and enjoyed by the rest of
the industry? If you went to Burger King and the
sandwich came out something other than "your way",
would you not take it back to the counter for
remedial action?
>As long as I know what the mfgr requirements are and how to design to meet
>then I am happy. By adding a few transorbs to my design I have taken care of
>any potential damage from transients that may or may not exist that may or
>may not cause damage to equipment that may or may not meet the latest
>requirements.
>
>I simply add a transorb on the output of my CB to ground and forget it. That
>way downstream any equipment changes are protected and its very inexpensive.
The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
We're reluctant to stand up amid all that pomp
and circumstance and say, "I don't think so!" We
can buy very cheap insurance against pink elephants
too but the fact that the insurance is cheap doesn't
make it a good value.
A meeting in which I participated for the past four
days ended today . . . the supplier is facing about
$500,000 in lost revenue. We're trying to field an incoming
barrage of cabbages from irate customers and still
work out a best possible scenario for getting
good product to the field while keeping their airplanes
functioning. All this is happening for the very
silliest of reasons . . . failure to observe basic
engineering science not being familiar with the
environment in which the device had to work.
Will try to put the 'scope on that '65 pickup
this weekend . . . still stalking the elusive
starter induced spike. I feel like the first time
I did this I was standing out in the woods at night in my
Cub Scout uniform with a sack and a flashlight doing
my best to mimic the sounds of a lovesick snipe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator- Use internal? |
>
>Searching for a "generic" voltage regulator- is this thing equivalent to
>the "mythical" VR166?
>Search for VR301 at:
>http://www.partsamerica.com/default.asp?BypassRedirect=True
Hmmmm . . . got a bin full of "mythical" voltage regulators
in there. Here's a link that cross references a varity of
voltage regulators against the STANDARD VR166
http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
I note that the VR301 by GP is on that same line of
equivalent regulators.
>Then I ran across this from one of Bobs' replies:
>http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
Oh, yeah, you found that page . . . Keep in mind that this
page speaks to ALL of the voltage regulators offered
by Globemotorists. Just 'cause they SHOW an internal
regulator at the top of the page means that every regulator
on the page is internal.
Go out along the row that starts with VR166 and you will
have cross references for a number of parts that replace
the VR166 and ALL are external regulators like the VR301
cited above.
>The listing there shows a bunch of the internal/replaceable regs
>installed inside the alternator- Has anyone used one of these
>successfully, and if so, how do you determine which terminal is sense &
>which is field? Any problems using them? They seem to offer a huge
>advantage is weight/space saving, and cost half or less than the bigger
>"boxes".
$3.80 for the VR166 seems pretty reasonable . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring AH & DG |
>
>
>I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring
>for eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these
>devices use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a
>connection to ground, but what are the other two for?
>
>Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are,
>including the connectors?
>
>Thanks in advance.
If it's a DC powered gyro, only 2 pins are needed. If an AC
version, it probably needs 3. It's not uncommon for
a product to have more pins in the connector than are
needed. Extra pins are simply left unattached.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Please send in Panel Label Ideas |
RV7 Matronics List
As previously mentioned, Aircraft Spruce will modernize there label sheet - if
we send in all the ideas we want for labels for our homebuilt instrument panels.
"low voltage", Low oil, Low fuel pressue - for example - i have yet to see
them on any sheets?? thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
>a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
>
Tom,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
have liked for the past week.
Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
device into whatever brand they carry with the same
specifications.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit |
>
>Hi all,
>
>We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
>embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
>is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
>use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
>find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
>are also readily available.
There are a number of microcontrollers that included the
CAN-bus interface. We're using some TI parts and considered some
PIC and Motorola parts because of the CAN interface. I haven't
seen any board-level solutions for CAN. You'll probably have to
develop your own CAN interface using a microcontroller.
Take a look at the MC68HC11 and 16 parts from mot.
>Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
>Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
>solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
>throw something together.
I wrote the spec for and ADC that's currently used in the
AQM-37D rocket powered targets by Raytheon. The technique
used to achieve accuracy over the necessary range was to
bias up jelly-bean, silicon strain gage sensors with a
precision constant current source. Use a 16 bit a/d
in the differential mode to measure voltage across the
bridge (signal) and across the excitation points.
The temperature of the transducer can be deduced from
the excitation voltage measurement, perceived pressure
from the signal measurement. New assemblies were all
temperature cycle screened as a normal QA activity
for delivery. During screening, temperature dependency
of the individual sensor was characterized so that after
screening, a lookup table can be programmed into both
channels of the ADC to wash out effects of temperature.
This permitted very inexpensive transducers to perform
spectacularly. Bill of materials was about $100.
Bob . . .
>Thanks
>
>Holger
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> |
This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
scot
>
>
> >
> >I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
> >a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
> be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
> have liked for the past week.
>
> Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
>
> This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
> Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
> device into whatever brand they carry with the same
> specifications.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>
>
> >
> >
> >Agreed. But that does not alter my reply to his question as there is sort of
> >an avionics master switch for the radios etc. After all, Ford etc does not
> >want to get the rep of causing aftermarket electronics to fail simply
> >because that equipment is "poorly designed".
missed an important word in your response . . . "aftermarket"
Do you REALLY believe Ford or any other manufacturer
of high volume hard goods gives a rat's patootie about
aftermarket clones to their OEM efforts? I sure wouldn't
and I only ship a few hundred products a year. I figure
if someone wants to go toe-to-toe with me in my sandbox,
knowledge, skills and a willingness to play there are
irrevocable prerequisites.
The JC Whitney catalog is full of stuff that falls far
short of OEM specifications whether mechanical or electrical.
Some may be equal to or better. However, I can't see any manager
at GM thumbing through the catalog with concerns for tailoring
his product to accommodate what's offered . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob: I emailed Steve Smith at Aerosance and ask him about this brownout
situation. This is what he suggested. In a velocity Duel 17AH batteries in
the nose connected to seperate battery busses in the nose. From the battery
busses run two #10 wires one from each buss to the firewall buss which then
connects to the FADEC wire harness.(ignitions) My question to you is when
you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less that at the
battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire but is the voltage
low at the battery buss too in the nose where the # 10 wire is conected that
goes to the ignitions. In other words when starting the engine is the voltage
down on the entire system or just at the starter. If it was over the entire
system I fail to see how Steves sugesstion helps?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit |
It was probably me on the avionics list trying to build
a air data computer. I got a little way, I was using one
wire stuff (A/D, temprature) on a Tini computer. I wanted
+/- 1 ft accuracy, until I realized that I didn't need that
much, and settled for +/-10ft and then started messing with
display stuff. Oh boy :-).
I seriously wasted lots of time trying to get +/-1 ft
accuracy. I am thinking using the motorola pressure transducers
I can get 1ft resolution, using a 16bit A/D, but not accuracy.
The Tini is supposed to have a LCD library built in, but not
the hardware for it. I cobbled something together, and I
could blink some LEDs, but when I put a 6in cable to a 14
pin 2x20 LCD the silly processor locked up. I switched to
a serial 2x20 display, and that worked pretty well, but I
still needed something for input.
I bought a Zaurus, since it seems easy to write code for,
and was on sale for $200. Now I have wasted a bit of time
playing with that thing :-). I love it, don't know how I
got along without it. It is really easy to develop code
for. I havn't tried the serial IO yet, but if it is easy
as the graphics, I got a winner.
Those weasles that put up with the iPaq lockups ought to
dump that WinCE and get a real OS. The Zaurus only locked
up on me when I loaded a broken bit of code. There is even
an emulator I can run on my PC so I can find out if I have
a mess before I load the Zaurus with code.
Holger Stephan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
> embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
> is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
> use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
> find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
> are also readily available.
>
> Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
> Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
> solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
> throw something together.
>
> Thanks
>
> Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
>quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
>
>scot
did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >I simply add a transorb on the output of my CB to ground and forget it.
That
> >way downstream any equipment changes are protected and its very
inexpensive.
>
> The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
> still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
> of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
> far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
> Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
> acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
> they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
I think you misunderstand my position.
I add a transorb because I feel its GOOD engineering to protect against
potentially BAD engineering by some avionics out there. There is not always
an affordable GOOD product available and as many on this list have found
what was thought to be good may not be so good.
Perhaps E.I or RMI or ?? fails to meet the design requirements of GOOD
design in one or more ways, the best we all can do is know about it and
decide for ourselves if there is an better alternative.
There is more to my life than finding and "bitching" about poor designs. I
applaud your approach but by adding a $.50 part I can stop worrying about
the manufacturers ability to design to spec and risk a large repair bill.
We will never agree about the presence of absence of transients.
I have seen some transients first hand and let my personal experience drive
my conservative design. Perhaps its somewhat driven by the spacecraft
applications design experience where the designs stopped the noise at the
source and also stopped external noise from getting in. Redundent perhaps.
As for meeting -160 perhaps the intent was being tested for 20 years but I
have the maint manuals for some I have here that was designed less than 10
years ago that are very suspect as to transient protection (not to mention
with the "famous" warning not to have ON during starting).
I also have instrumentation that will NOT always work thru the lower voltage
during starting and have decided to use it as it has the unique features
that I want at a price I can afford. But so what, as I do not need it to be
on during starting and its not damaged by long term low V.
>A meeting in which I participated for the past four
> days ended today . . . the supplier is facing about
> $500,000 in lost revenue. We're trying to field an incoming
> barrage of cabbages from irate customers and still
> work out a best possible scenario for getting
> good product to the field while keeping their airplanes
> functioning. All this is happening for the very
> silliest of reasons . . . failure to observe basic
> engineering science not being familiar with the
> environment in which the device had to work.
Been there done that. Real sad but all too common.
Paul
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
You've kind of answered your own question, I think...
You said:
"when you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less
that at the battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire"
Well, the naswer to your question is in there -
If the #10 wire connects at the battery end, it will be at the same
voltage as the battery (typically 11-12 volts)
If the #10 wire connects at the starter end, it will be at the same
voltage as the starter (typically 9-11 volts)
But, are you really wiring it that way? Is the #10 always hot? On my
Velocity I am putting my battery bus up front next to the battery, and
then running each item off the battery bus through a switch and circuit
protector, back to the item in question. Why do you have a firewall
battery bus? If the only thing you have on the battery bus in the engine
compartment are the two electronic ignitions, why not just run them
forward to their switches and circuit protection, and then to the
battery busses in the nose?
Or am I misinterpreting your layout?
-John R.
(P.S.: I've heard of a dual-battery setup where one battery is in the
nose, the other is on the firewall... that way you can have a firewall
battery bus next to that battery, get max voltage isolated from the
starter, and don't need a fusible link on it either. That may be what I
do when I go all-electric eventually... Except I'll probably hook up the
starter only to the battery on the firewall (for max volts to the
starter), and still keep the battery bus in the nose - the light current
requirement of even two electronic ignitions shouldn't be a problem, as
long as the nose battery is isolated from the starter battery)
TimRhod(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Bob: I emailed Steve Smith at Aerosance and ask him about this brownout
>situation. This is what he suggested. In a velocity Duel 17AH batteries in
>the nose connected to seperate battery busses in the nose. From the battery
>busses run two #10 wires one from each buss to the firewall buss which then
>connects to the FADEC wire harness.(ignitions) My question to you is when
>you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less that at the
>battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire but is the voltage
>low at the battery buss too in the nose where the # 10 wire is conected that
>goes to the ignitions. In other words when starting the engine is the voltage
>down on the entire system or just at the starter. If it was over the entire
>system I fail to see how Steves sugesstion helps?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> |
Thanks Bob. google is usually one of my first choices for such
searches. Just slipped my mind this time.
thanks again,
scot
>
>
> >
> >
> >This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
> >quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
> >
> >scot
>
> did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
John:
My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | RGbattery/ Froogle |
Have you tried Froogle? It's very cool, go to www.froogle.com put in the
item or part number of what ever it is you are looking for, and get the
competitive prices listed on on page!
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scot
Stambaugh
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery
Thanks Bob. google is usually one of my first choices for such
searches. Just slipped my mind this time.
thanks again,
scot
>
>
> >
> >
> >This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
> >quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
> >
> >scot
>
> did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
This looks like a lead-acid battery, Bob. I thought you favoured RG batteries.
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_VRLA_LC-RD1217P_AP.pdf
Neil
At 09:34 AM 4/11/03, you wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
> >a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
> be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
> have liked for the past week.
>
> Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
>
> This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
> Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
> device into whatever brand they carry with the same
> specifications.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Power Sources -- clarify please... |
I have spent many hours searching the archives for a simple answer to my
seemingly simple question, but the plethora of conflicting information seems
to suggest that neither the question nor the answer is very simple.
In planning a system with dual electronic ignitions, which is the better
option from among these choices: two alternators with one battery, or one
alternator with two batteries?
Bob has suggested in some messages that modern RG batteries do not fail and
that a system with one battery and two alternators (similar to figure Z-13)
is perfectly acceptable for dual electronic ignitions.
However, in other messages, he goes further to say something like, "You might
want to consider adding a second battery to support the second electronic
ignition." This leads me to believe that a Z-13 system isn't adequate for
dual electronic ignitions.
Furthermore, in the Aeroelectric Connetion book, the following statements
appear to conflict with each other:
Page 17-11: "The only reason to install two batteries is for the purpose of
supplying independent power sources to each half of a dual ignition
system..."
Page 17-11: "Last, antiquated concerns for a battery 'failure' dragging down
the rest of the system are simply not founded in the physics of modern
battery construction....drives the probability of gross battery failure to
zero."
Page 17-13: "The compelling reason for upgrading to dual batteries is when
both magnetos have been replaced with electronic ignition systems. If you
don't plan to have a vacuum system and want dual electronic ignition, then
putting an auxiliary alternator on the vacuum pad makes the most sense and
you can stay with a single battery."
On the other hand, every schematic in Appendix Z that illustrates dual
electronic ignitions has dual batteries.
Most of the people who post to this list seem to be going the dual-battery
route with dual electronic ignitions, and I've read all their reasons why.
For a day/night VFR (with the possibility for occasional light IFR in the
future) airplane, it really seems like overkill to me, though.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but what's the real deal? Reading the
archives just leaves me with more questions.
-Geoff
http://tax.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
Tim,
There is a certain amount of resistance internal to the battery; any
voltage drop across that internal resistance will show up everywhere
outside the battery (typically 5 milliohms or so); as an example, 200
amps through 5 milliohms will give a 1-volt drop, resulting in 11.6
volts at the battery terminal. That part is simply unavoidable. At the
master contactor, it will go through another lug connection, and so you
could lose a few more tenths of a volt there; The starter current has to
go through that contactor and then the starter contactor and about 15 ft
of cable (and a couple more lug connections), so iit will see even more
of a drop, but hopefully not more than another volt or two.
But, you'll never see that at the battery end, because your battery bus
does not go through any contactor or the long fat wire... if possible,
it would be best to run the battery bus source wire to the battery
terminal itself, although a lot of people tack it on to the batt
terminal of the master contactor - it's one extra lug contact to go
through (Bob mentioned what the average reisstance might be of a lug
connection, but I don't recall the number) which might drop a few more
tenths of a volt and is one more thing to fail; but not an unreasonable
point to attach the battery bus if it's not practical to go to the
battery terminal itself, on the battery.
-John
TimRhod(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>John:
>My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
>I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
>harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
>drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
>of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
>down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>This looks like a lead-acid battery, Bob. I thought you favoured RG batteries.
>http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_VRLA_LC-RD1217P_AP.pdf
>
>Neil
Neil -
It is a lead-acid battery.
It is also an RG battery.
Same chemistry as of old but newer technology. The RG (recombinant
gas)means the oxy and hydrogen recombine so you don't have to add
water and therefore no filler caps(I believe that's correct). If you
enlarge the photo in the pdf file you won't see any filler caps.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
TimRhod(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>John:
>My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
>I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
>harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
>drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
>of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
>down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
>
I haven't followed this thread closely, but to answer your last
question, *no*.
You can demonstrate this for yourself with a voltmeter. Simply apply the
voltmeter leads directly to the + & - terminals of the battery itself &
crank the engine with the starter. The battery voltage will sag to
somewhere between 7 & 10 volts depending on the type & condition of the
battery.
If your starter wires are undersized or you have high-resistance
connections in the system then you can see this as well by leaving the -
lead on the battery's - terminal (not the terminal connected to it, but
the post itself) and apply the + lead to various points in the starting
circuit & cranking the engine. You will see lower voltages as you move
the + lead further away from the battery's + terminal, until you get to
the 'load', or the starter itself. If you have high resistances in the
return path from the starter to the - terminal on the battery, you can
see this as you move the meter's + lead to various points on the
'ground' side of the starter. These will show themselves as non-zero
voltage measurements.
This is a very effective way to troubleshoot starting problems. If the
voltage measured across the battery terminals remains at or very near 12
volts when engine start is attempted, there are cable or connection
problems in the system.
All this doesn't help you keep your FADEC power supply voltage from
sagging during start, does it? ;-) Connecting the FADEC wires directly
to the battery terminals will avoid the voltage drop through poor
starter circuit connections, but won't cure the sag in battery voltage
during start.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
Charlie: thanks for the info I thought it was as you described but was
confused by another email. Tim Velocity XLRG cont FADEC engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
Geoff: I have read Bobs aero conection several times and also attended his
course. The way I see it is there are a number of great choices all of which
are far superior to any spam can electrical system out there. I dont think
you can go wrong with any of the systems you mentioned. For me Im using duel
alt, duel batteries 17AH RG these are small enough to take the place of one
large battery. For me the cost isnt that much more than other systems and it
gives the greatest redundancy. Since Im flying with duel electronic ign and
all electric panel there is never too much redundancy.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
That's exactly right - I've been involved in the car end of things for a
long time and as far as I know the "accessory" function of the ignition
switch started with the first tube radios (before my time). Listening to
the radio with the ignition switch on would impose an additional
approximately 2 amps draw because of the ignition system. Solution was to
add the accessory function to the ignition switch to avoid having to walk
home from "Inspiration Point." The ignition switch is a simple
sliding-contact switch so it was easy to shut off the accessories during
crank, leaving only the ignition running. The only incentive was to reduce
the battery load during cranking. These days there isn't much advantage to
the accessory position because the engine ECU doesn't draw much load when
left on with the engine not running. On a lot of cars the high-current
accessories are electronically controlled and would be off during cranking
anyway. Protecting electronics during cranking was never a consideration as
far as I know. Voltage transients from the ignition coil turn-off (5+
amps), alternator switching transients, blower motor commutation, etc, etc,
are far more troublesome than anything that happens during cranking. The
worst is probably the diode switching transients of high-current
alternators.
Oh, and for adding Transorbs at the breaker position. I submit that it
would be much more effective to put them right at the end user. Reason is
that the Transorb, or any other shunting protection device, needs an
"upstream" resistance to work against or it will have to protect the whole
system, which it probably can't. Putting it at the radio end of the wire
allows it to use the resistance of the wire as it's lever. Of course, the
device in question almost certainly has the same supply voltage transient
protection internally, so the externally mounted Transorb is probably
redundant.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RGbattery/ Froogle |
>
>
>Have you tried Froogle? It's very cool, go to www.froogle.com put in the
>item or part number of what ever it is you are looking for, and get the
>competitive prices listed on on page!
>
>Sam
Interesting site. Thanks for the heads up . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
>
>
>I have spent many hours searching the archives for a simple answer to my
>seemingly simple question, but the plethora of conflicting information seems
>to suggest that neither the question nor the answer is very simple.
>
>In planning a system with dual electronic ignitions, which is the better
>option from among these choices: two alternators with one battery, or one
>alternator with two batteries?
How do you want to use your airplane, what features do you
propose to install and what is your budget? There are a lot
of choices, each with some
>Bob has suggested in some messages that modern RG batteries do not fail and
>that a system with one battery and two alternators (similar to figure Z-13)
>is perfectly acceptable for dual electronic ignitions.
>
>However, in other messages, he goes further to say something like, "You might
>want to consider adding a second battery to support the second electronic
>ignition." This leads me to believe that a Z-13 system isn't adequate for
>dual electronic ignitions.
Depends on what you choose to worry about. A PROPERLY MAINTAINED
RG battery is the single most reliable power source you can put
in your airplane. Could you run dual electronic ignition systems
from their own fuses on a single battery bus? Sure.
Now, what about alternator-out operations. With one alternator
and a DESIGN REQUIREMENT that you can exhaust fuel before your
battery(ies) run down may suggest some variations on the theme.
An AUX battery more than a year old and less than two years
old running ONE ignition system says that in the extreme case
of running the main battery flat with e-bus loads, the engine
keeps running. Alternatively, if you're in a position to
get shed of vacuum operated accessories and the pump that
drives them, then a second alternator on the vacated vacuum
pump pad is a no-brainer decision.
>Furthermore, in the Aeroelectric Connetion book, the following statements
>appear to conflict with each other:
>
>Page 17-11: "The only reason to install two batteries is for the purpose of
>supplying independent power sources to each half of a dual ignition
>system..."
As cited above . . .
>Page 17-11: "Last, antiquated concerns for a battery 'failure' dragging down
>the rest of the system are simply not founded in the physics of modern
>battery construction....drives the probability of gross battery failure to
>zero."
Don't see the conflict here. This is a simple statement
that argues with a long standing myth that a flat battery
will kill a fully charged battery if you connect them in
parallel. The only kind of battery failure that so affects
the good battery is a shorted cell . . . a well maintained
flooded battery doesn't short 'cause you replaced it before
it got so bad, an RG battery doesn't short because of the
way it is constructed -AND- because you've taken it off
the airplane long before it's performance becomes doubtful.
>Page 17-13: "The compelling reason for upgrading to dual batteries is when
>both magnetos have been replaced with electronic ignition systems. If you
>don't plan to have a vacuum system and want dual electronic ignition, then
>putting an auxiliary alternator on the vacuum pad makes the most sense and
>you can stay with a single battery."
Yup . . . the notion here is that three separate power sources will
get you through about any kind of failure you might expect
on a single flight. All-Electric-on-a-Budget is VERY attractive
to me for a number of reasons . . . the second alternator weighs
less than the second battery would. The second alternator has a service
life equal to that of the engine/airframe. The second alternator
has more CAPACITY than any battery you would ever want to carry
around in your airplane. 10A for 4 hours is 40 a.h. . . . that's
one BIG MOMMA battery. Second alternator's maintenance requirements
are so low as to make it $free$ in about 5 years.
>On the other hand, every schematic in Appendix Z that illustrates dual
>electronic ignitions has dual batteries.
>
>Most of the people who post to this list seem to be going the dual-battery
>route with dual electronic ignitions, and I've read all their reasons why.
>For a day/night VFR (with the possibility for occasional light IFR in the
>future) airplane, it really seems like overkill to me, though.
???? If you have one alternator and truly independent systems
upon which the engine depends for operation, then Figure Z-11
with a second battery is compelling. It's a simple addition to
an already robust architecture (because of the e-bus) that
makes sure you have independent power to ONE of the ignition
systems that will be available no matter how you load the e-bus.
The battery-a-year swap-around is a relatively low cost
power availability insurance.
What variation on this theme would mitigate your perception
of overkill? One alternator and one battery makes you
entirely responsible for (1) KNOWING what the battery capacity
is, (2) setting your e-bus loads to insure the goal of
making it to airport of intended destination battery-only
with some head-room for stored energy and/or (3) joining the
ranks of our spam-can flying brothers who have to frantically
search the map for nearest safe-haven when their alternator
craps . . . mentally kicking themselves in the butt all the way
down for not paying more attention to battery maintenance.
>I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but what's the real deal? Reading the
>archives just leaves me with more questions.
Ask away . . . if you don't understand what's being
described, that's my fault not yours. What are your plans for
operating and outfitting your project and what alternatives
to Appendix-Z suggestions do you find appealing and why?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
> > The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
> > still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
> > of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
> > far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
> > Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
> > acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
> > they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
>
>I think you misunderstand my position.
>
>I add a transorb because I feel its GOOD engineering to protect against
>potentially BAD engineering by some avionics out there. There is not always
>an affordable GOOD product available and as many on this list have found
>what was thought to be good may not be so good.
??? If I were to design a bracket to hold some product
in an airplane, I take known stress limits and design with
material thickness and the right number of rivets to
compliment material strength. Any more rivets or any
heavier material for the sake of adding comfort would
not sell well with my boss . . .
>Perhaps E.I or RMI or ?? fails to meet the design requirements of GOOD
>design in one or more ways, the best we all can do is know about it and
>decide for ourselves if there is an better alternative.
. . . indeed any manufacturer can fall short in a whole
lot of ways other than spike protection . . . and indeed they
do. Most of my wrestling matches with suppliers over the past
20 years had nothing to do with spike protection . . .
>There is more to my life than finding and "bitching" about poor designs. I
>applaud your approach but by adding a $.50 part I can stop worrying about
>the manufacturers ability to design to spec and risk a large repair bill.
Bitching???? I'm mystified. If E.I. or any other supplier
to the industry has shortcomings that are easily identified
and easily rectified, bringing this to their attention
and expressing your displeasure is "bitching" . . .
Suppose I went to city hall and explained that if the
"walk" signs at some intersection were illuminating
while the protected left-turn arrows were still on
for parallel traffic and people were stepping into
hazardous space . . . would that be "bitching"?
If someone says "water freezes at 40F" and you take
the time to point out a fundamental error in physics,
is that "bitching"?
>We will never agree about the presence of absence of transients.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. All I
have ever asked of any other engineer is to tell me
what is the source of the offending spike, what is it's
size, shape and energy content and what mode of
propagation gets it from source to victim with enough
energy to damage to anything.
>I have seen some transients first hand and let my personal experience drive
>my conservative design. Perhaps its somewhat driven by the spacecraft
>applications design experience where the designs stopped the noise at the
>source and also stopped external noise from getting in. Redundent perhaps.
I have seen some transients first hand too . . . in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf I
went to the workbench and described some gawd-awful
spikes from contactor coils and went through the
physics that described their effects and effective
ways of dealing with them. I this case it turns
out that the 300 volt plus spike is 99.9% used up
in burning up the battery master switch and does
not propagate out onto the system in any magnitude
that suggests a hazard to other systems. None-the-less,
a diode across the coil let's the master switch
breathe easier.
There are indeed a multitude of devices in any
system capable of generating transients and if you
just look at the numbers for the unbounded event
as in the article cited above, they can scare
the pants of any neophyte designer. But when one
studies propagation limits and discovers
rudimentary mitigation techniques both for ability
to limit antagonists and ability to withstand for
victims, it's not that big a deal after all.
>As for meeting -160 perhaps the intent was being tested for 20 years but I
>have the maint manuals for some I have here that was designed less than 10
>years ago that are very suspect as to transient protection (not to mention
>with the "famous" warning not to have ON during starting).
The cornerstone of good science is the repeatable
experiment. Every year, I write up test plans, gather
equipment, conduct the test, compile the results and
then draw conclusions based on those results. Anyone
with an interest or need to take advantage of those
conclusions is welcome to critique the test setup,
re-analyze the results, or even go to his own lab
and repeat the experiment in its entirety.
If I've done good work, others will be able to
apply the results of my effort to their advantage
comfortable with the notion that the conclusions
are sound.
All I expect from anyone who has a opinion to offer
is to describe the repeatable experiment in a way
that I can intuitively and logically accept the
opinion or go to the lab or field and confirm it
for myself.
When I read admonitions in installation manuals
about the perils-of-starters, I am seriously
interested in talking to the engineer who signed
off on that manual. In EVERY case (and there have
been about a half dozen over the years) where
I've been able to contact the responsible engineer, he
admitted that the statement was included more out
of reverence for tradition than from any design
consideration in his product. As you no doubt have
noted, we're still waiting to hear from our friends
at E.I.
I've yet to receive the details on any repeatable
experiment that justifies the avionics master switch
-or- the need adding protection over and above
that which comes built into the product as delivered.
>I also have instrumentation that will NOT always work thru the lower voltage
>during starting and have decided to use it as it has the unique features
>that I want at a price I can afford. But so what, as I do not need it to be
>on during starting and its not damaged by long term low V.
LV is another issue but it's covered by DO-160
too. As always, I'm not trying to convince you
of anything. In the role of teacher, I must be
convinced of the simple-ideas I offer are either
good or bad based on the repeatable experiment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal Dillman <neald(at)glyph.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring AH & DG |
Bill,
On many electric AIs and DGs pin A and B are power and ground for the
gyro, while pin C and D are for internal lighting. This is the case for
most of the units in the AIM/JET/BFG series.
Regards,
Neal
William Bernard wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring for
eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these devices
use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a connection
to ground, but what are the other two for?
>
> Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are, including the
connectors?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect
> Hi Bob,
> I'm a little unsure now if my wiring diagram violates what is discussed
> below? I'm using diagram Z-11 modified to include dual electronic
ignition,
> fuel injection pump, and dual batterys located in the rear.
> The main battery bus has a hi-pressure pump (7A) and one electronic
ignition
> (15A) and the aux battery bus has the other electronic ignition (15A).
All
> three have toggle switches up front on the panel. Do these switches meet
> your requirement of "pilot controlled disconnect in close proximity" or
do
> they need the relays shown in that hand drawn sketch at the website?
>
>
> Also, my essential bus has 2 X 7A and 3 X 3A, all with switches (either
> external or internal). Do I need some sort of solid state relays here
> also. I'm just not sure what is meant by milliamp budgets, etc? I guess
I
> need a diagram.
>
> Thanks, Rick Fogerson
> RV-3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect
>
>
> > > . . . a 7A protected lead gets a local disconnect
> > relay for the e-bus alternate feed that's burdened
> > with big transmitter and/or perhaps gyros. This could
> > be a 10A feeder. The point is that long, always hot
> > wires protected at over 5A need pilot controlled
> > disconnect in close proximity to the bus.
> >
> > . . . if you're fuel injected and need a hi-pressure
> > squirter fused at 10A, it gets a relay too.
> >
> > >
> > This is what I'd have to do to sell this or a
> > similar system to the FAA . . . it has to do
> > with crash safety. Always hot wires from the
> > battery are either pilot controllable or
> > limited to 5A or less. I've seen them allow
> > breakers but fuses are MUCH faster and offer
> > even greater safety.
> >
> > We've got a lot of builders who have built
> > some pretty hefty e-busses . . . with bigger
> > than 5A feeders for the alternate feed path.
> > If it were my airplane, I'd use the local
> > disconnect relay as shown for a budget of
> > about 100 mA to keep the relay closed. Or
> > better yet, a solid state relay with a 10 mA
> > budget.
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org> |
| Subject: | List of current consumption figures |
I seem to remember someone asking about the amount of current consumed by
various bits of equipment.
I've just stumbled upon this page:
http://aircraftexpense.com/eloadindex.htm
which contains a *very* comprehensive list of aeroplane equipment and its
current consumption.
Hope this helps.
Nev
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
Thanks for the reply, Bob.
>>
Ask away . . . if you don't understand what's being described, that's my
fault not yours. What are your plans for operating and outfitting your
project and what alternatives to Appendix-Z suggestions do you find appealing
and why?
<<
I think I understand what's being described, but I guess what I am really
looking for is a response that removes some of the variables that many of the
other messages on the topic seem to have.. Things like radios, EFIS, and
other electrical stuff that isn't strictly related to power source options
for dual electronic ignitions.
Specifically what I'm looking for is a compare/contrast of the actual
real-life reliability of dual electronic ignitions using either of these two
basic systems:
A) One 17ah RG battery, one B&C main alternator, and one B&C SD-8 alternator
on the vacuum pad.
B) Two batteries (don't necessarily have to be the same size) and one B&C
main alternator.
I really like your "all-electric airplane on a budget" schematic, and I agree
with your information about the failure of a modern, well-maintained RG
battery being equal to the probability of a wing falling off. I'd much rather
have two alternators and replace my single battery every couple of years (or
whenever it's necessary) than have only one alternator.
I guess the thing that confused me the most is that in some messages you say
that the "all-electric airplane on a budget" is more than adequate for dual
electronic ignitions, but in other messages you say that a second battery
would be a good thing to have. I'm not sure whether or not you were implying
a second battery *in addition to* the SD-8 alternator, or in place of it.
Obviously adding a second battery in addition to the SD-8 might increase
reliability even more, but is it really necessary? What kind of reliability
increase are we talking about?
Removing the airplane's other electrical doodads from the equation and
considering only the power sources for dual electronic ignitions, if the
reliability analysis of choice (A) above is equal to or better than choice
(B), then it seems to me that the only reason people would go with choice (B)
is because it makes them feel better to have two batteries. That's fine, and
I certainly wouldn't be critical of anyone for going that route. However,
given these two choices, I'd much rather put system (A) in my airplane if it
really is equal or better than system (B) from an actual reliability and
operational point of view.
Bottom line: Would you have any hesitation getting in an airplane with dual
electronic ignitions fed from the hot battery bus of a system like Z-13
(all-electric airplane on a budget)?
I'm trying not to throw other variables into this equation, but you asked
about my planned use of the airplane... I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by
the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR
certification sometime down the road a ways. I'm planning no vacuum system, a
Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite, a VM-1000 engine monitor, a GPS/Comm, and a couple
of backup pitot-static instruments. I'm having the engine built up by
AeroSport Power, so equiping it with dual electronic ignitions seems to make
more sense than having them bolt a magneto on it.
Thanks again for your help and advice. We all REALLY appreciate the time and
effort you put in here.
-Geoff
P.S. My high-dollar B&C order will definitely be forthcoming when I reach
that stage of my project.
http://tax.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltage drop at battery |
I did an experiment today to determine the voltage drop at the battery during
cranking. Here are the results. On a chrysler mini van voltage before
cranking was 12V. During Cranking 11V On My Grumman Tiger with a skytec
starter. Battery before cranking 11V During cranking 9V.
The Tiger had not been started for several weeks and the battery is several
years old. That explains the low voltage to start with. So my conclusion
is that the voltage definitely drops at the battery during cranking. Whether
it drops below the 9.5V needed for the FADEC to work depends on the initial
condition of the battery. Since the Tiger is more of a real world situation
for my frequency of flying I think I need to have some other way to insure
power to my FADEC ignition. Comments?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
Charlie I like your idea of a small RG battery past a diode to keep FADEC
voltage up. it could even be mounted on the firewall of the velocity to keep
it close to the FADEC ign.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
Due to some very complex changes in my life, I'm selling my radio stack.
(not stopping the project, just putting it on hold for a few months.)
These are all absolutely new, never unpacked with the full factory
warrantee, well below dealer cost, less than 6 months old. I prefer to
sell the whole stack but will part it out if need be. The GX-60 and MX-20
get a new database free when you register the warranty.
GX-60 $3650 (list $5195)
SL-30 $2925 (list $4155)
MX-20 $5100 (list $7295)
Microair
Transponder $1250 (list $1391) (just replaced with a new unit with
all the
post SN-600 updates)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
Richard I would be interested interested in the SL30. I already have a quote
of $3000 brand new and yours already has six months of the warrantee gone. I
read thier warrentee on thier web sight and there may not even be a warrentee
for a secondary sale. I could offer $2650. If you would be interested you
can email me back. Timrhod(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gianni Zuliani" <gianni.zuliani(at)bluewin.ch> |
| Subject: | Ammeter connection |
This may be an already beaten subject, but I'm now to decide how to connect my
ammeter on my single bat, single alt system. I'm wondering which is its best use:
a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
b. to read system's total load?
c. to read alternator's output?
I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production models,
but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in configuration c.
And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you have to track a single
user's malfunction.
Any comment? Thanks.
Gianni Zuliani
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect |
Hi,
Bob wrote:
> > > This is what I'd have to do to sell this or a
> > > similar system to the FAA . . . it has to do
> > > with crash safety. Always hot wires from the
> > > battery are either pilot controllable or
> > > limited to 5A or less.
I presume this comes from FAR 23.1361. It seems that loads essential to
continued operation of the engine may be in addition to this 5 amp limit but
I suppose this would only be relevant if the battery were firewall forward?
However it does appear that an e bus essential feed, if not controlled by a
relay, would be limited by this rule to a 5 amp fuse near the battery. If
the rule were written with a 28V system in mind, then perhaps (in spark
energy terms) you could argue that a 7 amp fuse would be at least as safe in
a 12V system?
Nevertheless, the 20 AWG fuse link as shown in Z1 would (presumably) not
meet the requirement? I think I can limit my e bus needs to less than 5 amps
and thus protect the alternate feed wire with a 5 amp in line fuse. Circuits
coming off the e bus would be protected by their own fuses in the e bus fuse
block, but it is hard to come by blade fuses less than 3 amps.
My question is, if I get a ground fault in one of the e bus circuits when
the alternate feed is in use, could I be sure the 3 amp fuse in the fuse
block would blow before the 5 amp fuse in the feed line, thus leaving other
e bus services operational?
Piers
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter connection |
I'm wondering which is its best use:
> a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
> b. to read system's total load?
> c. to read alternator's output?
> I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production
models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in
configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you
have to track a single user's malfunction.
I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses
you get.
I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most
ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with
0 in the center.
For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale.
With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that
feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter
current (which you don't want).
Piers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories |
HI all,
I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane,
Sat phone
CDMA phone
Hand held radio
Minidisk player
Handheld GPS
Ipaq
And a few others,
I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist
in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to
most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them
into the normal wall transformer at home).
Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline
connectors)
Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus
(original lead with panel mount connector)
Thanks Ian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Small Battery Solutions |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: TimRhod(at)aol.com on FADEC
BRownout
<>
4/13/2003
Hello Tim, You have some precedence for this concept in the certificated
airplane community. Back when Diamond Aircraft and Teledyne Continental
Motors were still struggling for years with difficult engine starting
problems with the TCM IO-240 B3B engine in the DA20-C2 Katana airplane they
switched magnetos.
They went from two impulse coupled magnetos to one direct drive magneto and
one retard breaker magneto. The retard breaker magneto of course required a
starting vibrator ("shower of sparks"). That really didn't solve the starting
problem so they came to the conclusion that the starting vibrator was not
getting high enough voltage during cranking so they kluged up the
installation of a small, and I do mean small, computer battery to separately
feed the starting vibrator.
The airplane starts great now, but my personal conclusion is that the
starting problems were really caused by lack of priming fuel caused by
improperly designed cylinder induction port drain connectors. Once that
design flaw was corrected the starting problem was solved.
I guess the moral of the story is "Be sure what the cause of the problem is
before you start changing things to solve it".
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR Certification of ABEA |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Geoff Evans
<<.....skip......I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by the way) for day/night
VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR certification sometime down the
road a ways.....skip......Geoff>>
4/13/2003
Hello Geoff, It always puzzles and concerns me when people building an ABEA
(Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) that presumably already has an
altimeter, a transponder, and an encoder talk about equipping it for "IFR
certification". Who is going to certify what? What is the process of
certification? What does the certificate say?
The Operating Limitations for your specific aircraft should have some words
in it that read something like "After completion of Phase I flight testing,
unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instument flight in accordance
with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
That means that once your aircraft is "appropriately equipped" and you have
the transponder, encoder, and altimeter inspections required for IFR
operations (and repeated every two years) you are good to go -- no "IFR
certification" regarding the avionics equipment installed is involved**. The
EAA has some writings on this subject (Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR
Operations) that will further elaborate. You can probably obtain a copy from
Charlie Becker <>.
I would appreciate a response to the above from you to the entire list just
in case there are any unresolved questions / issues. Many thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
**PS: I should note that having these inspections done and entered into the
aircraft maintenance records is frequently referred to as an "IFR cert" , but
these inspections deal with the performance of these three items. See FAR
91.411 and 91.413.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
The full warrantee applies, I'm an OEM with them. I'm really looking to
sell the whole stack.
>
>Richard I would be interested interested in the SL30. I already have a quote
>of $3000 brand new and yours already has six months of the warrantee gone. I
>read thier warrentee on thier web sight and there may not even be a warrentee
>for a secondary sale. I could offer $2650. If you would be interested you
>can email me back. Timrhod(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Power sources - please clarify |
Bob,
Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and
your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand
Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you
were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are
more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine
failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than
an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery
nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the
failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate.
Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting
as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally
means the loss of one over an interval.
The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
engine.............
Your thoughts?
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples
analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance. This
would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive
penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some
time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde?
I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A so
I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will
just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range
so weight is not a big issue with me.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Power sources - please clarify |
Ferg,
Seems to me that, if you lose your only engine, endurance of the
electrical system is moot. You'll be landing long before you can drain
your battery or batteries. If you can't install a second alternator, and
you've got dual electronic ignitions, a second battery sounds like a
good idea to me.
I think that Geoff's choice, (and mine as well) is whether or not two
batteries are needed solely to support dual electronic ignitions. I'm
leaning toward dual alternators and one battery. I'd probably separate
the ignition feeds - one at the battery terminal and one at the battery
bus just for kicks. It wouldn't be too difficult to add a small battery
for ignition support, if I start feeling uneasy about it.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
RV-6 qb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 8:09 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify
>
>
> Bob,
> Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery
choices
> and
> your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
> It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On
one
> hand
> Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and
you
> were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries
are
> more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an
engine
> failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly
> than
> an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a
> battery
> nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
> immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see
the
> failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly
immediate.
> Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine
quitting
> as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure
generally
> means the loss of one over an interval.
> The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
> engine.............
> Your thoughts?
> Ferg
> Europa A064
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book
>examples analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal
>resistance. This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps
>which seems an excessive penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've
>been wondering for some time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm
>figure in the book. The Concorde? I'm putting my battery behind the aft
>baggage compartment of my RV8A so I'm concerned with electrical
>efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will just shift my center of
>gravity back to the center of the acceptable range so weight is not a big
>issue with me.
I think that 12 mohm is an end-of-service-life max. New batteries I've
tested run 5-7 mohms with a 600A load. I have several RV-8 builders
flying the 17 a.h. Panasonic or clones behind the seat.
4 mhoms is typical of a larger battery (24 to 32 a.h.) when new.
However, if you NEED ballast, then make is USEFUL ballast. I went out to
look at a Long-Ez at OSH a few years ago. The builder had an itty-
bitty flooded motor cycle battery up front with about 20# of lead
shot packed around it.
We sold him a new Sonnenschein battery at the show.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | plug/socket convention |
This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
figure I'll follow it.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (finish)
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plug/socket convention |
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
>convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
>i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
>on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
>figure I'll follow it.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D (finish)
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
Sensible question.
Convention (except for low current DC applications like things using
'wall wart' transformers) is to make the power source the protected
terminal. This is typically the 'female' connector. Think about devices
using house current. the plug with exposed terminals has no energy on
its terminals until it is inserted into the protected terminals of the
wall outlet.
If you decide to use concentric barrel type connectors (wall wart
connectors), use the outer, exposed barrel as the negative or ground.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty
heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it
worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group
75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys.
-John R.
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples
analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance.
This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive
penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some
time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde?
I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A
so I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds
will just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range
so weight is not a big issue with me.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter connection |
>
>
>I'm wondering which is its best use:
> > a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
> > b. to read system's total load?
> > c. to read alternator's output?
How do any of these features differ from each other
that makes one preferable over the other?
> > I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production
>models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in
>configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you
>have to track a single user's malfunction.
>
>I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses
>you get.
>
>I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most
>ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with
>0 in the center.
>
>For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale.
>
>With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that
>feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter
>current (which you don't want).
Ammeters and voltmeters of all varieties are TROUBLESHOOTING
aids. 99.9% of the times you look at any of them, they
tell you exactly what they said last time you looked . . .
the system is operating normally. I.e., information gained
is not useful for getting from point A to point B.
An ammeter or voltmeter of ANY style can help you figure
out what's going on when things are NOT working, but since
you're only supposed to do this on the ground with your
toolbox out, then there are lots of options for the application
of additional test equipment to help figure out and fix root cause.
It's not that the battery ammeter is any more or less
useful. Forsaking the traditional battery ammeter allows your
alternator to drive the system from the starter contactor
out on the firewall instead of coming inside to the bus.
I don't show it on drawings (and will eliminate it from
the next revision to instrumentation chapter) because
the battery ammeter drives system architecture in
undesirable ways.
If you're intent on having good OPERATIONAL instrumentation,
the low voltage warning light is about all you need. If the
light is out, things are okay and you don't have to keep
looking at it to confirm something that's true most of the
time. When the light comes on, it's time to go to plan-b
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY REASON why the light may be on. Therefore,
I suggest that voltmeters and ammeters are good things to
plug holes in the instrument panel but are of little
interest to you as a pilot.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Herding Spikes . . . |
>Oh, and for adding Transorbs at the breaker position. I submit that it
>would be much more effective to put them right at the end user. Reason is
>that the Transorb, or any other shunting protection device, needs an
>"upstream" resistance to work against or it will have to protect the whole
>system, which it probably can't. Putting it at the radio end of the wire
>allows it to use the resistance of the wire as it's lever. Of course, the
>device in question almost certainly has the same supply voltage transient
>protection internally, so the externally mounted Transorb is probably
>redundant.
You are correct that energy traps work best when the
source impedance of the transient is raised to the highest
possible value. Limitations to propagation of transients
has a profound effect on how hard it is to deal with them.
For the VERY short pulses (shorter than 200 ns), even if
they contained much energy (very high voltage) the ability
of this this half-sine equivalent of 50 Megahertz pulse
to travel down a piece of wire with any efficiency is
poor to zip.
The folks who would sell us any form of transient protection
device seldom mention this in their sales literature. They'll
be happy to tell you about all the gremlins and gobblins
that are no match for their ultimate solution. You often
have to dig out their application notes and dig trough the
system analysis to truly quantify risk and solution.
Spike mitigation is just another form of RFI/EMI engineering.
As I outlined in the chapter on noise, the first task is to
it's best to fix/filter the antagonist or break/modify
the propagation mode. It the case of very short spikes,
propagation is severely limited by the fact that several
feet of wire exist between antagonist and victim. Many
times, a simple high quality capacitor across the supply
line runs the transient to ground. Most appliances will
include some form of input bypass capacitor with just
such instances in mind.
From the perspective of an OEM supplying an accessory to
the aviation industry, you have no control over the system
design or architecture or maintenance so you do your duty
as a responsible supplier and put whatever protection on
your product's input/output leads to meet your stated
performance specifications. This may or may not dictate
the use of transorbs but they ARE indeed handy gizmos
and work as advertised.
From a SYSTEMS designer perspective, I'm equally obligated
to observe the lessons learned as outlined in DO-160. If
there is any potential for a particular piece of my system
to be an antagonist, then I should have figured out
which one it is and take the simple steps required to
(1) encourage the supplier of such device to clean up
his product or (2) add protection based on the repeatable
experiment to make MY system tolerant of HIS product.
Over the years, I've had quite a few builders worrying
over the unknown . . . which is perfectly understandable.
That which we are ignorant of is the most unsettling . . .
especially when described in the non-quantified and
unsubstantiated claims of popular folklore. On at least
two occasions, I have supplied killer transorbs to
builders (and recommended them to others) to be
installed as shown in:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/SpikeTrap.gif
This wires a transorb right to the main bus where
it can be the guardian of ALL devices that take
power from the bus. If you get an ov condition
or surge from the alternator, you may open the
fuse and the event is annunciated by illumination
of your SPIKE CATCHER warning lamp. This is
unlikely for 18V devices start conduction at
20-22 volts . . . your ov system should take
the alternator off line long before you push the
bus that high. For all other cases of transients,
the transorb takes care of anything else.
So if anyone is staying awake at night worrying
about this, I have a bunch of 5KP18A (only 5KW
devices but certainly adequate) that folks
are welcome to add to their system . . . they're
$5 each postage paid to anywhere in the world.
See:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/5kp.pdf
The truck I wanted to 'scope isn't running. I'm
still on safari hunting the elusive starter
spike.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
>
>Hey Guys,
>
>In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I
>got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring
>they provided with the engine will/may not work properly.
>
>In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection
>points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed
>back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground is
>implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The first
>is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style 'idiot'
>light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for reasons
>unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if the light
>isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final connector is
>labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus suggests hooking
>this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V positive when the
>engine starter is engaged.
>
>My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this
>last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source
>to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron
>parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator and
>how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that
>having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't
>running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is
>only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS
>design principles.
>
>I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any
>comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic
>questions, my apologies in advance :)
I think you got a poor explanation for a fix on this.
I'm surprised that your alternator depends on any
connection through the idiot light circuit . . . this
was common 15-20 years ago but I thought it had gone
away. If it were my airplane, I'd connect the "L"
terminal to the (+) terminal via a 150 ohm, 2W resistor
to mimic a lamp bulb. Then treat the (+) lead as
a control input and wire it as suggested in Figure
Z-24 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
In this case, "F" on my drawing is (+) on your alternator
combined with the resistor-fed "L" terminal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plug/socket convention |
>
>This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
>convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
>i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
>on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
>figure I'll follow it.
There's a LOOSE convention that suggests you put power
sources on female pins to minimize possibility of faulting
a source on an unmated connector. Likelihood of this is
low in every case, and impossible with many connector
designs. I wouldn't worry about it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power sources - please clarify |
>
>Bob,
> Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and
>your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
> It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand
>Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you
>were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are
>more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine
>failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than
>an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery
>nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
>immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the
>failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate.
> Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting
>as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally
>means the loss of one over an interval.
If you loose the engine, then battery life beyond 5-10 minutes
isn't much of an issue.
> The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
>engine.............
That's a good reason for two batteries . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Redundant Ignitions |
Geoff & Bob...
I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best
redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on
the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It
"seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries
and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow?
If so, please have at me... :)
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 4/12/03 10:56:17 PM,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<< I'm trying not to throw other variables into this equation, but you asked
about my planned use of the airplane... I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by
the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR
certification sometime down the road a ways. I'm planning no vacuum system, a
Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite, a VM-1000 engine monitor, a GPS/Comm, and a couple
of backup pitot-static instruments. I'm having the engine built up by
AeroSport Power, so equiping it with dual electronic ignitions seems to make
more sense than having them bolt a magneto on it.
Thanks again for your help and advice. We all REALLY appreciate the time and
effort you put in here.
-Geoff
P.S. My high-dollar B&C order will definitely be forthcoming when I reach
that stage of my project.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: List of current consumption figures |
>
>
>I seem to remember someone asking about the amount of current consumed by
>various bits of equipment.
>
>I've just stumbled upon this page:
>
>http://aircraftexpense.com/eloadindex.htm
>
>which contains a *very* comprehensive list of aeroplane equipment and its
>current consumption.
Too bad folks who took considerable time to compile this
list didn't include running current values along with the
peak current values. Running current is what's needed for
load analysis, peak current often just sizes wire and fuses.
Bottom line is, get out your volt-ammeter (you all DO
have one of these . . . no?) and confirm ANY data you
might get from printed literature after your system
is up and running.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I'm working on the wiring and things have proceeded with no smoke so far. I do
have one question however.
I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor and a
2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in Z-13: pin 1
connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the contactor; pin 4 connects
to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C voltage regulator (or will).
Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme is that shown in Bob's book
on page11-16.
The question is how is this supposed to work? When I move the toggle up to the
center position, there is no connection: no voltage on the buss and the contactor
does not pull in. When the switch is moved all the way up, then the contactor
pulls in and there is 12+ volts on the main buss and to the regulator. Moving
the switch down to the center position kills the voltage on the buss.
My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only and
the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required between
some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should work?
For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark, it says
"Carling cMexico 0305"
Thanks for the help.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
> I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor
and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in
Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the
contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C
voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme
is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16.
>
.....................
> My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only
and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required
between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should
work?
>
> For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark,
it says "Carling cMexico 0305"
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
Hi Bill,
Just received my 2-10 switch.
It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows :
3 6
2 5
1 4
when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up.
Hope this helps,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories |
Ian Scott wrote:
>
>HI all,
>
>I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane,
>
>Sat phone
>CDMA phone
>Hand held radio
>Minidisk player
>Handheld GPS
>Ipaq
>
>And a few others,
>
>I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist
>in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to
>most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them
>into the normal wall transformer at home).
>
>
>Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline
>connectors)
>
>Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus
>(original lead with panel mount connector)
>
>
>Thanks Ian
>
Try:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/index.html
& look at the Karmic Standards articles.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need so help |
>Bob, I purchased your Aero Electric Connection manual from an aviation house
>I believe in Colorado. Am I entitled to your updates? How do I obtain them?
They can be down loaded from my website at http://www.aeroelectric.com
> My aircraft engine has a 40 amp alternator with a built in voltage
>regulator. Which crowbar o/v relay should I order for it?
OVM-14 and S702-1
> The Apollo Radio
>and Transponder I purchased recommended using RG142B antenna cable which I
>have purchased. Your chart figure 13-17 does not show this cable. How dose
>it compare with those on your chart?
Its comparable to RG400 but has a solid center conductor
as opposed to stranded. Either is fine.
> Do you have a source for connectors for
>this antenna cable?
See connectors at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html
which can be ordered at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> I will need a connector for a hand held (with two right
>angles?) a com antenna a transponder antenna.
That's what I do . . . a pair of RA adapters brings the
cockpit coax right down the back of the radio.
> I would prefer not to have to
>buy tools to assemble these connectors. Are the screw together type
>electronically as efficient as the crimp type? I purchase a good radio and
>do not want to degrade it with poor connectors.
Screw-on connectors are really sorry. You could go the solder and
clamp route but unless you've done enough of these to be reasonably
good at it, crimp is the way to go. Can you sell a crimp tool to
another builder after you're done with it. The tool is only $40
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/rct-2.jpg
Here's instructions on how to use it
http://216.55.140.222/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
you can also order the tool at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> My last question (*at least
>for the moment) is should I tin the 22 gage wire before I crimp it in the
>connector terminal? Thanks
Nope. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> > I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor
>and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in
>Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the
>contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C
>voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme
>is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16.
> >
>.....................
> > My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only
>and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required
>between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should
>work?
> >
> > For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark,
>it says "Carling cMexico 0305"
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> Hi Bill,
>Just received my 2-10 switch.
>It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows :
>3 6
>2 5
>1 4
>when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up.
>Hope this helps,
I published a note on this some time back and crafted
a benchmark document published at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
that explains how the various drawings published over the
years have two different pin call-outs for the progressive
transfer switches.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for input - makes perfect sense as does the diagram.
>
>You should seriously consider charging $5 dollars for every question you
>answer as I think you'd be one of the few people that could say if I had
>a nickle for every ...
>
>Thanks!
>Don
I appreciate your kind words. If it wasn't fun, I couldn't
do it . . .
There will come a time in the not terribly distant future
where I'll need to consider my "retirement" posture. Turned
60 a couple of weeks ago. One facet of the business model
being considered is to convert my activities on the AeroElectric
List to a subscriber based list on my server for some nominal fee.
Not sure how it's all going to come together and it's not going
to happen next week or even next year. Dee needs to finish
her dissertation before I can even begin to consider operating
out from under the RAC umbrella.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | dual power and ground wires |
The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for
the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that?
John Slade
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty
>heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it
>worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group
>75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys.
Yup, those are direct descendants of the original 25 a.h.
jelly-roll RG batteries pioneered by Gates over 30 years ago.
They have evolved into a real flame thrower. You don't
want to get your Spidel wrist watch band or wedding ring
shorted across that hummer . . . makes you say loud
embarrassing words and some of your body parts stink
really bad too . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Ignitions |
>
>Geoff & Bob...
>
>I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best
>redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on
>the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It
>"seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries
>and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow?
>If so, please have at me... :)
Not at all. Consider that when you buy an engine it
it generally supplied with mags and priced accordingly.
If one could get $1500 deducted off the price of the engine
by removing the mags, neato keeno deal . . . but it's
not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Sooooo . . . if you want to get 95% of everything all electronic
ignition will do for you. Take off one mag and put on electronic
ignition. Run the first mag 'til it croaks and then put the
second mag back on. When it croaks, the cost of a new mag
is about the same as an electronic ignition, so you might as
well go all the way. Then you might consider adding a second
battery if you're not already all-electric with two
alternators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 110V Ball switch |
I realize that this is off the beaten path but maybe some could help me. I'm
looking for a 110 V ball switch that I could mount on a Bifold door. It's
function would be to turn a light on and off in a closet by opening and
closing the door.
If you know where a switch like this could be found please let me know.
Already tried Mouser, Digi-key, MPJA and McMaster-Carr.
Thanks,
Tom Saccio
tsaccio(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual power and ground wires |
>
>The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for
>the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that?
>John Slade
>Cozy IV
Yeah, the Microair guys are asking for that too. I wrote to them
and asked for an explanation with no response yet. 20AWG is 10
milliohms per foot. The average feeder from bus to radio is probably
no more than 4' for 40 mohms total. A second lead in parallel is
going to drop it to 20 . . . ????
Beats me . . .
Somebody might have some notions about "reliability" but if you
have one wire come loose, how will you know that you've now
reduced your wiring reliability by a factor of two?
We wired a lot of radios with a single power supply and
ground wire over the years. Maybe there's some heretofore
ignored reason for doing it but nothing I can deduce.
I'll ask around some more.
I'll bet somebody did it, others noticed, everybody worried
April 05, 2003 - April 14, 2003
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bw