AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ex
October 17, 2005 - October 30, 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
All,
Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
anti-collision light system?
Thank you in advance,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage monitoring |
Fellow choir members,
The radio in a 14V system is required by RTCA DO-160 to be able to withstand
20 volts for 1 second, 40 volts for 100 milliseconds, and 300-volts for 100
microseconds.
While I will grant you that the PM alternators in our Rotax and Jabiru
engines are probably not cabable of generating 300 volts, they are cabable
of producing over 70 volts without a functional VR. By the time the red
light has illuminated, more than 100 milliseconds is long past and by the
time you even read the EIS screen to see what has set off the one eyed
monster, 1 second is also long past. So your opportunity to DO something to
prevent damage is also long past.
That's the beauty of Bob's OV protection kit. It detects the impending OV,
takes the alternator off line before it can fully develop and tells you what
it's done by showing its white pullable circuit breaker collar. It's
beautiful. It protects your avionics. It simplifies your panel by
eliminating a switch. And most important of all, it requires no pilot
intervention at all!
IMHO, we cannot react quickly enough in the normal cockpit environment to do
without this particular automated device.
Rodney in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 |
1.000...
In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bnn(at)nethere.com writes:
All,
Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
anti-collision light system?
Thank you in advance,
Good Morning Guy,
I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
Category Airplanes.
Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
comply with the provisions noted?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
Received-SPF: softfail (mta9: domain of transitioning trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt does
not designate 85.138.30.221 as permitted sender) receiver=mta9; client_ip=85.138.30.221;
envelope-from=trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt;
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Heat or noise problems |
In my RV-9A with a Subaru engine, I need to put the 2 batteries behind the
baggage compartment, thus having to install four 6AWG wires from the
batteries to the firewall. (please no discussion abour this).
Are there any heat problems if I put all the four wires paralel, in the same
conduit ?
And what about noise problems ?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Alternators Breakers |
I'm following Z-13 with single battery and dual alternator. My question is
this:
I have used all fuses for my panel which can be accessed easily from the
right side under the panel. Why are the MAIN ALT and AUX ALT circuit
breakers used in the panel instead of fuses as well? Why would I need
access to them? Can they be fuses?
Cheers,
Bob R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Starter Troubleshooting |
Folks,
In the course of researching starter problems, I came across this fine
troubleshoot guide from Sky-Tec. Wish I had seen it before delving into same.
I'm
printing it out and inserting into wirebook of current project...
_http://www.skytecair.com/images/Troubleshooting%20Diagram_5.0.pdf_
(http://www.skytecair.com/images/Troubleshooting%20Diagram_5.0.pdf)
BTW, support at Sky-Tec is first class.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat or noise problems |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Carlos-
There may or may not be a heat problem; depending on the length,
resistance of the #6 wire and the amps that they will carry. I believe you
can do the calculations from a page in Bob Nuckolls' book. He also has a
"comic book" about this. I have a copy of the latter, if you can't find it
on his web site. I also have an Excel-based spreadsheet/calculator if you
need it. If the wires will be in the same conduit, the "bundle" figures
from the charts will have to be used.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
> In my RV-9A with a Subaru engine, I need to put the 2 batteries behind
> the baggage compartment, thus having to install four > 6AWG wires
> from the batteries to the firewall. (please no discussion abour this).
> Are there any heat problems if I put all the four > wires paralel, in
> the same conduit ?
> And what about noise problems ?
>
> Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternators Breakers |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
My personal conclusion was that in a dual alt setup like mine I decided
fuses were just fine.
I have an IR main alt and I use the Perilion OV module and contactor
approach to OV situations....I also wired the field wire through the
panel switch...Thus I have a double pole switch that turns both the OV
and field circuit on/off.
This also has a push button reset.
The second alt (an SD-8) also has a dpSt switch but I take the main
current from the SD-8 thru one pole and the crowbar OV thru the other as
it would normally be 10 amps or less and oly turned on if the main alt
get shutdown.
Anyway that's my approach...All of the above thru fuses.
fwiw
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
rundle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternators Breakers
-->
I'm following Z-13 with single battery and dual alternator. My question
is
this:
I have used all fuses for my panel which can be accessed easily from the
right side under the panel. Why are the MAIN ALT and AUX ALT circuit
breakers used in the panel instead of fuses as well? Why would I need
access to them? Can they be fuses?
Cheers,
Bob R
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heat or noise problems |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I really don't think heat will be the problem. Remember the large
current flow will only be for very short durations while cranking the
starter...Really not much time for it to get hot.
What do you expect your instrument loads to be assuming these are coming
directly from the battery. I would check the max voltage drop calcs
based on these full load amps but not the intermttent starter amps.
As an example I have a Zenair Zodiac with an 1800CC Soob motor and the
17AH battery behind the seats...I have a single 6Ga wire running from
the batt to the firewall and use a local ground from the battery to the
airframe..I.e the airframe is the battery ground path....Shock horror!
The cable is bundle up with other cables and glued under the logeron
with silicone. The istruments are mode C VFR with a full compliment of
lights.
Works just fine...But I do have an awful noise on the radio which I
assume to poor grounding of the RG58 coax...I don't know if this ground
ath setup is contributing to this as I haven't investigated it
yet....Seems to improve if I turn a lot of lights on...Hmmm...I wonder?
Good luck
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heat or noise problems
-->
Carlos-
There may or may not be a heat problem; depending on the length,
resistance of the #6 wire and the amps that they will carry. I believe
you can do the calculations from a page in Bob Nuckolls' book. He also
has a "comic book" about this. I have a copy of the latter, if you can't
find it on his web site. I also have an Excel-based
spreadsheet/calculator if you need it. If the wires will be in the same
conduit, the "bundle" figures from the charts will have to be used.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
> In my RV-9A with a Subaru engine, I need to put the 2 batteries behind
> the baggage compartment, thus having to install four > 6AWG wires
> from the batteries to the firewall. (please no discussion abour this).
> Are there any heat problems if I put all the four > wires paralel, in
> the same conduit ?
> And what about noise problems ?
>
> Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lynn Riggs <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat or noise problems |
Carlos,
In Bob's book he recommends using 4AWG for short runs and 2AWG for longer runs.
Carlos Trigo wrote:
In my RV-9A with a Subaru engine, I need to put the 2 batteries behind the
baggage compartment, thus having to install four 6AWG wires from the
batteries to the firewall. (please no discussion abour this).
Are there any heat problems if I put all the four wires paralel, in the same
conduit ?
And what about noise problems ?
Carlos
Lynn A. Riggs
riggs_la(at)yahoo.com
St. Paul, MN
BH #656 Kit #22
http://home.comcast.net/~lariggs/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternators Breakers |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob R -
Bob Nuckols recommends using the circuit breakers because the ov
protection can have some nuisance trips. They are a whole lot easier to
push in than replacing a fuse while leaning over to get to the fuse panel
in your airplane and all of this while in flight.
Hope this helps,
John Schroeder
wrote:
> Why are the MAIN ALT and AUX ALT circuit breakers used in the panel
> instead of fuses as well? Why would I need access to > them? Can
> they be fuses?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements INNOCENT GLOBAL |
0.0000 1.000...
The regulations say that you have to abide by your operating limitations
and, if memory serves, the operating limitations will say that you have
to comply with 91.205.
To answer the question, I think that a single strobe on the top of the
vertical stabilizer would do it. You could also install one of those
ugly cessna rotating beacons but I think a simple little strobe
qualifies. You have to be able to see the AC light from 360 degrees
around the airplane IIRC.
You could buy one of these babies...
http://www.strobe.com/products.asp?id=5&view=product
...and one of these...
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1129671072-166-474&browse=lighting&product=a625light
...and you'd have it made. There are probably other solutions but this
is the first that came to mind. I used a Nova power supply on mine and
it works great.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Phase I
http://www.myrv7.com
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bnn(at)nethere.com writes:
>
>All,
>Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
>required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
>this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
>anti-collision light system?
>
>Thank you in advance,
>
>
>Good Morning Guy,
>
>I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
>Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
>
>The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
>Category Airplanes.
>
>Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
>comply with the provisions noted?
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | voltage monitoring |
hi all,
sounds like the crowar is a necessary item, even with voltage monitoring. i will
include it in my plans. thanks to all who responded.
bob noffs woodruff, wi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> GLOBAL 0.0000 1.000... |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.0000 1.000...
At 02:34 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>The regulations say that you have to abide by your operating limitations
>and, if memory serves, the operating limitations will say that you have
>to comply with 91.205.
Thanks Phil,
I called the San Diego FSDO today and had an interesting
conversation with them. Apparently this is still an open issue, as there
are a boat load of aircraft out there without electrical systems. They're
going to "discuss" it and get back to me and I'll pass on what they say.
On a more humorous note, I asked about the new AC 20-27
requirement that the "Passenger Warning" be in 3/8" high type. They said
this was absolutely true and a result of previous notices shrinking to the
point of invisibility. You can't imagine how much trouble I'm having
finding room for this message in my Kitfox! (It has to be in "plain sight"
for the passenger.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | emergency battery disconnect |
I came across this device:
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
In the course of other research.
This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery disconnect
in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in series with
the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
I am in no way affiliated with Delphi.
Chris Stone
Newberg, OR
RV-8 x2
Electric done on no. 1
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello - I have a factory AK-350 harness that has all the right wire
colors in it, but other than the power and ground leads, they are not
connected to the right pins in the encoder 15 pin connector (per the
label on the encoder). I am planning on removing and re inserting
pins in the correct location (I wired the Transponder pins based on
the wire colors) Is this the right approach or am I missing
something? Has any one else found a harness like this miswired from
the factory?
Thnaks - Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
10/19/2005
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate.
The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate it
IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
frequently and is widely misunderstood.
OC
PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My table
has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
built experimental aircraft requirements.
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | craig(at)craigsteffen.net |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
> But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
> in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
> attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
> table please email me.
I would like a copy of this document, if you wouldn't mind. Please send it to
craig(at)craigsteffen.net.
> If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
> I could post this table I would appreciate it.
I have a web site at www.craigsteffen.net. I would be happy to post your
document there if you'd like.
Craig Steffen
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Diplexer splitter |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Morning all,
Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
the same thing with the GNS???
Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
splitter so I don't need that specific make??
Thanks guys
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Diplexer splitter |
Hi Frank,
1. You do need either separate antennas for VOR/LOC and Glide Slope or
a splitter for your GNS430.
2. The SL30 has the splitter built in.
3. I've been through a prolonged and painful process to couple the 430
and SL30 to a single VOR ("catswhisker) antenna, first with a "T" (as
recommended by the avionics supplier) with one leg going to the SL30 and
the other leg to a DM splitter to the 430. Neither VOR worked reliably.
Then, I replaced the"T" with a Comant C5120 VOR/GS splitter again with
one leg going to the DM splitter to the 430 and the other leg going to
the SL30. No improvement. My final solution was to add a wingtip VOR
antenna servicing the SL-30 and a Comant CI-507 to the 430 from the
original VOR antenna. I now have two working Nav/COMs that function on
VOR and ILS. It is possible that the DM splitter was at fault but I
have tired of doing the experiments with a flight per experiment with
all the combinations and permutations and I have a pragmatic solution.
Conclusion: The CI-507 does work as a splitter for the GNS430.
Hope this is some help.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Morning all,
>
>Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
>true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
>the same thing with the GNS???
>
>Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
>splitter so I don't need that specific make??
>
>Thanks guys
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diplexer splitter |
Frank,
I believe everything you said is more or less "true" . . . and you are
right there are a number of "diplexers" that will work . . . it looks like
the CI-507 would do the job but there are others with similar specs that
will work.
You could install a glide slope antenna and eliminate the need for the
diplexers but I'm installing a diplexers on mine.
Good Luck,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa
On 10/19/05, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>
>
> Morning all,
>
> Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
> true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
> the same thing with the GNS???
>
> Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
> splitter so I don't need that specific make??
>
> Thanks guys
>
> Frank
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting |
> On a more humorous note, I asked about the new AC 20-27
> requirement that the "Passenger Warning" be in 3/8" high type.
Devil's Advocate time.....where does the FAA define the term
placard...and where does it say it has to be a permanently/fixed
mounted item? And is this proposed? In place? I can't find it in
AC20-27F.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
I would like a copy of the MS word Table
Frank @ SGU and SLC fstringham(at)hotmail.com
>From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements
>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:36:28 -0400
>
>
>10/19/2005
>
>Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
>for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
>covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
>Limitations, and FAA policy.
>
>As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built
>experimental
>aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
>But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
>Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
>appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance
>with
>91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
>Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
>airworthiness certificate.
>
>The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
>only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
>at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate
>it
>IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
>operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
>
>But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
>in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
>attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
>table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
>I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
>frequently and is widely misunderstood.
>
>OC
>
>PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
>the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
>page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
>determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My
>table
>has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
>
>PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
>people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
>built experimental aircraft requirements.
>
><
>In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bnn(at)nethere.com writes:
>
>All, Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
>required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
>this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
>anti-collision light system? Thank you in advance,
>
>Good Morning Guy,
>
>I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
>Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
>
>The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
>Category Airplanes.
>
>Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
>comply with the provisions noted?
>
>Happy Skies, Old Bob>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt & Jo" <archermj(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Connectors for AT-50A |
Hello all, I have an AT-50A transponder and try. But the tray is missing
the connector. Does anyone know are the connectors for KT-76A compatable
with the AT-50?
Thanks
Matt Archer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Amateur Built Requirements |
10/19/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I invite your attention to the following two web
pages courtesy of Bob White.
http://www.rotarywiki.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Minimum+Requirements+for+Experimental+Aircraft
http://tinyurl.com/b6r6f
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting |
At 03:34 PM 10/19/2005, you wrote:
>Devil's Advocate time.....where does the FAA define the term
>placard...and where does it say it has to be a permanently/fixed
>mounted item? And is this proposed? In place? I can't find it in
>AC20-27F.
You're absolutely right! I was looking at 20-27E, which was sent by the San
Diego FSDO two weeks ago. I guess they haven't heard of the 2003 revision!
Apparently the person I talked to was unaware that the 3/8" requirement had
been dropped as well.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wfinnell(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
-----Original Message-----
From: bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements
10/19/2005
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate.
The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate it
IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
frequently and is widely misunderstood.
OC
PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My table
has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
built experimental aircraft requirements.
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Boeck <boeck5001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 10/19/05 |
"SEE AND AVOID"
Old timer here, 22,000+ hrs, currently flying a Cessna
120, day and night. I would like to pass along my
take on "see and avoid".
In today's increasingly high-tech world, it appears
some may be missing a subtle but important
nomenclature divergence regarding "anti-collision
lights": specifically between strobes and rotating
beacons, often called "twirlies" by us old timers.
I can personally confirm twirlies are not effective
during the day with regard to "see and avoid"; they
are marginally effective at night. I do not have
twirlies on my Cessna 120.
Strobes, on the other hand, catch my eye, often
several miles away, day or night. I consider the
strobes on my aircraft to be a "no-go" item - all
three of them, literally.
When I was flying the line, I can't tell you the
number of times during climbout or descent when ATC
gave us a traffic alert, the final one often "traffic
12 o'clock, 1 mile, your altitude". Scary - never saw
the ones without strobes.
Old Timer
N7227E, Norris Lake, TN
--- AeroElectric-List Digest Server
wrote:
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also
> be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes
> the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
> Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the
> plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed
> with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-10-19.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-10-19.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Digest
> Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed
> 10/19/05: 17
>
>
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:15 AM - emergency battery disconnect
> (Christopher Stone)
> 2. 06:15 AM - AK-350 Harness (Pete Howell)
> 3. 06:37 AM - VFR Lighting Requirements ()
> 4. 07:08 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
> 5. 07:32 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
> 6. 08:46 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (craig(at)craigsteffen.net)
> 7. 09:00 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (Guy Buchanan)
> 8. 09:00 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (Guy Buchanan)
> 9. 12:13 PM - Diplexer splitter (Hinde, Frank
> George (Corvallis))
> 10. 02:23 PM - Re: Diplexer splitter (Bob C.)
> 11. 02:23 PM - Re: Diplexer splitter (Richard
> Dudley)
> 12. 03:35 PM - Re: VFR Lighting (Jim Baker)
> 13. 03:45 PM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (Frank Stringham)
> 14. 07:45 PM - Connectors for AT-50A (Matt &
> Jo)
> 15. 08:12 PM - Amateur Built Requirements ()
> 16. 09:26 PM - Re: VFR Lighting (Guy Buchanan)
> 17. 10:17 PM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements
> (wfinnell(at)earthlink.net)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: emergency battery
> disconnect
>
> Stone
>
>
> I came across this device:
>
>
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
>
> In the course of other research.
>
> This disconnect could be triggered by an
> accelerometer to force a battery disconnect
> in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
>
> It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR
> alternator. Maybe in series with
> the contactor as a means of positively taking the
> alternator off line?
>
> Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
>
> I am in no way affiliated with Delphi.
>
> Chris Stone
> Newberg, OR
> RV-8 x2
> Electric done on no. 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: AK-350 Harness
>
> Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
> Hello - I have a factory AK-350 harness that has all
> the right wire
> colors in it, but other than the power and ground
> leads, they are not
> connected to the right pins in the encoder 15 pin
> connector (per the
> label on the encoder). I am planning on removing
> and re inserting
> pins in the correct location (I wired the
> Transponder pins based on
> the wire colors) Is this the right approach or am I
> missing
> something? Has any one else found a harness like
> this miswired from
> the factory?
>
> Thnaks - Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting
> Requirements
>
>
>
> 10/19/2005
>
> Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and
> instrument requirements
> for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit
> confusing because it is
> covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The
> aircraft Operating
> Limitations, and FAA policy.
>
> As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to
> amateur built experimental
> aircraft, all of which receive special category
> airworthiness certificates.
> But all of those aircraft will have the following
> words in their Operating
> Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight
> testing, unless
> appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument
> flight in accordance with
> 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR,
> day only." The entire
> Operating Limitations and these words are part of
> the aircraft's
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur
> built aircraft VFR day
> only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE.
> If you operate it at VFR
> at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c)
> applies. If you operate it
> IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and
> (d)
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Apollo GX65 Connectors |
I have an Apollo GX65 with the tray and GPS antenna which I plan to sell. I
do not have the connectors since the unit came with the Approach Systems
cables. Does anyone know of an inexpensive source for the connectors? I
plan to return the AS cable for credit, or would sell it with the GPS/Comm
if desired.
You can contact me off list at bbradburry(at)allvantage.com
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Main and Aux Volts/Amps Indicator |
I have a Volts/Amps indicator mounted. I also have the B&C 60 Amp Alt and
SD8 backup alt. I have followed Z-13 and everything is going well.
I would however like the ability to install a switch for the volts/amps
indicator to switch between MAIN and AUX alternators. During normal flight
I am interested in how many amps I'm using at different times but more
importantly I would like to see how many amps I would be using if the main
alt fails and the I'm running on the aux SD8 alt. Bob can you direct me on
how to go about wiring this switch for the single volt/amp indicator?
I know this is an unusual switch to have but the type of flying my aircraft
will do is over some VERY remote landscape and I NEED to be concerned about
current draw during essential bus operation. I have made a plan for
equipment running during backup alt operation and it will be under 8 amps
(actually as small at 3.1 amps) but I would still like the ability to see
just how many amps are being drawn and the resultant voltage.
Thanks
Bob #2
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Main and Aux Volts/Amps Indicator |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Well I have just done this on my plane...
Its pretty easy (my amps are read by a Dynon EMS system).
Simply get a hold of a second shunt that is identical to the one you are
using right now and put it in the feed from the SD-8.
Then get a DPDT switch mounted on the panel and take the sensor wires to
the switch.
Your Ammeter will be connected to the two center terminals and ALT#1
will be on the bottom terminals (switch UP on the panel) and ALT#2 will
be on the top terminals...(Switch down to read ALT#2).
Easy...Works on my setup
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
rundle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Main and Aux Volts/Amps Indicator
-->
I have a Volts/Amps indicator mounted. I also have the B&C 60 Amp Alt
and
SD8 backup alt. I have followed Z-13 and everything is going well.
I would however like the ability to install a switch for the volts/amps
indicator to switch between MAIN and AUX alternators. During normal
flight I am interested in how many amps I'm using at different times but
more importantly I would like to see how many amps I would be using if
the main alt fails and the I'm running on the aux SD8 alt. Bob can you
direct me on how to go about wiring this switch for the single volt/amp
indicator?
I know this is an unusual switch to have but the type of flying my
aircraft will do is over some VERY remote landscape and I NEED to be
concerned about current draw during essential bus operation. I have
made a plan for equipment running during backup alt operation and it
will be under 8 amps (actually as small at 3.1 amps) but I would still
like the ability to see just how many amps are being drawn and the
resultant voltage.
Thanks
Bob #2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (Mitsubishi) Controlling IR Alternators |
>
>Mickey and others:
>
>Before discovering the Aeroelectric list, I purchased a Mitsubishi 40-amp
>1-wire alternator that seems well suited for my aircraft and has the same
>connections as the ND. Here are two photos:
>
>http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_14_05_Alt1.JPG
>and
>http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_14_05_Alt2.JPG
>
>Since I'm new at this, do you guys have any comments on this particular unit?
>
>Thanks,
This appears to be a 3-wire alternator. It features a
pair of terminals in addition to the b-lead . . probably
IGN and Warning Light wires. There IS a class of alternators
that are truly one-wire. Popular with the race care and
marine crowd. These alternators have only a b-lead connection
and will come on line any time you spin them up.
The alternator you have will function as advertised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
>
>Makes me wonder exactly why he included the following statement:
>
>"Conditions in which a very high draw is being made of the alternator at
>low RPM will cause extra
>strain on the alternator and drive belt. Consider reducing the total
>load in these situations, or
>switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only, if the
>high load will be brief."
>
>At low rpm I'd expect the output to be self limiting and most Lycoming
>alternators are out front and well cooled aren't they??
>
>Ken
The only concerns I might have for alternator "stress" at
low rpm is cooling . . . this is hard to achieve on a Lycoming
installation when you leave the small pulley in place.
Even so, terms like "low rpm", "very high draw", "extra strain",
"reducing total load", and "brief" are all non-quantified terms
having no value for advancing either understanding or increasing
service life of the alternator.
An excellent example of how a few anecdotes can be
misinterpreted or woven into new and baseless concerns.
The caution cited has no foundation in physics or design
limits for the alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Main and Aux Volts/Amps Indicator |
Good Morning Frank and Bob 2,
I had a similar setup on my airplane for about ten years using one shunt for
the battery circuit and one for the only alternator installed. Really liked
having the information. I know that Electric Bob feels the information is
worthless enroute, but I like to see where the amps are going!
When I installed my B&C back up alternator, I added another shunt for it and
switched from a double pole double throw snap switch to a rotary double pole
triple throw switch. No doubt unneeded data, but I like it!
My shunts and the rotary switch were purchased from Electronics
International, (buy-ei.com) the manufacturer of the combination Volt/Ammeter (loadmeter?)
I am using. They also provided a very nice wiring diagram.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/20/2005 8:52:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
Simply get a hold of a second shunt that is identical to the one you are
using right now and put it in the feed from the SD-8.
Then get a DPDT switch mounted on the panel and take the sensor wires to
the switch.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One antenna or two? |
>
>I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
>splitter (and single antenna).
>
>Opinions?
>
>Bob R
There are no "splitters" suitable for sharing two comm transceivers
with one antenna. Splitters are passive networks designed to take very
low power (received) signals and either distribute them evenly between
two receivers in the same frequency band (like a pair of vor receivers)
_or_ to split energies from two different bands to their respective
receivers (like VOR and Glideslope) with the lowest practical loss.
Devices to make comm transceivers share an antenna are diplexers.
They're expensive, big and heavy and cost a whole lot more than
the second antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | One antenna or two? |
>
>While you definitely would not want to use something like a Nav radio
>splitter, there is a device specifically designed for this purpose:
>
>http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf
>
>Take a look...
Cool! I'd forgotten about this option. The device operates as
a receive only coupler until you key a transmitter whereupon
relays are used to disconnect the opposite transceiver during
transmissions. This is VERY important as the RF energy that comes
out of a comm transmitter is almost always fatally damaging to
the front end of a receiver when coupled directly to the receiver.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | One antenna or two? |
As an add-on...
The Comant device operates by grounding the wire associated with the desired
receiver.
I've looked at the Garmin and PS-Engineering schematics, and this is how
they operate the PTT switches; they ground the wire going to the radio's PTT
input.
So, you would just tie the leads from the Comant box to the PTT pins on your
audio panel...
-----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: One antenna or two?
>
>While you definitely would not want to use something like a Nav radio
>splitter, there is a device specifically designed for this purpose:
>
>http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf
>
>Take a look...
Cool! I'd forgotten about this option. The device operates as
a receive only coupler until you key a transmitter whereupon
relays are used to disconnect the opposite transceiver during
transmissions. This is VERY important as the RF energy that comes
out of a comm transmitter is almost always fatally damaging to
the front end of a receiver when coupled directly to the receiver.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchgarner757(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
Hi Bob,
I remember, but can't find, an article you wrote about a better way to wire
the coils on the Lightspeed Electronic ignition. I believe you suggested
something other than the coax (RG58) to power the coils.
Is this article still available?
Thanks!
Mitch Garner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
Hmm.. it's an interesting device. I can see where it might come in handy on cars,
but it's a little scary (to me) for an airplane.
Quoting from the description:
"An electrically triggered pressure pulse to cut the conductor quickly
and permanently actuates an insulating wedge.
The actuation is started by an electric signal that triggers the igniter
and generates the pressure pyrotechnically. "
So once it fires, that's it. If it fires accidentally, that's it.
Once it fires, you have to replace the device.
If you wanted to bypass the device, you would need a
heavy duty manual switch or solenoid in parallel with the device.
If you're going to do that - it seems that the KISS concept
would deem the "pyrotechnically fired disconnect device"
as redundant and overly complex.
The last item to point out is that the device sounds like a custom device,
not an off-the-shelf device that is readily available.
But that's just my $0.02.
For my particular application, I have two batteries in the back for CG reasons,
so the "fat wires" run thru the cockpit anyway. I put a big fuse between the battery
leads
and the fat wires running forward. In the event of a serious meltdown event,
the idea is that the big fuse will blow and shut the power off "automatically"
at the battery.
If you find yourself in the market for a "heavy duty" manually activated switch,
you should look at the boat battery switches at West Marine / Boat US.
Some are even rated for rigorous "Engine Starting Standard".
myeporia.eporia.com/resources/company_57/BSS_Engine_Starting_Standard.pdf
You could use a switch like this for a manual alternator disconnect,
battery disconnect, even a starter switch:
www.bluesea.com/product.asp?Product_Id22754&d_Id7492&l17459&l27492
And here are some other misc high amp switches.
www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id7492&l17459&l27492
They also make "ultra reliable electronic solenoid" which might be good for an
alternator disconnect:
www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId66506
Hope it helps,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting |
>
> > On a more humorous note, I asked about the new AC 20-27
> > requirement that the "Passenger Warning" be in 3/8" high type.
>
>Devil's Advocate time.....where does the FAA define the term
>placard...and where does it say it has to be a permanently/fixed
>mounted item? And is this proposed? In place? I can't find it in
>AC20-27F.
The chapters we cite at cert time are typically taken from
Part 23 or 25 under "Markings And Placards", starting at paragraph
1541. Here you'll find a lot of nice words concerning positioning
and legibility but nothing speaking to size and style of lettering.
The rule of thumb we've used for decades has been that placard
letting be no smaller than 1/8" Futura Bold.
In the certified world, the DER assigned to cockpit evaluations
can apply a lot of pressure to make letters bigger or to relocate
placards for "better visability".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
>
>
>
>I came across this device:
>
>http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
>
>In the course of other research.
>
>This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery
>disconnect in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
>
>It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in
>series with the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator
>off line?
>
>Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
Folks who dig through piles of wreckage for a living
have observed that, "When the battery separates from the
wreckage and is found out in the weeds, the airplane seldom
catches fire. When the airplane does burn, the battery is
(more often than not) still in the airplane."
Now, here's a beautiful piece of data with no obvious
linkage for cause/effect. We've pondered the value of
adding some kind of auto-disconnect feature to our product's
batteries but discarded the idea every time as an increase
in cost of ownership with no demonstrable benefits over the
pilot operated controls for battery disconnect.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I remember, but can't find, an article you wrote about a better way to wire
>the coils on the Lightspeed Electronic ignition. I believe you suggested
>something other than the coax (RG58) to power the coils.
>
>Is this article still available?
Yes. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/LightSpeedRG58.pdf
Now, be advised that Klaus was most upset about this publication.
His engineer advise that the ability to pass his acceptance test
procedure (sparks jumping between the open plug wires towers on
the coil) was at risk by substituting shielded wire for coax. He
cited some differences in distributed capacity between shielded
wire and coax. We're talking PICOfarads here . . .
Klaus's explanation was not very illuminating and I wasn't made
privy to the name of his engineer so I could make a direct inquiry.
I am very skeptical of the claim. A number of folks have used
this wiring technique with success.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AK-350 Harness |
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
>Hello - I have a factory AK-350 harness that has all the right wire
>colors in it, but other than the power and ground leads, they are not
>connected to the right pins in the encoder 15 pin connector (per the
>label on the encoder). I am planning on removing and re inserting
>pins in the correct location (I wired the Transponder pins based on
>the wire colors) Is this the right approach or am I missing
>something? Has any one else found a harness like this miswired from
>the factory?
If you KNOW which colors go to which pins, then you can mark up
you wiring plans accordingly. I used to sell the T2000 bundled with
an AK-350 and used the factory supplied wire harness to make connections
between the AK-350 and transponder. They were 100% accurate back then.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I don't know if it's absolutely true, but my understanding is that Paul
Lipps was the engineer that designed the LSE ignitions. He might also be
the consultant that Klaus uses for questions about said ignitions.. Paul
Lipps has gained recent fame as the designer of the propellers for several
recent Reno race winners.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>I remember, but can't find, an article you wrote about a better way to
>> wire the coils on the Lightspeed Electronic ignition. I believe you
>> suggested something other than the coax (RG58) to power the coils.
>>
>>Is this article still available?
>
> Yes. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/LightSpeedRG58.pdf
>
> Now, be advised that Klaus was most upset about this publication. His
> engineer advise that the ability to pass his acceptance test
> procedure (sparks jumping between the open plug wires towers on the
> coil) was at risk by substituting shielded wire for coax. He cited
> some differences in distributed capacity between shielded wire and
> coax. We're talking PICOfarads here . . .
>
> Klaus's explanation was not very illuminating and I wasn't made privy
> to the name of his engineer so I could make a direct inquiry. I am
> very skeptical of the claim. A number of folks have used
> this wiring technique with success.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
I'm not familiar with the Lightspeed Electronic Ignition system. Is there
a chance that the capacitance of the coax is in some way used as part of a
tuned circuit, such that the capacitance value is a critical value? I know
that in a points-and-condenser system you can sometimes substitute a
different capacitor value, but in doing so you may cause the points to burn
differently.
Dave Morris
At 11:25 AM 10/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >I remember, but can't find, an article you wrote about a better way to wire
> >the coils on the Lightspeed Electronic ignition. I believe you suggested
> >something other than the coax (RG58) to power the coils.
> >
> >Is this article still available?
>
> Yes. See:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/LightSpeedRG58.pdf
>
> Now, be advised that Klaus was most upset about this publication.
> His engineer advise that the ability to pass his acceptance test
> procedure (sparks jumping between the open plug wires towers on
> the coil) was at risk by substituting shielded wire for coax. He
> cited some differences in distributed capacity between shielded
> wire and coax. We're talking PICOfarads here . . .
>
> Klaus's explanation was not very illuminating and I wasn't made
> privy to the name of his engineer so I could make a direct inquiry.
> I am very skeptical of the claim. A number of folks have used
> this wiring technique with success.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Amateur Built Requirements |
10/20/2005
Hello Wayne, I am presuming that I am the "this guy" that you are referring
to below. And that "off his rocker" implies that you are taking exception to
some information that you find in my Amateur Built Requirements Table which
has been sent to you and other builders.
Let me assure you that I take no offense at your email. I feel that this
subject is too important to be fuzzied up with emotional baggage.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would respond directly to me by
pointing out specifically where my table may be wrong or misleading. My goal
is to put facts in the hands of my fellow builders and pilots so that they
may make their decisions based on facts rather than the hearsay, gossip, or
rumor that is so prevalent on this subject.
If you would help me in that endeavor I thank you and look forward to a
meaningful dialogue.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Amateur Built Requirements
> This guy's off his rocker! Has he ever read the FARs?
>
> ====================
> Wayne Hicks
> Cozy IV Plans #678
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Amateur Built Requirements |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R."
<>
10/20/2005
Hello Dan, I am in complete agreement with raising that issue. Note that my
table includes the statement
"THIS TABLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES. INSTALLING
ONLY THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ITEMS MAY NOT BE PRUDENT OR SAFE."
My goal is to provide our fellow builders and pilots with the most accurate
information available so they can make their judgements free of hearsay,
gossip, or rumor.
Thanks for your input.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
>
>
>I'm not familiar with the Lightspeed Electronic Ignition system. Is there
>a chance that the capacitance of the coax is in some way used as part of a
>tuned circuit, such that the capacitance value is a critical value? I know
>that in a points-and-condenser system you can sometimes substitute a
>different capacitor value, but in doing so you may cause the points to burn
>differently.
>
>Dave Morris
Good question. But if it were "critical" then the installation
instructions should specify exact lengths for the coax. RG-58 is
about 30 pF per foot (See:
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/coaxcable.html
The single strand, 20AWG 22759 shielded wire is about
40 pF per foot. The differences in capacity for these two
materials might have an effect in the nanosecond world but
not in the microsecond world of spark generation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Bus Architecture |
With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a single
feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e. behind
panel?
Thanks for the advice.
Dick Sipp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi" <jlintx(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Twisted wire pairs? |
autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.2
Guys,
The installation manual for some of the equipment I am installing calls for
twisting the leads. What is the purpose of twisting wires and when do I do it?
When should I not twist wires? I know that the wires on the Van's flap motor
are twisted and the Vision Micro System installation manual calls for twisting
the leads of some of transducers, but not all.
To twist or not to twist?
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Bus Architecture |
>
>With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
>battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
>wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a single
>feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e. behind
>panel?
>
>Thanks for the advice.
If you extend the bus away from the battery, it's not a battery bus
any more . . . you'll want to add some form of min-battery contactor
and the bus becomes #2, aux, #3, etc.
A "battery bus" is right at the battery, is always hot and feeds light
loads protected by no larger than 5A breaker or 7A fuses. If a feeder
larger than 7A is needed, then you'd be well advised to add some form
of remotely controlled disconnect for that feeder . . . right at the bus.
One example of a high-current battery bus feeder is illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/E-BusFatFeed.gif
where we see how one can feed an overweight e-bus with a 15A feeder
and a relay operated by the E-BUS ALTERNATE FEED switch.
Similar relays have been installed for controlling the EFI/EI
systems on Subaru engines. Another item that could be on the end
of a fat feeder is the remotely located bus you hypothesized above.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat or noise problems |
>
>Carlos,
>In Bob's book he recommends using 4AWG for short runs and 2AWG for longer
>runs.
>
>Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
>In my RV-9A with a Subaru engine, I need to put the 2 batteries behind the
>baggage compartment, thus having to install four 6AWG wires from the
>batteries to the firewall. (please no discussion abour this).
>Are there any heat problems if I put all the four wires paralel, in the same
>conduit ?
>And what about noise problems ?
It would be interesting to see how much difference there is between
current draw on a Subaru starter and a Lycoming O-360. I suspect
they're not much different. Never the less, 6AWG will probably peform
okay in warm weather countery.
Run ALL wires together with any other wires you wish in the same
bundle. There are no practical reasons for separating them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Operational GQM Target Flight |
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
><<...skip.....The first non-experimental GQM-163 target was
>launched recently.....skip......Here's a picture of the launch.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/1st_Operational_GQM.jpg
>
>........skip......Bob . . .>>
>
>10/15/2005
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, Any idea where that launch took place? From the nearby
>plant life (called "ice plant") and the ocean it looks very much like a
>beach launch from NAS Point Mugu / Pacific Missile Range.
Yes, it was Pt. Mugu.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
>
>
>Hey fellas (and gals)-
>
>There's a whole lot of anecdotal info flying about, and precious little
>research. Mickey is to be commended and thanked for not only having the
>interest and motivation to research his alternator, but also for posting
>that info for others to benefit from. This is good stuff. He is also to
>be commended for basically saying "this is how mine is.", as opposed to
>"this is how all alternators work".
Exactly.
>This thread started out as a discussion of the rebuilt 60A alternator that
>Van sells, Van's wiring directions, how this particular alternator is
>configured, and other wiring options available to users of the Van's
>supplied alternator. Mickey's is different. Or, perhaps I should say that
>the alternator Van supplies is different from the vast majority of
>alternators rolling down the road today.
Don't know that this is a true statement. I think we're going to
find they have more in common than in difference.
> One of the big issues with using
>IR alternators is the perceived inability to shut them down once running.
>Well, the unit Van's sells is specifically configured to do just that.
>Coincidence? I doubt it. C'mon folks, apples to apples, please.
I think all the modern designs will shut down gracefully when
deprived of IGN input . . . as long as the one or two pieces of silicon
that make up the control system are alive and well.
>I have spoken with the folks at Denso (Mickey's contact et al) to no avail,
>as Van markets an O/Hauled unit. I have spoken with great success with a
>mass overhauler of these units. Due to my own personal research, I am
>satisfied that I now have the data I need to wire my aircraft safely, while
>taking full advantage of the relatively unique attributes of my alternator.
>
>I would respectfully suggest that people KNOW what they are dealing with
>before turning the key.
NOTHING takes the place of good DATA, not even learned assumptions
from experienced or credentialed crystal ball gazers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
>
>Paul Messinger sent me this.
>
>Interesting AD on Circuit Breakers.
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/20052025ad.pdf
>
>I am sure Bob will have more to say on this subject when he returns.
These are the switch breakers I've mentioned on several occasions
in the past and featured in the comic book at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Breakers/Breakers.html
The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
the load path to shift. In the picture at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
thousand cycles. The failure begins as a breaking (or fusing)
of the last remaining strands of jumper.
This happens in the upper jumper. When that pathway is lost,
the switch-breaker's current still flows through the spring
that is intended to open the switch contacts when the lever
is moved to OFF. This spring is capable of carrying current
in the switch-breakers of smaller size . . . 5A and 10A but
in the Prop DeIce circuit of a Bonanza or Baron, the current is
so great as to cause the spring to glow cherry red and cause
surrounding plastic cases to char. This is what produces the
smoke. The amount of smoke was not nearly worthy of the doom
and gloom inferred by the AD.
The "fix" was to insert the plastic insulating sheet you can
see in the inside, upper left corner of the metal frame. This
prevents the spring from becoming a secondary load path and
the breaker fails passively by simply allowing the downstream
load to go OFF.
Cessna's decision to use this product as a master switch-breaker
was unfortunate. There was no need for this device to be a breaker too.
Selection of this part drove parts count up and drove reliability
down. If you must have an avionics master switch, the plain-jane
toggle is the device of choice. Better yet, leave it out entirely.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Twisted wire pairs? |
Jerry, twisting wires minimizes the electrical interference from other
conductors. In some circumstances, a proper wire twist averages any
interference received in both of the wires by exposing both wires to the
interfering source equally. Similarly, some electrical signals can
drive both of the wires in what's called a differential fashion to
minimize transmitted interference.
The best example is a telephone system... local distribution uses
twisted pair wiring that is quite immune to electrical noise.
You can make a twisted pair by chucking the wires in an electric drill,
clamping the far end in a vise, and letting 'er rip.
You should twist wires whenever the manufacturer recommends it. Just
twisting any pair of wires (for example a signal and a ground) will have
less of an effect. To be truly effective, it must be a 'balanced'
system.... and the best way to determine that is from the manufacturer.
As for the Van's flap motor, I think the wires are twisted as a
convenience to keep them together, you don't need to twist them all the
way to the switch.
As for some of the engine sensors, the engine monitor manufacturers may
use what is called a balance differential input. In this case
'balanced' is the key term... a twisted pair connection to the sensors
will work quite well. You can also use shielded pair cable for this,
and ground the shield at one end (only). The wire inside the shielded
cable is also twisted, so you have the benefits of both a shield and the
twisting working for you.
Not all of the engine sensors need twisted pair, simply because some are
already very noise immune and/or the engine monitor has internal noise
filtering. Twisting or shielding won't hurt.
I used shielded twisted pairs or three wires for all of my engine
sensors as a matter of convenience. The wires are colour coded and the
jacket is easy to label. Costs a bit more money, but Steinair and
others sell it at a low cost. Your EGT & CHT cables already come shielded.
Finally, twisting is a good cosmetic way to keep associated wiring
together, independently of the electrical benefits. It won't hurt.
Vern Little
www.vx-aviation.com
Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi wrote:
>
>Guys,
> The installation manual for some of the equipment I am installing calls for
twisting the leads. What is the purpose of twisting wires and when do I do
it? When should I not twist wires? I know that the wires on the Van's flap motor
are twisted and the Vision Micro System installation manual calls for twisting
the leads of some of transducers, but not all.
>
>To twist or not to twist?
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Bus Architecture |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Dick -
We have both batteries behind the baggage compartment of our Lancair ES.
The battery busses are about 8-10" from the batteries and the contactors
are about 12"-14". We use #2 welding cable to get the juice back and forth
to the firewall.
> With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
> battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
> wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a
> single feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e.
> behind
> panel?
John Schroeder
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twisted wire pairs? |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Jerry -
Twisting can reduce noise out of or into the wires. I would twist them
when the installation info says to do it. They probably have reason to
prescribe it. After that, common sens seems to be the norm. If a set of
wires feed a similar piece of equipment, I would twist them. I'd also
twist wires such as press-to-talk wiring on a stick.
Hope this helps.
John Schroeder
version=3.0.2, Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi wrote:
> The installation manual for some of the equipment I am installing calls
> for twisting the leads. What is the purpose of twisting > wires and
> when do I do it? When should I not twist wires?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Single Lead To Two Tachs? |
Can the Tach output on a Rotax 2-Stroke engine be used to feed two separate
Tach instruments?
If so, how would you wire it?
I'm looking at some "combo" instruments where some displays are duplicated.
Thanks...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi" <jlintx(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.2
Bob and others,
It may be a moot point on whether RG-58 is suitable to task of LSE's electronic
ignition. LSE now ships them with RG-400. The Plasma III I received early
this year came with RG-400. Bob, is this wire up to the task?
Jerry
Firewall fwd wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
>
>
>Bob and others,
> It may be a moot point on whether RG-58 is suitable to task of LSE's
> electronic ignition. LSE now ships them with RG-400. The Plasma III I
> received early this year came with RG-400. Bob, is this wire up to the task?
Most certainly. The biggest problem with RG-58 was it's
very low melting points for the inner insulation and
it's vulnerability to hydrocarbon vapors and other
uglies that live under the cowl. RG-400 is much more
suitable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
> The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> the load path to shift. In the picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
>
> you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> thousand cycles.
Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of
the aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that
many can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural
thing to pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Bus Architecture |
Usually there are not many devices powered from the battery bus/buss. I
would mount it close to the battery to minimize exposure of the unprotected
run and then run wires as needed to the components/accessories powered by it
through fuses appropriate for the devices. You just need to pick a location
for it close to the battery that could be somewhat easily accessible while
on the ground if a fuse blows. Maybe a special access door could be built
for this purpose of checking the fuses.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Bus Architecture
>
>
> With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
> battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
> wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a single
> feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e. behind
> panel?
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> Dick Sipp
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
The fact that you have not had a breaker pop is great - you have not had
system failures. Obviously, if the "weak link" (breaker) were not there
and you had a short circuit, something else would eventually become the
weak link. This is normally the wire to the device. If the wire burns,
it may be behind some panel or insulation (where it is more difficult to
get the heat away from the wire) So you have a potential fire - or at
least noxious fumes - possibly in the cockpit.
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem. Some examples:
- Stall Warning system - there is no other "off switch" if the stall
vane fails and the horn is on continuously
- Gear motors. My C414 gear is electric/hydraulic. If a critical
microswitch fails (or the wires to it short) the gear motor runs
continuously. Problem is, it will fail after about 60 seconds of
continuous operation.
- Autopilot Disconnect. The FAA seems frightened of autopilot "run
away", so there are multiple ways to turn off the AP. In my plane there
are 4: the AP on/off switch, the yoke disconnect, the AP mounted
emergency switch and finally the AP CB. The checklist calls for testing
these before each flight...
So the CB with the hat (finger pulls) really do offer two levels of
safety: over current (the CB feature) and one last disconnect (a
switch). The flat style CBs don't offer the pilot controlled switch
feature.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
-->
> The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> the load path to shift. In the picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
>
> you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> thousand cycles.
Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of the
aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that many
can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural thing to
pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
In a message dated 10/21/2005 10:18:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem.
Good Morning Dan,
You might also add that Beech often uses a switch type of combination
switch/circuit breaker.
Later models of the Bonanza have them for most of the control switches on
the lower left electrical control panel. If you look closely, the amperage
rating of the CB function is generally printed on the tip of the switch handle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
Right. That is the same on my C414 for the avionics. And they have an
AD against that Breaker/Switch right now. I have not looked at the
details, but if there were a failure of the "on/off" switch part of the
combo where it stuck on, there is no separate CB to "pull" off. The
combo saves space, but I would prefer a separate switch and pull
breaker.
Dan
-----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: Re: Circuit Breakers
In a message dated 10/21/2005 10:18:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem.
Good Morning Dan,
You might also add that Beech often uses a switch type of combination
switch/circuit breaker.
Later models of the Bonanza have them for most of the control switches
on the lower left electrical control panel. If you look closely, the
amperage rating of the CB function is generally printed on the tip of
the switch handle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Lighted Toggle Switches |
I was looking for a lighted toggle switch that would help with switch
location during nighttime flights and ran across these puppies.
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/NKKSwitches/Lighted_Toggle
_switch_with_superbright_LEDs/4462/0
These appear to be bright enough to offer a panel lighting option as well.
Does anyone have any experience with these switches or NKK switches in
general?
Bret
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Amateur Built Requirements |
10/21/2005
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your prompt response copied below and the
opportunity to confirm the correctness of my table and to clear up a common
misunderstanding.
Here is the situation: The FAA, with help from the EAA, permits the flying,
in day VFR only, of some very rudimentary (no offense intended) aircraft.
Some examples are Breezy, Cri-Cri, Curtis Pusher Replicas, and Quicksilver
MX. These are true amateur built experimental aircraft that are registered
with the FAA, have N numbers assigned, and have been issued Special Category
airworthiness certificates for operating amateur built aircraft.
But it is obviously impractical or impossible for these rudimentary
aircraft to be instrumented and equipped as required by FAR Sec 91.205 (b).
At the same time the FAA wants to ensure that more sophisticated and higher
powered amateur built experimental aircraft that will be flown IFR or at
night are properly equipped for such flight.
The FAA accomplishes this dual goal through wording in the Operating
Limitations that are the part of the airworthiness certificate of each
amateur built experimental aircraft. Those words are: "After completion of
Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR, day only."
Maybe there is a better way for the way for the FAA to accomplish their
intended dual goals (I find the above wording awkward and back handed
myself, even in conflict with some other words in the Operating
Limitations), but that is the way they are doing it now. If you want
confirmation of what I have written above I can put you in touch with the
authorities.
The table that I have created is accurate for equipping (and to some extent
operating) amateur built experimental aircraft because it takes into account
current FAA policy, FAA Orders, FAR content, and each aircraft's
airworthiness certificate which includes the Operating Limitations with the
wording provided above.
<< 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft with ANY US category
airworthiness certificate must have the instruments and equipment in
91.205(b).>>
Not quite. The heading of FAR Sec 91.205 reads "Powered civil aircraft with
STANDARD category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
requirements." (emphasis provided). Since amateur built experimental
aircraft have SPECIAL category, not Standard, category, airworthiness
certificates FAR Sec 91.205, as written, does not apply to amateur built
experimental aircraft at all. It takes the Operating Limitations wording
quoted above to make FAR Sec 91.205 applicable to amateur built aircraft as
reflected in my table.
<>
You are right. The table on page 68 of the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation
magazine is different from mine. Dick Koehler created that table as an
accurate reflection of FAR Sec 91.205 AS WRITTEN for aircraft with Standard
category airworthiness certificates. Note the title of that table. In order
to find out how that table relates to amateur built experimental aircraft
the reader must go into the text of Dick's article and interpret the
applicability of the table.
Dick very kindly provided me an electronic copy of his table. What I did was
modify it, and retitle it, so that the reader could directly see the
requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft without having to go
hunting through other sources.
I would like to emphasize that no table, plus a few accompanying words, can
tell the entire exact picture of this somewhat complex subject. There are
some subtle "gotchas" that require some further reading and understanding.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
OC
---- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Subject: RE: Amateur Built Requirements
>
> Hello Wayne, I am presuming that I am the "this guy"
>
> ----> I'm sorry, I thought I was replying to someone who forwarded the
> links
> from another person. Had I known that you were indeed "that guy", I would
> have addressed you more formally and more completely.
>
> And that "off his rocker" implies that you are taking exception to
> some information that you find in my Amateur Built Requirements Table
> which
> has been sent to you and other builders.
>
> --> I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion of "not required" for
> most
> all of the day VFR? 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft
> with ANY US category airworthiness certificate must have the instruments
> and
> equipment in 91.205(b). The reason I say this is your table differs
> drastically from the table that appeared recently in Sport Aviation
> magazine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
> As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last
> resort.
...snip......
>Autopilot
> Disconnect.
Good point.
My current ride, Bellanca Viking, has the ETA breakers and the little
red buttons staring at me, even, wisdom-of-wisdoms, in the autopilot
CB position...couldn't pull any of them even if I wanted to. Duh. May
have to see if I have a P&B W23 sitting around... problem with that is
all my ETAs are spade, not ring terminal....sigh!
As for the RED KNOB....no fear. I'm a cheap SOB and the first thing
I do is look for ways to keep an excess of anything from burning
up.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will N. Stevenson" <will(at)wavecable.com> |
| Subject: | Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
To perhaps beat on a dead horse here, I looked at AC20-27E, and AC20-27F, and nowhere
in either one is the 3/8" high font mentioned for the Passenger Warning
Placard. What am I missing here? Where has this 3/8" font information/rumour
come from? Don't the FSDO personnel have to go by the ACs issued by the FAA?
AC20-27E writes of this under 'Certification Process', Section 12 (e)(2), --no
mention of font size.
AC20-27F writes of this under 'Identifying and Marking your Amateur-Built Aircraft',
Section 9 (c), --no mention of font size. Probably I'm just missing some
info here, but where is it?
Frustrated and Confused,
Will
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
Greetings.
I'm currently building a Europa. For those of your that are not familiar
with that bird, the wings are removable.
I plan on installing the Whelen 3 in one tip lights with a single comet flash
unit located in the fuselage baggage area.
In doing this set up, there will be a need to disconnect the high voltage
wires at the wing root with some sort of plug arrangement.
My question is about how to go about making a a safe, reliable and noise free
connection at the wing root that will enable wing removal. Plug suggestions?
Shielding necessary?
Thanks in advance for your opinions and ideas.
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
I used the supplied molex disconnects at the wing root for disconnecting.
Works fine as I flew it for two years with no noise or problems. The
Molex disconnects are fine for the high voltage. I had the power supply
in the fuselage and ran the supplied shielded wires to the wing tips.
Jim Nelson
(Monowheel)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N5SL <nfivesl(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switches |
Bret:
I just installed these with the little lights on the end of the toggle:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_20_05_Switches.JPG
They are not as intense as lighting the entire toggle. They come in red and green.
The price was around $5 each. I can try to take a photo of them lit up
if you want. I also used some rocker switches with little round lights on them.
I'll try to get a close-up, but you can see them on my panel photos on my website.
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
CH601XL/Corvair
Bret Smith wrote:
These appear to be bright enough to offer a panel lighting option as well.
Does anyone have any experience with these switches or NKK switches in
general?
Bret
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
Several years ago the FAA issued a new AC20-27?, in preliminary electronic
format. In it was the 3/8 inch font size requirement. The EAA and all us
guys started raising a fuss and the FAA recanted, saying it was a mistake.
The final published revision did not have any font size requirement. Seems
like some of our brethren are a bit behind the curve.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Will N.
Stevenson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size
To perhaps beat on a dead horse here, I looked at AC20-27E, and AC20-27F,
and nowhere in either one is the 3/8" high font mentioned for the Passenger
Warning Placard. What am I missing here? Where has this 3/8" font
information/rumour come from? Don't the FSDO personnel have to go by the
ACs issued by the FAA?
AC20-27E writes of this under 'Certification Process', Section 12 (e)(2),
--no mention of font size.
AC20-27F writes of this under 'Identifying and Marking your Amateur-Built
Aircraft', Section 9 (c), --no mention of font size. Probably I'm just
missing some info here, but where is it?
Frustrated and Confused,
Will
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switches |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bret -
We used 12 NKK indicator lamps (LED's as the light source in each lamp)
for our annunciator panel. They are the lamp-only version of a line of
push button lighted switches. We got them through Carlton Bates. They
have offices around the country. The quality is excellent and the data in
their catalog is also excellent. Sure thanked them when we had the
annunciator panel cut to their dimensions and the lamps fit perfectly.
We also bought a couple of mini lock switches from them and they are
excellent. I'd buy any of their product line.
Hope this helps,
John
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
>
> > The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> > the load path to shift. In the picture at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
> >
> > you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> > joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> > of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> > data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> > stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> > thousand cycles.
>
>Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of
>the aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
>circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that
>many can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural
>thing to pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
>Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
A breaker is a specialized kind of switch with contacts held together
by springs to maintain a minimum pressure for good conductivity across
the contacts. Like switches, lightly loaded breakers (5A or less) are
subject to environmental stresses that corrode the contacts (molecules
thick) that will drive up the close contact resistance . . . sometimes
to the point of system malfunction. I've seen this happen several times
and the problem is always fixable by cycling the switch a dozen times or
so with some artificially high load (5A is enough) to "burn" the corrosion
clear. Alternatively, if the breakers are manually cycled under load
a half dozen times each annual, perhaps one will avoid having the thing
go open while in flight (very rare).
All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't recognize
it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
>I've recommended periodic cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I
>hesitate to even mention it lest it get fertilized and take off in the
>world of hangar legend funguses.
>
> Bob . . .
............98,99,100. Next preflight item...........
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | peter goudinoff <peterg(at)dakotacom.net> |
as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
peter goudinoff
Legacy #200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
For a cheap but robust wing disconnect system read Bob's article...
"Bob's Shop Notes: Wing Root Connections"
at...
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wingwire/wingwire.html
Rodney in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rhshumaker(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Amateur Built Requirements |
OC: I thought you handled this exchange with great tact and patience. Congrats.
Bob END
>
> From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
> Date: 2005/10/21 Fri PM 01:21:01 EDT
> To: "Hicks, Wayne"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Amateur Built Requirements
>
>
> 10/21/2005
>
> Hello Wayne, Thanks for your prompt response copied below and the
> opportunity to confirm the correctness of my table and to clear up a common
> misunderstanding.
>
> Here is the situation: The FAA, with help from the EAA, permits the flying,
> in day VFR only, of some very rudimentary (no offense intended) aircraft.
> Some examples are Breezy, Cri-Cri, Curtis Pusher Replicas, and Quicksilver
> MX. These are true amateur built experimental aircraft that are registered
> with the FAA, have N numbers assigned, and have been issued Special Category
> airworthiness certificates for operating amateur built aircraft.
>
> But it is obviously impractical or impossible for these rudimentary
> aircraft to be instrumented and equipped as required by FAR Sec 91.205 (b).
> At the same time the FAA wants to ensure that more sophisticated and higher
> powered amateur built experimental aircraft that will be flown IFR or at
> night are properly equipped for such flight.
>
> The FAA accomplishes this dual goal through wording in the Operating
> Limitations that are the part of the airworthiness certificate of each
> amateur built experimental aircraft. Those words are: "After completion of
> Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
> instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
> under VFR, day only."
>
> Maybe there is a better way for the way for the FAA to accomplish their
> intended dual goals (I find the above wording awkward and back handed
> myself, even in conflict with some other words in the Operating
> Limitations), but that is the way they are doing it now. If you want
> confirmation of what I have written above I can put you in touch with the
> authorities.
>
> The table that I have created is accurate for equipping (and to some extent
> operating) amateur built experimental aircraft because it takes into account
> current FAA policy, FAA Orders, FAR content, and each aircraft's
> airworthiness certificate which includes the Operating Limitations with the
> wording provided above.
>
> << 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft with ANY US category
> airworthiness certificate must have the instruments and equipment in
> 91.205(b).>>
>
> Not quite. The heading of FAR Sec 91.205 reads "Powered civil aircraft with
> STANDARD category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
> requirements." (emphasis provided). Since amateur built experimental
> aircraft have SPECIAL category, not Standard, category, airworthiness
> certificates FAR Sec 91.205, as written, does not apply to amateur built
> experimental aircraft at all. It takes the Operating Limitations wording
> quoted above to make FAR Sec 91.205 applicable to amateur built aircraft as
> reflected in my table.
>
> < that appeared recently in Sport Aviation magazine.>>
>
> You are right. The table on page 68 of the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation
> magazine is different from mine. Dick Koehler created that table as an
> accurate reflection of FAR Sec 91.205 AS WRITTEN for aircraft with Standard
> category airworthiness certificates. Note the title of that table. In order
> to find out how that table relates to amateur built experimental aircraft
> the reader must go into the text of Dick's article and interpret the
> applicability of the table.
>
> Dick very kindly provided me an electronic copy of his table. What I did was
> modify it, and retitle it, so that the reader could directly see the
> requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft without having to go
> hunting through other sources.
>
> I would like to emphasize that no table, plus a few accompanying words, can
> tell the entire exact picture of this somewhat complex subject. There are
> some subtle "gotchas" that require some further reading and understanding.
>
> Please let me know if you have any further questions.
>
> OC
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Amateur Built Requirements
>
>
> >
> > Hello Wayne, I am presuming that I am the "this guy"
> >
> > ----> I'm sorry, I thought I was replying to someone who forwarded the
> > links
> > from another person. Had I known that you were indeed "that guy", I would
> > have addressed you more formally and more completely.
> >
> > And that "off his rocker" implies that you are taking exception to
> > some information that you find in my Amateur Built Requirements Table
> > which
> > has been sent to you and other builders.
> >
> > --> I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion of "not required" for
> > most
> > all of the day VFR? 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft
> > with ANY US category airworthiness certificate must have the instruments
> > and
> > equipment in 91.205(b). The reason I say this is your table differs
> > drastically from the table that appeared recently in Sport Aviation
> > magazine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... |
I plan to post on my website a plea for instructions that can be seen and understood.
This is a nearly hopeless cause, of course.
Font size? I have a friend in Redlands, CA.--an old WWII P-38 pilot named Maxwell--
who has painted large labels on his radios, TVs, appliances and various
implements to enable him to use them. He is "function-oriented" to be sure, and
frustrated by teeny-tiny low-contrast labels on things. I consider putting
unreadable labels on things to be a sort of designer-madness, an evil sacrifice
of functionality at the alter of form and style. Maxwell and I agree on the
issue, but I have not yet attacked my household appliances with a paint brush....yet.
We live in a confederacy of dunces. Bad design is everywhere and illiteracy rules
the day. Just Google "Bad Design" for much amusement.
The FAA documents are not up to the task either. I quote-- "Sec. 23.1395 No position
light intensity may exceed the applicable values in the following equal
or exceed the applicable values in =A723.1389(b)(3):" (Insert: sound of cartoon
hound dog in bewilderment here). In my article on red and green LED position
lights, I note other examples of just plain FAA fumbles, such as changing the
name of a variable from "I" to "L" right in the middle of the calculations.
It takes mighty strong coffee even to read this stuff.
My workshop-garage is heated by a Coleman LP heater with instructions in a type
font so small, that if one could read them, you would need to be in sunlight
in the tropics. The control knob turns counterclockwise to increase the heat and
parts you would naturally grab to move the heater are burn hazards. The propane
cylinder of course has a left-hand thread just to trap the uninitiated (and
left over from a more mechanically-sophisticated age). The thing needs its
own Terror-Alert warning.
So we builders have the opportunity of designing airplanes that correct some of
this craziness. Just remember that there's a lot of bad design, and you don't
have to be fooled by ANY of it. Someday you'll be tired and the seeing conditions
will be poor--or someone like John Denver borrows your plane and needs to
find the fuel valve. Oops.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement.
--John Stuart Mill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
rv8iator(at)earthlink.net
>I came across this device:
> http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
>In the course of other research.
>This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery
>disconnect
>in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
>It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in
>series with
>the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
>Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
>I am in no way affiliated with Delphi. >Chris Stone
Chris,
Cool idea! I have often wondered if a really good indication of an OV
condition means absolutely that the alternator must be taken offline. The
auto guys have the pyrotechnic glitch thing pretty well figured out. The
Delphi battery disconnect "No-Fires" at currents up to 0.5 amps.
Resetting it? I doubt that this is a concern. Glitches? That's not a concern
if the actuator is well designed. One for each battery and one for the
alternator? Maybe.
Getting these in small quantities might be tough given Delphi's business
model, but I will certainly check it out.
Thanks for the idea!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Beaten paths are for beaten men."
-Eric A. Johnston
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Extremely well! It's designed to be run over by trucks and to be dragged
over hot, recently welded, steel, sometimes with sharp edges, in an
industrial environment. Probably survive your engine compartment better than
almost any other wiring material.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter goudinoff" <peterg(at)dakotacom.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
>
> as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
> any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
>
> peter goudinoff
> Legacy #200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
Bob, et al,
For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for much
the
same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any shorts
downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't recognize
it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
When you say 'cycling', do you mean annual 'replacement'?
----- Original Message -----
From: <N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
> property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for
> much the
> same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any
> shorts
> downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
>
> Doug Windhorn
>
>
> In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
> rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't
> recognize
> it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
> cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
> it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
Eric;
This device is manufactured for the automobile industry as a positive means
of battery disconnect during a crash. It is incorporated in the airbag/crash
detection circuitry (yes, using accelerometers as well as attitude sensors)
so that when a crash occurs of sufficient violence to trigger the airbag
and/or possibly the roll over sensors, then this device is fired off to
remove the chance of electrically initiated fire. These sensors also fire an
explosive charge which tensions your seatbelt, another which deploys your
airbags, still others which, in certain cars, raises the roll bar, and being
considered, if not already in some cars, more explosives which close the
windows and the sunroof. They also turn off electric fuel pumps and the
ignition. (mind you if this battery disconnect is installed, turning off the
fuel pumps and ignition may be redundant although maybe a good backup) These
explosive disconnect switches should be available from the parts department
of the manufacturers fitting them to their cars, in quantities of one, or up
to however many you wish to purchase. (Obviously more expensive than if you
could buy them direct from Delphi of course.) A sophisticated, (??) modern
car, will do many thousands of dollars damage to itself in a crash which was
not directly caused by the crash.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: emergency battery disconnect
>
> rv8iator(at)earthlink.net
> >I came across this device:
> >
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
> >In the course of other research.
> >This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery
> >disconnect
> >in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
> >It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in
> >series with
> >the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
> >Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
> >I am in no way affiliated with Delphi. >Chris Stone
>
> Chris,
>
> Cool idea! I have often wondered if a really good indication of an OV
> condition means absolutely that the alternator must be taken offline. The
> auto guys have the pyrotechnic glitch thing pretty well figured out. The
> Delphi battery disconnect "No-Fires" at currents up to 0.5 amps.
>
> Resetting it? I doubt that this is a concern. Glitches? That's not a
concern
> if the actuator is well designed. One for each battery and one for the
> alternator? Maybe.
>
> Getting these in small quantities might be tough given Delphi's business
> model, but I will certainly check it out.
>
> Thanks for the idea!
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Beaten paths are for beaten men."
> -Eric A. Johnston
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Peter,
I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy, so that
particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find it
with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and heat
resistant stuff somewhere...
FWIW...
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
In a message dated 10/21/2005 11:57:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
From: peter goudinoff <peterg(at)dakotacom.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
peter goudinoff
Legacy #200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Cable |
Listers,
Free samples of Super-2AWG and new Super-4AWG-Copper Clad Aluminum cables if you
email me off list.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
>small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy, so that
>particular stuff won't fly...
>
>
Or you could put a layer of fuel-proof heatshrink or whatever over the
bad insulation. Maybe just paint it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... |
Generally valid points but you are very wrong about those left hand thread
fittings on the propane tank. Standard cylinder-valve outlet connections
have been devised by the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) to prevent mixing
of incompatible gases. The outlet threads used vary in diameter; some are
internal, some are external; some are right-handed, some are left-handed. In
general, right-handed threads are used for non-fuel and water-pumped gases,
while left-handed threads are used for fuel and oil-pump gases.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility
Issues....
I plan to post on my website a plea for instructions that can be seen and
understood. This is a nearly hopeless cause, of course.
Font size? I have a friend in Redlands, CA.--an old WWII P-38 pilot named
Maxwell-- who has painted large labels on his radios, TVs, appliances and
various implements to enable him to use them. He is "function-oriented" to
be sure, and frustrated by teeny-tiny low-contrast labels on things. I
consider putting unreadable labels on things to be a sort of
designer-madness, an evil sacrifice of functionality at the alter of form
and style. Maxwell and I agree on the issue, but I have not yet attacked my
household appliances with a paint brush....yet.
We live in a confederacy of dunces. Bad design is everywhere and illiteracy
rules the day. Just Google "Bad Design" for much amusement.
The FAA documents are not up to the task either. I quote-- "Sec. 23.1395 No
position light intensity may exceed the applicable values in the following
equal or exceed the applicable values in =A723.1389(b)(3):" (Insert: sound
of cartoon hound dog in bewilderment here). In my article on red and green
LED position lights, I note other examples of just plain FAA fumbles, such
as changing the name of a variable from "I" to "L" right in the middle of
the calculations. It takes mighty strong coffee even to read this stuff.
My workshop-garage is heated by a Coleman LP heater with instructions in a
type font so small, that if one could read them, you would need to be in
sunlight in the tropics. The control knob turns counterclockwise to increase
the heat and parts you would naturally grab to move the heater are burn
hazards. The propane cylinder of course has a left-hand thread just to trap
the uninitiated (and left over from a more mechanically-sophisticated age).
The thing needs its own Terror-Alert warning.
So we builders have the opportunity of designing airplanes that correct some
of this craziness. Just remember that there's a lot of bad design, and you
don't have to be fooled by ANY of it. Someday you'll be tired and the seeing
conditions will be poor--or someone like John Denver borrows your plane and
needs to find the fuel valve. Oops.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.
--John Stuart Mill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will N. Stevenson" <will(at)wavecable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
Thanks Bruce, that makes some sense at least.
Will
>
> Several years ago the FAA issued a new AC20-27?, in preliminary electronic
> format. In it was the 3/8 inch font size requirement. The EAA and all us
> guys started raising a fuss and the FAA recanted, saying it was a mistake.
> The final published revision did not have any font size requirement. Seems
> like some of our brethren are a bit behind the curve.
>
> Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
Hello Charlie,
sorry, it took a little bit longer to find it, in Europe it is from
Conrad Electronics article 185990 an adjustable sensor from 1.2 to 8 mbar.
They are from Micro Pneumatic Logic and actually from the MPL 503 series
http://www.pressureswitch.com/products500.html
They have more such products, also for larger load (503 is up to 20mA).
Werner
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>Werner,
> Could you give us the Manufacturer and model number of the switch you are
>using?
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I'm using a pressure switch adjusted a tad over the Vs0 hooked into the
>>pitot line to get flying time.
>>
>>br
>>
>>Werner
>>
>>Rodney Dunham wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've noticed on the Rotax 912UL wiring diagrams that the "L" pin on the VR
>>>is for a lamp which indicates charge and is usually only "on" at run-up
>>>speed or greater.
>>>
>>>Has anyone tried using this as a DCV source for the Hobbs meter? Seems it
>>>would give good "flying time" readings and, or course, no falsely high "I
>>>left the master switch on overnight" readings! Only engine on and RPM's
>>>above warm-up times.
>>>
>>>I was thinking run a wire to the meter with an in-line fuse, say 3 amps,
>>>would do the trick.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>Rodney in Tennessee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Hopefully you don't have raw fuel leaking in your engine compartment to soak
your battery cables and make this a concern?? As for heat resistance,
welding cable is pretty good, designed to touch red hot steel occasionally.
The older welding cables were rubber based insulation, possibly affected by
fuel, the latest designs are modern polymers which stand up well.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: welding cable
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
> small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy,
so that
> particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find
it
> with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and
heat
> resistant stuff somewhere...
>
> FWIW...
> Jerry Cochran
> Wilsonville, OR
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
hi all,
i have heard that welding cable is tough as nails. i have also heard that
the toughness comes at quite a weight penalty compared to other cable
available. airplanes dont need all that heavy insulation that helps welding
cable take all the abuse that it does.
just an observation
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: welding cable
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
> small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy,
> so that
> particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find
> it
> with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and
> heat
> resistant stuff somewhere...
>
> FWIW...
> Jerry Cochran
> Wilsonville, OR
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2005 11:57:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> From: peter goudinoff <peterg(at)dakotacom.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
>
>
>
> as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
> any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
>
> peter goudinoff
> Legacy #200
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
one more thing about battery cable. i used to own a piper warrior and appreciated
the plug in to jump the airplane for cold starts. i used it all the time.
an a&p talked me into pulling out the aluminum battery cable and replace it with
copper. i did and never needed the a jump again.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
Gosh no! Who would agree to do that? Just flipping them off-on-off- a few
times.
Doug
In a message dated 22-Oct-05 9:11:58 Pacific Standard Time,
revenson(at)comcast.net writes:
When you say 'cycling', do you mean annual 'replacement'?
----- Original Message -----
From: <N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
> property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for
> much the
> same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any
> shorts
> downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
>
> Doug Windhorn
>
>
> In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
> rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't
> recognize
> it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
> cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
> it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Mil Spec, Tefzel insulated wire's advantage is that the individual
strands of copper wire are tin coated to improve corrosion resistance.
#4 and even #2 AWG wire really isn't that difficult to work with!
Regards,
Gaylen Lerohl
Bob McCallum wrote:
>
>Extremely well! It's designed to be run over by trucks and to be dragged
>over hot, recently welded, steel, sometimes with sharp edges, in an
>industrial environment. Probably survive your engine compartment better than
>almost any other wiring material.
>
>Bob McC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "peter goudinoff" <peterg(at)dakotacom.net>
>To: "AeroElectric-List Digest List"
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
>>any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
>>
>>peter goudinoff
>>Legacy #200
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Gaylen;
It's disadvantage is that in these gauges it is very stiff and can impart
sufficient load on a battery terminal to break it off from metal fatigue
induced by vibration. This is the reason that Bob suggests welding cable to
be superior to aircraft wire in this application. As for the weight
disadvantage, mentioned by someone else, the wire itself weighs exactly the
same whether its welding cable or mil spec wire, gauge for gauge in the same
material. The difference is only in the insulation covering the wire, and
that's only a very few ounces per foot. Total weight penalty for the whole
plane probably a fraction of a pound. The only real (although slight) weight
difference would be if you were to buy Eric's "Super CCA" wire which is
lighter due to a material difference. (aluminium)
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaylen Lerohl" <lerohl@rea-alp.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
<lerohl@rea-alp.com>
>
> Mil Spec, Tefzel insulated wire's advantage is that the individual
> strands of copper wire are tin coated to improve corrosion resistance.
> #4 and even #2 AWG wire really isn't that difficult to work with!
>
> Regards,
> Gaylen Lerohl
>
> Bob McCallum wrote:
>
> >
> >Extremely well! It's designed to be run over by trucks and to be dragged
> >over hot, recently welded, steel, sometimes with sharp edges, in an
> >industrial environment. Probably survive your engine compartment better
than
> >almost any other wiring material.
> >
> >Bob McC
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "peter goudinoff" <peterg(at)dakotacom.net>
> >To: "AeroElectric-List Digest List"
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
> >>any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
> >>
> >>peter goudinoff
> >>Legacy #200
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
>
>Gosh no! Who would agree to do that? Just flipping them off-on-off- a few
>times.
. . . and I'll add: It's best to do this while the breaker
is under load. You're INTENDING for the high temperatures of
electric arcing to "clean" the contact surfaces.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
>
>Hello Charlie,
>
>sorry, it took a little bit longer to find it, in Europe it is from
>Conrad Electronics article 185990 an adjustable sensor from 1.2 to 8 mbar.
>
>They are from Micro Pneumatic Logic and actually from the MPL 503 series
>http://www.pressureswitch.com/products500.html
>
>They have more such products, also for larger load (503 is up to 20mA).
A caveat for incorporation of these switches into the aircraft
environment:
I've suggested many times that electrical devices fail most often
in small aircraft due to the effects of old age as opposed to usage.
Nature is a patient supplier of environmental stresses that are
almost never considered in the lab testing of a product or even
suggested on the product's data sheets.
These little pressure switches are amazing devices and probably
do everything the spec sheets say. However, if RECORDING elapsed
hours is an important part of KNOWING when or how to do things on
your airplane . . . then to what degree will you direct pilot's
attention to the proper operation of the Hobbs meter on a per-flight
basis? A checklist item perhaps?
I've suggested one way to control an hour meter at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Gaging/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
Here, a very robust pressure switch is used for TWO tasks. (1) Warn
of low oil pressure (and master left on) and (2) operate the hourmeter.
This switch gets something of a pre and post-flight check automatically
and in a manner that draws attention to it's functionality without
extraordinary attention as a checklist item.
Of course, one can argue that the normally open and normally closed
contacts of even this switch can operate at variance with each other.
If one wishes to take the extra step, you can add a transistor and a few
resistors to the circuit such that only one set of contacts operate
both the low pressure warning AND operate the hour meter.
This is but one example of "robust design" with a goal of making
sure the desired operation happens while minimizing the cost of
ownership which includes both maintenance $time$ and operating
$time$. The secondary fallout is that failure of the switch to do
it's intended function is more likely to come to your attention
without being prompted by either an operating or maintenance procedure.
There are undoubtedly other solutions. I think this is a good example
of the though processes one should exercise whenever some relatively
fragile, sensitive, obviously NON robust product is being considered
for your project.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
Bob Hi!
I'm using a device called Power Genie to supply start and stop Voltage to
Hobbs Meter. About to start my Rotax Engine. OK?
Find it at:
http://www.powergenie.central5.com/
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
> Total weight penalty for the whole plane probably a fraction of a pound.
> The only real (although slight) weight
>difference would be if you were to buy Eric's "Super CCA" wire which is
>lighter due to a material difference. (aluminium)
>Bob McC
Just a couple thoughts--calling CCA "Aluminum" is arguable. There's has been
a long history of aluminum wiring problems but ZERO history of CCA problems.
As for weight, I think one of the best excerpts from the Aeroelectric List
on the subject is on Bob's website at--
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Hey, it ain't rocket surgery!"
--Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
Eric;
I apologise for categorizing "CCA" as aluminium Eric, what I meant was, it is based
on aluminium wire which lends lightness. Yes I realise you've gone to a lot
of trouble to research the copper plated aluminium and then to develop an acceptable
insulation system for it all to eliminate the aluminium wire short-comings
of the past while imparting to your wire the advantages of copper. I should
have said "aluminium based" or "copper clad aluminium" not "aluminium". I
was trying to promote your wire not imply any failing in it.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>
> Just a couple thoughts--calling CCA "Aluminum" is arguable. There's has been
> a long history of aluminum wiring problems but ZERO history of CCA problems.
> As for weight, I think one of the best excerpts from the Aeroelectric List
> on the subject is on Bob's website at--
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: welding cable |
On 23 Oct 2005, at 14:33, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Total weight penalty for the whole plane probably a fraction of a
>> pound.
>> The only real (although slight) weight
>> difference would be if you were to buy Eric's "Super CCA" wire
>> which is
>> lighter due to a material difference. (aluminium)
>> Bob McC
>>
>
> Just a couple thoughts--calling CCA "Aluminum" is arguable. There's
> has been
> a long history of aluminum wiring problems but ZERO history of CCA
> problems.
How many years of history of CCA use in aviation are there? How many
aircraft are using it? Is the service history long and deep enough
to draw any conclusions from?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Just a couple thoughts--calling CCA "Aluminum" is arguable. There's has
> been
> a long history of aluminum wiring problems but ZERO history of CCA
> problems.
How many years of history of CCA use in aviation are there? How many
aircraft are using it? Is the service history long and deep enough
to draw any conclusions from? Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Kevin,
Good question. Hard to answer. Many aircraft companies use CCA but it
certainly is not as old as the use of copper. See--
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/wire-copper-clad-aluminum-94430808-1.html
The point I have tried to make elsewhere is that if you have the expertise,
aluminum is the best choice of metal to use for conductors. Those power
company high tension lines you see everywhere are aluminum with a steel
core. Many economic factors figure into it.
The cable www.PerihelionDesign.com makes is made from ASTM B-566 10% Copper
(by volume) Clad Aluminum. The only proprietary thing about it is how on
God's Green Earth we procured less than a ton of raw material from which to
make it and how we talked anyone into making less than 10,000 feet of it.
This still amazes me.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what
to have for dinner." - James Bovard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Ran across this neat/consice bit of an info table this evening....
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/wire_resistance.html
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
Hello Bob,
here my 0.2 cents to this (air pressure) switch, however generally I
agree on your sight. I think the difference comes from me using the
Hobbs meter NOT as total engine time function instead of total FLYING
time function:
> These little pressure switches are amazing devices and probably
> do everything the spec sheets say. However, if RECORDING elapsed
> hours is an important part of KNOWING when or how to do things on
> your airplane . . . then to what degree will you direct pilot's
> attention to the proper operation of the Hobbs meter on a per-flight
> basis? A checklist item perhaps?
>
>
I have a cross-check with my GPS, as it does also log my flight time.
> I've suggested one way to control an hour meter at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Gaging/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
>
> Here, a very robust pressure switch is used for TWO tasks. (1) Warn
> of low oil pressure (and master left on) and (2) operate the hourmeter.
> This switch gets something of a pre and post-flight check automatically
> and in a manner that draws attention to it's functionality without
> extraordinary attention as a checklist item.
>
>
I have this switch also incorporated into my plane, however, the first
one failed to operate at the beginning (got it replaced for free by B&C
with a new design) however my goal is to log plain FLIGHT time so this
approach does not work for me.
> fragile, sensitive, obviously NON robust product is being considered
> for your project.
>
>
This switches are in use in many application in the industries measuring
all kind of fluid and gases items (not necessary the same switch type)
they're also used since years in one of the flight schools here in
Switzerland with great success (as they charge by flight time).
So far 150 hrs without any problem hooked up on my dynamic system (I
should have noted that maybe as it is NOT an oil pressure switch).
Werner
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Just as a quick add-on to this discussion. We sell a lot of welding cable
for batteries (thousands of feet of it over the past year), and have been
quite happy with it. That being said, I recently recevied a sample of
Perihelion's CCA wire for my review. I'm duly impressed with it enough that
I hope to start stocking and selling it. Couple of big points for me.
First, it's quite light weight when compared to the welding cable...and for
those putting the battery in the back of a plane (RV-8 or RV-10), this is
definately the stuff I'd recommend. I'm going to use it in our RV-8 for
the long batt cable runs to the rear. It's plated in copper and tests have
shown the performance to be up to snuff. Way above my head, but all I know
is things work or they don't. This stuff works and works well.
On top of that, it's a nice bright color!
Just my 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric
> M. Jones
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fatwire
>
>
>
>
> > Just a couple thoughts--calling CCA "Aluminum" is arguable.
> There's has
> > been
> > a long history of aluminum wiring problems but ZERO history of CCA
> > problems.
>
> How many years of history of CCA use in aviation are there? How many
> aircraft are using it? Is the service history long and deep enough
> to draw any conclusions from? Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>
> Kevin,
>
> Good question. Hard to answer. Many aircraft companies use CCA but it
> certainly is not as old as the use of copper. See--
>
> http://www.thomasnet.com/products/wire-copper-clad-aluminum-944308
> 08-1.html
>
> The point I have tried to make elsewhere is that if you have the
> expertise,
> aluminum is the best choice of metal to use for conductors. Those power
> company high tension lines you see everywhere are aluminum with a steel
> core. Many economic factors figure into it.
>
> The cable www.PerihelionDesign.com makes is made from ASTM B-566
> 10% Copper
> (by volume) Clad Aluminum. The only proprietary thing about it is how on
> God's Green Earth we procured less than a ton of raw material
> from which to
> make it and how we talked anyone into making less than 10,000 feet of it.
> This still amazes me.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep
> voting on what
> to have for dinner." - James Bovard
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
The AFS ( also known as ACS2002 before 2005 ) product does a nice job of
providing Hobbs and Tach Times. Tach time is the time the engine runs at
rpm greater than 1249. Hobbs is anytime the engine is running. They have a
website if anyone is interested.
http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/
Indiana Larry, RV7 74 hours Total Hobbs Time and still grinning..........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hobbs meter wiring
>
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> here my 0.2 cents to this (air pressure) switch, however generally I
> agree on your sight. I think the difference comes from me using the
> Hobbs meter NOT as total engine time function instead of total FLYING
> time function:
>
>> These little pressure switches are amazing devices and probably
>> do everything the spec sheets say. However, if RECORDING elapsed
>> hours is an important part of KNOWING when or how to do things on
>> your airplane . . . then to what degree will you direct pilot's
>> attention to the proper operation of the Hobbs meter on a per-flight
>> basis? A checklist item perhaps?
>>
>>
> I have a cross-check with my GPS, as it does also log my flight time.
>
>> I've suggested one way to control an hour meter at:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Gaging/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
>>
>> Here, a very robust pressure switch is used for TWO tasks. (1) Warn
>> of low oil pressure (and master left on) and (2) operate the hourmeter.
>> This switch gets something of a pre and post-flight check automatically
>> and in a manner that draws attention to it's functionality without
>> extraordinary attention as a checklist item.
>>
>>
> I have this switch also incorporated into my plane, however, the first
> one failed to operate at the beginning (got it replaced for free by B&C
> with a new design) however my goal is to log plain FLIGHT time so this
> approach does not work for me.
>
>> fragile, sensitive, obviously NON robust product is being considered
>> for your project.
>>
>>
> This switches are in use in many application in the industries measuring
> all kind of fluid and gases items (not necessary the same switch type)
> they're also used since years in one of the flight schools here in
> Switzerland with great success (as they charge by flight time).
>
> So far 150 hrs without any problem hooked up on my dynamic system (I
> should have noted that maybe as it is NOT an oil pressure switch).
>
> Werner
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Ken) |
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>>
>>at low RPM will cause extra strain on the alternator and drive belt.
>>Consider reducing the total load in these situations, or
>>switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only,
>>if the high load will be brief."
The comments, regarding turning the alternator off, comes from
Niagara Airparts installation instructions for their 40 amp ND alternator
kit.
This simply means IF the alternator is over loaded NEAR rated amperage
at low RPM reduce load. If the overload is brief you can turn the alternator
off and use the battery only. The latter case is not really a condition we
normally experience. This should not be a problem if alternator is sized
properly for intended load. Although keep in mind at idle you likely will not
be able to make rated AMPS (see below).
Why will it cause STRAIN. Simply you need more field current (heat) and
pulley torque to make the same output at low RPMs as at high RPM. More
field current makes more heat and higher required torque is more strain on
the drive belt. Of course the fan is making less air but running at high amps
is the heat maker, which is made worse at LOW RPM. Heat is the killer.
Anything you do to reduce heat has a direct affect on the reliability.
At engine idle (say 900 to 1000 RPM) your alternator will be at:
(NOTE: the numbers are pulley dia; There are two
prime Lycoming sizes, 7.5 and 9.5. The typical ND
alternator pulleys are about 2.5" to 2.9" dia. APPROX!)
(Anything under 5,000 RPM (at the alternator) may produce less than rated
power output, 7,000 RPM is best. Above 7,000 RPM output does not increase.
The ND alternator Niagara sells is rated at 43 amps Min. at 5000 RPM.
This data is from manufactures power to RPM spec for this ND model.
Please note, you must verify all data for the alternator model YOU actually
use. If you buy a ND alternator from Niagara they supply all tech data.)
The simple way to make more power with the alternator is increase the
engine RPM. Right. After the initial draw from the battery goes down you
can than bring items on. This initial charge time my be a very short time.
It is a good idea not to load on all the electrical items immediately after
start. A strong battery will reduce the alternators work load overall.
Lets assume you are using the Niagara alternator which is rated at 43
amps minimum at 5000 RPM. Here are some other ratings vs. RPM:
7000 RPM @ 46 amp
4000 RPM @ 40 amp
3000 RPM @ 34 amp
2700 RPM @ 30 amp
(You can see you may only have 30 amps or less. You may have say
3 amps less output if alternator is hot. Alternator output drops with high
temps. Running near the max available output at low RPM (hot) is
definitely a strain, especially in a hot engine compartment.)
(ND tech spec sheet: This alternator can make up to 50 amps max at
7000 RPM. I would recommend when you size your alternator or operate
not to exceed 50-70% rated capacity to your max *continuous* worst case
load. If you really have well over 30 amps continuous I would consider a
bigger alternator. I kept my plane on an electrical load diet so I could use
the smaller lighter alternator.)
(The key is keep the heat down. If you don't believe me, bring you alternator
to the auto electric shop, a real one not Auto Zone. Have them run it up and load
it to max rating. Bring a temp probe. Measure how hot it gets. If you are getting
over 100C you are getting real hot. They typical MAX temp is around 125-150C.
However in the plane you should have some benifit of a blast of cooling air that
you don't have on the test bench.)
(In your alternator installation, cooling air and heat shield should be
considered. Even in cars this is done. Some expensive imports cars with
Bosh alternators where failing due to proximity to a turbo charger. So a heat
shroud and air duct was added and solved the problem. ANY alternator of
any type or brand will fail sooner if run too hot.)
(What is the limit? The semi-conductors are operation rated around +150C,
but you don't want to live there. With modern I-VR alternators semi-conductors
are well insulated with heat sinks and dual internal fans. Reduce external heat
as much as possible. To take a clue for the computer guys, the critical temp
of the CPU is around 90C and it is recommended that you keep it 20C lower.)
(Call Niagara for their professional opinion as this alternator has been in service
for about 10 years in their company plane. After selling about 8 years they have
sold them they have had no returns. There is a HINT.)
(I have this ND alternator and I don't run it above 30 amps continuous, and
about 33 amps intermittent. I am way under 20 amps, around 9-12 amps.
I also have a blast tube at the rear of the alternator where the VR heat sink
is and the rectifier diode pack is. My plane is glass panel/autopilot/day/night
VFR. Lighting is full meal deal, with landing lights, 3-dual flash strobes/nav
lights, cockpit lighting.)
(The internal dual ND fans are going to make air, even at lower RPM, but
remember we run the fan backwards which works but is not ideal. Heat
is a killer. The Alt. can be abused for a short period, but you are killing it.
With a good air blast tube, heat in flight should not be an issue. The better
the cooling the closer to max rated output you can run continuously without
exceeding reasonable temps.)
HEAT IS BAD BUT HERE IS THE COOL PART:
ND alternators shut themselves down for following:
Over Voltage
Shorted B-lead
System fault signal*
High Field current (over load)**
*An internal fault (opens) can shut the alternator down to protect the plane or
alternator.
**This last item can occur with low RPMs and high output load demand.
*** Warning light will come on with any of the above.
The new source for the small ND alternators are thru auto electric
wholesalers and are used on many industrial applications (forklift, tractors).
Niagara Airparts has a Nice 40-45 amp unit with all the parts ($275)
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Anderson" <s_s_and(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Forced Landing in Richard La. |
Does any one know the background of an RV-6 registered to Phillip
Chamberlain that landed in a rice field after take off this weekend. The
home field of the plane and pilot are Lake Charles, Louisiana. Fortunately
the pilot was not injured.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Ken) |
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>>
>>at low RPM will cause extra strain on the alternator and drive belt.
>>Consider reducing the total load in these situations, or
>>switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only,
>>if the high load will be brief."
The comments, regarding turning the alternator off, comes from
Niagara Airparts installation instructions for their 40 amp ND alternator
kit.
This simply means IF the alternator is over loaded NEAR rated amperage
at low RPM reduce load. If the overload is brief you can turn the alternator
off and use the battery only. The latter case is not really a condition we
normally experience. This should not be a problem if alternator is sized
properly for intended load. Although keep in mind at idle you likely will not
be able to make rated AMPS (see below).
Why will it cause STRAIN. Simply you need more field current (heat) and
pulley torque to make the same output at low RPMs as at high RPM. More
field current makes more heat and higher required torque is more strain on
the drive belt. Of course the fan is making less air but running at high amps
is the heat maker, which is made worse at LOW RPM. Heat is the killer.
Anything you do to reduce heat has a direct affect on the reliability.
At engine idle (say 900 to 1000 RPM) your alternator will be at:
(NOTE: the numbers are pulley dia; There are two
prime Lycoming sizes, 7.5 and 9.5. The typical ND
alternator pulleys are about 2.5" to 2.9" dia. APPROX!)
(Anything under 5,000 RPM (at the alternator) may produce less than rated
power output, 7,000 RPM is best. Above 7,000 RPM output does not increase.
The ND alternator Niagara sells is rated at 43 amps Min. at 5000 RPM.
This data is from manufactures power to RPM spec for this ND model.
Please note, you must verify all data for the alternator model YOU actually
use. If you buy a ND alternator from Niagara they supply all tech data.)
The simple way to make more power with the alternator is increase the
engine RPM. Right. After the initial draw from the battery goes down you
can than bring items on. This initial charge time my be a very short time.
It is a good idea not to load on all the electrical items immediately after
start. A strong battery will reduce the alternators work load overall.
Lets assume you are using the Niagara alternator which is rated at 43
amps minimum at 5000 RPM. Here are some other ratings vs. RPM:
7000 RPM @ 46 amp
4000 RPM @ 40 amp
3000 RPM @ 34 amp
2700 RPM @ 30 amp
(You can see you may only have 30 amps or less. You may have say
3 amps less output if alternator is hot. Alternator output drops with high
temps. Running near the max available output at low RPM (hot) is
definitely a strain, especially in a hot engine compartment.)
(ND tech spec sheet: This alternator can make up to 50 amps max at
7000 RPM. I would recommend when you size your alternator or operate
not to exceed 50-70% rated capacity to your max *continuous* worst case
load. If you really have well over 30 amps continuous I would consider a
bigger alternator. I kept my plane on an electrical load diet so I could use
the smaller lighter alternator.)
(The key is keep the heat down. If you don't believe me, bring you alternator
to the auto electric shop, a real one not Auto Zone. Have them run it up and load
it to max rating. Bring a temp probe. Measure how hot it gets. If you are getting
over 100C you are getting real hot. They typical MAX temp is around 125-150C.
However in the plane you should have some benifit of a blast of cooling air that
you don't have on the test bench.)
(In your alternator installation, cooling air and heat shield should be
considered. Even in cars this is done. Some expensive imports cars with
Bosh alternators where failing due to proximity to a turbo charger. So a heat
shroud and air duct was added and solved the problem. ANY alternator of
any type or brand will fail sooner if run too hot.)
(What is the limit? The semi-conductors are operation rated around +150C,
but you don't want to live there. With modern I-VR alternators semi-conductors
are well insulated with heat sinks and dual internal fans. Reduce external heat
as much as possible. To take a clue for the computer guys, the critical temp
of the CPU is around 90C and it is recommended that you keep it 20C lower.)
(Call Niagara for their professional opinion as this alternator has been in service
for about 10 years in their company plane. After selling about 8 years they have
sold them they have had no returns. There is a HINT.)
(I have this ND alternator and I don't run it above 30 amps continuous, and
about 33 amps intermittent. I am way under 20 amps, around 9-12 amps.
I also have a blast tube at the rear of the alternator where the VR heat sink
is and the rectifier diode pack is. My plane is glass panel/autopilot/day/night
VFR. Lighting is full meal deal, with landing lights, 3-dual flash strobes/nav
lights, cockpit lighting.)
(The internal dual ND fans are going to make air, even at lower RPM, but
remember we run the fan backwards which works but is not ideal. Heat
is a killer. The Alt. can be abused for a short period, but you are killing it.
With a good air blast tube, heat in flight should not be an issue. The better
the cooling the closer to max rated output you can run continuously without
exceeding reasonable temps.)
HEAT IS BAD BUT HERE IS THE COOL PART:
ND alternators shut themselves down for following:
Over Voltage
Shorted B-lead
System fault signal*
High Field current (over load)**
*An internal fault (opens) can shut the alternator down to protect the plane or
alternator.
**This last item can occur with low RPMs and high output load demand.
*** Warning light will come on with any of the above.
The new source for the small ND alternators are thru auto electric
wholesalers and are used on many industrial applications (forklift, tractors).
Niagara Airparts has a Nice 40-45 amp unit with all the parts ($275)
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Glen and Bob) |
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Controlling IR ND Alternators
>>
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>-AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek"
>
>
>Hey fellas (and gals)-
>
>There's a whole lot of anecdotal info flying about, and precious
>little research. Mickey is to be commended and thanked for not only having
>the interest and motivation to research his alternator, but also for
>posting that info for others to benefit from. This is good stuff. He is also
>to be commended for basically saying "this is how mine is.", as opposed
>to"this is how all alternators work".
>>Exactly.
(Bob and Glen, GREAT. I agree Mickey's info is great. It is refreshing from
the usual BS, lies and stories about I-VR alternators you hear the so
called experts spout. I have the same 100211-1680 ND alternator and can
confirm that is the way it works, howerver do not make assumptions about
other models. I hope this opens up more open discussion that I-VR as a
very well suited reliable safe option. Bob, is getting a hard-on when you
say it Glen. I have side it 5 times, researching the subject I am comfortable
wiring my IR alternator (ND) with out an OVM. If you use Mickey's model
of ND alternator 100211-1680, follow the Niagara wiring diagram, operation
and installation instructions, NOT Bob's Z-dwgs, which are not suitable.)
(BTW: Glen what are you doing exactly? )
>This thread started out as a discussion of the rebuilt 60A alternator
>that Van sells, Van's wiring directions, how this particular alternator is
>configured, and other wiring options available to users of the Van's
>supplied alternator. Mickey's is different. Or, perhaps I should say
>that the alternator Van supplies is different from the vast majority of
>alternators rolling down the road today.
>>Don't know that this is a true statement. I think we're going to
>>find they have more in common than in difference.
(Bob, do you have some positive input or just a guess. It would be great if
you got on board Bob and starting an intelligent dialog regarding evaluating
the suitability and application of I-VR alternators instead of sticking with
your stubborn rhetoric of myth, rumor and faults fear against I-VR alternators.)
(ND alternators are similar. You can research the difference. Many (from 120
models) of the differences are mechanical (single V-pulley/multi groove,
internal/external fan/VR). Electrical difference include output capacity,
voltage set points and style of connector plug. Yes ND makes external VR
models. The external VR models are large high output units. Reason for moving
VR external for these large units is size and room for the VR, or that is
what the customer wanted for commonality (my guess). Most ND alternators
have I-VR. As a brand most of the ND brand share similar design features.
All this is on the web if you are willing to take the time. When you set
your design requirement, output, V-pulley, VR internal/external and physical
size, only a few models come out, plus availability comes into play.)
(Some of the older models are not easily found NEW anymore. For me that
is a factor. Since my design goal is a NEW light weight, small size the under
55 amp model, the industrial units like the one Niagara sells filled my needs.
If you need over 55 amp you need to go to the larger alternator. The Suzuki,
Toyota and Industrial application are the most popular and have great service
history in homebuilt aircraft. Light, less parts, inexpensive and reliable, what
else do you want.)
(With a ND you can get a replacement on the weekend at the autopart store
across the street from the airport you can get a replacement.Try getting a
replacement B&C anywhere on the weekend.)
(Mickey's alternator is a small frame ND that does not use a remote voltage
sense. It is the same model that Niagara sells and is for a Ishikawajima
General S753 engine (folklift). Small lower amp alternators are still available
new for the industrial applications but harder to find at auto stores. I have
the same alternator Mickey has. This is also the one Niagara sells and one
has gone for 10 years on a T-18 Thorp over 1000 trouble free hours (no OVM).
I have the detailed spec sheet and internal wiring for this unit. It is a thing
of beauty.)
(Van's 60 amp alternator (ES 14684) is a 14684 Lester #. I don't have one,
but the application is the Suzuki Samurai 86-95 and 89 Sidekick.
Nippondenso part numbers: 100211-141, 100211-155, 100211-407. )
>One of the big issues with using IR alternators is the perceived inability
>to shut them down once running. Well, the unit Van's sells is specifically
>configured to do just that. Coincidence? I doubt it. C'mon folks, apples
>to apples, please.
>>I think all the modern designs will shut down gracefully when
>>deprived of IGN input . . . as long as the one or two pieces of
>>silicon that make up the control system are alive and well.
(Glen C'mon. There is no secret plan. It is a coincidence. The IGN wire is
for a car not an airplane. This is just a popular alternator that home-builders
used well before Van started to sell them. Van no doubt choose it because
they are available and inexpensive, not for the IGN wire function. REMEMBER
it is a CAR alternator and ND had no plan to incorporate it into aircraft or use
the IGN wire as an emergency shut-off when Suzuki, Toyota or Ishikawajima
contracted ND to build the alternator for them.)
(Don't get me wrong they are sophisticated devices, which work automatically
and have logic and control functions (but for a car). However lucky for us they
also work great in airplanes, but don't read too much into the fact the IGN
turns the alternator ON/OFF. Emergency shut down function is not the intent
of the IGN wire. If the IGN wire is HOT the engine is running, IGN wire off,
the engine is off. May be the IGN wire could be used to shut the alternator
down in an emergency, but if there was an over-voltage it would (should)
shut down automatically. That is the point of the whole design, automatic
OV fault control function and logic.)
(The dooms day scenario is the VR has been by-passed and is no longer in
control, and the alternator is driving itself to make power allowed by the
winding and diodes. This is the theory. The good news it will not happen
instantaneously. You have time to pull the panel CB on the B-lead. If you see
any odd or non-normal operations, pull the CB and have the unit bench tested
against the specs. If you want to use the crow bar and b-lead relay OK, but I
would not. That is just my opinion.)
Bob :"I think..as long as the one or two pieces of silicon that
make up the control system are alive and well"
(Bob are you are guessing? Why don't you let this to us IR alternator users.
Guessing is not facts and not helpful. Glen it's great you got Bob you admit
that you can control ND alternator. This is a big change from Bob's position
that he ASSUMED the I-VR has no control once running and was prone to
problems, which is of course a lie.)
(Bob does not care about IR alternators. Keep that in mind.)
(If you read the link below Bob says IR alternators should NOT be used and
makes them sound evil with horror STORIES. Fortunately they are just that,
stories with absolutely no substance of facts.)
(I recommend a big-old CB on the panel for the B-lead as a back-up to
assure you have have a HARD positive way to isolate the alternator. However
every builder should check the model alternator they have.)
(As far as using IGN wire to control the alternator, that is not how it is used
in cars and therefore I would not count on it 100%. This is MY OPINION
based on the logic that if it came out of a Suzuki Sidekick, wire it and use it
like it was designed for, in that application. In a Suzuki car you never turn
the IGN off with the engine on, and with the IGN off the engine is off.)
(Since there is no absolute way to assure the IGN wire will work in a pinch
use a positive way to cut the b-lead (your choice). I don't care for the OVM Bob
sells because it is suppose to fix a problem that does not exist historically,
with a solution that does have known issues and problems, the crow bar. The
CB is simple and easy to use and understand. Noise from installing a CB is
not an issue with proper installation and good aircraft grounds.)
>I have spoken with the folks at Denso (Mickey's contact et al) to no
>avail, as Van markets an O/Hauled unit. I have spoken with mass
>over-haulers of these units.
(Glen, I so glad you did your own research. I also researched it talking
to large over-haulers, auto dealers (Acura, Toyota, Lexus), small
auto-electric shops, Nippondenso directly, large auto-electric wholesalers
and searched all data bases for auto safety, consumer complaints. The
Model of alternator Van sells has no recalls, service bulletins or consumer
complaints. When they do fail and need service, it is for brushes and rectifier
diodes, mostly brushes. There has NEVER been any DOCUMENTED
OV condition, causing damage, EVER. Is that right Mr. (Anecdote) Bob.)
(I have even read where Bob claims he sees cars going down the road with
the lights going dim than real bright, implying it is a ND I-VR alternator.
Talk about wild anecdote, insinuation, innuendo. I have never see this.
Of course most cars befor 1970 has alternators with external regulated
alternators, with mechanical VR. No wounder Bob worries about OV he
thinks the reliability of modern IR alternators are like ones made by ND.
Alternators not only now have solid state control they have DIGITAL
logic. The stuff Bob likes is analog. )
(An issue is quality of rebuilds. I buy only new units and have found sources
for new small and medium (55/60 amp) units. Also keep in mind after-market
part makers come into the rebuild picture which is another variable. Starting
with a NEW all OEM ND alternator I feel is better from common sense. If you
look you can find new vs rebuild; even the 60 amp unit can be found new and
cheaper than what Van sells it for.)
>I would respectfully suggest that people KNOW what they are dealing
>with before turning the key.
(GOOD IDEA, why did I not say that. Oh yea I did about 5 times.)
>>NOTHING takes the place of good DATA, not even learned assumptions
>>from experienced or credentialed crystal ball gazers.
>>
>>Bob . . .
(WHAT DATA did Glen present? Yea that is what I thought.)
(Bob that is brilliant, "credentialed crystal ball gazers". Who are you directing
that weak back-stab at, in typical condescending verbose style. All those
big words. Are you trying to impress, be clever or cover your insecurity.
Just stop with your petty little crap.)
(Bob you ARE the MASTER of anecdotal stories. What the hell.
Lets see some data or facts Bob. How many STORIES are we talking
about. You are full of STORIES. The rest of this document is full of prejudice
& opinion lacking facts.)
(As far as "credentialed" are you jealous? I guess not. We all know you
think education is stupid and engineers useless. "When I was working
on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti..." stories you tell to validate your creditability,
Bob is your "credentialed". I am not ashamed of my engineering education
or my professional experience.)
(I only asked you if you where an engineer Bob because you implied you
have engineering "credentials" and abilities, which where apparent you
don't have from what you write. This in no way takes away from your
experience as a technician.)
HERE IS THE HYPOCRISY, WHAT BOB WROTE ON HIS SITE
From:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
>"(6) While the probability of regulator failure in cars is exceedingly low, it
is
>not zero. We have heard of ANECDOTAL stories of unhappy, high-dollar
>events taking place in airplanes after failure of internally regulated alternators."
>
>(Ref: "Load Dump" Damage to Alternators with Built-in Regulators";
>Bob Nuckolls, 2/1/04)
(As far as your anecdote Bob, "..stories of unhappy, high-dollar events.."
What happened? What alternator? What failed? Why? What was the
consequence? What Aircraft? What was damaged? )
(You have never given ANY facts, just stories)
(Your sensational STORY is nothing more than MYTH and lies.
You have been spewing this rhetoric BS for years about IR
alternators is out of ignorance, inability or willingness to grasp
different or new technologies. As far as "It can't be certified", I
say WHO CARES, IT IS MOOT. These are experimental aircraft
and not a Piaggio P.180. IS IT SAFE TO USE A I-VR? YES. )
HERE IS ANOTHER BOB QUOTE:Also from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
>"The Aeroelectric Connection does not
>recommend the use of internally
>regulated alternators on aircraft.
>Wiring for these alternators has been deleted."
>
>(Ref: OVM installation, page 2.0, 6/5/5, see link above)
(Bob realize these ND alternators are going to be used anyway, as is.
New clone Lycoming's and the Egg Subaru engines all provide a ND
alternator like Niagara Airparts 40 amp ND IR alternator.)
(STOP with the snide remarks. I'll sit back and let you embarrass yourself
some more Bob, but cut the crap. I am proud of my input to the forum,
cutting thru the myths and rumors that you and your "followers who
worshiped at the alter of anecdote" propagate.)
(I presented facts that IR alternators are not dangerous, as you portrayed
them over the years. I also stated when it was my opinion and when based
on casual observation, but you jumped all over me for using the word Anecdote.
That is sad because there your own words.Looking at just a few documents you
have used this word at least 4 or 5 times yourself.)
That is what you do Bob, brow beat people, play word games, nit pick every
word to infinity until they are disgusted with you and quit. I like you too much
to quit Bob. I am just giving you a taste of your medicine. I am waiting for the
I-VR chapter in your book. May I suggest Chap title:
Internally Regulated Alternators-A Great Option
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
Dear Bob:
Once again you bring nothing to the table when it comes to IR alternators.
Bob has attacked the words of another, again. This time they are from the
installation instructions for Niagara Airparts alternator kit, which uses a ND
alternator part number 100211-1680, application is for a Ishikawjima General
S753 engine (used on industrial equipment such as folklifts). This is the
same one Mickey reported on. it is nominally rated at 43 amps at 5000 RPM.
At 5000 RPM it can produce up to 48 amps, max capacity is a little over 50
amps. (I also own this model). All comments are regarding this exact model.
On the bottom of the first page of the below link you will see the paragraph Bob
has spewed more useless ignorant comments.
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
(PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION AND OBJECT OF BOB'S RANT & RAVE)
"(conditions in which a very high draw is being made of the alternator)
at low RPM will cause extra strain on the alternator and drive belt.
Consider reducing the total load in these situations, or
switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only,
if the high load will be brief."
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Controlling IR ND Alternators
(THIS IS WHAT BOB SAID)
>The only concerns I might have for alternator "stress" at
>low rpm is cooling . . . this is hard to achieve on a Lycoming
>installation when you leave the small pulley in place.
>Even so, terms like "low rpm", "very high draw", "extra strain",
>"reducing total load", and "brief" are all non-quantified terms
>having no value for advancing either understanding or increasing
>service life of the alternator.
(AND AGAIN BOB)
>An excellent example of how a few anecdotes can be
>misinterpreted or woven into new and baseless concerns.
>The caution cited has no foundation in physics or design
>limits for the alternator.
> Bob . . .
(BASELESS CONCERNS!!!!!! Like worrying about an unlikely over voltage
condition using a IR alternator, so add on a OVM. Ha ha ha ha ha ha)
(Can't you just say you don't understand it and leave it at that?)
(Bob again you attack every word and make bombastic pompous platitudes
that add no value to the discussion. The Niagara paragraph is very much
appropriate and your comments are negative and NON-value added.
(FIRST, The FAA, NASA, Airframe manufactures have long abandoned the
concept you must know every detailed spec of every component to operate an
aircraft. This is an outgrowth of CRM, Cockpit Resource Management. What do
you NEED to know? Info that you can't do anything about or use in flight is not
provided. My first airline ground school we had to diagram a turbo prop gear box.
Real useful if you are going rebuild it; not so useful for flying.)
(The word STRAIN is an acceptable term and I will explain for those with an open
mind. Words like "low rpm", "very high draw", "extra strain","reducing total load"
and "brief" are acceptable words I understand completely. They mean nothing
to BOB? Really, just belligerent.)
(I know what they mean and exact values are not needed to express the point. By
the way Niagara provides ALL the Technical Spec sheet the quantifies these values,
so you must feel foolish saying this stuff an being so belligerent sometimes.
Don't you? The ND Spec Sheet is DETAILED in every way for those needing the
info.)
(Alternator basics 101: An alternator takes mechanical energy and turns it into
electrical energy. AN electric motor does the opposite. Some devices doe the
same thing in one unit, i.e., work both as a motor and generator.)
(The mechanical input is a torque/speed (RPM) or HP). The electrical output
is (volt-amp). The maintain the same HP torque required goes up as RPM drops .
It is somewhat analogous to lugging you car down in high gear at low RPM, in
the sense it is not efficient. Also the internal rotor current must be higher to
maintain the same output at lower alternator RPM, which makes more internal
heat.)
(Let's assume higher internal current (heat) and higher drive torque (belt load)
is more STRAIN.)
(What can the pilot do about it? INCREASE RPM or LOWER ELECTRICAL LOAD.
Nothing but be aware of the fact at idle you don't have the same output as you
do
at higher RPM.)
(The airflow of the fan is an issue, but ND internal fan's are efficient, but
we
run them in reverse (so does B&C). ND alternators have a VR that look at the field
current and will shut down if the condition is too severe, i.e. at low RPM, high
field current and decreasing electrical output. The intent of Niagara's comment
is
to make the user aware that low RPM and high load (near rated max) is NOT desirable.
It is only important for user awareness and what corrective actions to take. The
physics is not important to the average user, but the info is provided. )
(Chance is if you have an alternator properly sized this alternator strain is not
an issue at idle, just be aware of it.)
(Bob, If you don't know what it means just ask and don't attack. If you would like
call Niagara, they will help you with out insulting or making condescending
comments.)
(BTW, I absolutely have nothing to do with Niagara Airparts. Also this condition
is unlikely in our application, but it is impossible. Idle alternator RPM may be
less than 3000 RPM. If you idle with every item on you could tax (strain) the
alternator. Increasing RPM or reducing the total load is the proper action if
needed. If you need to know, using a lycoming you need engine RPM, you may have
a ratio of 2.6 to 3.8 depending on pulley sizes, e.g. engine 1000 rpm, alternator
RPM is 2,600 to 3,800. Anything under 5000 RPM (alternator) is too low for
efficient full output, ND model 100211-1680. In other words the pilot needs to
have at least 1300-1900 RPM. Niagara can not give you this info, since they can
not assume what pulley you are using. Since 1900 RPM is at the low end of the
typical RPM for flight Ops it is not an issue. ONLY Be aware that at idle you
may have less power available.)
(Note: Of interest from the above Niagara instructions, Alternator Characteristics,
paragraph 3, last sentence, talks to the fact the alternator SHUTS it self down,
which it will for: Over Voltage, internal fault, overload and B-lead short. To
reset the alternator you turn the IGN off and than on. Also the warning light will
come on to indicate a fault trip. COOL. The I-VR electronics **(IC chip) is really
a micro-processor or computer if you will. Future car alternators will have data
links to the car's central computer. Still many will still be putting 1950's
technology in their home-built plane even then. The days of external VR's for
small alternators as the preferred method in homebuilt planes has passed. SHOW
ME YOUR FAILURE ANALYSIS DATA BOB TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THAT
IS WHAT I THOUGHT, BS STORIES. You are short on facts, long on opinion.)
**(Bob once wrote he thought the only reason for IC chips in I-VR was for
cheaper manufacturing, but the fact is there are so many transistors in the IC
chip and functions that it is not possible without integrated circuits. If you
made it like B&C makes it's external VR, it would be as big as battery.)
(All the BS and miss understanding on this Forum is the result of Bob's duplicitous
and slanted mis-representation of the facts. He hides behind attacks to bolster
either his ego, insecurity or desire to promote one way of thinking.)
(I have nothing against Bob and his ideas, but all this personal attacks are a
waste
of time. My comments only echo Bobs tirades back. I don't always agree with Bob,
but that is OK. Bob, you are great and we all Love Ya, but stop the grumpy old
man
stuff.)
(Where are your facts Bob? You told me you are a man of facts because in your
work you only use facts. We are all smart enough to understand your technical
explanation.)
(Bob, your like a dog. Another dog has pissed on you favorite fire hydrant,
you don't have any piss but you are going to lift your leg anyway. I don't want
to
be an expert or piss on you fire hydrant Bob; however you are leaving big steaming
piles all over, smelling the place up, but feel free to spread you yellow stream
of
wisdom. Stop lying and dropping your piles of BS about IR alternators which you
clearly have little experience with or care to support. You are clearly a expert
with external VR alternators and your crow bar. Stick with that or put a chapter
on
I-VR in your book called: Internal Regulated Alternators a Great Option)
(You noticed that more people are asking about IR alternators. I think people where
afraid to ask before, but not any more. This is good.)
(Bob YOUR whole rant and raves about IR alternators are baseless and has no
foundation in physics or design limits for the alternator. You are a hypocrite
extraordinaire.)
( You use words like Physics and think dropping this word lends validity to your
attack. Back it up with facts Bob. WHAT PHYSICS? If you want to explain it and
be the teacher, please do. Otherwise you are hypocritical in accusing everyone
else being loose with the facts. Pompous, condescending, self righteous attacks
on everyone who disagree with is not helping your image of benevolent teacher
either.)
(Niagara is in good company and has about 10 years experience with their product.
Guess how many have come back or had a problem? ZERO. How many crow bars
and B&C regulators have issues or came back? MANY. TAKE A HINT FOLKS.)
(I am not saying you should buy their product. I am saying don't take everything
Bob says as gospel and go out an make your own alternator set up.)
Bob, what do you know about IR alternator design? I would love to hear it. Please
explain real power, apparent power, reactive power, imaginary numbers and how it
relates to alternator torque/speed/load and efficiency. Really I can't explain
it
and may be you can enlighten all of us.
Let me close with something you would say,
Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
Gosh darn it, son of ........STOP IT AND STICK TO FACTS YOU
ACTUALLY KNOW.
STOP THE ATTACKS AND SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT IR
ALTERNATORS.
IF YOU DON'T CARE FOR IR ALTERNATORS STOP GUESSING
AND LEAVE US I-VR USER'S ALONE.
MAJORITY OF THE BUILDERS ARE NOT INEPT AND YOU
UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POTENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND. JUST
PRESENT THE FACTS AND STOP THE "STORIES", LET THEM
DECIDE.
DON'T LET YOUR EGO GET IN THE WAY. IF WE DON'T SEE IT YOUR
WAY YOU ASSUME IT IS IGNORANCE, AND NOT THE FACT WE
HAVE CONSIDERED ALL FACTS AND INFO AND IGNORED YOUR
PREJUDICE OPINION AND ANECDOTES , WHICH ARE LIES.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE THE IR ALTERNATOR. I WANT TO
HELP THEM, AS WELL AS MYSELF BETTER UNDERSTAND THEM.
HELP OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT.
THANKS TO THOSE WHO HAD THE BALLS TO POST COMMENTS
ABOUT IR ALTERNATORS ON THIS LIST. I KNOW I WILL NOT GET
ANY USEFUL INFO ON THE TOPIC FROM YOU BOB.
I WISH YOU WOULD BE MORE POSITIVE BUT OH WELL I GUESS WE
HAVE TO LIVE WITH OUT (IGNORE) YOUR INPUT.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE
NEW FREE EXCHANGE OF INFO ON IR ALTERNATORS BASED MORE
ON TRUTH, COMMON SENSE AND FACTS THAN FEAR AND MYTH.
MANY WHO WHERE BRAIN WASHED INTO THINKING IR ALTERNATORS
HAD NO OV PROTECTION AT ALL, WHICH THEY DO, OR NOT SAFE, THEY
ARE.
THE RUMORS OF ACTUAL CASES WHERE ND ALTERNATORS FAILED IN
TRAGIC AND HORRIFIC WAY, CAUSING MASS DAMAGE........ARE LIES.
ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS IF TRUE PROVE IT........ LETS LEARN NOT BE
MANIPULATED BY BS.
IR ALTERNATORS ARE SUITABLE FOR AIRCRAFT USE, AND THE FACT
THE FAA HAS NOT CERTIFIED IT MEANS NOTHING TO EXPERIMENTAL
AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. IT IS A MOOT POINT.
YES YES YES BOB WE KNOW YOU CAN'T SUPPORT IT, WE GOT THAT.
IT IS A FREE COUNTRY, AND YOUR PROPAGANDA WILL NOT CHANGE
THE FACTS, I-VR ALTERNATORS ARE VERY RELIABLE AND FAIL
PASSIVE.
THE ND ALTERNATOR IS A SAFE AND RELIABLE DEVICE IF INSTALLED
AND OPERATED PROPERLY. ALSO NOT OVERLOADING (STRAINING)
THE ALTERNATOR IS KEY TO LOW TEMPS AND INCREASED SERVICE
LIFE AND RELIABILITY. (HEAT SHIELD AND AIR BLAST TUBE ARE
REALLY A MUST IN MY OPINION.)
THE APOCALYPTIC SCENARIO THAT HAS BEEN FLOATING AROUND
THAT YOU HAVE PROPAGATED AND ENCOURAGED IS BS.
YOUR WUSSY COMMENT LIKE "SO CALLED OV PROTECTION" IN REGARDS
TO (ND) ALTERNATORS IS A TRITE COMMENT. PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING
YOUR STORIES ANY MORE BOB. I AM SORRY IF YOUR CROW-BAR SALES
DROP OFF.
IF YOU CONTINUE TO ATTACK ME OR OTHERS I WILL RESPOND;
OTHERWISE IF YOU STOP WITH THE BACK STABBING THAN PEACE.
I AM HONORED TO BE ON THE SAME LIST OF PEOPLE LIKE:
VAN'S AIRCRAFT, BLUE MOUNTAIN AVIONICS, RST ENGINEERING
AND A CAST OF MANY WHO YOU HAVE ATTACKED.
EVERYONE HAS CONTRIBUTED GREAT THINGS TO EXPERIMENTAL
AVIATION AND AIRCRAFT. EVERYONE OF THESE TALENTED PEOPLE
HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND CALLED IGNORANT BY YOU. I TAKE THAT
AS A COMPLIMENT.
George.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | KMD150 MFG Voltage Requirements |
Is anyone familiar with the voltage requirements for this unit? It appears
to be 28V only. If this is true, could I install it and how in a 14V
system? I am also baffled by how to connect coax to the connector at the
back of the tray. Any insights here would be welcome.
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
(Is ThIs A mEnTaL hEaLtH iTeM fOr YoU?)
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KMD150 MFG Voltage Requirements |
Bill. Hi from UK!
> Is anyone familiar with the voltage requirements for this unit? It appears
> to be 28V only. If this is true, could I install it and how in a 14V
> system?
Mine is 28V or 13.5 Volts-1.0 Amps. I'm using 13.7V supply.
> I am also baffled by how to connect coax to the connector at the
> back of the tray. Any insights here would be welcome.
The install kit includes the correct BNC type assembly from the also
supplied Comant GPS Aerial. As I have access panels in Panel I'm connecting
a manual BNC connection through access hole.
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | SD8 alternator installation |
For what ever reason I'm having trouble fitting this SD8 alternator into the
single battery, dual alternator set. When looking at the Z-12 diagram the
installation for the 20A alternator looks simple. Same as 60A alternator.
Wire off of +ve terminal on start contector, through shunt, etc.
Now looking at the SD8 installation wiring here:
http://www.bandcspecialty.com/PM_OV504-500_RevE.pdf
The alt does not connect to the +ve side of the starter contactor. Instead
there is a single fuse forward of the firewall and 2 breakers in the main
bus.
Questions:
Is the 15 amp fuse in front of the firewall a fuse link? If so what size
should I make the link since I'm running the SD8 not the 20A alt.
Where do I place the shunt?
So I'm assuming the differences here are:
The 2A fuse on the bus is the alt field fuse.
The 10A fuse on the bus is the power.
I'm sure this is easier than I'm making it but for some reason I just can't
twist my head around this.
Why is the SD8 connection so different than the 20 Amp alt.
Dumb Bob today,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Christian" <mchristian(at)canetics.com> |
| Subject: | What? Noise issues? |
Hello,
I am troubleshooting the systems in my Rans S-16 build prior to closing up.
I have the following systems:
Two alternator one battery wiring plan per aeroelectric guidance.
Grand Rapids EIS4000 and EFIS 1
Microair 760 and 2000
InFlightTech 404 SP Intercom
Here are my issues:
1. Battery switch on (Odyssey PC680), EIS on, radio on (squelch off) and
intercom on, I get a low level of static over the headset audio. Turn on
EFIS and the static level increases several times over the background level.
I have to put squelch at about 1/2 to cover it.
2. Actuate PTT and the LED in the trim indicator (located just above the
radio on the panel) goes dim and I hear an oscillating tone over the headset
audio. The intercom is located beside the radio. EFIS off same noise during
PTT.
Coax to antenna is rg58 and both ends have been reterminated. The antenna
is a Advance Aircraft Electronics VHF-5T with about 10 feet of coax between
the radio and the antenna. The antenna is about 5 feet from the radio. Any
help you all can provide is much appreciated.
I have no noise issues with strobes or any other equipment at this time. I
will be firing the engine up for the first time soon, but I want to solve
this first.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Mike Christian
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD8 alternator installation |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Bob,
Run the SD8 system output to the capacitor regulator and stop
there. Use a switch at that point to put the SD8 on line. Just be sure
that the regular alternator is off line at that point. I am using the
SD8 as my back up alt. I have both circuit breakers next to each other
so I can pull the regulator for the main alt. and turn on the switch to
put the SD8 on line. The SD8 will run fine as long as the capacitor in
on line connected to the output.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Quick antenna question |
Grrrr...I left the RST antenna book out at the hangar.
Can someone quickly give me the wire length for a marker beacon antenna?
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)Juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick antenna question |
I'm not near my info either but you might try this URL:
http://tinyurl.com/8s9s Earl
James Redmon wrote:
>
>Grrrr...I left the RST antenna book out at the hangar.
>
>Can someone quickly give me the wire length for a marker beacon antenna?
>
>James Redmon
>Berkut #013 N97TX
>http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick antenna question |
Howdy James -
75 MHz, 1/4 wave... that's about 1 meter per my calculator. Are you
going to have to pay the FBO to install it for you? ;-)
Good luck over there at TKI!
D (Long-EZ in progress @ T31)
----------
James Redmon wrote:
>
> Grrrr...I left the RST antenna book out at the hangar.
>
> Can someone quickly give me the wire length for a marker beacon antenna?
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: welding cable |
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
Subject: welding cable
hi all,
can someone volunteer a measured distance from battery to starter that would call
for a change from 4ga to 2ga battery cable. probably a judgement call but
that requires experience, of which i have little. it is an odessey 625 battery
and a jab 3300. i live in n. wis. thanks
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: welding cable |
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
Subject: Fw: welding cable
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
Subject: welding cable
hi all,
can someone volunteer a measured distance from battery to starter that would call
for a change from 4ga to 2ga battery cable. probably a judgement call but
that requires experience, of which i have little. it is an odessey 625 battery
and a jab 3300. i live in n. wis. thanks
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: welding cable |
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: bob noffs
>To: aeroelectric list
>Subject: Fw: welding cable
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: bob noffs
>To: aeroelectric list
>Subject: welding cable
>
>
>hi all,
> can someone volunteer a measured distance from battery to starter that
> would call for a change from 4ga to 2ga battery cable. probably a
> judgement call but that requires experience, of which i have little. it
> is an odessey 625 battery and a jab 3300. i live in n. wis. thanks
The larger wire is indicated when the battery is not next to the engine.
On seaplanes with engine in a tall nacelle and batteries in the nose,
0 AWG or parallel runs of 2 AWG are often used. In a Longez with battery
in nose and engine in tail, 2 AWG is indicated. On an RV with battery on
firewall, 4 AWG is most adequate.
If your battery is behind the seats in a 2-seat, tractor airplane, 4AWG will
probably get you by. Personally, I'd run 2 AWG battery feeders even if the
stuff on the firewall is still 4 AWG. The only time it would make much
difference is for cold weather cranking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>Once again you bring nothing to the table when it comes to IR alternators.
>Bob has attacked the words of another, again. This time they are from the
>installation instructions for Niagara Airparts alternator kit, which uses
>a ND
>alternator part number 100211-1680, application is for a Ishikawjima General
>S753 engine (used on industrial equipment such as folklifts). This is the
>same one Mickey reported on. it is nominally rated at 43 amps at 5000 RPM.
>At 5000 RPM it can produce up to 48 amps, max capacity is a little over 50
>amps. (I also own this model). All comments are regarding this exact model.
>On the bottom of the first page of the below link you will see the
>paragraph Bob
>has spewed more useless ignorant comments.
>(Chance is if you have an alternator properly sized this alternator strain
>is not
>an issue at idle, just be aware of it.)
>
>(Bob, If you don't know what it means just ask and don't attack. If you
>would like
>call Niagara, they will help you with out insulting or making condescending
>comments.)
George, George . . .
I have lived, worked and designed with DC systems driven by
generators and alternators for almost 40 years. We have
mockups of every electrical system on our production line.
We turn alternators and generators ON and OFF at will at
at any system load and any rpm and not once have we detected
any reason for modifying this behavior to "reduce strain" on
the alternator for the purpose of increasing service life
or avoiding damage. If anyone shipped us an alternator with
such an admonition in their installation manual, I would be
most suspicious of their ability to fabricate and deliver
products suitable for our needs . . . not because of any
perceived weakness in their machine but an obvious weakness
in their understanding.
>(BTW, I absolutely have nothing to do with Niagara Airparts. Also this
>condition
>is unlikely in our application, but it is impossible. Idle alternator RPM
>may be
>less than 3000 RPM. If you idle with every item on you could tax (strain) the
>alternator. Increasing RPM or reducing the total load is the proper action if
>needed. If you need to know, using a lycoming you need engine RPM, you may
>have
>a ratio of 2.6 to 3.8 depending on pulley sizes, e.g. engine 1000 rpm,
>alternator
>RPM is 2,600 to 3,800. Anything under 5000 RPM (alternator) is too low for
>efficient full output, ND model 100211-1680. In other words the pilot
>needs to
>have at least 1300-1900 RPM. Niagara can not give you this info, since
>they can
>not assume what pulley you are using. Since 1900 RPM is at the low end of the
>typical RPM for flight Ops it is not an issue. ONLY Be aware that at idle you
>may have less power available.)
The idea that turning the alternator ON and OFF under ANY of the cited
conditions being injurious to the alternator (or any other part of the
system) is without foundation in physics or practice. Anyone who makes
such a statement in their literature has demonstrated a lack of
understanding . . . I won't use the word ignorance since you have
chosen to take such offense at it.
>(Note: Of interest from the above Niagara instructions, Alternator
>Characteristics,
>paragraph 3, last sentence, talks to the fact the alternator SHUTS it self
>down,
>which it will for: Over Voltage, internal fault, overload and B-lead
>short. To
>reset the alternator you turn the IGN off and than on. Also the warning
>light will
>come on to indicate a fault trip. COOL. The I-VR electronics **(IC chip)
>is really
>a micro-processor or computer if you will. Future car alternators will
>have data
>links to the car's central computer. Still many will still be putting 1950's
>technology in their home-built plane even then. The days of external VR's for
>small alternators as the preferred method in homebuilt planes has passed.
>SHOW
>ME YOUR FAILURE ANALYSIS DATA BOB TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THAT
>IS WHAT I THOUGHT, BS STORIES. You are short on facts, long on opinion.)
I have NO facts on the design of anyone's chips. Therefore I cannot
and never have rendered an opinion about any of them other than to
state that I cannot recommend them as suited to my design goals until
I do understand them.
>**(Bob once wrote he thought the only reason for IC chips in I-VR was for
>cheaper manufacturing, but the fact is there are so many transistors in
>the IC
>chip and functions that it is not possible without integrated circuits. If
>you
>made it like B&C makes it's external VR, it would be as big as battery.)
Well duh . . . of course a single chip design offers less expensive
manufacturing . . . I can't imagine anyone believing anything different.
And yes, integrated circuits offer a means for compacting many more
features (necessary or not, wanted or not, certifiable under contemporary
design goals or not) onto a single piece of silicon. Big as a battery?
Your hyperbole is expanding at an ever increasing rate . . .
>(All the BS and miss understanding on this Forum is the result of Bob's
>duplicitous
>and slanted mis-representation of the facts. He hides behind attacks to
>bolster
>either his ego, insecurity or desire to promote one way of thinking.)
>
>(I have nothing against Bob and his ideas, but all this personal attacks
>are a waste
>of time. My comments only echo Bobs tirades back. I don't always agree
>with Bob,
>but that is OK. Bob, you are great and we all Love Ya, but stop the
>grumpy old man
>stuff.)
You've blown it now George. Your behavior has demonstrated that you DO have
a LOT against me and it has nothing to do with ideas or facts. I've attacked
nobody. It's not my style. I'm also not grumpy but I will have to admit
to getting
older . . .
>(Where are your facts Bob? You told me you are a man of facts because in your
>work you only use facts. We are all smart enough to understand your technical
>explanation.)
I have explained my lack of knowledge (ignorance if you will) to you
several times George. This is the reason for the new experiments.
>(Bob, your like a dog. Another dog has pissed on you favorite fire hydrant,
>you don't have any piss but you are going to lift your leg anyway. I don't
>want to
>be an expert or piss on you fire hydrant Bob; however you are leaving big
>steaming
>piles all over, smelling the place up, but feel free to spread you yellow
>stream of
>wisdom. Stop lying and dropping your piles of BS about IR alternators
>which you
>clearly have little experience with or care to support. You are clearly a
>expert
>with external VR alternators and your crow bar. Stick with that or put a
>chapter on
>I-VR in your book called: Internal Regulated Alternators a Great Option)
Gee George, for someone who "loves" me, your sure flinging a lot
of unsavory adjectives around.
>(You noticed that more people are asking about IR alternators. I think
>people where
>afraid to ask before, but not any more. This is good.)
>
>(Bob YOUR whole rant and raves about IR alternators are baseless and has no
>foundation in physics or design limits for the alternator. You are a
>hypocrite
>extraordinaire.)
>
>( You use words like Physics and think dropping this word lends validity
>to your
>attack. Back it up with facts Bob. WHAT PHYSICS? If you want to explain it
>and
>be the teacher, please do. Otherwise you are hypocritical in accusing
>everyone
>else being loose with the facts. Pompous, condescending, self righteous
>attacks
>on everyone who disagree with is not helping your image of benevolent teacher
>either.)
>
>(Niagara is in good company and has about 10 years experience with their
>product.
>Guess how many have come back or had a problem? ZERO. How many crow bars
>and B&C regulators have issues or came back? MANY. TAKE A HINT FOLKS.)
Really? How many? And of what has been returned, what were the returns
as a percentage of fielded product? What would you consider to be a
marketing
goal for field returns? I belive that 1% for the last year's
deliveries and
10% for the fleet after 10 years would be an exemplary performance. We have
suppliers to the certified world who can only dream about such numbers.
I belive B&C's track record meets or surpasses these goals. I've seen their
rework bench. There have been a LOT of product returned for damage but
VERY few for failure . . . well under 10% for the nearly 20 years of
production.
>(I am not saying you should buy their product. I am saying don't take
>everything
>Bob says as gospel and go out an make your own alternator set up.)
>Bob, what do you know about IR alternator design? I would love to hear it.
What do YOU know sir? I worked in a DC machinery house for over 9 years
and have maintained a close association with it and two others for over
30 years. I designed regulators for the alternators and generators we
produced and overhauled.
> Please
>explain real power, apparent power, reactive power, imaginary numbers and
>how it
>relates to alternator torque/speed/load and efficiency. Really I can't
>explain it
>and may be you can enlighten all of us.
In the upcoming experiments, I plan to do just that . . .
>Let me close with something you would say,
>
>Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
>
>Gosh darn it, son of ........STOP IT AND STICK TO FACTS YOU
>ACTUALLY KNOW.
>
>STOP THE ATTACKS AND SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT IR
>ALTERNATORS.
What rumors? I've stated nothing that was not offered by the persons
who experienced problems first hand.
>IF YOU DON'T CARE FOR IR ALTERNATORS STOP GUESSING
>AND LEAVE US I-VR USER'S ALONE.
I'm increasingly amazed at you sir. I've never said that I
didn't care for IR Alternators. In fact, the whole purpose
of the planned testing is to figure a way to integrate the
modern IR Alternator into aircraft under design goals I've
worked under for decades.
How is this an attack? How can this be construed as an
effort to deny anyone the advantages of exploiting this
great technology?
You clearly don't understand anything I've offered or
the reasons for offering it.
>MAJORITY OF THE BUILDERS ARE NOT INEPT AND YOU
>UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POTENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND. JUST
>PRESENT THE FACTS AND STOP THE "STORIES", LET THEM
>DECIDE.
>IR ALTERNATORS ARE SUITABLE FOR AIRCRAFT USE, AND THE FACT
>THE FAA HAS NOT CERTIFIED IT MEANS NOTHING TO EXPERIMENTAL
>AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. IT IS A MOOT POINT.
You sir are the one who twists words. The vast majority
of statements you attribute to me are contradictions or
mis-statements of fact. An now that you're shouting
at me I would judge that all opportunities for a
rational exchange of ideas have passed.
>YES YES YES BOB WE KNOW YOU CAN'T SUPPORT IT, WE GOT THAT.
>IT IS A FREE COUNTRY, AND YOUR PROPAGANDA WILL NOT CHANGE
>THE FACTS, I-VR ALTERNATORS ARE VERY RELIABLE AND FAIL
>PASSIVE.
>I AM HONORED TO BE ON THE SAME LIST OF PEOPLE LIKE:
>VAN'S AIRCRAFT, BLUE MOUNTAIN AVIONICS, RST ENGINEERING
>AND A CAST OF MANY WHO YOU HAVE ATTACKED.
>EVERYONE HAS CONTRIBUTED GREAT THINGS TO EXPERIMENTAL
>AVIATION AND AIRCRAFT. EVERYONE OF THESE TALENTED PEOPLE
>HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND CALLED IGNORANT BY YOU. I TAKE THAT
>AS A COMPLIMENT.
If your pleased, then I'm pleased. But I sincerely
wish it was for more pleasant reasons. When and if
you're ready to speak in civil words and tones, I'd
be pleased to have your feedback on the outcome of
experiments and design trade-offs that are forthcoming.
My father-in-law finished mounting my 2 hp DC motor and
Micky's alternator on a makeshift drive stand. Dee and
I are concentrating on getting a production order out
for a customer but I hope to run the alternator next
weekend. All activities will be measured, recorded and
the results posted. THIS is how I choose to mitigate my
own ignorance George. Care to join us?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
Whew!
When Bob shoots down some idea I have that was not well thought-out, it
causes me to re-think my logic and look for data. Some people take this
personally and become emotional. The wise aircraft builder will use the
opportunity to question his assumptions and look for more data, instead of
getting defensive.
I'm putting a John Deere 18A dynamo and regulator on my engine and running
it through a relay with an OV detector. Others in my builders group are
looking at the ND alternators. I would like to know as much about these
configurations as possible, because the safety of my airplane are at
stake. That is not possible when the only sounds I hear are yelling and
screaming and emotional defensiveness.
I'm looking forward to more cool logic, data, and real world tests.
Dave Morris
www.N75UP.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
Bob,
Why oh why do you keep replying to that man ?
Whether he is right or wrong, he has a serious personality problem that
nobody on this list including you can fix and I'm sure your time can be
better spent than feeding the fire. You know, time $$$ and all that
stuff, no return on investment with that man Bob.
Regards
Kingsley in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Hunt" <stephen.hunt19(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
I understand little to nothing about electrics. But I know about people.
After such invective aimed at Bob I believe his reply to be a model of
behaviour that many extremists would do well to observe. You teach us more
than wiring diags in this reply Bob!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob)
>
>
>
>>
>>Dear Bob:
>>
>>Once again you bring nothing to the table when it comes to IR alternators.
>>Bob has attacked the words of another, again. This time they are from the
>>installation instructions for Niagara Airparts alternator kit, which uses
>>a ND
>>alternator part number 100211-1680, application is for a Ishikawjima
>>General
>>S753 engine (used on industrial equipment such as folklifts). This is the
>>same one Mickey reported on. it is nominally rated at 43 amps at 5000 RPM.
>>At 5000 RPM it can produce up to 48 amps, max capacity is a little over 50
>>amps. (I also own this model). All comments are regarding this exact
>>model.
>>On the bottom of the first page of the below link you will see the
>>paragraph Bob
>>has spewed more useless ignorant comments.
>
>
>
>
>>(Chance is if you have an alternator properly sized this alternator strain
>>is not
>>an issue at idle, just be aware of it.)
>>
>>(Bob, If you don't know what it means just ask and don't attack. If you
>>would like
>>call Niagara, they will help you with out insulting or making
>>condescending
>>comments.)
>
> George, George . . .
>
> I have lived, worked and designed with DC systems driven by
> generators and alternators for almost 40 years. We have
> mockups of every electrical system on our production line.
> We turn alternators and generators ON and OFF at will at
> at any system load and any rpm and not once have we detected
> any reason for modifying this behavior to "reduce strain" on
> the alternator for the purpose of increasing service life
> or avoiding damage. If anyone shipped us an alternator with
> such an admonition in their installation manual, I would be
> most suspicious of their ability to fabricate and deliver
> products suitable for our needs . . . not because of any
> perceived weakness in their machine but an obvious weakness
> in their understanding.
>
>
>>(BTW, I absolutely have nothing to do with Niagara Airparts. Also this
>>condition
>>is unlikely in our application, but it is impossible. Idle alternator RPM
>>may be
>>less than 3000 RPM. If you idle with every item on you could tax (strain)
>>the
>>alternator. Increasing RPM or reducing the total load is the proper action
>>if
>>needed. If you need to know, using a lycoming you need engine RPM, you may
>>have
>>a ratio of 2.6 to 3.8 depending on pulley sizes, e.g. engine 1000 rpm,
>>alternator
>>RPM is 2,600 to 3,800. Anything under 5000 RPM (alternator) is too low for
>>efficient full output, ND model 100211-1680. In other words the pilot
>>needs to
>>have at least 1300-1900 RPM. Niagara can not give you this info, since
>>they can
>>not assume what pulley you are using. Since 1900 RPM is at the low end of
>>the
>>typical RPM for flight Ops it is not an issue. ONLY Be aware that at idle
>>you
>>may have less power available.)
>
> The idea that turning the alternator ON and OFF under ANY of the cited
> conditions being injurious to the alternator (or any other part of the
> system) is without foundation in physics or practice. Anyone who makes
> such a statement in their literature has demonstrated a lack of
> understanding . . . I won't use the word ignorance since you have
> chosen to take such offense at it.
>
>
>>(Note: Of interest from the above Niagara instructions, Alternator
>>Characteristics,
>>paragraph 3, last sentence, talks to the fact the alternator SHUTS it self
>>down,
>>which it will for: Over Voltage, internal fault, overload and B-lead
>>short. To
>>reset the alternator you turn the IGN off and than on. Also the warning
>>light will
>>come on to indicate a fault trip. COOL. The I-VR electronics **(IC chip)
>>is really
>>a micro-processor or computer if you will. Future car alternators will
>>have data
>>links to the car's central computer. Still many will still be putting
>>1950's
>>technology in their home-built plane even then. The days of external VR's
>>for
>>small alternators as the preferred method in homebuilt planes has passed.
>>SHOW
>>ME YOUR FAILURE ANALYSIS DATA BOB TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THAT
>>IS WHAT I THOUGHT, BS STORIES. You are short on facts, long on opinion.)
>
> I have NO facts on the design of anyone's chips. Therefore I cannot
> and never have rendered an opinion about any of them other than to
> state that I cannot recommend them as suited to my design goals until
> I do understand them.
>
>
>>**(Bob once wrote he thought the only reason for IC chips in I-VR was for
>>cheaper manufacturing, but the fact is there are so many transistors in
>>the IC
>>chip and functions that it is not possible without integrated circuits. If
>>you
>>made it like B&C makes it's external VR, it would be as big as battery.)
>
> Well duh . . . of course a single chip design offers less expensive
> manufacturing . . . I can't imagine anyone believing anything
> different.
> And yes, integrated circuits offer a means for compacting many more
> features (necessary or not, wanted or not, certifiable under
> contemporary
> design goals or not) onto a single piece of silicon. Big as a battery?
> Your hyperbole is expanding at an ever increasing rate . . .
>
>
>>(All the BS and miss understanding on this Forum is the result of Bob's
>>duplicitous
>>and slanted mis-representation of the facts. He hides behind attacks to
>>bolster
>>either his ego, insecurity or desire to promote one way of thinking.)
>>
>>(I have nothing against Bob and his ideas, but all this personal attacks
>>are a waste
>>of time. My comments only echo Bobs tirades back. I don't always agree
>>with Bob,
>>but that is OK. Bob, you are great and we all Love Ya, but stop the
>>grumpy old man
>>stuff.)
>
>
> You've blown it now George. Your behavior has demonstrated that you DO
> have
> a LOT against me and it has nothing to do with ideas or facts. I've
> attacked
> nobody. It's not my style. I'm also not grumpy but I will have to admit
> to getting
> older . . .
>
>
>>(Where are your facts Bob? You told me you are a man of facts because in
>>your
>>work you only use facts. We are all smart enough to understand your
>>technical
>>explanation.)
>
> I have explained my lack of knowledge (ignorance if you will) to you
> several times George. This is the reason for the new experiments.
>
>
>>(Bob, your like a dog. Another dog has pissed on you favorite fire
>>hydrant,
>>you don't have any piss but you are going to lift your leg anyway. I don't
>>want to
>>be an expert or piss on you fire hydrant Bob; however you are leaving big
>>steaming
>>piles all over, smelling the place up, but feel free to spread you yellow
>>stream of
>>wisdom. Stop lying and dropping your piles of BS about IR alternators
>>which you
>>clearly have little experience with or care to support. You are clearly a
>>expert
>>with external VR alternators and your crow bar. Stick with that or put a
>>chapter on
>>I-VR in your book called: Internal Regulated Alternators a Great Option)
>
> Gee George, for someone who "loves" me, your sure flinging a lot
> of unsavory adjectives around.
>
>
>>(You noticed that more people are asking about IR alternators. I think
>>people where
>>afraid to ask before, but not any more. This is good.)
>>
>>(Bob YOUR whole rant and raves about IR alternators are baseless and has
>>no
>>foundation in physics or design limits for the alternator. You are a
>>hypocrite
>>extraordinaire.)
>>
>>( You use words like Physics and think dropping this word lends validity
>>to your
>>attack. Back it up with facts Bob. WHAT PHYSICS? If you want to explain it
>>and
>>be the teacher, please do. Otherwise you are hypocritical in accusing
>>everyone
>>else being loose with the facts. Pompous, condescending, self righteous
>>attacks
>>on everyone who disagree with is not helping your image of benevolent
>>teacher
>>either.)
>>
>>(Niagara is in good company and has about 10 years experience with their
>>product.
>>Guess how many have come back or had a problem? ZERO. How many crow bars
>>and B&C regulators have issues or came back? MANY. TAKE A HINT FOLKS.)
>
> Really? How many? And of what has been returned, what were the returns
> as a percentage of fielded product? What would you consider to be a
> marketing
> goal for field returns? I belive that 1% for the last year's
> deliveries and
> 10% for the fleet after 10 years would be an exemplary performance. We
> have
> suppliers to the certified world who can only dream about such numbers.
> I belive B&C's track record meets or surpasses these goals. I've seen
> their
> rework bench. There have been a LOT of product returned for damage but
> VERY few for failure . . . well under 10% for the nearly 20 years of
> production.
>
>
>>(I am not saying you should buy their product. I am saying don't take
>>everything
>>Bob says as gospel and go out an make your own alternator set up.)
>>Bob, what do you know about IR alternator design? I would love to hear it.
>
> What do YOU know sir? I worked in a DC machinery house for over 9 years
> and have maintained a close association with it and two others for over
> 30 years. I designed regulators for the alternators and generators we
> produced and overhauled.
>
>> Please
>>explain real power, apparent power, reactive power, imaginary numbers and
>>how it
>>relates to alternator torque/speed/load and efficiency. Really I can't
>>explain it
>>and may be you can enlighten all of us.
>
> In the upcoming experiments, I plan to do just that . . .
>
>
>>Let me close with something you would say,
>>
>>Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
>>
>>Gosh darn it, son of ........STOP IT AND STICK TO FACTS YOU
>>ACTUALLY KNOW.
>>
>>STOP THE ATTACKS AND SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT IR
>>ALTERNATORS.
>
> What rumors? I've stated nothing that was not offered by the persons
> who experienced problems first hand.
>
>
>>IF YOU DON'T CARE FOR IR ALTERNATORS STOP GUESSING
>>AND LEAVE US I-VR USER'S ALONE.
>
> I'm increasingly amazed at you sir. I've never said that I
> didn't care for IR Alternators. In fact, the whole purpose
> of the planned testing is to figure a way to integrate the
> modern IR Alternator into aircraft under design goals I've
> worked under for decades.
>
> How is this an attack? How can this be construed as an
> effort to deny anyone the advantages of exploiting this
> great technology?
>
> You clearly don't understand anything I've offered or
> the reasons for offering it.
>
>
>>MAJORITY OF THE BUILDERS ARE NOT INEPT AND YOU
>>UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POTENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND. JUST
>>PRESENT THE FACTS AND STOP THE "STORIES", LET THEM
>>DECIDE.
>
>
>
>>IR ALTERNATORS ARE SUITABLE FOR AIRCRAFT USE, AND THE FACT
>>THE FAA HAS NOT CERTIFIED IT MEANS NOTHING TO EXPERIMENTAL
>>AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. IT IS A MOOT POINT.
>
> You sir are the one who twists words. The vast majority
> of statements you attribute to me are contradictions or
> mis-statements of fact. An now that you're shouting
> at me I would judge that all opportunities for a
> rational exchange of ideas have passed.
>
>
>>YES YES YES BOB WE KNOW YOU CAN'T SUPPORT IT, WE GOT THAT.
>>IT IS A FREE COUNTRY, AND YOUR PROPAGANDA WILL NOT CHANGE
>>THE FACTS, I-VR ALTERNATORS ARE VERY RELIABLE AND FAIL
>>PASSIVE.
>
>
>
>>I AM HONORED TO BE ON THE SAME LIST OF PEOPLE LIKE:
>>VAN'S AIRCRAFT, BLUE MOUNTAIN AVIONICS, RST ENGINEERING
>>AND A CAST OF MANY WHO YOU HAVE ATTACKED.
>>EVERYONE HAS CONTRIBUTED GREAT THINGS TO EXPERIMENTAL
>>AVIATION AND AIRCRAFT. EVERYONE OF THESE TALENTED PEOPLE
>>HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND CALLED IGNORANT BY YOU. I TAKE THAT
>>AS A COMPLIMENT.
>
>
> If your pleased, then I'm pleased. But I sincerely
> wish it was for more pleasant reasons. When and if
> you're ready to speak in civil words and tones, I'd
> be pleased to have your feedback on the outcome of
> experiments and design trade-offs that are forthcoming.
>
> My father-in-law finished mounting my 2 hp DC motor and
> Micky's alternator on a makeshift drive stand. Dee and
> I are concentrating on getting a production order out
> for a customer but I hope to run the alternator next
> weekend. All activities will be measured, recorded and
> the results posted. THIS is how I choose to mitigate my
> own ignorance George. Care to join us?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
SpamAssassin (score=-2.571, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam,
AWL 0.03, BAYES_00 -2.60)
I just caught the thread on fatwire and looked at the
website. At first take this looks great. What
insulation is being used ?? I read that 4awg wire has
the same performance as 2awg wire ..... does this mean I
could replace my planned 2awg runs (2) from battery in
baggage to engine starter with CCA 4awg ??
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket II
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
Gerry,
Thanks so much for this link, I purchased mine today!! One of the last
puzzles of my electrical system was getting the hobbs to go automatically on
"engine start". None of the
oil pressure switch solutions would work with the Zenith 701 firewall
forward installations for my Rotax 912 .I would have had to remove the existing
oil
pressure sensor, install a T connector and install the sender and a pressure
switch. This would not have been possible due to room and inteference of
parts This is great idea and "exactly" what I needed.
Bob do you have any issues with this installation?
Brian Unruh
Long Island, NY
_http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/pm.cgi?login=bunruh&ID=113813&action=displa
y_
(http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/pm.cgi?login=bunruh&ID=113813&action=display)
Bob Hi!
I'm using a device called Power Genie to supply start and stop Voltage to
Hobbs Meter. About to start my Rotax Engine. OK?
Find it at:
_http://www.powergenie.central5.com/_ (http://www.powergenie.central5.com/)
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | Unnecessary personal invective. |
George aka gmcjetpilot contributed the following
snip
"(Bob that is brilliant, "credentialed crystal ball gazers". Who are you
directing
that weak back-stab at, in typical condescending verbose style. All those
big words. Are you trying to impress, be clever or cover your insecurity.
Just stop with your petty little crap.)
(Bob you ARE the MASTER of anecdotal stories. What the hell.
Lets see some data or facts Bob. How many STORIES are we talking
about. You are full of STORIES. The rest of this document is full of
prejudice
& opinion lacking facts.)
(As far as "credentialed" are you jealous? I guess not. We all know you
think education is stupid and engineers useless. "When I was working
on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti..." stories you tell to validate your
creditability,
Bob is your "credentialed". I am not ashamed of my engineering education
or my professional experience.)
(I only asked you if you where an engineer Bob because you implied you
have engineering "credentials" and abilities, which where apparent you
don't have from what you write. This in no way takes away from your
experience as a technician.)
HERE IS THE HYPOCRISY, WHAT BOB WROTE ON HIS SITE "
and also snip
"......Bob has spewed more useless ignorant comments. "
George,
I am heartily fed up with your petty attacks on Bob Nuckolls. I cannot
imagine why you feel it necessary to descend to this type of personal
diatribe. It is absolutely inappropriate in addressing Bob or anyone else.
Neither I nor any of the other listers believe Bob has an unimpeachable
inside track on engineering truth and debate and dissent is the path to
greater understanding. For this to be conducted meaningfully emotion and
invective need to be exchanged for data and reason.
I personally find him to be honest, sincere and generous in his willingness
to discuss and a great contributor to the list. He is above all else a
gentleman in the way he conducts himself. You are not, sir. You demean the
list and yourself.
Please discuss fact, debate evidence and be polite to other listers or take
your unpleasant invective elsewhere.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
La Mesa, CA. (next to San Diego)
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will N. Stevenson" <will(at)wavecable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
Bob,
Amen to what Kingsley said. This person is creating a combative and
dysfunctional atmosphere in a place that is usually full of learning and
camaraderie. It's not good for the List. Bob, please don't let his kind of
behavior continue, huh? Other lists I've been on would have tossed his butt
out by now. It's a good thing to be tolerant of dissenting opinions, but
this guy goes way beyond that with his personal attacks and rants.
Will
> Bob,
>
> Why oh why do you keep replying to that man ?
>
> Whether he is right or wrong, he has a serious personality problem that
> nobody on this list including you can fix
> Regards
> Kingsley in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Unnecessary personal invective. RIGHT ON |
Rob and all you good folks out there..............
Right On! As Joe Friday used to say "Fact nothing but the Facts". Ha just
gave my age away.
As the electrically, technically challenged king of plane building Bobs
book, web site, email info, and simple yet detailed explanations are slowly
clearing the cob webs from this old retired chemistry school teacher mind.
So George if you please tone it down and stay with the facts and if your
feeling get hurt remeber this adage HALT...Never make a major decisions or
say what is reallky on your mind if you are
Hungrey....Angry....Lonely.....or Tired.
Ya know I would like to get simple answers to my simplistic questions.
Like.....What is the best alternator for the money and
why................Help......Once I get Bob's, George's, and all you good
folks imput I will then make the decision as to which one I think best suits
my application. And yes maybe their will be times that I just go against
wisdom and do my own thing. Ya gotta love experimental avaition.
Frank @ SGU and SLC......still on the fuse and just can't wait to tackle the
canopy?????
>From: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary personal invective.
>Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:35:21 -0700
>
>
>
>
>George aka gmcjetpilot contributed the following
>
>snip
>"(Bob that is brilliant, "credentialed crystal ball gazers". Who are you
>directing
>
>that weak back-stab at, in typical condescending verbose style. All those
>big words. Are you trying to impress, be clever or cover your insecurity.
>Just stop with your petty little crap.)
>
>
>(Bob you ARE the MASTER of anecdotal stories. What the hell.
>Lets see some data or facts Bob. How many STORIES are we talking
>about. You are full of STORIES. The rest of this document is full of
>prejudice
> & opinion lacking facts.)
>
>
>(As far as "credentialed" are you jealous? I guess not. We all know you
>think education is stupid and engineers useless. "When I was working
>on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti..." stories you tell to validate your
>creditability,
>
>Bob is your "credentialed". I am not ashamed of my engineering education
>or my professional experience.)
>
>
>(I only asked you if you where an engineer Bob because you implied you
>have engineering "credentials" and abilities, which where apparent you
>don't have from what you write. This in no way takes away from your
>experience as a technician.)
>
>
>HERE IS THE HYPOCRISY, WHAT BOB WROTE ON HIS SITE "
>
>and also snip
>
>"......Bob has spewed more useless ignorant comments. "
>
>
>George,
>
>I am heartily fed up with your petty attacks on Bob Nuckolls. I cannot
>imagine why you feel it necessary to descend to this type of personal
>diatribe. It is absolutely inappropriate in addressing Bob or anyone else.
>
>Neither I nor any of the other listers believe Bob has an unimpeachable
>inside track on engineering truth and debate and dissent is the path to
>greater understanding. For this to be conducted meaningfully emotion and
>invective need to be exchanged for data and reason.
>
>I personally find him to be honest, sincere and generous in his willingness
>to discuss and a great contributor to the list. He is above all else a
>gentleman in the way he conducts himself. You are not, sir. You demean
>the
>list and yourself.
>
>Please discuss fact, debate evidence and be polite to other listers or take
>your unpleasant invective elsewhere.
>
>Rob
>Rob W M Shipley
>N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
>La Mesa, CA. (next to San Diego)
>
>Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feng Shui of Electromagnetism... |
Okay, I was kidding about the Feng Shui...
If you are a somewhat-knowledgeable electronics person and less than a guru
of Maxwell's equations, you would probably like the book I picked up from
Amazon--
Electromagnetics Explained: A Handbook for Wireless/ RF, EMC, and High-Speed
Electronics, Part of the EDN Series for Design Engineers (EDN Series for
Design Engineers) (Hardcover) by Ron Schmitt
This is all about the realm of electronics above DC, and includes everything
you would ever want to know about antennas and feedlines and EMC, written in
the "Conceptual" style of physics writing, that attempts to illuminate a
phenomena and leaves entombing the idea in mathematics to those who need to
apply the concepts.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> Hello LarryRobertHelming,
>
> Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 5:34:34 AM, you wrote:
>
> L> He just needs to open his attitude about it.
>
> ??? This thread has been going on for what seems to be an eternity.
> Bob has not only expressed his openness to examine this topic, but
> has been forthright with his knowledge of what is known to work. Of
> all people, I've never met anyone as willing as Bob to be persuaded
> by facts demonstrated by repeatable experiment. Also, this forum has
> been an exciting place to be with not only idea exchange, but with
> knowledge exchange.
[snip]
My take on all of this discussion is that Bob just hasn't performed the
experiments necessary for him to be comfortable with internally
regulated alternators. I don't have a problem with that. IMHO there
are going to be some number of I-VR alternators that do pass the muster
for use in OBAM aircraft. Hopefully, the short list of suitable I-VR
alternators will be identified by the time I need one for my RV-7A.
I will have to say it was frustrating having to fly home from a flyin
last month behind an externally regulated alternator that had gone TU.
The good thing was the plane operated just like Bob said it would with a
dead externally regulated alternator. Would have been nice to be able
to buy a replacement at Auto Zone. Seems they don't have much call for
externally regulated alternators.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, Fuselage kit making its way along the Interstate Highway System
from Oregon to my garage in Indiana.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Amen to what Kingsley said. This person is creating a combative and
>dysfunctional atmosphere in a place that is usually full of learning and
>camaraderie. It's not good for the List. Bob, please don't let his kind of
>behavior continue, huh? Other lists I've been on would have tossed his butt
>out by now. It's a good thing to be tolerant of dissenting opinions, but
>this guy goes way beyond that with his personal attacks and rants.
What you suggest IS tempting. I suppose I could appeal to
Matt and have George's e-mail blocked . . . but this would
set (at least for me) a terrible president. I have no desire
to control anything on this list other than my own ideas,
knowledge and the time I choose to spend in sharing them.
I'll suggest that if one embraces the simple idea behind
the First Amendment, one MUST embrace all the simple-ideas
behind our founding father's wisdom and vision. For ANY
exceptions to be made as an concession to some individual
or group's needs or discomforts is to open the door for
EVERY OTHER need or discomfort to be similarly addressed.
This is precisely how our present form of government has
become a bloated, clearly unconstitutional organization
that would bring tears to the eyes of every founding father.
It all began with some individual(s) within the body of
government making just one small concession to another
individual's or group's discomfort or dishonor. The
seeds were planted for what we have today.
Some folks have suggested that the AeroElectric-List is
my List. It WAS created as a convenience to me but I do
not claim nor do I desire any form of ownership or control
over it.
If I get t-boned in an intersection today, I sincerely
hope that the List will continue to grow and thrive
on the seeds that I and many others have planted here.
I would only counsel caution in how future participants
of the List choose to deal with "weeds" in the garden
of knowledge lest their actions become a president for
conditions for which no honorable citizen intends, wants
or enjoys.
I am reminded of the words expressed by another clear
headed citizen of the universe which I quote in part:
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others, even the dull and
the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and
lesser persons than yourself.
-----Max Ehrmann's "Desiderata"
I hope this illustrates my personal position with respect
to George or any other perceived disruptions to the
quiet studiousness we may strive for in this class room.
If anyone else wishes to appeal to Matt, they're certainly
free to do so but I hope that it be done only after
a careful sifting of motives and consideration for
what will spring forth by the planting of new "seeds".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
>
>Listers,
>
>As our fleet ventures across this sometimes turbulent sea of learning it
>becomes increasingly obvious that some ships are better suited for the
>journey. Some are faster, some can carry more cargo, some find the course
>increasingly difficult to maintain. We have lost a few ships here and there
>along the way.
>Each has its' reason to join in the endeavour. For the sake of the few the
>many slow the pace with the shared objective of joining forces and
>weathering these storms of confusion together.
>Sadly it appears that in spite of all the recent efforts to assist, one of
>our fleet's ships fate has been decided. fate has struck again!. He has
>suffered a fate of unknown cause, possibly he's been torpedoed by the
>unknown. He is afire, dead in the water and sinking fast.
>All hands on deck! lets all give a hearty three cheers and a heart felt
>salute to our sinking comrade.
>Throw the wreath on the water.
>
>The time has come to forge onward.
Hear, hear!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Controlling IRE AND Arbalestors (Bob) |
The boys throw rocks
At the red-crested cocks
But are they on target?
A friend of mine noted that 80% acceptance of anything is the death knell
for it. Remember Netscape? WordStar? Democrats? DOS, that group Paul
McCartney had before "Wings"? There are many reasons for this, but
basically I value most the loyal opposition and always have. I hardly ever
defend the status quo, and presuming a person has the bona fides to spout on
an issue---what the hell!
Another friend once stopped my complaints about a person by asking me, "Is
he doing the best that he can?" I had to confess that he probably was doing
the best that he could. My complaints were pointless. So let's all do the
Rodney King Thing and sing Cum-buy-ya.
And Bob, read what Emily Post says about disagreeable visitors. I really
think the whole rhubarb is a typical limitation of email. It's pretty clear
to me that a couple email volleys--then a phone call is in order.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
-Clint Eastwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will N. Stevenson" <will(at)wavecable.com> |
Bob,
Fair enough. The Desiderata quote is truly one to live by, beautiful quote.
Always striving to be a full grownup :), 'speaking the truth quietly and
clearly' is a good way to go about it. As you say, forbearance will
hopefully, eventually pay off. I'm new to the list and perhaps should have
kept my mouth shut. Apologies to the list--with one notable exception--if I
have upset anybody. I brought it up because I have seen other lists ruined
and scattered to the winds by the acceptance of dysfunctional communication,
whether based in fact and expounded by experts, or otherwise.
Will
> I am reminded of the words expressed by another clear
> headed citizen of the universe which I quote in part:
>
> Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
> and listen to others, even the dull and
> the ignorant; they too have their story.
>
> Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
> they are vexations to the spirit.
> If you compare yourself with others,
> you may become vain and bitter;
> for always there will be greater and
> lesser persons than yourself.
>
> -----Max Ehrmann's "Desiderata"
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
Fellow trons.....
I'm getting started on my firewall forward wiring for my VM1000. I have four EGT
and CHT wiring sets that need to pass through the firewall on their journey
to the DPU.
I would like to be able to disconnect them at the firewall with a canon-plug type
connector for ease of maintenance and firewall integrity reasons.
A note to Vision Microsystems got me the response that it can be done but I need
to use special thermocouple extension grade pins due to an additional thermocouple
junction at the firewall.
Please provide me with some education on this - my common sense tells me that it
is an electrical signal once it leaves the thermocouple and that electricity
is not affected by a firewall - unless maybe it is on fire.......there is a connector
at the DPU - wouldn't that connector cause the same problem?
I do take stock in their response - but need to understand the mechanics/physics
etc.
Maybe it is not worth the trouble to wire a disconnect at this point and I should
run the wiring direct from the thermocouple to the DPU.
Ralph Capen
RV6AQB N822AR N06 90% 90%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
Matte,
Say there was a particular poster who's posts were offensive to me.
Say I wanted to block that particular poster's e-mails.
Say I wanted to continue reading the rest of the e-mails on this list.
Is there a way to make that happen???
Rodney in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I'm not Matte (Dralle),
But it is easy to set up filters in most email readers. The filters that
I have played with are accessed by clicking on tools-->message_filters.
For your case, you want the filter to pick messages which have a "sender"
which "contains" "xxxx" where "xxxx" is the name of the user whose
messages you don't like.
Decent emailers (like mozilla/thunderbird) have a 'junk' button you can
click on that the emailer uses to learn what kinds of messages you think
are junk. Once you start classifying certain messages as junk, it puts
suspect messages in the junk folder. Until it's totally tuned-in, you
need to periodically go look at the messages that have been junked, and
un-junk them so that the emailer can learn better what you want.
I don't think Mr Dralle is going to be able to do much for you from the
standpoint of filtering what get's sent out from the list, as long as the
messages don't otherwise violate the published rules.
Hope that helps,
Matt (Prather)-
>
>
> Matte,
>
> Say there was a particular poster who's posts were offensive to me.
>
> Say I wanted to block that particular poster's e-mails.
>
> Say I wanted to continue reading the rest of the e-mails on this list.
>
> Is there a way to make that happen???
>
> Rodney in Tennessee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
And with Mozilla's Thunderbird, you can right click on any address in
the heading, choose "create filter from message" and it automatically
sets up the filter...all you need to do is tell it what to do with it
(file it, junk it , trash it, etc.)
Don't know if other email programs have a similar feature...I only use
Thunderbird....
Harley
Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
>I'm not Matte (Dralle),
>
>But it is easy to set up filters in most email readers. The filters that
>I have played with are accessed by clicking on tools-->message_filters.
>For your case, you want the filter to pick messages which have a "sender"
>which "contains" "xxxx" where "xxxx" is the name of the user whose
>messages you don't like.
>
>Decent emailers (like mozilla/thunderbird) have a 'junk' button you can
>click on that the emailer uses to learn what kinds of messages you think
>are junk. Once you start classifying certain messages as junk, it puts
>suspect messages in the junk folder. Until it's totally tuned-in, you
>need to periodically go look at the messages that have been junked, and
>un-junk them so that the emailer can learn better what you want.
>
>I don't think Mr Dralle is going to be able to do much for you from the
>standpoint of filtering what get's sent out from the list, as long as the
>messages don't otherwise violate the published rules.
>
>
>Hope that helps,
>
>Matt (Prather)-
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Matte,
>>
>>Say there was a particular poster who's posts were offensive to me.
>>
>>Say I wanted to block that particular poster's e-mails.
>>
>>Say I wanted to continue reading the rest of the e-mails on this list.
>>
>>Is there a way to make that happen???
>>
>>Rodney in Tennessee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
Ralph -
Here's a PDF from Omega that discusses thermocouple wiring voodoo:
http://www.omega.com/temperature/Z/pdf/z021-032.pdf
The document is geared towards a lab setting so the term "error"
warrants a grain of salt... as in "thou shalt keep the conductors the
same all the way to your instrument to avoid errors created by
additional thermocouple (dissimilar metal) junctions."
There WILL be errors... but I see temperatures listed to the nearest
0.01 degree in the document so even "HUGE ERRORS" by these standards are
probably acceptable for your airborne laboratory!
As a sanity check you could test it (let the data speak for itself).
Hook one channel up with a thermocouple directly and another up using a
thermocouple soldered to a pigtail of copper wire. Stick both
thermocouples in a mug of hot chocolate or cold beer or whatever and see
how much the Vision thinks the channels differ.
D
-------
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
> Fellow trons.....
>
> I'm getting started on my firewall forward wiring for my VM1000. I have four
EGT and CHT wiring sets that need to pass through the firewall on their journey
to the DPU.
>
> I would like to be able to disconnect them at the firewall with a canon-plug
type connector for ease of maintenance and firewall integrity reasons.
>
> A note to Vision Microsystems got me the response that it can be done but I need
to use special thermocouple extension grade pins due to an additional thermocouple
junction at the firewall.
>
> Please provide me with some education on this - my common sense tells me that
it is an electrical signal once it leaves the thermocouple and that electricity
is not affected by a firewall - unless maybe it is on fire.......there is a
connector at the DPU - wouldn't that connector cause the same problem?
>
> I do take stock in their response - but need to understand the mechanics/physics
etc.
>
> Maybe it is not worth the trouble to wire a disconnect at this point and I should
run the wiring direct from the thermocouple to the DPU.
>
> Ralph Capen
> RV6AQB N822AR N06 90% 90%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Unnecessary personal invective. RIGHT ON |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I'll just make one comment on this topic:
What follows is a direct quote from the matronics list guidelines (next to
last item):
" - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing."
I believe this directly applies to some of the messages that prompted this
topic. Just a reminder to Read The Manual (and follow its directions).
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Matte,
>
>Say there was a particular poster who's posts were offensive to me.
>
>Say I wanted to block that particular poster's e-mails.
>
>Say I wanted to continue reading the rest of the e-mails on this list.
>
>Is there a way to make that happen???
>
>Rodney in Tennessee
http://www.mailwasher.net/
works good, lasts a long time and is free
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Apology as Well |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Fair enough. The Desiderata quote is truly one to live by, beautiful quote.
>Always striving to be a full grownup :), 'speaking the truth quietly and
>clearly' is a good way to go about it. As you say, forbearance will
>hopefully, eventually pay off. I'm new to the list and perhaps should have
>kept my mouth shut. Apologies to the list--with one notable exception--if I
>have upset anybody. I brought it up because I have seen other lists ruined
>and scattered to the winds by the acceptance of dysfunctional communication,
>whether based in fact and expounded by experts, or otherwise.
Not at all my friend. The only reason I can justify responses to
tirades is because many (perhaps even yourself to some degree)
have perceived my words through the filter of others with
agendas and/or misunderstanding of what I've offered. These
misconceptions can only be countered by consistent and persistent
presentation of the real story.
The last time I looked, there were over 1300 subscribers to
the AeroElectric List. If we keep their presence in mind,
it's these lurkers who will insure the List's longevity. If
we concentrate on serving the curiosity and willingness of
these folks to learn, then dozens of rabble rousers cannot
and will not put this List in danger.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Great Words, Bob |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Apology as Well
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Fair enough. The Desiderata quote is truly one to live by, beautiful
>>quote.
>>Always striving to be a full grownup :), 'speaking the truth quietly and
>>clearly' is a good way to go about it. As you say, forbearance will
>>hopefully, eventually pay off. I'm new to the list and perhaps should
>>have
>>kept my mouth shut. Apologies to the list--with one notable exception--if
>>I
>>have upset anybody. I brought it up because I have seen other lists
>>ruined
>>and scattered to the winds by the acceptance of dysfunctional
>>communication,
>>whether based in fact and expounded by experts, or otherwise.
>
> Not at all my friend. The only reason I can justify responses to
> tirades is because many (perhaps even yourself to some degree)
> have perceived my words through the filter of others with
> agendas and/or misunderstanding of what I've offered. These
> misconceptions can only be countered by consistent and persistent
> presentation of the real story.
>
> The last time I looked, there were over 1300 subscribers to
> the AeroElectric List. If we keep their presence in mind,
> it's these lurkers who will insure the List's longevity. If
> we concentrate on serving the curiosity and willingness of
> these folks to learn, then dozens of rabble rousers cannot
> and will not put this List in danger.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Great words, Bob.
I've been on this list since it was created and still subscribe to it even
though my aircraft electrical design was long ago implemented - based I
might add on many/most of your suggestions. I have flown my all electric
aircraft since 1998 without a single electrical problem. The only thing I
can recall having taking exception to in your recommendations was the use of
Circuit Breakers (personal preference) vs Fuses for critical systems.
So why am I still a subscriber (more a lurker now) after all these years -
simply because I still find new understanding and knowledge from the
discussions on this list. As we know, there will always be some, who for
whatever rationale, will bring their emotions into what should be a factual
discourse. Some will react (also emotionally) to such folks. But this is
just minor noise in the strong signal set by yourself and others on the
list. I can not foresee any danger of this list folding due to such causes -
too much value, to useful, to too many for that to happen.
Sincerely
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Duran <mgdurand(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unnecessary personal invective. |
You know, this list is really nuts sometimes. Like an old man's smoking club with
road rage.
Michael Duran
==================
George aka gmcjetpilot contributed the following
snip
"(Bob that is brilliant, "credentialed crystal ball gazers". Who are you
directing
that weak back-stab at, in typical condescending verbose style. All those
big words. Are you trying to impress, be clever or cover your insecurity.
Just stop with your petty little crap.)
==================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Unnecessary personal invective. |
> Fair warning to all;
> writers of this ilk can not be shamed, embarrassed, humiliated or
> otherwise discourage by relating the personal disgust we may feel
in
> reading their drivel. Here's the scary part--IT ENCOURAGES
> THEM
Precicely why he has earned a spot in my delete mail filters. He'll
never darken my electrons again......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> And with Mozilla's Thunderbird, you can right click on any address
in
> the heading, choose "create filter from message" and it
automatically
> sets up the filter...all you need to do is tell it what to do with it
> (file it, junk it , trash it, etc.)
>
> Don't know if other email programs have a similar feature...I only
use
> Thunderbird....
Pegasus email program. Free for individual use. Filters mail to
different folders, comes with a spam detection and content control
list that kills about 99% that I get, you can add and build your own
content control lists, build your own filter rules...and just a boat load
more. Plus, it's not nearly anywhere near as vulnerable to virus and
service attacks as, say, Outlook, because most evil-doers count on
the default use of Outlook as a way into your system.
http://www.pmail.com/
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
I have posted at least two discussions about thermocouple wire and how
it works - look at the archives.
That said, here is the short story. Thermocouples work due to the
Seebeck effect. That is, if you connect two wires made of dissimilar
metals they will generate a voltage at the junction that is proportional
to the temperature at the junction (and dependent on the types of
metals). It is important to remember that it is ANY junction of
dissimilar metals. This includes the junctions where the thermocouples
are connected to whatever you are using to measure the temperature. The
designers of these instruments always provide some way (internal to the
instrument) of compensating for the voltage generated at this junction
so the resultant temperature readout is that at the other end of the
thermocouple wires.
So... If we interpose another set of junctions in a length of
thermocouple wire - such as a connector - that could cause problems or
maybe not. I say could for two reasons.
First, if the temperature at each additional junction is the same then
the voltages generated will all cancel and you will still get the same
result on the readout instrument as you would without the additional
junctions. This is very likely the case if you pass the thermocouple
wires through a hole in the firewall (using the techniques that Bob
recommends for providing a fire resistant pass through) and use a
connector wholly within the engine compartment since both ends of the
connector will be in close proximity and at essentially the same
temperature. If you use a "barrier" connector with one side mounted on
the firewall and the other in the engine compartment, the situation is a
little worse since the two sides are obviously at different
temperatures. On the other hand if you use some sort of heat insulation
around one or both sides of the connector, since the pins are intimately
connected (both electrically and thermally), they are likely to be very
close in temperature and will cause a relatively small error.
Second, you are trying to measure relatively high temperatures and a
small temperature difference error generated by the connector may be
irrelevant to your actual usage. If you are using the EGT for leaning,
the actual temperature is only vaguely important - the relative peaks
are what you will look for. An error of 10 or 20 degrees would be
immaterial in this case. With the CHT the numbers are lower but the
errors are probably still not detrimental to your usage.
The reason Vision Microsystems suggest what they do is that they have no
control how or where you connect things and using the special pins
eliminates any problems - since they are the same material as the
thermocouple wire there is effectively no junction at the connector.
Bottom line: If you are careful in what you do, you can use any
connector you want with minimal if any errors. If you are not careful
and end up with the two sides of the connector at significantly
different temperatures you will get an error that is approximately the
difference between the temperatures on the two sides of the connector.
Dick Tasker
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>Fellow trons.....
>
>I'm getting started on my firewall forward wiring for my VM1000. I have four
EGT and CHT wiring sets that need to pass through the firewall on their journey
to the DPU.
>
>I would like to be able to disconnect them at the firewall with a canon-plug type
connector for ease of maintenance and firewall integrity reasons.
>
>A note to Vision Microsystems got me the response that it can be done but I need
to use special thermocouple extension grade pins due to an additional thermocouple
junction at the firewall.
>
>Please provide me with some education on this - my common sense tells me that
it is an electrical signal once it leaves the thermocouple and that electricity
is not affected by a firewall - unless maybe it is on fire.......there is a
connector at the DPU - wouldn't that connector cause the same problem?
>
>I do take stock in their response - but need to understand the mechanics/physics
etc.
>
>Maybe it is not worth the trouble to wire a disconnect at this point and I should
run the wiring direct from the thermocouple to the DPU.
>
>Ralph Capen
>RV6AQB N822AR N06 90% 90%
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
>
>
>Fellow trons.....
>
>I'm getting started on my firewall forward wiring for my VM1000. I have
>four EGT and CHT wiring sets that need to pass through the firewall on
>their journey to the DPU.
>
>I would like to be able to disconnect them at the firewall with a
>canon-plug type connector for ease of maintenance and firewall integrity
>reasons.
>
>A note to Vision Microsystems got me the response that it can be done but
>I need to use special thermocouple extension grade pins due to an
>additional thermocouple junction at the firewall.
>
>Please provide me with some education on this - my common sense tells me
>that it is an electrical signal once it leaves the thermocouple and that
>electricity is not affected by a firewall - unless maybe it is on
>fire.......there is a connector at the DPU - wouldn't that connector cause
>the same problem?
>
>I do take stock in their response - but need to understand the
>mechanics/physics etc.
>
>Maybe it is not worth the trouble to wire a disconnect at this point and I
>should run the wiring direct from the thermocouple to the DPU.
As long as your T/C wires are 20 or 22AWG, you can run them through
ordinary D-sub connectors . . . solid machined pins preferred. While
the pins for a D-sub are NOT identical to the thermocouple wires being
joined, they insert a pair of equal but opposing parasitic thermocouples
into both leadwires. The parasitic thermocouples cancel each other out
because they are in such close proximity to each other and have a common
local temperature.
I've been doing this for many years in instrumentation systems at RAC
and elsewhere and could detect no significant errors for having used
this technique.
Now, consider the fact that a D-sub connector is not a firewall
proven device so you'll want to bring your T/C bundle through
a more conventional firewall penetration (See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
and then use a pair of cable connections under the cowl to effect
separation of of the t/c bundle forward of the firewall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
Being one of those people that spends most of his time outside the box
asking "why", my question is this: Why do we rely on such a weird and
delicate method of measuring temperature? Isn't there a device that will
produce a linear voltage/temperature output that can be run through
whatever wiring and whatever connectors we wish to use, and doesn't rely on
such an error-prone mechanism for measurement of such critical data?
Dave Morris
At 09:49 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>I have posted at least two discussions about thermocouple wire and how
>it works - look at the archives.
>
>That said, here is the short story. Thermocouples work due to the
>Seebeck effect. That is, if you connect two wires made of dissimilar
>metals they will generate a voltage at the junction that is proportional
>to the temperature at the junction (and dependent on the types of
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
> While the pins for a D-sub are NOT identical to the
> thermocouple wires being joined, they insert a pair of equal but
> opposing parasitic thermocouples into both leadwires. The
> parasitic thermocouples cancel each other out because they are
in
> such close proximity to each other and have a common local
> temperature.
I'd think, perhaps incorrectly, that the object of the EGT and CHT
would be to establish relative readings and not absoulute readings. I
don't really care about a ten degree difference from a precise
measurement as long as I know, from experience, what the
readings are relative to various operating regimes. As an example, I
have a Grand Rapids EIS on a two stroke that is junctioned with
.092 Molex connectors with the proper K and J type cable on either
side of the junction. The Grand Rapids folks say the EIS will
temperature compensate the cold junction(s) (I think???) so who
really knows what the precise temp is....I don't. All I'm looking for is a
baseline and then trends after that.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
Mainly because they are reliable, small and really cheap compared to
other ways to measure the temperatures we are interested in.
Additionally, remember that we are sticking some of these directly into
the hot exhaust stream. There isn't much else that will measure this
temperature and survive for long yet be affordable. On the other hand,
as long as you don't mind spending a couple hundred dollars each, I can
get you some really nice, robust sensors that don't care what you use to
connect between the sensor and your readout nor how far it is to the
readout :-) .
Also, compared to some of the industrial stuff I have worked with and
designed for, our accuracy requirements are really loose. As some of
the other posters have mentioned, we actually don't care exactly what
the EGT temperatures are (within a pretty wide tolerance). We really
only need a comparative reading between the four or six exhaust ports.
The actual CHTs are a little more interesting, but again, the accuracies
we need are not that critical or hard to get - even with the "delicate
method" of using thermocouples.
Dick Tasker
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>Being one of those people that spends most of his time outside the box
>asking "why", my question is this: Why do we rely on such a weird and
>delicate method of measuring temperature? Isn't there a device that will
>produce a linear voltage/temperature output that can be run through
>whatever wiring and whatever connectors we wish to use, and doesn't rely on
>such an error-prone mechanism for measurement of such critical data?
>
>Dave Morris
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) |
>
>
>
snip
>
> Please allow me to make it quite clear concerning my attitudes and
> goals for incorporation of the internally regulated alternator into
> aircraft:
>
> (1) I stipulate that the modern, IR alternators of ANY brand are
> exceedingly superior products in performance, price and reliability
> to the vast majority of alternators presently flying on the majority
> of today's certified light aircraft.
Agreed
>
> (2) I have customers who are interested in incorporating these
> products into their projects under the same design goals as
> all generators and alternators since day-one. I.e., to allow a
> pilot to exercise absolute, quiet, and non-hazardous control over
> this source of power and with a minimum regard to cautions,
> prohibitions
> or concerns.
Fair enough.
>
> (3) There are folks who suggest that comforts and convenience of
> control and independent management of an OV condition are
> relegated to a past age and no longer relevant or useful. I have
> no argument with those who embrace those views as long as it's done
> with a clear understanding of the differences and acceptance of
> potential consequences. One must also accept a new operating paradigm
> for the light aircraft electrical system inconsistent with (2).
>
Fair enough.
> (4) I have a project under way to accomplish (2) . . . the only
> reason for pulling the IR alternator integration data from the
> 'Connection is that it worked only under a list of cautions,
> prohibitions
> and concerns. It will go back into the book when the goal is achieved
> and blessed by others here on the List. They will sift though all the
> simple-ideas to be published in support of the design and pronounced
> them understandable and compelling in their execution.
>
Knowing what the goals are would be nice. I, for one such goal, want
something that can actually be purchased at an auto store. The '77 honda
civic w/0 air alternator that is externally regulated is an item that is
getting harder to find in the rebuild stores for example. I don't want to
rebuild the thing myself either. Why not do the test with something of
recent vintage? Say 2005 or so? And no I do not have one to send you.
>
>>I appreciate all Bob has done for the OBAM community. I do feel however
>>that at times he does go a bit over the limit in criticizing others, like
>>Vans Aircraft for example, because they support builders using IR
>>alternators and they continue to advocate use of the circuit breaker
>>rather
>>than bus architecture.
>
> Forgive me sir, your words do not offer me a clear image of your
> thinking. Can you elaborate on the difference between "circuit breaker"
> versus "bus" architecture?
I should of called this the bus architecture with fuse blocks. Sorry.
>
> I have accurately described some opinions offered by Van's and others
> as ignorant . . . (or if you find this word offensive, exceedingly
> lacking in knowledge) of the ramifications of their recommendations.
> It's unfortunate that many followers of these new paradigms
> accept the ideas based on the name-brand of those who offer the
> capable airframe design and power plant integration organization
> but they're clearly not into the advancement of knowledge and
> understanding in electrical systems design. A simple examination
> of their electrical system kit is a profound demonstration
> of this fact. It's 1960' architecture and philosophy with a simplistic
> substitution of a modern alternator for an antique generator.
Bob, many times you are exceedingly kind using patience I have not seen in
many people. Then other times you could use words/phrases, such as, "it
could be considered a better approach would be to........ or 'a better
approach would be to consider......", but instead you call it bluntly
ignorant. The evidence of experience with Vans is that although their's may
not be the most elegant or filled with alternate options solution, it must
work or thousands of planes would be falling from the sky. And it is cheap
to build. Agreed, I don't think Van's solution is the best.
>
> I've spoken with Van at numerous aviation gatherings and inquired
> as to his vision for how far out to the horizon his products should
> be flown. My sense was that he'd rather nobody ever launched into
> IFR and that the electrical system served the same purpose as it did
> in the C-140A . . . run some lights and crank the engine. My
> interpretation
> of his remarks is re-enforced by the manner in which he suggests
> systems be installed in his products. A battery, an engine driven
> energy source and a vacuum pump. Now, if Van cares to join the List
> an disabuse me of my perceptions, I'm sure we'd all be grateful and
> attentive.
>
> I do not propose to argue with Van's business model. Obviously,
> in spite of any perceived or real shortcomings, it's profoundly
> successful. But I have customers. You folks here on the List who
> want explore more options and hopefully do it from a position of
> understanding. It's my job as system designer and integrator to
> offer options. It's my duty as teacher to offer simple-ideas that
> support those options such that anyone who chooses may make their
> own decisions with confidence.
>
>>I have not heard of Vans issuing advice directories
>>on the IR alternators because of problems they are getting back from the
>>field. Vans sells thousands of planes and some percentage of those have
>>the
>>IR alternator. It would be interesting to know from the Vans network what
>>the break down is and what the experience has been. I am sure no one
>>knows
>>all these answers. But the results of a survey would sure be nice to
>>know.
>
> This isn't about Van's. It's not about Niagara Airparts. It's not about
> NiponDenso or Mitsubishi alternators. It's not about George or Paul.
> It's
> about YOU sir. What do YOU want? What are YOUR goals. How can we here
> on
> the list help YOU select from a clear list of options and install
> them on YOUR airplane for operation with understanding and confidence
> in having done a good thing?
I can be served by knowing the option of how to install and maintain an IR
alternator safely in my plane.
>
> If you're wanting someone tell you what to do, then you're
> well advised to install Van's kit as offered with the knowledge
> that you will fare no worse than thousands of Van's other customers . .
> .
> which is NOT a scary number. When I climb into a rented spam can,
> I'm very aware of the shortcomings in the electrical system and they
> don't bother me in the least. I have Plan-B in my flight bag to deal
> with anything that system may toss at me.
>
> But as soon as you make a single change to that system in terms
> of parts selection or architecture, who can you depend on for
> support in understanding the value or risks of your proposed
> changes? I submit that it will NOT be Van's Aircraft,
> Niagara Airparts, or the engineers at ND. Your best source of
> assistance is right here on the List where folks with knowledge of
> such things and goals similar to yours are willing to spend their
> $time$ on your behalf.
>
> I hope this re-focus of goals and tools for achieving them is
> useful to you. Let us not be distracted by brand recognition
> or elevation of individuals to technical sainthood. It's the
> understanding of ideas that matters.
>
> Bob . . .
Thank you Bob for taking time to respond. I do appreciate your efforts and
patience with those of us like myself that are trying to better understand
you and your teachings.
Larry in Indiana ( your customer -- I got your manual and wired my plane
accordingly.)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations |
Dave, in my search for temp probes, I found nothing else that was 1)
affordable, while 2) being able to withstand the extremely corrosive
environment of hot exhaust gases. 8-)
Jim, for some of us, actual temps are critical, at least for the first
few hours. In my case, I've added a turbocharger to a Ford engine for
my plane and I *must* stay below the max temps in the exhaust, as well
as ensuring CHT's stay well out of detonation ranges. So, yeah, it's
rather important for me!
David M.
Jim Baker wrote:
>
>
>
>> While the pins for a D-sub are NOT identical to the
>> thermocouple wires being joined, they insert a pair of equal but
>> opposing parasitic thermocouples into both leadwires. The
>> parasitic thermocouples cancel each other out because they are
>>
>>
>in
>
>
>> such close proximity to each other and have a common local
>> temperature.
>>
>>
>
>I'd think, perhaps incorrectly, that the object of the EGT and CHT
>would be to establish relative readings and not absoulute readings. I
>don't really care about a ten degree difference from a precise
>measurement as long as I know, from experience, what the
>readings are relative to various operating regimes. As an example, I
>have a Grand Rapids EIS on a two stroke that is junctioned with
>.092 Molex connectors with the proper K and J type cable on either
>side of the junction. The Grand Rapids folks say the EIS will
>temperature compensate the cold junction(s) (I think???) so who
>really knows what the precise temp is....I don't. All I'm looking for is a
>baseline and then trends after that.
>
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>'71 SV, 492TC
>Elmore City, OK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Wells(at)adelphia.net" <georgewells(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 |
I have a Mod 5 KitFox with a 912S and recently installed a dual Amp & Volt meter
since I previously only had a Amp meter. While flying today the voltage reading
started to rise until it was at the top of the scale at appox 18 volts and
the amp meter at appox. 5 amps. After I cycled a few accessories the voltage
came back down to around 13.5 - 14 volts and the amps at just a slight positive
deflection from 0.
My question is does this sound like a rectifier or some other problem ?
Thanks
georgewells(at)adelphia.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 |
George,
The regulators have a history of being troublesome, and sometimes short
lived, particularly if they are in a hot location. You might think about
swapping it out.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Controlling IR ND Alternators |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
<<.......skip....Although Bob has posted that he would remove from his book
the chapter on IR
alternator and it's installation, I feel Bob's book should cover the IR
alternator and its installation because of its usefulness to experimental
plane builders. Bob has stated he has no experience with the IR alt. and it
does not meet his performance/control goals. I think Bob is big enough to
take it upon himself and LEARN about it and for the OBAM interests cover it
for those who decide it meets their goals........skip.....>>
10/27/2005
Hello Larry, You refer to "the IR alternator" and "it" as though it was some
clearly identifiable entity with a known configuration and characteristics.
But there are multiple versions of automotive and industrial IR alternators
from each alternator manufacturer with a variety of different external wire
connections that perform various unspecified or undocumented functions. Some
of these IR alternators may be wired identically externally, but perform
differently under either normal or failure mode conditions because the
internal voltage regulators are different. Some of these IR alternators are
brand new from the OEM, others have been rebuilt or modified in an unknown
fashion by rebuilders who may also be unknown. The part number of a rebuilt
or modified IR alternator may be identical to the part number of a new IR
alternator. Two apparently identical IR alternators may have entirely
different performance characteristics during partial or complete failure.
Given the above state of affairs I would appreciate it if you would list
just a few of the things about IR alternators that you feel would be helpful
and should be included in a book written for builders of amateur built
experimental aircraft. Thank you.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
Great idea about the upcoming comic book. BTW, why do you call them comic
books???
My planes both use PM alternators. Almost all the discussion is concerning
the other alternator type. I would appreciate a comic book on the PM
alternator and VR.
Some of my questions:
How many volts AC produced by the (Rotax 912/Jabiru 3300) alternator at
various RPM's?
How can I measure this on mine? (Should I???)
How many amps AC produced by the alternator at various RPM's?
How does the (Ducati) VR convert the AC to DC?
What happens to the exter engerny after the BAT is charged?
What are the failure modes?
How would I recognize impending failure?
How do I differentiate BAT from VR from ALT failure?
Do I really need crowbar protection in a PM system?
Could you design a "dream regulator" that B&C could fab and sell me???
I think I have gleaned most of the answers to the above questions but need
to put it all together in my mind. Remember, I'm not an engineer. As a
friend of mine says frequently with a big grin, you have to explain it to me
like I'm a DOCTOR!*
*In other words, keep it SIMPLE!
DocRod in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Alice Hoffman" <rognal(at)clipper.net> |
| Subject: | Figure Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System |
In the Z-11 electrical system is there an alternative workaround if I cannot position
the battery bus within a six inch wire run length of the battery contactor?
Or the silicone diode & heatsink within a six inch wire run length of the
main bus and essential bus?
If these wire runs needed to be 2X or 3X longer would the wire size be increased?
Or an inline fuse installed? Or both? Or other?
I'm new at this so thanks in advance for any help. I appreciate it.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Controlling IR ND Alternators |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
<<.....skip.......I can be served by knowing the option of how to install
and maintain an IR
alternator safely in my plane......skip.......>>
10/28/2005
Hello Larry, I believe that this goal can be met by buying the 40 amp
alternator kit advertised here
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ along with the Zeftronic OVP wiring and
equipment set up available by link from this web site.
The problem arises when the aircraft builders insist on being able to
subsequently walk into an auto parts store and buy an IR alternator of
unknown provenance and quality that purports to be of identical
configuration and performance to their existing IR alternator, but in fact
may perform differently and be of poor quality.
People can have different versions of what constitutes "safety", but for
the reasons that I provided previously (partially copied below) I don't see
how instructions in any book can make a auto parts store rebuilt IR
alternator purchase a satisfactory safe solution.
OC
PS: Provided Previously: "But there are multiple versions of automotive and
industrial IR alternators from each alternator manufacturer with a variety
of different external wire
connections that perform various unspecified or undocumented functions. Some
of these IR alternators may be wired identically externally, but perform
differently under either normal or failure mode conditions because the
internal voltage regulators are different. Some of these IR alternators are
brand new from the OEM, others have been rebuilt or modified in an unknown
fashion by rebuilders who may also be unknown. The part number of a rebuilt
or modified IR alternator may be identical to the part number of a new IR
alternator. Two apparently identical IR alternators may have entirely
different performance characteristics during partial or complete failure."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N5SL <nfivesl(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi guys:
I have an easy and possibly a dumb question about how the RVers are using the Vans
supplied master relay and starter relay. I ordered a set of these from Vans
with the diodes and a little bit of bus bar. I plan to tie my main power in
at the busbar between the two relays as shown here from Bob Hester's page:
http://members.hopkinsville.net/bhester/images/P4080553sm.jpg
In other words, when the master relay is engaged, it will provide power to my fuse
box where everything is connected.
Can anybody tell me if this make sense?
Thanks,
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Figure Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System |
>
>
>In the Z-11 electrical system is there an alternative workaround if I
>cannot position the battery bus within a six inch wire run length of the
>battery contactor? Or the silicone diode & heatsink within a six inch wire
>run length of the main bus and essential bus.
>
>If these wire runs needed to be 2X or 3X longer would the wire size be
>increased? Or an inline fuse installed? Or both? Or other?
>
>I'm new at this so thanks in advance for any help. I appreciate it.
The 6-inch "rule" (if you want to call it that) is an FAA
position for small, unprotected wires. The notion is that
they'll philosophically accept the risks for burning 6"
of wire. Your own philosophy is another matter. Further,
if there are real mechanical concerns for risk to an extended
battery bus feeder, take some extra pains to insulate and/or
protect the wire. I'd have no heartburn over a 12 or even 24"
feeder if well clear of moving parts that might damage the
wire and the wire was not routed through places that made it
difficult to monitor during periodic inspections.
Having offered that, I would repeat an earlier notion that
LONG extensions of always-hot busses (like from tail of
a/c to panel) makes it something other than a battery bus
and calls for remote control of that feeder with a mini-contactor
that allows taking the bus completely dark on short final
to the rocks.
I would avoid any additional form of protection like fuses
or breakers in a battery bus feeder. The whole reason for
the always hot bus is to provide the single most reliable
source of power with a minimum of parts count and elimination
of as many single points of failure as practical. This is
where the little fuse block setting inches away from the
battery contactor meets those design goals exactly and
at very low cost and effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
I have noticed my master relay has plastic boots covering the mounting
flanges. Most master relays are metal mounting brackets. Is this going to
cause any problems? It means the casing is not grounded.
Thanks
BobR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Figure Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System |
This brings up several elementary questions for me...
Does the 6-inch "rule" apply to the distance between the source and the
fuse/breaker, or between the fuse/breaker and the load?
Some hypothetical:
Assume a 24" wire directly from a battery, through a switch, to a landing
light. Where should this wire be protected?
Assume a 24" wire directly from a battery, through a switch, to a master bus
(no contactor). Where should this wire be protected?
What determines the break-point at which a "power switch" is no longer
adequate and a contactor should be used?
On the "Z" drawings, I notice that downsized wire fusible links are
sometimes used. Is there a reason why a fuse or breaker would not be used
there?
I'm sure I will come up with more questions later, but I don't want to
reveal my total ignorance in one fell swoop.
Note to Bob: I have "The Connection" on my Christmas list...
-----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: AeroElectric-List: Figure Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft
Electrical System
>
>
>In the Z-11 electrical system is there an alternative workaround if I
>cannot position the battery bus within a six inch wire run length of the
>battery contactor? Or the silicone diode & heatsink within a six inch wire
>run length of the main bus and essential bus.
>
>If these wire runs needed to be 2X or 3X longer would the wire size be
>increased? Or an inline fuse installed? Or both? Or other?
>
>I'm new at this so thanks in advance for any help. I appreciate it.
The 6-inch "rule" (if you want to call it that) is an FAA
position for small, unprotected wires. The notion is that
they'll philosophically accept the risks for burning 6"
of wire. Your own philosophy is another matter. Further,
if there are real mechanical concerns for risk to an extended
battery bus feeder, take some extra pains to insulate and/or
protect the wire. I'd have no heartburn over a 12 or even 24"
feeder if well clear of moving parts that might damage the
wire and the wire was not routed through places that made it
difficult to monitor during periodic inspections.
Having offered that, I would repeat an earlier notion that
LONG extensions of always-hot busses (like from tail of
a/c to panel) makes it something other than a battery bus
and calls for remote control of that feeder with a mini-contactor
that allows taking the bus completely dark on short final
to the rocks.
I would avoid any additional form of protection like fuses
or breakers in a battery bus feeder. The whole reason for
the always hot bus is to provide the single most reliable
source of power with a minimum of parts count and elimination
of as many single points of failure as practical. This is
where the little fuse block setting inches away from the
battery contactor meets those design goals exactly and
at very low cost and effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV master Relay |
>
>
>Hi guys:
>
>
>I have an easy and possibly a dumb question about how the RVers are using
>the Vans supplied master relay and starter relay. I ordered a set of
>these from Vans with the diodes and a little bit of bus bar. I plan to
>tie my main power in at the busbar between the two relays as shown here
>from Bob Hester's page:
>
>
>http://members.hopkinsville.net/bhester/images/P4080553sm.jpg
>
>
>In other words, when the master relay is engaged, it will provide power to
>my fuse box where everything is connected.
>
>
>Can anybody tell me if this make sense?
Take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/DISKA09F.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/DISKA11F.JPG
The technique you're asking for the use of solid bars in lieu of fat
wires between various components is commonly practiced on LOTS of airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
Bob,
There are several different types of relays available for different
applications. In your case it sounds like you have a relay that gets
its coil power from the relay input post. It uses ground for the other
side of the coil to trigger the relay. Therefore when you ground the
case or small post it closes the relay if power is being supplied to the
main input post.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
rundle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount
I have noticed my master relay has plastic boots covering the mounting
flanges. Most master relays are metal mounting brackets. Is this going
to
cause any problems? It means the casing is not grounded.
Thanks
BobR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
SpamAssassin (score=-2.566, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam,
AWL 0.03, BAYES_00 -2.60)
Hi all,
I asked this a few days ago and there were no answers
other than a nice reply and following samples from Eric
Jones (thank you Eric :-).
"I just caught the thread on fatwire and looked at the
website. At first take this looks great. What
insulation is being used ?? I read that 4awg wire has
the same performance as 2awg wire ..... does this mean I
could replace my planned 2awg runs (2) from battery in
baggage to engine starter with CCA 4awg ??"
I know this isn't as interesting as the commotion about
IR regulators but it sure is worthwhile. This wire is
much lighter in weight and seems to be a great thing for
our aircraft. So I'm asking people that know more about
this than I (easy in this case) ..... what are the
caveats, if any, to my using 4awg Fatwire instead of
2awg Mil-Spec (copper) wire for my power and ground runs
from the battery located aft of the baggage compartment
forward to the main buss and starter ???
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Copper versus Copper Clad Aluminum |
>
>Hi all,
>I asked this a few days ago and there were no answers
>other than a nice reply and following samples from Eric
>Jones (thank you Eric :-).
>"I just caught the thread on fatwire and looked at the
>website. At first take this looks great. What
>insulation is being used ?? I read that 4awg wire has
>the same performance as 2awg wire ..... does this mean I
>could replace my planned 2awg runs (2) from battery in
>baggage to engine starter with CCA 4awg ??"
No . . . unless someone has abandoned the meaning of
AWG wire sizing. There have been various conventions
adopted over the years for handling small variables
in wire sizing. A stranded wire having the same electrical
cross section as a solid wire will have a slightly larger
diameter. When speaking of 22AWG wire, is it more important
to have it be consistent with other 22AWG wires for
size or electrical resistance?
The wire tables I publish have data taken from stranded
AWG sized copper wires and are right out of the Mil-STD's
for wire. If you compare these values with varous publications
over the past 100 years, you'll find some variability
in dimensions and resistances but only by a few percent.
For our purposes of wiring airplanes with predictable
electrical performance, resistance of the wire (i.e.
heat rejection per foot for the same current) is the
key factor. The CCA wire is higher in resistance than
pure copper so crafting a wire with performance equal
to copper 2AWG wire will produce a conductor with a
larger cross section but still lighter in weight.
>I know this isn't as interesting as the commotion about
>IR regulators but it sure is worthwhile. This wire is
>much lighter in weight and seems to be a great thing for
>our aircraft. So I'm asking people that know more about
>this than I (easy in this case) ..... what are the
>caveats, if any, to my using 4awg Fatwire instead of
>2awg Mil-Spec (copper) wire for my power and ground runs
>from the battery located aft of the baggage compartment
>forward to the main buss and starter ???
If weight is your critical parameter, then CCA conductors
of the same performance as the 2AWG copper will be lighter
but also larger in diameter. Certainly 4AWG equivalent CCA
will be equal in conductivity to 4AWG copper and therefore
a wash for performance. Obviously, this wire is not a
substitute for 2AWG copper or 2AWG equivalent CCA.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fatwire again |
(Re-sent. First one seems to have gotten lost)
Hi Larry,
From what I got reading the web site, the the Super-2-CCA exceeds
capacity of 2 awg copper, and the Super-4-CCA exceeds the capcacity of
4 awg copper. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe I
could replace 2 awg copper with Super-4-CCA.
Bob W.
"Larry E. James" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I asked this a few days ago and there were no answers
> other than a nice reply and following samples from Eric
> Jones (thank you Eric :-).
> "I just caught the thread on fatwire and looked at the
> website. At first take this looks great. What
> insulation is being used ?? I read that 4awg wire has
> the same performance as 2awg wire ..... does this mean I
> could replace my planned 2awg runs (2) from battery in
> baggage to engine starter with CCA 4awg ??"
> I know this isn't as interesting as the commotion about
> IR regulators but it sure is worthwhile. This wire is
> much lighter in weight and seems to be a great thing for
> our aircraft. So I'm asking people that know more about
> this than I (easy in this case) ..... what are the
> caveats, if any, to my using 4awg Fatwire instead of
> 2awg Mil-Spec (copper) wire for my power and ground runs
> from the battery located aft of the baggage compartment
> forward to the main buss and starter ???
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (projected engine start in November)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Electrical System |
| Subject: | Figure Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft |
Electrical System
>
>This brings up several elementary questions for me...
>
>Does the 6-inch "rule" apply to the distance between the source and the
>fuse/breaker, or between the fuse/breaker and the load?
It was applied to wires that have no circuit protection either
breaker or fuse. For example, we once considered installing some
spike traps and noise filters directly on the bus behind the
breaker panel of some Cessna models about 1968. The debate was
whether or not there was value or a necessity of protecting the
wires that fed these devices. That's the first time I saw the
6" rule envoked.
>Some hypothetical:
>
>Assume a 24" wire directly from a battery, through a switch, to a landing
>light. Where should this wire be protected?
Depends on how much smoke you're willing to tolerate. Keep in
mind that fuses and breakers (1) protect wires and (2) keep faults
from propagating to other systems. The common convention is to
provide circuit protection for EVERY feeder as close as practical
to the feed end of the wire . . . which means right at the bus.
>Assume a 24" wire directly from a battery, through a switch, to a master bus
>(no contactor). Where should this wire be protected?
At the feed end of the wire . . . at the battery.
>What determines the break-point at which a "power switch" is no longer
>adequate and a contactor should be used?
Convenience. The TriPacer in which I received instruction had NO
contactors. The battery master was a fat switch on the seat support
rail under the passenger side seat. The starter switch was a fat
push button rated for starter currents right under the pilot's
seat. Assuming this arrangement is not attractive to you for your
project, then the cranking path LOCAL control devices need replaced
with control devices suited for REMOTE control. Enter things like
relays and contactors.
>On the "Z" drawings, I notice that downsized wire fusible links are
>sometimes used. Is there a reason why a fuse or breaker would not be used
>there?
Nope, a fuse or breaker is ALWAYS suitable for circuit protection
wherever protections is called for. Check out
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html
Fusible links have some utility in most vehicles. Cars have used
them for years. I suggested they might be applicable to limited
usages as described in the Z-figures. Fusible links are not a general
replacement for fuses or breakers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
>
>I have noticed my master relay has plastic boots covering the mounting
>flanges. Most master relays are metal mounting brackets. Is this going to
>cause any problems? It means the casing is not grounded.
Do you know the part number and manufacture's name for
these parts? It would be interesting to check the catalog
listings to see how the booties are pitched. I cannot
imagine why they are present on your parts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
Do we know what Zeftronics uses for a B lead contactor? I couldn't find
any mention in the archives.
Ken
>snip
>
>Hello Larry, I believe that this goal can be met by buying the 40 amp
>alternator kit advertised here
>http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ along with the Zeftronic OVP wiring and
>equipment set up available by link from this web site.
>
>snip
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Product (Display Drivers and Display Power) |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Does anyone have an opinion as to how this device might help solve some of
the problems of lighting panels or other cockpit/cabin lighting with
LED's? Would it make things more complex than they are now? ie. dropping
resistors, series vs parallel strings of LED's, etc.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
====================================
Maxim Integrated Products (NASDAQ: MXIM) introduces the
MAX6971/MAX6983 16-port and the MAX6970/MAX6980/MAX6981 8-port
constant-current LED drivers. All these LED drivers feature a
25MHz, 4-wire, industry-standard SPI-compatible serial interface.
The 16 or 8 open-drain, constant-current-sinking LED driver
outputs are rated at 36V. Using a single external resistor with a
2% current matching between outputs and 6% matching between
cascaded devices, each port can sink up to 55mA for all LEDs.
They operate from a 3V to 5.5V supply and are specified for the
-40C to +125C operating range. All the devices are
designed to support standard lighting and signage applications.
More: http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_release.cfm/release_id/1158
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Perihelion Design sells two basic CCA fatwires:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm
Typically (there is no standard), insulated 4AWG copper battery cable is
3.02 ounces per foot.
Super-4-CCA is 1.72 ounces per foot (57% the weight of copper )--so you will
save 2.03 pounds with 25' of cable. The stranding is 7 X 21 X 23g
The specification are on the website (on the installation sheet). But the
electrical specs are a dead-nuts match to 4AWG copper.
However, the Super-2-CCA is a little more complicated.
The cable manufacturer overshot the mark by 14%. I don't know to this day
where the error was--the 23AWG strands do grow very slightly larger on the
spool, but then again, manufacturer was responsible for meeting the
resistance numbers (and the weight was the dependent variable)--I just don't
know.
The result was that the CCA wire is lower in resistance than copper. In fact
it is lower in resistance than 2AWG silver. Super-2-CCA turned out to be
0.134 milliOhms per foot and 3.08 ounces per foot. (as above--this is about
the typical weight of 4AWG copper) You can compare this with 2AWG copper,
2AWG Copper=0.156 milliOhms per foot
2AWG Silver =0.146 milliOhms per foot
Super-2-CCA =0.134 milliOhms per foot
1AWG Copper=0.124 milliOhms per foot
There really is a lot of variation in weight per foot for copper cable
because of the variety of insulations, so I have not listed them here, but
you can make your own comparisons.
If you use 1AWG, there is only an 8% increase in resistance and a 54%
decrease in weight (apprx.). And 1AWG cable is very heavy stuff.
If you use 2AWG, there is a 16% decrease in resistance and a 40% decrease in
weight (apprx.). Not quite what my target was but still extremely nice.
I have suggested to several builders that if they have a low internal
resistance battery, good connections and an easy-starting engine (like a
Subie), I estimate that Super-4-CCA would be entirely satisfactory with a
rear mounted battery. As they say--this is experimental--but that's what I'm
planning to do in my Glastar.
Both cables, after long study on the subject, were insulated with a
proprietary polyvinyl thermoplastic elastomer, or call it PVC. But the new
PVC is not like the old stuff. This insulation has no bad habits. Just cut a
piece off and burn it to see how it behaves. It is self-extinguishing and
doesn't emit noxious smoke. Along with 105 DegC, cut resistance,
non-cracking, fuel and oil resistant, and all the good stuff.
So that's the whole story.
If you do nothing else just read the
http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Copper%20cables.pdf on my
website.
Hope this clears thing up.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Product (Display Drivers and Display Power) |
Hi John:
The interface to the Maxim devices uses an SPI port, which usually
assumes the involvement of a microprocessor. This adds
cost/complexity. In addition, I don't think the MAX devices can be
dimmed, although there may be a way to do it by switching the reference
resistor value.
Finally, you also need a low voltage logic supply.
All of this means that it would be part of a bigger system, but not
particularly cost effective as a stand-alone device for simple LED lamps.
I've developing new 8 and 12 channel LED annuciator panel controllers
with integral 0.4" x 0.8" LEDs. One of the constraints that I usually
put on the products I develop is to consider the long-term maintenance
and servicability. This means using commonly available multi-sourced
components, and avoiding software (microprocessors) if not absolutely
required. Five or ten years from now, when a problem develops, it shoud
be simple for a field tech to diagnose and replace a faulty component.
This is a round about way of saying that in my opinion, sometimes a
ballast resistor per LED or per group of LEDs is a low-tech, reliable,
serviceable solution that should be considered.
Good luck with your project,
Vern Little
www.vx-aviation.com
John Schroeder wrote:
>
>Does anyone have an opinion as to how this device might help solve some of
>the problems of lighting panels or other cockpit/cabin lighting with
>LED's? Would it make things more complex than they are now? ie. dropping
>resistors, series vs parallel strings of LED's, etc.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John Schroeder
>====================================
>Maxim Integrated Products (NASDAQ: MXIM) introduces the
>MAX6971/MAX6983 16-port and the MAX6970/MAX6980/MAX6981 8-port
>constant-current LED drivers. All these LED drivers feature a
>25MHz, 4-wire, industry-standard SPI-compatible serial interface.
>The 16 or 8 open-drain, constant-current-sinking LED driver
>outputs are rated at 36V. Using a single external resistor with a
>2% current matching between outputs and 6% matching between
>cascaded devices, each port can sink up to 55mA for all LEDs.
>They operate from a 3V to 5.5V supply and are specified for the
>-40C to +125C operating range. All the devices are
>designed to support standard lighting and signage applications.
> More: http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_release.cfm/release_id/1158
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Great idea about the upcoming comic book. BTW, why do you call them comic
>books???
LOTS of pictures . . . see typical document at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>My planes both use PM alternators. Almost all the discussion is concerning
>the other alternator type. I would appreciate a comic book on the PM
>alternator and VR.
You're certainly aware of this increasingly popular technology.
The SD-8 alternator is the product that launched B&C many moons
ago. At that time, anything more than 20A from a PM alternator
was in the real-hard pile. Now we're seeing some pretty hefty
machines in the consumer products market.
>Some of my questions:
>How many volts AC produced by the (Rotax 912/Jabiru 3300) alternator at
>various RPM's?
This is a WAG but I've heard numbers on the order of 20-30
VAC from the AC output windings on a Rotax 912 at cruise RPM.
This seems reasonable for a 14V system. I expect you would measure
values in this range on about every alternator of this type.
> How can I measure this on mine? (Should I???)
Certainly if it satisfies some level of curiosity . . . and
after having gathered such data, I'm sure there are folks on
the list who would appreciate it if you shared it. However,
aside from wanting to understand the inner workings of the
system, there's no compelling reason for the installer/
operator of these systems to make the effort.
> How many amps AC produced by the alternator at various RPM's?
I recall seeing charts in a Rotax 912 manual that cited
available output current for available DC output current
versus RPM. As I recall, one could expect the full 18A
only at cruise RPM. This is the biggest limitation for
PM alternators. The difficulties with rectifying AND
regulating the output in devices capable of carrying
these relatively large currents compels the designer
NOT to have any excess capabilities.
Specifically, the answer to your question is that the AC
current flowing in the output windings of the altenrator
will be on the same order as the DC ouput current after the
AC is rectified.
The wound field alternator can be throttled by controlling
field current so the only electronics that MUST carry
output current are simple diodes on heatsinks. It's easy
to reign in a wound field alternator running at 10,000+
RPM on the front of a Lycoming. Being able to operate
with pulley ratios that provide nice outputs at ramp/taxi
RPMs is an endearing quality.
With the current state of the technology offered in PM
alternator regulators, that luxury is not offered. Hence,
folks who design these machines into their projects must
design operating procedures that are accommodating to
the system's limited output at less that cruise RPM.
I found a copy of the 912 Installation Manual in my
archives. Here's a couple of screen shots from the
book:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Rotax_Aux_Alternator.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Rotax_PM_Alternator_!.gif
It's interesting that the performance differences between
a PM alternator and a wound-field alternator are published
in same document.
Note that at ramp/taxi speeds, the wound field alternator
offers more output than the PM alternator does in cruise!
> How does the (Ducati) VR convert the AC to DC?
Somewhere in my stack of stuff, I have a schematic
furnished by Giles for a dissected Ducati regulator
supplied with the Rotax engines. It was similar in
principle to the B&C regulator for the SD-8. A pair
of diodes and a pair of silicon controlled rectifiers
are connected in the classic full-wave bridge rectifier.
The SCR's are used to control the regulator's DC output
with circuitry that delay's triggering of the device
until some time AFTER the rise in each cycle of
the alternator's AC output wave form. The later the
trigger, the lower the output. Found it: See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Regul_01.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/regul_912.jpg
The "transistors" marked TP154E must me TRIACS. They're
shown as NPN transistors . . . which wouldn't work.
> What happens to the extera engerny after the BAT is charged?
Unlike the earliest PM regulators found on small engines
and motor cycles, the modern PM regulators are SERIES
control devices that throttle pathway between the regulator
and battery such that as demand for energy goes down,
current from the alternator goes down too. In the earliest
days of this technology, designers used SHUNT regulators
to simply load the alternator and keep it's output
voltage in check after system demands went down. This system
caused the alternator to "work" at full output all the time
and after the battery was charged, a lightly loaded system
produced a very hot-running regulator . . . virtually all
of the alternator's available output was tossed off as heat.
> What are the failure modes?
The most prominent failure mode in these systems is
damaged rectifiers due largely to insufficient cooling.
> How would I recognize impending failure?
You won't have any external electrical indications. The
regulator's case temperature would be too high due to
poor installation/cooling.
> How do I differentiate BAT from VR from ALT failure?
The alternator is relatively bullet proof. Failed
PM alternators will have burned windings. Batteries
are easily tested using techniques described in other
threads and involves the used of capacity testing
techniques, load testing techniques all of which can
be mitigated by preventative maintenance techniques
calling for periodic replacement (every annual).
This leaves the rectifier/regulator as the weakest
link in the system. Failure of this device is easily
recognized by (1) inability to maintain bus voltage
within established bounds with known loads at cruise
RPM.
> Do I really need crowbar protection in a PM system?
Your needs are a function of perception of risk. There
are folks among us that are satisfied with advertised
and observed failure rates of modern regulators such
that they're comfortable not having independent
monitor and control of the OV condition in alternators.
IF the alternator in question can be quietly, gently,
and easily controlled from an OFF to an ON state at
any time and under any conditions, then the addition
of OV monitor and control is low cost and very simply
accomplished. Given that the risks of an OV condition
are not zero for any regulator, I would include it
in any system I designed. Your personal position should
be developed from whatever sources of data you
have reason to trust.
> Could you design a "dream regulator" that B&C could fab and sell me???
Absolutely. All it takes is $time$.
>I think I have gleaned most of the answers to the above questions but need
>to put it all together in my mind. Remember, I'm not an engineer. As a
>friend of mine says frequently with a big grin, you have to explain it to me
>like I'm a DOCTOR!*
>
>*In other words, keep it SIMPLE!
In lieu of an launching an immediate effort to publish
a comic book that details this technology, I hope the
foregoing is useful to you. I'll put a copy of this thread
in my to-do pile and see if we can formalize the effort
with better illustrations at some later date.
bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Product (Display Drivers and Display Power) |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hi Vern -
Thanks for the info. I'll scratch that idea. We are almost built-out. Soo
a new approach to LED's will have to wait for the next airplane ;-))
John
wrote:
> All of this means that it would be part of a bigger system, but not
> particularly cost effective as a stand-alone device for simple LED lamps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello List,
I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All done
except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's question. (I
haven't found any help in the haystack of blogs or at the apple site, so
hoping I can get a little help here)
I refuse to install a cigarette lighter type receptacle into my
aircraft.....don't ask me why.
The back of my Ipod mini says input current is 5-30 V DC, 1.0 amp max. This
implies to me that I can runt the red wire on my adapter to a 1.0 amp fuse &
the black wire straight to ground. I hope it is truly that simple.
I would have already done this except the charger I got at the Ipod store
(purchased mainly for the adapter) has a 2.0 amp fuse & a small cirquit
board that drops the voltage to ~5.0 Volts (as measured by me.) I tried
mounting & re-soldering the cirquit board into my set up but fried the
cirquit board in the process not having a clue what I was doing. Now I'm
afraid to just run 12 volts straight to my Ipod (even though the back
implies it would be okay)
Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks
in advance,
Grant Krueger
PS: Please don't tell me to install a cigarette lighter. The people behind
the counter at the Ipod store or Radio Shack don't know & I can't find the
info on any web site. I can't find contact info for apple without dropping
$60 for a 2 year agreement. Frustrating.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
>
>
>Bob Hi!
>
>I'm using a device called Power Genie to supply start and stop Voltage to
>Hobbs Meter. About to start my Rotax Engine. OK?
>
>Find it at:
>
>_http://www.powergenie.central5.com/_ (http://www.powergenie.central5.com/)
Can't tell you anything about what goes on inside that product.
If it were my airplane, I think I'd go this route:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/HourMeter/Rotax_HourMeter_Adapter.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Ashura" <ashuramj(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
I also have the plastic booties on my S701-1 that I bought from B&C.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
>
>
>I also have the plastic booties on my S701-1 that I bought from B&C.
>
>Mike
Are you talking about booties for the WIRE CONNECTIONS or
for the MOUNTING FEET.
I belive the original poster was telling us about plastic
insulators on the contactor's mounting feet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
i too have the black boots on the last master relay i bought from B&C.
they are on the mounting brackets/feet. the brackets/feet that mounts
the relay to the airframe, firewall etc.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I also have the plastic booties on my S701-1 that I bought from B&C.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>
> Are you talking about booties for the WIRE CONNECTIONS or
> for the MOUNTING FEET.
>
> I belive the original poster was telling us about plastic
> insulators on the contactor's mounting feet.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Product (Display Drivers and Display Power) |
I don't want to toot my own horn but I wrote anarticle for Kitplanes, Mar.
2001 pg 64 that explains how to use a 555 timer ic for a light dimmer. It
runs t about 1000 pulses per second and puts no noise on the bus with only
the radio running (builtin intercom). I have 2 switching power supplies I
built from kits for RC models that are about 50 years old that I potted in 5
minute epoxy and they both still work. Do a good job soldring and potting
and you will be set for life. Make a boo boo and you get to make a new one.
(1 guess)
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New Product (Display Drivers and Display
Power)
>
>
> Hi Vern -
>
> Thanks for the info. I'll scratch that idea. We are almost built-out. Soo
> a new approach to LED's will have to wait for the next airplane ;-))
>
> John
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> All of this means that it would be part of a bigger system, but not
>> particularly cost effective as a stand-alone device for simple LED lamps.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
> done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
> question.
Check out
http://ipod.hackaday.com/entry/1234000270029372/
Should be able to power and charge thru the USB port as well.
Search for LM78xx on Google, where xx is the desired output
voltage, and a bit of wiring and soldering...instant power supply.
Really easy to do. Whole power supply will run around a $1 to $2,
tops. Also
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf
for data sheet and application notes.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> > I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
> > done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
> > question.
Forgot to mention...the input voltage for this type of device is always
2 to 3 volts above the rated/desired output voltage....that is, I
wouldn't use an LM7812 in a nominally 12 volt system. For your
application I'd use a LM7809 or lower....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Peanut Gyro and inverter for sale |
I have a JET 2.25" gyro for sale. It's ex-military, 110v 3 phase 400
hz, but I'm including a 12v DC inverter to run it. I was told it was
freshly overhauled when I bought it but it doesn't have yellow
tags. It's been spun up every 30 days since I bought it, 4 years ago. $1000
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Ashura" <ashuramj(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
The plastic boots are on the mounting flanges (tabs, legs) that attach the B&C
contactor to the firewall.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Belt replacement (was Alternator Speed) |
Anyone knows where to order powertwist belt on line?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Belt replacement (was Alternator Speed)
>
> Hi again Terry,
>
> I found this link to a site that seems to have some good information re
> multilink type vee belts.
>
> http://www.fennerindustrial.com/products/powertwist_ind.html
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Jim in Kelowna
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
Jim/others,
Thanks a ton for the info & the links. Inspiring as well as educational for
a bonehead like me, but my original question still remains:
If my Ipod will take 5-30 Volts dc @ 1.0 amps max (like it says on the
backof the Ipod), what is the purpose of dropping the voltage via the
LM78xx? My aircraft will already have overvoltage protection, so can't I
just run 12 volts straight through my firewire cable from a 1.0 amp fuse?
I'm probably missing something very basic & simple here. Sorry I don't get
it.
Sort of the same question on the first link you sent: What is the purpose of
dropping the voltage from 9V to 5V? The transistor battery is incapable of
producing excessive voltage to hurt the device. Current protection is the
only function I can think of as being necessary.
Again, any inut is appreciated.
Thanks,
Grant
From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ipod Wiring
>I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
>done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
>question.
Check out
http://ipod.hackaday.com/entry/1234000270029372/
Should be able to power and charge thru the USB port as well.
Search for LM78xx on Google, where xx is the desired output
voltage, and a bit of wiring and soldering...instant power supply.
Really easy to do. Whole power supply will run around a $1 to $2,
tops. Also
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf
for data sheet and application notes.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________ Message 15
____________________________________
From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ipod Wiring
> > I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
> > done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
> > question.
Forgot to mention...the input voltage for this type of device is always
2 to 3 volts above the rated/desired output voltage....that is, I
wouldn't use an LM7812 in a nominally 12 volt system. For your
application I'd use a LM7809 or lower....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Neubauer" <markn(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Ammeter shunt wiring |
I have recently started flying my GlaStar with dual alternators and dual
shunted ammeters wired per the Nuckoll's Bible (I mean this will all due
respect). I am having a problem which needs some advice:
The pair of wires connecting the shunts to the ammeters are routed with a
large number (30) of other wires, some of which carry considerable current
(like the landing light and the comm radios (during transmit). When these
devices are operated, the ammeters go nuts - sometimes indicating full
negative deflection, sometimes large positive depending on what load device
is operated. The operation is consistent for a given set of conditions, but
the number of conditions is very large.
My theory is that I am inducing EMI into the ammeter wiring, which is by
design intended to measure extremely small currents from the shunts. Of
course, the #2 ammeter, with a range of only +/- 10 amps, is the most
sensitive to this.
Would wiring these ammeters with shielded pair cable eliminate the theorized
cross-talk? If so, should the shield be grounded at the shunt end or the
ammeter end?
Any other collective wisdom to be added here?
Mark Neubauer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter shunt wiring |
>
>I have recently started flying my GlaStar with dual alternators and dual
>shunted ammeters wired per the Nuckoll's Bible (I mean this will all due
>respect). I am having a problem which needs some advice:
>
>The pair of wires connecting the shunts to the ammeters are routed with a
>large number (30) of other wires, some of which carry considerable current
>(like the landing light and the comm radios (during transmit). When these
>devices are operated, the ammeters go nuts - sometimes indicating full
>negative deflection, sometimes large positive depending on what load device
>is operated. The operation is consistent for a given set of conditions, but
>the number of conditions is very large.
>
>My theory is that I am inducing EMI into the ammeter wiring, which is by
>design intended to measure extremely small currents from the shunts. Of
>course, the #2 ammeter, with a range of only +/- 10 amps, is the most
>sensitive to this.
>
>Would wiring these ammeters with shielded pair cable eliminate the theorized
>cross-talk? If so, should the shield be grounded at the shunt end or the
>ammeter end?
>
>Any other collective wisdom to be added here?
>
>Mark Neubauer
Are these electronic ammeters? Digital? Analog? Brand?
p/n? Since you speak of two ammeters, I presume you're
not switching a single ammeter between two shunts but have
a completely separate indicators for each shunt.
How are these wired? As loadmeters for alternators? Of course
in this configuration, the instruments normally never read
negative (like a battery ammeter). I presume you've checked
the wiring for errors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Jim/others,
>
>Thanks a ton for the info & the links. Inspiring as well as educational for
>a bonehead like me, but my original question still remains:
>
>If my Ipod will take 5-30 Volts dc @ 1.0 amps max (like it says on the
>backof the Ipod), what is the purpose of dropping the voltage via the
>LM78xx? My aircraft will already have overvoltage protection, so can't I
>just run 12 volts straight through my firewire cable from a 1.0 amp fuse?
>I'm probably missing something very basic & simple here. Sorry I don't get
>it.
>
>Sort of the same question on the first link you sent: What is the purpose of
>dropping the voltage from 9V to 5V? The transistor battery is incapable of
>producing excessive voltage to hurt the device. Current protection is the
>only function I can think of as being necessary.
>
>Again, any inut is appreciated.
I looked over some 'net stuff on various hacks to power Ipods
from sources other than those supplied/recommended by Ipod.
In the short time I spent on this, I couldn't get a clear
picture of the Ipod's requirements or vulnerabilities.
If you've dissected an automobile cigar lighter adapter
designed to work with Ipod and it contains a 5v step-down
regulator, then an obvious solution is to mimic the same
configuration with some form of pre-regulator.
It's a crapshoot. If the critter cost $25 and you have
"faith" in back-panel labels, then hook 'er up. Given a
consumer product that costs perhaps $200 or more, I'd
personally be more cautious and go the pre-regulator
route.
An alternative is to join a "List" of hackers who are
doing these things to Ipods and see who has the most
experience and first-hand knowledge of the Ipod's inner
workings and vulnerabilities.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> engine start. |
| Subject: | Re: Bringing alternator on line after |
engine start.
>
>I am building a Mustang II kit plane with a Mazda Rotary 13B engine for
>power. The stock alternator is a 60 amp internally regulated
>Mitsubishi, which will be my primary source of electrical power. In
>addition to the stock alternator, I also have a John Deere 35 amp
>permanent magnet (PM) alternator for a backup. The electrical system is
>designed to receive power from either alternator, but not both at the
>same time. I want to be able to check that both alternators are working
>before take-off, which requires that I switch the electrical feed from
>one alternator to the other while the engine is running. The switch
>would be through a contactor for each alternator, which
>connects/disconnects the B terminal, as well as the electrical feed to
>the L & R terminals (which activate the alternator).
>
>I have followed the past discussions about how it is not a good idea to
>take an internally regulated alternator off-line after it is producing
>electricity. But, my Mazda service manual has a warning that I should
>not start the engine with the L & R terminals disconnected (these are
>the terminals that are used to activate the alternator). My plan was to
>start the engine with the backup PM alternator activated, check that it
>was working, and then switch to the main 60 amp alternator and leave it
>on. I would not go back to the PM alternator unless my primary
>alternator failed.
>
>My confusion is with the warning in the service manual that I should not
>start the engine unless the (main) alternator is already on line. I do
>not know the purpose for the warning and I do not comprehend the
>possible consequences of waiting to bring the primary alternator on
>line. If I start the engine with the back-up PM alternator on line and
>later switch to the primary (stock) alternator, which is my plan, I will
>be violating the warning in the service manual, because until I switch
>to the main alternator after the engine is running, the L & R terminals
>for the main alternator will, in effect, be disconnected.
>
>Can Bob Nuckolls or anyone else give me some advice on the correct
>procedure and sequence for checking that each alternator is functioning
>prior to take-off, without doing any harm to my electrical system?
>Also, I would like to hear your speculation on why the Mazda service
>manual has the warning discussed above.
As we've discussed in some detail here on the List . . . nobody
presently subscribed to the list has an intimate knowledge of
the inner workings of regulators in the IR alternators.
Based on what I do know, I can find no foundation in physics
for the prohibition against turning the alternator on and off
at will and under any conditions. The only risks to IR alternators
identified and understood to date has been reported by some
folks through Van's where a load dump caused by operating
a b-lead contactor while the alternator was under load killed
some regulators.
Your consternation is understandable . . . the supplier
of a product to your project wants you to placard the control
switch with cautions and/or prohibitions for operating the
alternator. The design goals for aircraft electrical systems
operations established before many of us were born says this
is undesirable and my personal experience suggests that it's
unnecessary.
I think it very unlikely that the supplier of your alternator
will be able to articulate any real foundations in physics
to justify his prohibition. It sounds like a CYA move . . .
You should be able to turn any of your alternators on or off
at any time and in any combination without concern for hazards
to equipment or anomalous operation. I think for the moment
it is prudent to proceed with the idea that we'll debunk the
prohibition outright or at worst, deduce the system enhancement
that makes the prohibition go away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the input. You didn't see my first post stating 'I don't want to
install a cigarette lighter' Your point about having the ability to charge
other devices is taken, but I don't currently plan on doing that. More
importantly my Ipod is mounted to the panel & is all in except for hard
wiring the charging system. I know this can be done pretty simply, I just
haven't figured out how yet. I don't want to deal long cords 'n such all
over my cockpit.
Although it does keep my options open, in this instance I equate installing
a cigarette lighter with running an extension cord to power the air
conditioning system in my house.
If my Ipod says input voltage is 5-30 Volts DC, shouldn't I be able to
connect it straight to my 12 volt system?
>From: "Mark C. Milgrom" <milgrom(at)earthlink.net>
>To: tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ipod Wiring
>Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:49:57 -0500
>
>
>Grant,
>
>
>I'm replying off-list because I'm joining this discussion late and I
>don't want to waste the list's time if I'm repeating something that's
>already been discussed.
>
>
>Regarding charging your iPod, are you sure you want to fabricate a
>custom charging solution that's unique to your specific model of iPod?
>I ask because the iPod, like all throwaway consumer entertainment
>devices, will evolve faster than you can blink an eye, and the charging
>requirements of a future iPod model might be totally different than
>your current iPod. Plus, how do you plan to charge your other handheld
>battery-powered devices during flight, such as your cell phone, your
>handheld VHF/NAV/COM backup radio, your handheld backup GPS device,
>your passenger's handheld Nintendo/Sony game device, your passenger's
>handheld DVD player, etc.?
>
>
>If you're looking for a "build it and forget it" solution, it might be
>worth thinking about installing a pair of independently-fused 12-vold
>cigarette lighter receptacles instead, and then purchasing the
>device-specific cable for each handheld device you need to charge.
>This certainly is NOT the cheapest solution, but it is the most
>"no-brainer" and adaptable solution for today's and tomorrow's handheld
>battery-powered devices.
>
>
>In any case, best of luck with your project.
>
>
>Mark Milgrom
>
>
>Tinne maha wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Jim/others,
>
>Thanks a ton for the info & the links. Inspiring as well as educational
>for
>a bonehead like me, but my original question still remains:
>
>If my Ipod will take 5-30 Volts dc @ 1.0 amps max (like it says on the
>backof the Ipod), what is the purpose of dropping the voltage via the
>LM78xx? My aircraft will already have overvoltage protection, so can't I
>just run 12 volts straight through my firewire cable from a 1.0 amp fuse?
>I'm probably missing something very basic & simple here. Sorry I don't get
>it.
>
>Sort of the same question on the first link you sent: What is the purpose
>of
>dropping the voltage from 9V to 5V? The transistor battery is incapable of
>producing excessive voltage to hurt the device. Current protection is the
>only function I can think of as being necessary.
>
>Again, any inut is appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
> Grant
>
>
>From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ipod Wiring
>
>
>I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
>done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
>question.
>
>
>Check out
>
>http://ipod.hackaday.com/entry/1234000270029372/
>
>Should be able to power and charge thru the USB port as well.
>Search for LM78xx on Google, where xx is the desired output
>voltage, and a bit of wiring and soldering...instant power supply.
>Really easy to do. Whole power supply will run around a $1 to $2,
>tops. Also
>
>http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf
>
>for data sheet and application notes.
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>'71 SV, 492TC
>Elmore City, OK
>
>
>________________________________ Message 15
>____________________________________
>
>
>From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ipod Wiring
>
>
>I'm installing an Ipod mini as the music input for my intercom. All
>done except the Ipod charger, which is the subject of today's
>question.
>
>
>Forgot to mention...the input voltage for this type of device is always
>2 to 3 volts above the rated/desired output voltage....that is, I
>wouldn't use an LM7812 in a nominally 12 volt system. For your
>application I'd use a LM7809 or lower....
>
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>'71 SV, 492TC
October 17, 2005 - October 30, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ex