AeroElectric-List Archive Browser

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fm
February 27, 2006 - March 09, 2006

--------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
Date: Feb 27, 2006
I believe p-static is principally the noise created by static electricity jumping from skin panel to skin panel on the way aft and finally off of the plane in elevator and rudders. I think fiberglass stuff up front is a big source of buildup. You could try running a wire from nose to tail, with good electrical connection at each end - this might let the static build up on fiberglass cowl (I'm thinking RV series aircraft) bleed off by going from front to back without jumping a lot of little skin gaps along the way (don't ask me why the fore-aft longerons wouldn't do the same). David ----- Original Message ----- From: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:10 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static Dischargers > > > Hopefully some of you can help me out. Last week I finally got to fly in > some actual IMC in my plane (total of 4 hours actual). After about 15 > minutes in the clouds, my radio transmissions became more and more filled > with static. Still understandable, but not very clear. No static when just > listenning to controllers or talking without transmitting. Slowly cleared > up after exiting clouds. I think this is a static build up problem and > wondered what others thought. My airplane is an CH640 and I have braided > grounding straps across rudder and horizontal tail hinges. They didn't > specify static wicks in the design. I know that static dischargers should > be out and back as far as possible, but otherwise am not sure about > placement and how many I may need. Is there any general advise concerning > placement and number, or is it basically a trial and error process to see > what works? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=17053#17053 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Static Dischargers
Date: Feb 27, 2006
Yes, we know of p-static. It's a real problem in our fast plastic airplanes. The only solution the factory ever came up with was a copper mesh imbedded in the glass close to the surface, this was also their solution to lightning protection. I believe the same solution was used on the SR-20/22. Others (builders) have had some success with conductive primer. Static wicks won't work on our airplanes. 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 David Carter Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:09 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static Dischargers I believe p-static is principally the noise created by static electricity jumping from skin panel to skin panel on the way aft and finally off of the plane in elevator and rudders. I think fiberglass stuff up front is a big source of buildup. You could try running a wire from nose to tail, with good electrical connection at each end - this might let the static build up on fiberglass cowl (I'm thinking RV series aircraft) bleed off by going from front to back without jumping a lot of little skin gaps along the way (don't ask me why the fore-aft longerons wouldn't do the same). David ----- Original Message ----- From: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:10 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static Dischargers > > > Hopefully some of you can help me out. Last week I finally got to fly in > some actual IMC in my plane (total of 4 hours actual). After about 15 > minutes in the clouds, my radio transmissions became more and more filled > with static. Still understandable, but not very clear. No static when just > listenning to controllers or talking without transmitting. Slowly cleared > up after exiting clouds. I think this is a static build up problem and > wondered what others thought. My airplane is an CH640 and I have braided > grounding straps across rudder and horizontal tail hinges. They didn't > specify static wicks in the design. I know that static dischargers should > be out and back as far as possible, but otherwise am not sure about > placement and how many I may need. Is there any general advise concerning > placement and number, or is it basically a trial and error process to see > what works? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=17053#17053 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott" <scott(at)randolphs.net>
Subject: High Current Diodes
Date: Feb 27, 2006
Instead of a contactor and switch why not use one of these high current diodes to protect a ground power plug (power in but not out)? Or at least to eliminate the need for a disconnect switch by preventing "back flow" from engergizing the contactor? Would these also be appropriate for feeding a larger secondary bus? http://www.surplussales.com/Semiconductors/Diodes-3.html Or is there a dangerous failure mode or quirk in their specs I'm missing? Thanks! Scott. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
From: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Thanks for all the suggestions. I have over 150 hours flying, and this never happened before. I was flying down to Florida, straight and level when it first happened. As I said, it cleared slowly after leaving the clouds. I then took a few flights VFR and everything was fine. Then again coming home I was in the clouds and it happened again, but not as bad. On my plane the cowl is fiberglass, but the cabin is carbon fiber and the rest of the plane is metal. Com 1 antenna is on top, and com 2 is on the bottom. Static was worse on #1, but also present on com 2, again, only with transmission. Maybe it is something other than p-static. The CH640 airframe is the same as the Alarus, which does not have static wicks, and from people I have talked to it has no p-static problems. The 640 is about 30 KTS faster though, which could make a difference. I guess it is worth finding a few static wicks and seeing if it makes a difference. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18363#18363 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
> > >Thanks for all the suggestions. I have over 150 hours flying, and this >never happened before. I was flying down to Florida, straight and level >when it first happened. As I said, it cleared slowly after leaving the >clouds. I then took a few flights VFR and everything was fine. Then again >coming home I was in the clouds and it happened again, but not as bad. On >my plane the cowl is fiberglass, but the cabin is carbon fiber and the >rest of the plane is metal. Com 1 antenna is on top, and com 2 is on the >bottom. Static was worse on #1, but also present on com 2, again, only >with transmission. Maybe it is something other than p-static. The CH640 >airframe is the same as the Alarus, which does not have static wicks, and >from people I have talked to it has no p-static problems. The 640 is about >30 KTS faster though, which could make a difference. I guess it is worth >finding a few static wicks and seeing if it makes a difference. You bring up an interesting point. Not every owner of a particular airplane has p-static problems to report . . . It's a HIGHLY variable phenomenon. EVERY airplane has a p-static charge on it to some degree or another, it's only in the right combination of variables that noise levels rise sufficiently to be heard on radios. In severe cases, we've had p-static eat away at structural parts of the airplane . . . e.g. window glazing. The results of your experimenting may not be known until you seem to have slain the dragon by not having problems over a series of similar conditions . . . which could take years. It's quite disappointing than to have a solution in place for a couple of years and encounter conditions further out on the bell-curve and find that you're only partially successful. What you're experiencing is not new/startling. In fact, it's so commonplace and has such a problematic history of solutions that first response from those who have wrestled with it is sympathy and best wishes for a lucky break. Folks who do this professionally have access to expensive test and development tools and techniques that are not going to be available to the OBAM aircraft community. So, please do experiment and let us know of your findings. But I would also caution that what works for you may only be a starting point for determining what mitigates someone else's problems at a later date. Good luck! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Re: Lr-3 question Z diagram question
Date: Feb 28, 2006
> > Hello I am installing a Lr-3c regulator from B+c. I was wondering if > anybody had made up a temp sensor for this regulator without buying the 85 > dollar one from B+C. > > I have seen several items on this list about Shotsky diodes. The Digikey > book has 4 pages of them . Would they be better to use then the regular 4 > terminal diode that is listed in the Z diagrams for the endurance bus? If > so which one to get? Thanks Try Eric Jones' Perihelion Design Perihelion Design He has them. Peter> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Re: d-sub panel connector source
Date: Feb 28, 2006
> remind me where I can get a panel mount d-sub connector for laptop > interconnectivity with the Dynon and GRT EFIS I hope to install one day. > I've checked websites and list archives with no joy. I know this was > recently discussed. > > Thanks. > > -Bill B Try Digi-Key Corporation - USA Home Page or http://mouser.com/> Peter > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: High Current Diodes
> >Instead of a contactor and switch why not use one of these high current >diodes to protect a ground power plug (power in but not out)? Or at least >to eliminate the need for a disconnect switch by preventing "back flow" from >engergizing the contactor? Would these also be appropriate for feeding a >larger secondary bus? > >http://www.surplussales.com/Semiconductors/Diodes-3.html > >Or is there a dangerous failure mode or quirk in their specs I'm missing? > >Thanks! Depends on your design goals for ground power functionality. I produced the article at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf . . . based on requests for a ground power installation. After having experienced a situation where the guy on the ground had his back to me when he shot 28v to my 14v airplane that I crafted a system with reverse polarity protection, absolute control of incoming power by pilot -AND- ov protection. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: d-sub panel connector source
Date: Feb 28, 2006
http://steinair.com/ should have them. 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 Peter Laurence Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:08 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: d-sub panel connector source > remind me where I can get a panel mount d-sub connector for laptop > interconnectivity with the Dynon and GRT EFIS I hope to install one day. > I've checked websites and list archives with no joy. I know this was > recently discussed. > > Thanks. > > -Bill B Try Digi-Key Corporation - USA Home Page or http://mouser.com/> Peter > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Startup (Bob N)
Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Bob
N) > > Bob, most of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic? > > It is not a debate of IF you should use a I-VR alternator, but I will > try to address you question, fully knowing you will never be > satisfied. > > > >Bob N wrote > >If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, > >schematics, test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I > >expect no less. > > > Just call them Bob. What's the big deal. > > Bob you provide a wealth of knowledge and experience. I think > we all can say is of immense help and enjoyment to us amateur > airplane electricians. Your help to airplane builders in garages > and hangers world over is with out dispute. Even if I dont agree > with you, that does not mean I dont understand your point or > disrespect your accomplishments. You can't have it both ways George. If my experience and accomplishments have value, then there must be some useful application of tools and philosophies upon which those accomplishments are based. In one breath you extoll the virtues of those accomplishments, and in the next you brush my opinion aside because it does not agree with the one you formed by calling folks on the phone. I talk to lots of people and I read lots of data sheets but these are STARTING places . . . I asked you to help explain the inner workings of an exemplar regulator with a goal of seeing if advertising hype (and the opinions of those you talked to on the phone) have foundation in physics and simple-ideas. After sorting out the sand in data sheets, it's a good idea to hit lab and RUN the thing. It's not common but I've discovered things about people's products that they had no understanding of (and we didn't either until after a few $hundred thousands$ went down the tubes in warranty work). Real engineering (and teaching) can be accomplished only when the activities are supported by an understanding and artful assemblage of simple-ideas. If you choose to drive your career and tutelage based on telephone conversations and faithful acceptance of bang-for-the-buck-bullets on data sheets, it's your choice - but not mine. What you have accepted and now promote as FACT has yet to be demonstrated. I'll publish the MC33092 trade study to show others on the list how the most successful engineering is conducted. By the way, "work product" is anything which you have created. The trade study will be my work product based on the products of others offered as a potential guide for the future efforts of still more folks. That's what engineers do George . . . make sure all the bits and pieces fit smoothly into the whole. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: d-sub panel connector source
> > > > remind me where I can get a panel mount d-sub connector for laptop > > interconnectivity with the Dynon and GRT EFIS I hope to install one day. > > I've checked websites and list archives with no joy. I know this was > > recently discussed. These are popcorn parts (everyone has them). See if Radio Shack has the size you need. The folks at http://digikey.com certainly have them as do hundreds of other electronics suppliers. Also check out the article at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/matenlok/matenlok.html (open barrel d-sub pins are installed the same way with the same tool) and . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/dsubs/d_solder.html Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
Morning, David (and everyone)... In my prior life as an engineer at a pharmaceutical company, I spent years trying to convince management how to solve static buildup problems with dry powder transfer systems (Desenex Foot Powder, and Caldesene Baby Powder, among others). Of course, being budget conscious, they didn't want to change out the plastic tubing for conductive tubing. And I couldn't just do it, as every change required extensive documentation and testing followed by FDA approval before it could be implemented. Understandably, the line operators and mechanics would complain every time the air was dry, and they got zapped when they came too near a transfer line (whether it was a vacuum cleaner hose or the main product flex line). During the summer, when the air was warm and more humid, there was no problem. The humidity in the air was the conductor. But, every winter, after the first dry, cold day, I would get a call...fix it.... Of course, they wouldn't listen to my suggestion...spend the money and replace the plastic with conductive tubing...so, the managers came up with many methods they thought would cure it. The mechanics wasted hours hooking up all kind of crazy gadgets the managers thought of or heard about that never worked. When they finally used conductive plastic and ss line, they solved the problems. As you all know, static buildup occurs on NON-CONDUCTIVE surfaces. So, if you attach a grounded, conductive wire or braid to such a surface, it will keep THAT SPOT discharged. Being non-conductive, the rest of the object can't discharge as the current can't "flow". An inch away, on the non-conductive surface, the charge will build just as it always has, looking for a place to jump to when the voltage gets sufficient. Like your finger, or eventually the wire you hooked up if it's not too far away (or your radio antenna lead). It can't traverse along the non-conductive surface to the wire until the voltage is high enough to make the jump. And that creates noise and/or sparks. A single wire or braid attached to a single point cannot discharge the entire plastic surface. As was mentioned already, creating a conducting surface that contacts every point of the plastic to allow bleeding at that point, and within a reasonable distance either side of it, will. Like a fine mesh wire screen. Or a conductive surface. Or, a metal airplane.... Harley Dixon Long EZ N28EZ David Carter wrote: > >I believe p-static is principally the noise created by static electricity >jumping from skin panel to skin panel on the way aft and finally off of the >plane in elevator and rudders. I think fiberglass stuff up front is a big >source of buildup. You could try running a wire from nose to tail, with good >electrical connection at each end - this might let the static build up on >fiberglass cowl (I'm thinking RV series aircraft) bleed off by going from >front to back without jumping a lot of little skin gaps along the way (don't >ask me why the fore-aft longerons wouldn't do the same). > >David > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> >To: >Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:10 AM >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static Dischargers > > > > >> >> >>Hopefully some of you can help me out. Last week I finally got to fly in >>some actual IMC in my plane (total of 4 hours actual). After about 15 >>minutes in the clouds, my radio transmissions became more and more filled >>with static. Still understandable, but not very clear. No static when just >>listenning to controllers or talking without transmitting. Slowly cleared >>up after exiting clouds. I think this is a static build up problem and >>wondered what others thought. My airplane is an CH640 and I have braided >>grounding straps across rudder and horizontal tail hinges. They didn't >>specify static wicks in the design. I know that static dischargers should >>be out and back as far as possible, but otherwise am not sure about >>placement and how many I may need. Is there any general advise concerning >>placement and number, or is it basically a trial and error process to see >>what works? >> >> >> >> >>Read this topic online here: >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=17053#17053 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> >> >> Oh. >> Well that is very interesting Brian. Could it be that my IGN wire is >> dead? >> I have the IGN with voltage applied before cranking (I think. I have not >> checked it since initial install) and I have an idiot light installed >> which does work as expected. I will check that IGN wire next time I have >> the cowl off to verify it is supplying power before cranking. Based on >> your note below, it is quite possible the IGN wire is doing nothing. >> Wonder why temperature is at play though. >> >> Ill check it and report back. > > Brian, have you been holding out on us? Uh, no. I thought this was common knowledge about IR alternators. > I've not been aware of > any automotive products that would ultimately self-excite at > any time interval or speed conditions. An interesting phenomenon to > contemplate. Almost every IR alternator I have played with exhibits this characteristic. Now it may be that new ones have no residual magnetism in the field armature and therefore cannot self excite. OTOH, *I* have not run into one that would not self excite once you turned it fast enough. > > Just last year I shared the following from my experience with > the alternators on Bonanzas and Barons: Yeah. I just assumed that is how they were supposed to work too. And just the act of using them for awhile builds up magnetism in the armature. I suspect that, even if they don't self-excite when brand new, they will after having been used for several hours. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Did you compare your measured light output with the FAA required light output? You can do a reasonably good job with one-foot piece of string, a protractor, and a photographic light meter that can read ambient light. Here is a list of some of the points you should check on the red and green lights: +/- Azimuth (off the nose) +/-Elevation CP 0 0 40 0 15 28 0 20 20 0 30 12 0 50 2 20 30 9 25 to 110 30 1.5 Azimuth is the number of degrees off the nose. Elevation is the number of degrees off the horizon. The white tail light is even more difficult to get proper light output. Here are a few points to check on the tail light: +/- Azimuth (off the tail) +/-Elevation CP 0 to 70 0 20 0 to 70 15 14 0 to 70 20 10 0 to 70 30 6 It takes a LOT of white LEDs to fill the required FAA pattern. Bill Dube' mchristian(at)canetics.com wrote: > >I used the Nova EPSX - 402 supply for something like $80. It is fully potted for >"extreme" conditions and has two strobe outlets, 3.75 amps draw and 12 diffrerent >selectable flash patterns in a box 4.7" X 4.4" X 1.7" to feed two wingtip >strobes ($18 each). It works great. > >For position lights, I used three luxeon stars - one red one green, and you guessed it, one white. They are only $6.00 each. I put them in series with a calculated power resistor and they are so bright it is hard to look at. Total draw for position lights is one amp or less. I thermally bonded them to little thin sheetmetal brackets and mounted them under some Kutzleman clear plastic domes with the strobe heads. Since then, Kutzleman has come out with their streamline combo (www.kestrobes.com) essentially doing the same thing for $94 that I made for less than $40 each. > >Total cost of strobe and position light system is less than $180. > >Mike > >reposting to get subject line to adhere... > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu>
Richard, Thanks for the information (url). Looks pretty simple, until you actually try it yourself for real! Thought you would find this post from the Aero-electric list of interest. Bill Dube makes LED clearance light kits for experimental a/c. Good info to keep on hand if you're going to build your own LED lights. The Luxeon lights are much brighter than the regular leds. See ya, Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Dube Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:25 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights Did you compare your measured light output with the FAA required light output? You can do a reasonably good job with one-foot piece of string, a protractor, and a photographic light meter that can read ambient light. Here is a list of some of the points you should check on the red and green lights: +/- Azimuth (off the nose) +/-Elevation CP 0 0 40 0 15 28 0 20 20 0 30 12 0 50 2 20 30 9 25 to 110 30 1.5 Azimuth is the number of degrees off the nose. Elevation is the number of degrees off the horizon. The white tail light is even more difficult to get proper light output. Here are a few points to check on the tail light: +/- Azimuth (off the tail) +/-Elevation CP 0 to 70 0 20 0 to 70 15 14 0 to 70 20 10 0 to 70 30 6 It takes a LOT of white LEDs to fill the required FAA pattern. Bill Dube' mchristian(at)canetics.com wrote: > >I used the Nova EPSX - 402 supply for something like $80. It is fully potted for >"extreme" conditions and has two strobe outlets, 3.75 amps draw and 12 diffrerent >selectable flash patterns in a box 4.7" X 4.4" X 1.7" to feed two wingtip >strobes ($18 each). It works great. > >For position lights, I used three luxeon stars - one red one green, and you guessed it, one white. They are only $6.00 each. I put them in series with a calculated power resistor and they are so bright it is hard to look at. Total draw for position lights is one amp or less. I thermally bonded them to little thin sheetmetal brackets and mounted them under some Kutzleman clear plastic domes with the strobe heads. Since then, Kutzleman has come out with their streamline combo (www.kestrobes.com) essentially doing the same thing for $94 that I made for less than $40 each. > >Total cost of strobe and position light system is less than $180. > >Mike > >reposting to get subject line to adhere... > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
Michael If it makes you feel better I have some IGN wire sleuthing to do as well although it is not near the top of my to do list at the moment. My brand new mini ND IR alternator (100211-1680) draws 3.3 amp field current through the B-lead any time the OV contactor is closed with the engine not running. The IGN terminal is simultaneously energised so my next test is to see if this still happens with the IGN wire disconnected. If so then it is shopping time for another regulator but of course on mine it is difficult to get at that wire to test it. I thought most of these things were smart enough to not energise the field until the rotor was turning but maybe not. Or perhaps it is just annoyed because I'm not allowing it to draw its normal 4 ma of standby current that it would draw from the battery if I wasn't using an OV contactor ;) It charges and regulates perfectly when the engine is running. Ken Brian Lloyd wrote: > >Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > > >> >>Oh. >>Well that is very interesting Brian. Could it be that my IGN wire is >>dead? >> >> > >Could be. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
I have the RV wingtip tanks designed for the surface mounted nav lights, so the option of the enclosed wingtip leading edge lights is not available to me. Are there any l.e.d. nav/strobe combinations available that meet the FAA requirements? Thanks, Terry RV-8A Seattle ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: sgettings(at)cfl.rr.com
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
I also used luxeons for position lights (2 high-intensity lambertians on each side) and presented it to our EAA meeting as well as our local IA/DAR. The DAR had no problem signing off on the intensity and distribution of the position lights. I previously provided a link to the EAA article on this for those who were interested. Luxeons are really the only practical and affordable LEDS that will meet the position lighting requirements. Making strobes using LEDS are another matter, as it is very tough to get to 400 cp. Even many of the non-aviation strobes and power supplies won't meet this requirement. There are some options other than Whelan(=$$$, however. Scott Gettings ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark R Steitle <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:10 pm Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights > > Richard, > Thanks for the information (url). Looks pretty simple, until you > actually try it yourself for real! > > Thought you would find this post from the Aero-electric list of > interest. Bill Dube makes LED clearance light kits for experimental > a/c. Good info to keep on hand if you're going to build your own LED > lights. The Luxeon lights are much brighter than the regular leds. > > See ya, > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > BillDube > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:25 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights > > > > Did you compare your measured light output with the FAA required > light > output? > > You can do a reasonably good job with one-foot piece of string, a > protractor, and a photographic light meter that can read ambient > light. > Here is a list of some of the points you should check on the > red and > > green lights: > > +/- Azimuth (off the nose) +/-Elevation CP > 0 0 40 > 0 15 28 > 0 20 20 > 0 30 12 > 0 50 2 > 20 30 9 > 25 to 110 30 1.5 > > Azimuth is the number of degrees off the nose. > > Elevation is the number of degrees off the horizon. > > The white tail light is even more difficult to get proper light > output. > Here are a few points to check on the tail light: > > +/- Azimuth (off the tail) +/-Elevation CP > 0 to 70 0 20 > 0 to 70 15 14 > 0 to 70 20 10 > 0 to 70 30 6 > > It takes a LOT of white LEDs to fill the required FAA pattern. > > Bill Dube' > > > > > > mchristian(at)canetics.com wrote: > > > > >I used the Nova EPSX - 402 supply for something like $80. It is > fullypotted for > >"extreme" conditions and has two strobe outlets, 3.75 amps draw > and 12 > diffrerent > >selectable flash patterns in a box 4.7" X 4.4" X 1.7" to feed two > wingtip > >strobes ($18 each). It works great. > > > >For position lights, I used three luxeon stars - one red one > green, and > you guessed it, one white. They are only $6.00 each. I put them in > series with a calculated power resistor and they are so bright it is > hard to look at. Total draw for position lights is one amp or > less. I > thermally bonded them to little thin sheetmetal brackets and mounted > them under some Kutzleman clear plastic domes with the strobe heads. > Since then, Kutzleman has come out with their streamline combo > (www.kestrobes.com) essentially doing the same thing for $94 that I > madefor less than $40 each. > > > >Total cost of strobe and position light system is less than $180. > > > >Mike > > > >reposting to get subject line to adhere... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Might try these guys... I have a set and really like them. www.gs-air.com Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:40 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights --> I have the RV wingtip tanks designed for the surface mounted nav lights, so the option of the enclosed wingtip leading edge lights is not available to me. Are there any l.e.d. nav/strobe combinations available that meet the FAA requirements? Thanks, Terry RV-8A Seattle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Alan, Do you have the XPAK 604-HR strobe driver listed on their website? I'd like to put a strobe driver in each wingtip and have a low voltage synchronizer line between them, rather than 1 central driver and coax (to minimize noise). The picture of the driver on the website seems to have several (extra/additional) connectors/pinouts but I can't tell what they do or if it supports a low voltage synchronizer circuit between multiple drivers. Do you know? Beyond the multiple strobe outputs and power/ground, what are the other connectors for? Rick Titsworth Detroit -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights Might try these guys... I have a set and really like them. www.gs-air.com Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:40 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights --> I have the RV wingtip tanks designed for the surface mounted nav lights, so the option of the enclosed wingtip leading edge lights is not available to me. Are there any l.e.d. nav/strobe combinations available that meet the FAA requirements? Thanks, Terry RV-8A Seattle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Thanks Alan. That's just what I was looking for. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:39 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights Might try these guys... I have a set and really like them. www.gs-air.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
I have the one central control power supply. I do not have any noise. So, I don't understand you concerns about wanting to minimize it. It is not there to start with. I wired per the instructions and did nothing special beyond that. The extra connectors are for different flashing patterns. Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying and XPAK power supply. "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights > > > Alan, > Do you have the XPAK 604-HR strobe driver listed on their website? > > I'd like to put a strobe driver in each wingtip and have a low voltage > synchronizer line between them, rather than 1 central driver and coax (to > minimize noise). The picture of the driver on the website seems to have > several (extra/additional) connectors/pinouts but I can't tell what they > do > or if it supports a low voltage synchronizer circuit between multiple > drivers. > > Do you know? Beyond the multiple strobe outputs and power/ground, what > are > the other connectors for? > > Rick Titsworth > Detroit > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. > Adamson > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:39 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights > > > > Might try these guys... I have a set and really like them. > > www.gs-air.com > > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Watson > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:40 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights > > --> > > I have the RV wingtip tanks designed for the surface mounted nav lights, > so > the option of the enclosed wingtip leading edge lights is not available to > me. Are there any l.e.d. nav/strobe combinations available that meet the > FAA > requirements? > > Thanks, > > Terry > RV-8A > Seattle > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
I don't have that model, I have a different generation version (actually still made but only 2 channel). Those other ports are for diagnosis and flash selection. The manufacturer is www.strobe.com I got the entire kit from gs-air.com and it included "shielded" hookup wire. If you want separate PS's all over the place, then the only game in town is the certified aeroflash units. I'm not sure if they have a discounted non-certified version or not. Hope that helps. Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of richard titsworth Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:27 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights --> Alan, Do you have the XPAK 604-HR strobe driver listed on their website? I'd like to put a strobe driver in each wingtip and have a low voltage synchronizer line between them, rather than 1 central driver and coax (to minimize noise). The picture of the driver on the website seems to have several (extra/additional) connectors/pinouts but I can't tell what they do or if it supports a low voltage synchronizer circuit between multiple drivers. Do you know? Beyond the multiple strobe outputs and power/ground, what are the other connectors for? Rick Titsworth Detroit -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights Might try these guys... I have a set and really like them. www.gs-air.com Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:40 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights --> I have the RV wingtip tanks designed for the surface mounted nav lights, so the option of the enclosed wingtip leading edge lights is not available to me. Are there any l.e.d. nav/strobe combinations available that meet the FAA requirements? Thanks, Terry RV-8A Seattle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net>
Subject: Re: KLN35A Pin/Installation Diagram
Date: Feb 28, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:12 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KLN35A Pin/Installation Diagram > > 2.) How are the alphabetic rows on the connectors arranged >> since they don't line up with their order from their numbered >> counterparts? For example, on the P1, why are pins 22 and Z > adjacent >> instead of 22 and V? On the P4001, pins 15 and S are adjacent > instead >> of 15 and O? Make sense? > > > Ah hah! I think I sense your confusion. Not all the letters are used > since one might get similar looking letters confused with some > numbers if the wires are labeled...i.e. 1 and i, etc..... > > Look at the letter codes in the list and find out which ones are not > used. Makes it confusing but there is a reason.... > > Jim Baker > 580.788.2779 > '71 SV, 492TC > Elmore City, OK > > I resolved my KLN35A Pinout problem. I bought the product install manual on eBay for $13 bucks and it answers all of my questions and then some. Jim, as an FYI, the pin out diagram you sent me for data in/out pins are indeed the same (K,H,J). Thank you again for your assistance! Michael H. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andy" <grimmers1(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: Ground Power circuit diagram query & suggestion
Date: Mar 01, 2006
Hi Bob, I don't understand the need for a push-to-test lamp in your Low Cost Ground Power circuit (rev C 07/21/05). Surely it would provide a more useful function if it were a regular lamp directly connected to ground, therefore providing either; (a) a warning of presence of a ground power source, or; (b) a warning that the switch/breaker for ground power contactor is still closed (where the ground power contactor is held closed by ship's battery). This function seems important since the contactor takes nearly a Amp to maintain. Either of those without having to press a button to find out. Since you need some ground power-side volts to light it anyway, it will normally be off AND "un-testable". Better still, you could use a bi-colour LED, with GREEN for correct polarity and RED for inverted (help save a contactor diode if you reverse-connect the leads to the 4x4) My 1st post & just getting my head round all the issues, so excuse me if I missed something obvious. Looking forward to the book arriving tomorrow. Regards, Andy Grimshaw grimmers1(at)ntlworld.com Jodel DR200 group home-build (panel & electrics still on the drawing board) UK ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
sgettings(at)cfl.rr.com wrote: > >I also used luxeons for position lights (2 high-intensity lambertians on >each side) and presented it to our EAA meeting as well as our local >IA/DAR. The DAR had no problem signing off on the intensity and >distribution of the position lights. I previously provided a link to >the EAA article on this for those who were interested. > > The DAR didn't measure the light output. They very rarely have the equipment to do so. If it doesn't bother you to have less light than required by the FAA, then use whatever position lights will pass muster with your local DAR. Most folks want position lights that are at least as bright as the FAA requires, not just bright enough for the DAR to sign them off. >Luxeons are really the only practical and affordable LEDS that will meet >the position lighting requirements. > > Not so. If you design a light that meets the FAA requirements, you need quite a few of the Luxeon LEDs. It turns out to be less expensive to fill the FAA required light pattern with high-brightness 5 mm LEDs. In lumens per dollar, you are better off with 5 mm LEDs. You will notice that on the Luxeon spec sheets, they never tell you the candlepower output. They won't tell you when you call up. You have to buy one and measure it. They don't tell you because they don't want you to be able to directly compare the output of their lights with other LEDs. The Luxeon LEDs are good if you require a very bright point source, like for a projector. If it is OK to have the light spread out with more than one LED, then 5 mm LEDs provide much more light per dollar. My LED position lights put out more than what the FAA requires in all directions, and they are less expensive than any other LED position light on the market (some of which do not put out the light required by the FAA.) Bill Dube' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Smith" <franksmit(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 02/26/06
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Hi Gary, I never heard of that company, but it looks like they have a good price on the oil filter adapter. The company I bought the engine from was AERO, Inc. They sell all the ECI stuff, and the part no of the filter adapter is AEL22772-1. AEL is the ECI parts number. I thiunk it lists for $199, but call them at 800-362-3044. I don't think they have a web site. Regards, Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 02/26/06 > * > > ================================================== > 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.2006-02-26.html > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2006-02-26.txt > > > ================================================ > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================ > > > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Sun 02/26/06: 15 > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 01:24 AM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Gilles Tatry) > 2. 05:11 AM - Re: Re: Gotcha! (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) > 3. 05:56 AM - Re: Baclup Battery monitor - Aux batt charge (Tim > Olson) > 4. 07:33 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Eric Newton) > 5. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Gotcha! (Brian Lloyd) > 6. 09:30 AM - Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Bill > Czygan) > 7. 11:36 AM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Robert L. > Nuckolls, III) > 8. 12:26 PM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Gilles Tatry) > 9. 12:40 PM - Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and > Bob N.) () > 10. 01:03 PM - Mic and Headset Jack Installation (SMITHBKN(at)aol.com) > 11. 02:05 PM - Re: Mic and Headset Jack Installation (SteinAir, Inc.) > 12. 07:28 PM - Re: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT (Robert L. > Nuckolls, III) > 13. 07:28 PM - Re: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey > and Bob N.) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 14. 07:35 PM - Re: Mic and Headset Jack Installation (Robert L. > Nuckolls, III) > 15. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines > (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 > _____________________________________ > > > From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > > > You are absolutely right, Bob! > Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an > open cockpitt is delightful... > It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. > With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about > 20 > C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, > reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead > of > close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... > Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the > panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. > Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, > and > learn a lot... > Thank you for the help! > > Gilles > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:54 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > >> >> >> >>> >>>Ok, maybe I'm being dense here, but here goes: >>>If the 594 is used, no further cold junction compensation is necessary >>>from the TC side is necessary. If the UMA instrument needs it, then I >>>suggest dropping it. Use a simple microprocessor (about $1) and an LED >>>display ($40?) instead. Some of the micros have an LED display driver >>>already built-in, IIRC. Check out Freescale's website. >> >> I don't think the UMA bothers to use dynamic cold-junction >> compensation. Their cold junction is at the back of the instrument >> and the calibration is optimized at a 20C cockpit. So >> ranges of temperatures that most pilots are willing to >> endure in the cockpit is assumed to introduce insignificant >> error. >> >> Possibly true for most enclosed cockpit/pilot combinations. >> This is an open cockpit a/c where the owner says his >> motivations to fly outweigh other pilot's inhibitions >> (maybe he has a heated flight-suit). In any case, the >> stated accuracy of the stock gage is found deficient for >> his needs. >> >> The idea is to apply EXTERNAL signal conditioning using >> the 594 and drive the instrument with whatever combination >> of constant current/voltage seems best. This allows us >> to provide offset/scale-factor pots that will permit >> calibration to number probably better than the off-the-shelf >> instrument. Dynamic cold-junction compensation comes with >> the package. >> >> >>>If he's married to the UMA, then enjoy the exercises 8-). >> >> That's the major rub. He has the instruments, they're both >> physically attractive for their size (tiny panel) and round >> dials but a tad short on performance. Just ONE of life's >> little challenges . . . >> >> Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 2 > _____________________________________ > > > From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Gotcha! > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 12:36:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, > gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: > > So before you all point finger, if it can happen to a Pro crew, it can > happen > to you or me. First I can't believe an Apollo 820 GPS is legal for long > range > Oceanic flight. It would not meet the requirements to cross the Atlantic. > Second the out of date data base blows me away. With that said they would > have been better off using the old data base way points, even out of > date. They could check the lat/longs against a chart or flight plane. > Entering lat / longs much more error prone than entering a way point ID. > > > Good Morning George, > > Don't get carried away with your indignation. There are many small, low > cost, navigation devices that are approved for operation as sole source > guidance > > for flight across the North Atlantic. Included among them are the Trimble > 2000 > > Approach and Approach Plus, Garmin GNC 300 XL and the Apollo NMC 2001. > There > are probably many more, but that is NOT an area of my expertise. > > Incidentally, I do agree with you that errors are easy to make. I was > flying > long haul when we first got rid of the live navigators (we had errors > with > them too!) and went to INS navigation. I realize that current practice > among > air carriers is much more regulated than it was in my day, but I never > liked > the 'two man' loading scheme. I always loaded my FMC's by having one of > us > load from the chart and the other from the flight plan. (We only used two > FMC's > > on my airline) After we had independently loaded the data, we then cross > checked the two units to assure that both had the same data loaded. No > cross > filling allowed in my cockpit. > > You would be amazed at how many errors we found in the early computer > generated flight plans! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > > ________________________________ Message 3 > _____________________________________ > > > From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor - Aux batt charge > > >>> The problem with diodes is they all have a forward volt drop, standard >>> diodes are about 1 volt drop. So if your system charges at say 14.2 >>> volts, your second battery will only see 13.2V. >> >> Which is a major issue for recharging the standby battery >> to 100% of capacity. >> >> >>> I believe the Shotkey (sp?) diode has a much lower drop...Althouigh I >>> don't know what it is. >>> > > I trimmed much of the thread for brevity on this single issue. > I'm now flying in my RV-10 with a schematic as shown here: > http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/electrical/N104CD_Electrical_Schematic_Rev5.pdf > > By using a couple of different diodes, (one was Eric's schottky), > I've now got a system with a couple of benefits: > > * charges the aux battery through a schottky with a lower Vdrop at all > times. > * Powers the E-Bus from the Avionics bus, whenever the avionics bus is > on. > * Powers the E-Bus directly from the aux battery when E-Bus is on. > > > I use the E-Bus switch during startup to start the EFIS and EIS before > I crank the engine, and I get no Voltage drops rebooting my E-Bus items. > > After engine start, I fire up the avioinics bus, and the rest of my > stuff comes online. I then shut OFF my E-Bus feed switch and if you > trace back the wiring, you'll see that I don't lose power during the > switch because of the diodes, and, I get the benefit of a diode-free > path from the alternator to the Aux battery. So, even though the > charging circuit is there with the schottky, I'll get the benefit > of getting 100% voltage to the aux battery for a full charge. > > The rest of the system works great for me too. Some breakers, > some fuses. I do use a keyswitch with my Lightspeed and a Mag, > which works great, but I couldn't illustrate the switching of the > circuit using the keyswitch model, so I drew it as switches and it's > innacurate. > > The Aux Alternator section is currently not installed. I'm waiting > for Plane-Power to come out with their aux alternator to save a bunch > of cost. It would be a nice thing to have, but actually with the > large set of aux batteries and the wiring that I have, it's nearing > overkill to add that to the system unless I plan not to land when > I have a problem. > > Sorry to chop the thread. I've changed the subject line to accomodate. > > Tim > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > > > ________________________________ Message 4 > _____________________________________ > > > From: "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights + strobe > > > > Could be this one: > http://www.creativair.com/cva/product_info.php?cPath=3D21&products_id=3D44 > > Eric > > > ________________________________ Message 5 > _____________________________________ > > > From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Gotcha! > > > gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote: > >> This is the first problem. Before I went across the pond I had 2 weeks >> of >> ground school, of which many days spent on long range nav, simulator >> training and at least one flight with a training Captain over >> the Atlantic. This poor crew was set up to fail. > > Well, there is training and there is training. It is quite possible for > the captain and crew to ensure their own training and to make a plan for > how to deal with contingencies. It would make a lot of sense for the > crew to think about their lack of training and then go get the > information they needed. A lot has been written on the subject and the > basics of navigation are well understood. That is what I did and I had > no problems with long-range, over-water navigation. It is when you > believe in your computers too much that you start to have problems. > >> So before you all point finger, if it can happen to a Pro crew, it can >> happen > >> to you or me. First I can't believe an Apollo 820 GPS is legal for long >> range > >> Oceanic flight. > > When making a ferry flight you can get away with a lot. I have flown my > Comanche across the Atlantic twice, once non-stop. There are a lot of > opportunities to screw up in 11 hours with nothing to look at but ocean. > None of my equipment was "approved" for long-range ocean flight but it > served me adequately well. My primary electronic nav was a LORAN which I > knew would stop working when it got out of range of the Canadian chain > and would remain unusable until I got within range of the North Atlantic > chain. > > My HF was an old Collins KWM-2 that I had retuned to work in the > aviation bands. The Canadian authorities laughed saying they hadn't seen > someone use a KWM-2 for many years. I had designed an e-bus to ensure > that I would have my electronic nav gear in case of a loss of the main > electrical system. The Canadian DOT inspector at Moncton felt that my > e-bus design was pretty neat and eliminated the need for a separate > battery-operated LF DF radio. > > So my real primary nav was DR backed up with LORAN and using ADF and VOR > for secondary backup. Everything worked as planned, including the loss > of LORAN navigation about 5 hours into the flight. The only surprise is > that we didn't get LORAN back until we were almost to Ireland. By then I > had VOR. ADF surprised me by working from mid-Atlantic. (BBC used to > have a very high-power LW station at 201 KHz if I recall. The > programming wasn't great but the signal kept the ADF needle pointed > where we were going.) Regardless, my DR planning got me to my > destination within 30 seconds of flight-plan time. > > I kept a navigation log that cross-referenced DR and LORAN data. When > the LORAN quit working we were on DR-only but had good intermediate nav > data to start from. When I finally got my LORAN back we were only about > 5 miles off-course. DR works a lot better than most people give it > credit for. > > And, yes, I would do it again using the same equipment. > > -- > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > > ________________________________ Message 6 > _____________________________________ > > > From: Bill Czygan <bczygan(at)yahoo.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke > Engines > > > Bob, > Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, I am new to this list and to > aircraft > construction. I am an Extra class Amateur Radio Operator (Ham), so I am > supposed > to know a few basic things about electricity. At my age (55), it is a race > to see if the learning, or the forgetting, is winning. Thank you for > taking the > time to direct me to the right information. You, and the members, have put > together > a valuable resource here. It is obvious that I need to do some serious > studying to come up to speed, enough to even pose useful questions. That I > will > do right now. Meanwhile, I have put together a BLOG to help UL pilots > transition > to Sport Pilot. One of the things I am doing is advising them on how to > transition their UL aircraft. Many of them will need to create electrical > systems, > as I will. If you don't mind, I would like to provide a link to this list > for them. My site is here: > > http://sptraining.blogspot.com/ > > Again, thank you for the help. > Yours, > > Bill Czygan > AA8MF > Quicksilver MXIIA > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 7 > _____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > > > >> >> >>You are absolutely right, Bob! >>Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an >>open cockpitt is delightful... >>It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. >>With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about >>20 >>C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, >>reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead >>of >>close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... >>Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the >>panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. >>Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, >>and >>learn a lot... >>Thank you for the help! > > Have you the tools and where-with-all to get > the measurements we need? > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 8 > _____________________________________ > > > From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > > > I will probably be able to send you the measurements shortly, thanks to > well-equipped friends. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:30 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>You are absolutely right, Bob! >>>Except that I am not concerned with cold, but hot weather flying, when an >>>open cockpitt is delightful... >>>It is the worst case for engine temp, and also the worst for CHT reading. >>>With the cold junction at the back of the instrument, CHT can read about >>>20 >>>C less than reality. If the cold junction was in the engine compartment, >>>reading might be somewhere in the middle of the scale, or lower, instead >>>of >>>close to, or even higher than the engine CHT limitation... >>>Too late indeed to change the instrument, wich size is very specific: the >>>panel is built and wired, I don't want to do it again. >>>Moreover, I am highly interested indeed in this intellectual challenge, >>>and >>>learn a lot... >>>Thank you for the help! >> >> Have you the tools and where-with-all to get >> the measurements we need? >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 9 > _____________________________________ > > > From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup > (Mickey > and Bob N.) > > > Dear Bob N.: > > I have no Idea what you are talking about again and why its relavant, > but God Bless you. > > ** > COMMENTS BELOW (..............) ; Cheers George > ** > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > >Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and > Bob N.) > > >> > >>Mickey wants to turn his car off at 100 mph and > >> > >> AND > >> > >> Bob N. wants proof. > > >Not proof sir . . . UNDERSTANDING. I see those words on the > 4-color > >brochures and bang-for-the-buck bullets at the top of data > >sheets . . . all of which ASSUME that your understanding > >of their words is the same as their understanding of > >their words. > > > ** > (BOB,CALL TRANSPO, TALK TO ENGINEERS:1800-TRANSPO/800-872-6776) > ** > > > > >> > >> As far as control of I-VR alternators, it would be wonderful to > use > >> and trust the IGN wire. We could put a crow-bar on the CB to > the > >> IGN lead. However you can't depend on it (apparently from > >> historical & empirical data). That's why a pullable CB on the > B- > >> lead, to positively isolate the alternator, independent of > anything > is > >> suggested. Another way to achieve the same isolation is the > crow > >> bar and over voltage relay on the B-lead. That works also but > its > >> heavy, costly, complicated and potentially can cause nuisance > >> trips. In defense of the crow-bar it is automatic. The pullable > CB > >> needs pilot action. The choice is the builders. As Bob N. says > if > >> you can't take the small chance of an OV, than use an External > >> Regulator and OV module of some kind. if for no other reason > >> it is simple. However there is no guarantee that will work > 100% > >> There's no 100% system. > > > . . . and nobody has ever claimed there was. For Part 25 > airplanes > >we're chartered to do the fault trees with probabilities > applied to > >each branch. When just one of those numbers is assumed, the > result > >suffers from a garbage-in-garbage out syndrome. That's why I > >have come to believe that they add little value in determining > our > >future field experience. I can show you dozens of carefully > calculated > >predictions of golden operations in fielded systems that don't > >even come close. That's why failure tolerance is so much easier > to > >embrace that hoped-for failure proof. > > ** > (BOB, I have an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT; Don't give a RIP about Part 25 or > 23) > ** > > >I'm working on an article that will illustrate the pitfalls of > >accepting the bang-for-the-buck bullets -OR- the four-color > >brochures at face value. Soon . . . > > > ** > (BOB, What? U lost me (again), call Transpo, they'll help your > UNDERSTANDING) > ** > > Bob . . . > > ** > (George, I am done. Peace) > ** > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 10 > ____________________________________ > > > From: SMITHBKN(at)aol.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headset Jack Installation > > > Group, > > I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. but > can't > develop an answer to the following question: when I went to install my > jacks I > > found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded > post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger hole that > would > > allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. > > I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip easily > over > the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder at the > base > of the post. > > If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could > contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation > washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. > > Need some help ......, Thanks, > > Jeff > RV-7A > smithbkn(at)aol.com > > > ________________________________ Message 11 > ____________________________________ > > > From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headset Jack Installation > > > > If you have the higher end jacks, then the "shoulder" on the threaded part > of the jack is still part of the center ring or threaded portion. The > goal > of the insulated washers is to completely isolate that part of the jack > (center ring) from the metal panel and airframe ground... It's still a > good > idea to use the washers on the jacks, so drill the hold large enough to > allow the insualting washers. > > Cheers, > Stein. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of >>SMITHBKN(at)aol.com >>Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:02 PM >>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headset Jack Installation >> >> >> >>Group, >> >>I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. >>but can't >>develop an answer to the following question: when I went to >>install my jacks I >>found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded >>post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger >>hole that would >>allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. >> >>I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip >>easily over >>the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder >>at the base >>of the post. >> >>If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could >>contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation >>washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. >> >>Need some help ......, Thanks, >> >>Jeff >>RV-7A >>smithbkn(at)aol.com >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 12 > ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT > > > > >> >> >>I will probably be able to send you the measurements shortly, thanks to >>well-equipped friends. > > Great! > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 13 > ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Startup (Mickey and > Bob N.) > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange alternator behavior at > Startup (Mickey > and Bob N.) > > > Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) > > >> >>Dear Bob N.: >> >> I have no Idea what you are talking about again and why its relavant, >> but God Bless you. > > Proof is for math problems and courts. Understanding is what real > teachers > offer. Engineers are dependent upon understanding for responsible > conduct > of their craft. > >> >> >> ** >> (BOB,CALL TRANSPO, TALK TO ENGINEERS:1800-TRANSPO/800-872-6776) >>** > > If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, schematics, > test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I expect no > less. Every simple idea I've had to offer was explained at length, > often illustrated and in many cases based on lessons-learned from > the past 40 years of cooking (and burning a few fingers) in this > particular kitchen. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As far as control of I-VR alternators, it would be wonderful >> to use >> >> and trust the IGN wire. We could put a crow-bar on the CB to >> the >> >> IGN lead. However you can't depend on it (apparently from >> >> historical & empirical data). That's why a pullable CB on the >> B- >> >> lead, to positively isolate the alternator, independent of >> anything is >> >> suggested. Another way to achieve the same isolation is the >> crow >> >> bar and over voltage relay on the B-lead. That works also but >> its >> >> heavy, costly, complicated and potentially can cause nuisance >> >> trips. In defense of the crow-bar it is automatic. The >> pullable CB >> >> needs pilot action. The choice is the builders. As Bob N. >> says if >> >> you can't take the small chance of an OV, than use an >> External >> >> Regulator and OV module of some kind. if for no other reason >> >> it is simple. However there is no guarantee that will work >> 100% >> >> There's no 100% system. >> >> > . . . and nobody has ever claimed there was. For Part 25 >> airplanes >> >we're chartered to do the fault trees with probabilities >> applied to >> >each branch. When just one of those numbers is assumed, the >> result >> >suffers from a garbage-in-garbage out syndrome. That's why I >> >have come to believe that they add little value in >> determining our >> >future field experience. I can show you dozens of carefully >> calculated >> >predictions of golden operations in fielded systems that >> don't >> >even come close. That's why failure tolerance is so much >> easier to >> >embrace that hoped-for failure proof. >> >> ** >> (BOB, I have an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT; Don't give a RIP about Part 25 >> or 23) >> ** >> > > I wasn't suggesting you should. It was an ILLUSTRATION of just how > much we've come to depend on tools (and faith in the talent of > others) that started out with high ideals but failed in the > marketplace. All the analysis in the world does not replace > the repeatable experiment. > > Unfortunately, there is so much faith in the up-front, computer > aided analysis that we've totally divested ourselves of any kind > of skunk works. At the same time, we're a bit dismayed that customer > aircraft have become IR&D tools for fixing problems that analysis > failed to reveal. > > You seem to think I'm trying to convince you of something . . . or > sell > you something. The only reason I offer you anything is as a courtesy > from one engineer to another . . . but gee, without all the alphabet > soup > after my name, perhaps my biggest failing is knowing the right kind > of > words to use. I'm only trying to share my experience and > observations > based on that experience. The only folks who's approval I MUST have > are those who send me money and expect a fair value in return. > Everything > else is the fun of considering simple-ideas . . . . and I DO enjoy > it. > I'm sorry if it's upsetting for you. I AM distressed that you don't > seem to > grasp what I'm driving at . . . a serious failing on my part as a > teacher. Hmmmm . . . did you buy a copy of the 'Connection from me? > Do > you want your money back? > >> >I'm working on an article that will illustrate the pitfalls >> of >> >accepting the bang-for-the-buck bullets -OR- the four-color >> >brochures at face value. Soon . . . >> >> >> ** >> (BOB, What? U lost me (again), call Transpo, they'll help your >> UNDERSTANDING) >> ** > > If that's what you did, then are you then a spokesperson for Transpo > or have you developed an independent but supporting professional > opinion you can share? Have you seen schematics, design > philosophies, > parts selection criteria? Would you/they share that with us? I get > access > to this stuff when I approve products for my boss, it's called > preliminary > and critical design reviews. But since you're going experimental, do > you > consider such tools superfluous, perhaps a waste of time? Is it no > longer > necessary that we understand how things work? Just field the pitch > over the > counter at OSH and plunk down the credit card? I may have to ask > your > forgiveness. I consider my OBAM aircraft customers just as deserving > of the best-I-know-how-to-do as my TC aircraft customers. > > Tell you what. I'm about done with the trade study on the MC33092A. > The task is see if there's some way we can adapt this marvelous > piece of technology into a modern replacement for all the external > regulators flying. Look over the data sheet and craft your own trade > study. If it's at all suited, how can we adapt it to this task? > Are there attractive alternatives? Are all the > bang-for-the-buck-bullets > at the front of the data supported by explanation from within and > and at least supported if not confirmed by your independent > analysis? > How do the features cited add value? Are any of the features nothing > more than chrome on the bumpers and fox tails on the antennas? > I've discovered some interesting points of design in the MC33022A > that offer interesting hypothesis on behaviors of failed alternators > cited recently on the List. It's been an enlightening exercise. When > yours > is done, send me a .pdf and I'll put it up on AeroElectric.com along > with my own. > > You've tossed in tons of cabbages and tomatoes which I've attempted > to field with thoughtful, illustrative answers. May I suggest this > friendly competition. Let the List vote on the work product. Looser > sends the winner a copy of his favorite book. > > If you 'dust' me, I'll be pleased to send you a copy of > "The Professional Amateur" by T.A. Boyd. It's a biography of > Charles F. Kettering - a scientist worthy of much respect and > emulation . . . one of my personal heros. > > Bob . . . > > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 > ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headset Jack Installation > > > > >> >>Group, >> >>I've read the AeroElectric connection, searched the archives, etc. but >>can't >>develop an answer to the following question: when I went to install my >>jacks I >>found that I could either drill a ~3/8" hole that would allow the threaded >>post of the jack to pass through, or b) drill a slightly larger hole that >>would >>allow the threaded post PLUS the small shoulder to pass through. >> >>I purchased some of the isolation washers from B&C and they slip easily >>over >>the threaded post of the jack but won't go down over the shoulder at the >>base >>of the post. > > That isn't what they're supposed to do. > >>If I use the ~3/8" hole it appears the threaded portion of the jack could >>contact the panel as it passes through it, even with use of the isolation >>washers. So I guess I'm not sure what the isolation washers are doing. > > Drill a 1/2" hole. Put the extruded washer on the jack first, extrusion > facing up. Insert jack in hole from behind and place flat insulating > washer on over the jack's barrel followed by the flat metal washer and > finally the screw. > > The insulating washers will sandwich the panel material while the > extrusion keeps the jack centered in the hole and isolated from > the panel. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 15 > ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Stroke Engines > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electrical System Design for 2 > Stroke Engines > > > Stroke Engines > > >> >>Bob, >> Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, I am new to this list and to >> aircraft construction. I am an Extra class Amateur Radio Operator (Ham), >> so I am supposed to know a few basic things about electricity. At my age >> (55), it is a race to see if the learning, or the forgetting, is winning. >> Thank you for taking the time to direct me to the right information. You, >> and the members, have put together a valuable resource here. It is >> obvious that I need to do some serious studying to come up to speed, >> enough to even pose useful questions. That I will do right now. >> Meanwhile, I have put together a BLOG to help UL pilots transition to >> Sport Pilot. One of the things I am doing is advising them on how to >> transition their UL aircraft. Many of them will need to create electrical >> systems, as I will. If you don't mind, I would like to provide a link to >> this list for them. My site is here: >> >> http://sptraining.blogspot.com/ >> >> Again, thank you for the help. > > You're correct . . . no EASY way to do it. The Vulcan mind-meld > is not yet in anyone's bag of tricks. I got my novice ticket in > spring of '56 in the 7th grade. Did a science class demo that failed > miserably. Dropped a wire out the second story window for an antenna. > My demo partner a few miles away heard me fine but noise from florescent > lights wilted my SX-28 like a pansy in the Mojave sun. > > The website is an impressive effort. I wish you the best of luck > helping this new effort get spooled up. The world can always use > more pilots. > > Bob . . . > > > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
My LED position lights put out more than what the FAA requires in all directions, and they are less expensive than any other LED position light on the market (some of which do not put out the light required by the FAA.) Bill Dube' Bill, Can will you point me to your web site? Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
In a message dated 2/28/2006 8:02:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, mstewart(at)iss.net writes: So it would seem that it needs that initial rpm to get the juices flowing in the cold. I can live with that. Thanks to whom ever it was that suggested an initial burst of RPM to get her going. Worked Best, Mike Do not archive Good Evening Mike, Do you really want to give it that short burst of power? Personally, I like to warm up the engine at as low an RPM as possible consistent with adequate oil pressure and any need for the crankshaft to throw the oil against the innards of the engine. I do not know what engine you have, but I would not give it a burst above any RPM that I wanted to use for warm up purposes. Isn't that the whole idea behind doing a warm up? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Date: Feb 28, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
On their website all of the new version III's and V's all have spec sheets with Lumen ratings and the appropriate charts to determine viewing angles, and with more than 80% intensity over 140 degree spectrum, it would be very easy to get the required fill rate of light that the FAA requires, and with shaped reflectors, you can even cut off the angles. Using fog lights from walmart($15) and replacing the halogen bulbs with 4 Luxeons ($30), plus the power supply ($25) easily meets and exceeds the requirements for much less money than you would think. Just my .02 Dan RV10 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Dube Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mike's LED Position lights sgettings(at)cfl.rr.com wrote: > >I also used luxeons for position lights (2 high-intensity lambertians on >each side) and presented it to our EAA meeting as well as our local >IA/DAR. The DAR had no problem signing off on the intensity and >distribution of the position lights. I previously provided a link to >the EAA article on this for those who were interested. > > The DAR didn't measure the light output. They very rarely have the equipment to do so. If it doesn't bother you to have less light than required by the FAA, then use whatever position lights will pass muster with your local DAR. Most folks want position lights that are at least as bright as the FAA requires, not just bright enough for the DAR to sign them off. >Luxeons are really the only practical and affordable LEDS that will meet >the position lighting requirements. > > Not so. If you design a light that meets the FAA requirements, you need quite a few of the Luxeon LEDs. It turns out to be less expensive to fill the FAA required light pattern with high-brightness 5 mm LEDs. In lumens per dollar, you are better off with 5 mm LEDs. You will notice that on the Luxeon spec sheets, they never tell you the candlepower output. They won't tell you when you call up. You have to buy one and measure it. They don't tell you because they don't want you to be able to directly compare the output of their lights with other LEDs. The Luxeon LEDs are good if you require a very bright point source, like for a projector. If it is OK to have the light spread out with more than one LED, then 5 mm LEDs provide much more light per dollar. My LED position lights put out more than what the FAA requires in all directions, and they are less expensive than any other LED position light on the market (some of which do not put out the light required by the FAA.) Bill Dube' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Back-Up Battery
Date: Feb 28, 2006
Hello All, I am installing a back-up battery an would like to monitor the condition (voltage) w/warning for it. Any ideas on what to use??? Mitchell Goodrich VEZE Tampa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Back-Up Battery
Date: Feb 28, 2006
If using the Grand Rapids EFIS system, it monitors voltage on each of up to three separate power sources. Other EFIS systems probably handle several as well. Bill S 7a wiring -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell Goodrich Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Back-Up Battery --> Hello All, I am installing a back-up battery an would like to monitor the condition (voltage) w/warning for it. Any ideas on what to use??? Mitchell Goodrich VEZE Tampa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott" <scott(at)randolphs.net>
Subject: RE: An Architecture Question - Z13
Date: Feb 28, 2006
> What caused you to believe that a 60/20 combination of engine > driven power sources was the most useful/practical? What operational > consideration raises questions in the ability of one of the Z-figures > to handle as presently configured? Can't speak for Todd, but my thought pattern which arrived at a point similar to his was: I know that my alternator can't quite keep up with everything on while taxing at relatively low RPM. A little extra help would be nice. I'd also like to give the standby a little exercise as a way to ensure it's running. If it's always in standby it would be easy for it to fail and not be noticed -- until it was needed. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Dynon
Date: Mar 01, 2006
The Dynon product has an option of a built-in battery backup. It was an option that I felt was unneeded since I was using Bob's e-bus wiring. I realize now that I would like to have a separate battery for this purpose. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has installed this function using a small external battery. A wiring diagram would be nice. Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Startup
Subject: Re: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
> > >In a message dated 2/28/2006 8:02:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, >mstewart(at)iss.net writes: > >So it would seem that it needs that initial rpm to get the juices >flowing in the cold. >I can live with that. >Thanks to whom ever it was that suggested an initial burst of RPM to get >her going. Worked >Best, >Mike >Do not archive > > >Good Evening Mike, > >Do you really want to give it that short burst of power? > >Personally, I like to warm up the engine at as low an RPM as possible >consistent with adequate oil pressure and any need for the crankshaft to >throw the >oil against the innards of the engine. I do not know what engine you have, >but I would not give it a burst above any RPM that I wanted to use for >warm up >purposes. > >Isn't that the whole idea behind doing a warm up? Absolutely. The behavior noted is NOT what we would generally consider acceptable . . . the "work around" described is functional but it's almost a certainty that this alternator is either deprived of some accommodation that allows it to come up normally at ramp idle -OR- has a design feature that makes it a poor choice for use on aircraft. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Back-Up Battery
> > >Hello All, > >I am installing a back-up battery an would like to monitor >the condition (voltage) w/warning for it. Any ideas on >what to use??? It would help us to know how you intend to install it. Like figure Z-30? There's a product about to be added to our bag of tricks. You can see the data package at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf It's a two channel low voltage, single channel latching high voltage management module. Designed specifically for generator installations on older airplanes, it's still applicable to a variety of modern applications. One might consider this device for any or all of its functional features. It will cost about the same as the current LVWarn/ABMM module . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf but with 3x the functionality. So if you need only one channel of LV warning (to watch your aux battery circuit), you could certainly consider it. If you also found uses for the remaining features, that's icing on the cake. Alternatively, you could craft your own LV warning module by taking advantage of the ready-to-stuff etched circuit board and fabrication package offered at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html and . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> suggestion
Subject: Re: Ground Power circuit diagram query & suggestion
> > >Hi Bob, >I don't understand the need for a push-to-test lamp in your Low Cost >Ground Power circuit (rev C 07/21/05). >Surely it would provide a more useful function if it were a regular lamp >directly connected to ground, therefore providing either; >(a) a warning of presence of a ground power source, or; >(b) a warning that the switch/breaker for ground power contactor is >still closed (where the ground power contactor is held closed by ship's >battery). This function seems important since the contactor takes >nearly a Amp to maintain. > >Either of those without having to press a button to find out. Since you >need some ground power-side volts to light it anyway, it will normally >be off AND "un-testable". >Better still, you could use a bi-colour LED, with GREEN for correct >polarity and RED for inverted (help save a contactor diode if you >reverse-connect the leads to the 4x4) > >My 1st post & just getting my head round all the issues, so excuse me if >I missed something obvious. Looking forward to the book arriving >tomorrow. Certainly there are variations on the theme that provide alternative flavors of functionality. The architecture cited was crafted based on a customer's request for a hurry up kit for a ground power jack, my experience with ground power on aircraft and what was in my inventory of components at the time. You can certainly modify as you see fit. The important thing is that you UNDERSTAND how the end product is going to work and that features and performance are acceptable to you as the systems designer and user. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: An Architecture Question - Z13
> > > What caused you to believe that a 60/20 combination of engine > > driven power sources was the most useful/practical? What operational > > consideration raises questions in the ability of one of the Z-figures > > to handle as presently configured? > >Can't speak for Todd, but my thought pattern which arrived at a point >similar to his was: >I know that my alternator can't quite keep up with everything on while >taxing at relatively low RPM. A little extra help would be nice. I'd also >like to give the standby a little exercise as a way to ensure it's running. >If it's always in standby it would be easy for it to fail and not be noticed >-- until it was needed. A bigger alternator doesn't automatically translate into more snort at low rpm. If your modern, light weight alternator is installed like B&C's with the stock 2.5" pulley then you should be able to get nearly full output at taxi RPMs. Alternator sizing should be a function of your load analysis for various cruising flight conditions. A 60/20 combo is REALLY big, expensive and heavy comparted to 40/8. I'm not suggesting you'll never need such capability, only that I'm skeptical of most builder's plans to install this system without also having evaluated system requirements in detail. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> at Startup
Subject: Re: RE: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
> > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Oh. > >> Well that is very interesting Brian. Could it be that my IGN wire is > >> dead? > >> I have the IGN with voltage applied before cranking (I think. I have not > >> checked it since initial install) and I have an idiot light installed > >> which does work as expected. I will check that IGN wire next time I have > >> the cowl off to verify it is supplying power before cranking. Based on > >> your note below, it is quite possible the IGN wire is doing nothing. > >> Wonder why temperature is at play though. > >> > >> Ill check it and report back. > > > > Brian, have you been holding out on us? > >Uh, no. I thought this was common knowledge about IR alternators. Just yanking your chain my friend. We do know that SOME alternators under SOME conditions will come up self excited and that this feature is incidental to the system design requirements. After some thought about this thread, I'm almost convinced that there's something amiss with the system cited. It should snap to attention within seconds of startup and at ordinary idle/taxi RPM levels. > > I've not been aware of > > any automotive products that would ultimately self-excite at > > any time interval or speed conditions. An interesting phenomenon to > > contemplate. > >Almost every IR alternator I have played with exhibits this characteristic. > >Now it may be that new ones have no residual magnetism in the field >armature and therefore cannot self excite. OTOH, *I* have not run into >one that would not self excite once you turned it fast enough. Good data point. Since I've never attempted to utilize this capability in a design, I've never explored the feature in practice. > > > > Just last year I shared the following from my experience with > > the alternators on Bonanzas and Barons: > >Yeah. I just assumed that is how they were supposed to work too. And >just the act of using them for awhile builds up magnetism in the >armature. I suspect that, even if they don't self-excite when brand new, >they will after having been used for several hours. It stands to reason that since the retentivity of ANY magnetic material is never zero, that the ability to self-excite probably exists at SOME RPM even if scary to contemplate. It stands to reason that many examples in the wild will exhibit the behavior at fairly ordinary RPM levels. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: dampening circuit request
Hi gurus of electrons, As I mentioned in another thread, I want to have a sensor that tells me when my coolant level is too low. I've ordered a Gems Sensors ELS-900, 12 VDC, Dry, 1/4" NPT, $54, part number 205300: http://www.gemssensors.com/SpecTemplateStandard.asp?nProductGroupID=307 which is basically an optical on/off switch when it goes from wet to dry. When the coolant is sloshing around in the tank I suspect that my warning lamp will be flickering on and off. Does anyone know of a very simple way I could "dampen" this so that the warning light will only come on if the sensor goes dry for some period of time? Thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Update: Strange alternator behavior at Startup
Date: Mar 01, 2006
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at Startup wrote: >>> >>> Brian, have you been holding out on us? >> >> Uh, no. I thought this was common knowledge about IR alternators. > > Just yanking your chain my friend. Sorry. I tend to err on the literal side. ;-) > We do know that SOME alternators > under SOME conditions will come up self excited and that this > feature > is incidental to the system design requirements. After some > thought about > this thread, I'm almost convinced that there's something amiss > with > the system cited. It should snap to attention within seconds of > startup and at ordinary idle/taxi RPM levels. My experience with a LOT of alternators at this point is that they need some RPM substantially higher than idle to self-excite. That is why they use a small amount of current from the battery bus to bootstrap them. >> >> Almost every IR alternator I have played with exhibits this >> characteristic. >> >> Now it may be that new ones have no residual magnetism in the field >> armature and therefore cannot self excite. OTOH, *I* have not run >> into >> one that would not self excite once you turned it fast enough. > > Good data point. Since I've never attempted to utilize > this capability in a design, I've never explored the > feature in practice. And I have messed with enough of them to believe this is a common behavior. >>> Just last year I shared the following from my experience with >>> the alternators on Bonanzas and Barons: >> >> Yeah. I just assumed that is how they were supposed to work too. And >> just the act of using them for awhile builds up magnetism in the >> armature. I suspect that, even if they don't self-excite when >> brand new, >> they will after having been used for several hours. > > It stands to reason that since the retentivity of ANY magnetic > material is never zero, that the ability to self-excite probably > exists at SOME RPM even if scary to contemplate. It stands to > reason that many examples in the wild will exhibit the behavior > at fairly ordinary RPM levels. Right. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: dampening circuit request
> > >Hi gurus of electrons, > >As I mentioned in another thread, I want to have >a sensor that tells me when my coolant level is >too low. > >I've ordered a Gems Sensors ELS-900, 12 VDC, Dry, >1/4" NPT, $54, part number 205300: > >http://www.gemssensors.com/SpecTemplateStandard.asp?nProductGroupID=307 > >which is basically an optical on/off switch when it >goes from wet to dry. When the coolant is sloshing >around in the tank I suspect that my warning lamp >will be flickering on and off. Does anyone know of a >very simple way I could "dampen" this so that the >warning light will only come on if the sensor goes >dry for some period of time? Sure . . . First, a long time-delay (resistor/capacitor) is the simplest but its an integrator of amplitude with time. It prevents a jittering light but will not insure that it never flashes at or during operation at the level transition. Given your particular application, you're not really interested in minute/by/minute interpretation of a level in the tank . . . like for a consumable (fuel). If the level is so low that the light comes on even once, then and investigation and remedy is called for. What may work best for you is a latching circuit. A small relay with holding contacts rigged so that once actuated, the light stays on until reset (momentary power down). The 9011 module I've cited in other posts will be re-incarnated as a low fuel warning for tanks with floats. The presence of a microcontroller allows us to craft warning protocols where the light doesn't come on until the float voltage is at or below the trip point for say 50% or more of the last 30 seconds. After that, the light stays on until the voltage is above the trip point for say 100% of the last two minutes. This would offer slosh filtering and precise, no hesitation operation of the warning lights. As you might guess, the options and approaches to solution are great in number. What is your vision of the elegant solution? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Gladly! http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm Peter Laurence wrote: > > > My LED position lights put out more than what the FAA requires in >all directions, and they are less expensive than any other LED position >light on the market (some of which do not put out the light required by >the FAA.) > > Bill Dube' > > >Bill, > >Can will you point me to your web site? > >Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mike's LED Position lights
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >On their website all of the new version III's and V's all have spec >sheets with Lumen ratings and the appropriate charts to determine >viewing angles, and with more than 80% intensity over 140 degree >spectrum, it would be very easy to get the required fill rate of light >that the FAA requires, and with shaped reflectors, you can even cut off >the angles. Using fog lights from walmart($15) and replacing the halogen >bulbs with 4 Luxeons ($30), plus the power supply ($25) easily meets and >exceeds the requirements for much less money than you would think. > Just my .02 >Dan >RV10 > > The FAA requires specific candlepower in specific directions. (It only makes sense to do so.) Lumens don't give you candlepower directly. You can't calculate the candlepower with the information they provide. Once you buy one, and measure the candlepower, you realize that you can produce that same candlepower using several, much less expensive, 5 mm LEDs. Bill Dube' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT
Date: Mar 01, 2006
Hi Bob, Please find hereafter Jean-Pierre's analysis of my CHT compensation issue. He got the instrument, did some bench testing, and proposes an interface architecture as follows. Any comment? Gilles ----- Original Message ----- From: "CASTIELLO, Jean-pierre" <jean-pierre.castiello(at)airbus.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:56 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature compensation, UMA CHT Gilles, here are some pictures of the CHT instrument. There are 3 boards: - input wiring, overvoltage protection(I guess ); - signal conditionning; - air core indicator amplifier, that has 4 wires: 2 power (red and black), and 2 signal (white and blue). The idea is to design an interface to be input to the air core amplifier, with minimum modifications to the unit, so that back is always possible ( a bird in hand is worth ten in the bush ...). I did some measurements on the unit in order to find the gain and offset that the new interface should have. I found the signal on the white wire on the air core amplifier (blue one is still unknown to me, unless I do some reverse engineering on the signal conditionning board, ) Measured voltage at this point: for a 50C display -> 2.27V 150C -> 3.615V 280C -> 5.425VC So this is an offset of 1.6V and a gain of 13.5mV / C I do not know about the input voltage right at the connector because I was not in a type J TC configuration and the corresponding voltage was meaningless. The complete excel file is available. Anyway the display seems to be linear and an AD594 amplifier followed by some op-amp to compensate for gain and offset should do. Jean-Pierre ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: dampening circuit request
Bob, Thanks for your suggestions. > First, a long time-delay (resistor/capacitor) > is the simplest but its an integrator of amplitude > with time. It prevents a jittering light but will > not insure that it never flashes at or during > operation at the level transition. I'm not sure I understand what you've written here. If I have 300cc in my 500cc tank, and I set the sensor at about the 100cc level, then a bit of sloshing should not cause the light to flicker. However, if the level gets to about 150cc or below, I might see flickering. Is that what you are saying? > Given your particular application, you're not really > interested in minute/by/minute interpretation of a > level in the tank . . . like for a consumable (fuel). Exactly. > If the level is so low that the light comes on even > once, then and investigation and remedy is called for. > What may work best for you is a latching circuit. > A small relay with holding contacts rigged so that > once actuated, the light stays on until reset (momentary > power down). This would be fine as long as I can be reasonably sure it is not a false alarm. > The 9011 module I've cited in other posts will be > re-incarnated as a low fuel warning for tanks with > floats. The presence of a microcontroller allows us > to craft warning protocols where the light doesn't > come on until the float voltage is at or below the > trip point for say 50% or more of the last 30 seconds. > After that, the light stays on until the voltage is > above the trip point for say 100% of the last two > minutes. That sounds perfect! > This would offer slosh filtering and precise, no > hesitation operation of the warning lights. > > As you might guess, the options and approaches > to solution are great in number. What is your vision > of the elegant solution? What you describe above sounds great, in terms of function. I have no idea what kind of packaging would be required for the microprocessor, but obviously the smaller the better! Perhaps if the 9011 solution is a ways down the road, you could tell me how to hook up the previously mentioned simple solution with the resister/capacitor. No hurry on this - I've got the wires run and I can add in the necessary bits and pieces later. Many thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: dampening circuit request
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu>
Mickey, A low-tech way to accomplish this would be to use an anti-slosh baffle inside the tank to dampen out the waves. Admittedly, this solution isn't as exciting. Mark Steitle -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:11 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: dampening circuit request Bob, Thanks for your suggestions. > First, a long time-delay (resistor/capacitor) > is the simplest but its an integrator of amplitude > with time. It prevents a jittering light but will > not insure that it never flashes at or during > operation at the level transition. I'm not sure I understand what you've written here. If I have 300cc in my 500cc tank, and I set the sensor at about the 100cc level, then a bit of sloshing should not cause the light to flicker. However, if the level gets to about 150cc or below, I might see flickering. Is that what you are saying? > Given your particular application, you're not really > interested in minute/by/minute interpretation of a > level in the tank . . . like for a consumable (fuel). Exactly. > If the level is so low that the light comes on even > once, then and investigation and remedy is called for. > What may work best for you is a latching circuit. > A small relay with holding contacts rigged so that > once actuated, the light stays on until reset (momentary > power down). This would be fine as long as I can be reasonably sure it is not a false alarm. > The 9011 module I've cited in other posts will be > re-incarnated as a low fuel warning for tanks with > floats. The presence of a microcontroller allows us > to craft warning protocols where the light doesn't > come on until the float voltage is at or below the > trip point for say 50% or more of the last 30 seconds. > After that, the light stays on until the voltage is > above the trip point for say 100% of the last two > minutes. That sounds perfect! > This would offer slosh filtering and precise, no > hesitation operation of the warning lights. > > As you might guess, the options and approaches > to solution are great in number. What is your vision > of the elegant solution? What you describe above sounds great, in terms of function. I have no idea what kind of packaging would be required for the microprocessor, but obviously the smaller the better! Perhaps if the 9011 solution is a ways down the road, you could tell me how to hook up the previously mentioned simple solution with the resister/capacitor. No hurry on this - I've got the wires run and I can add in the necessary bits and pieces later. Many thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: dampening circuit request
> > >Bob, Thanks for your suggestions. > > > First, a long time-delay (resistor/capacitor) > > is the simplest but its an integrator of amplitude > > with time. It prevents a jittering light but will > > not insure that it never flashes at or during > > operation at the level transition. > >I'm not sure I understand what you've written here. > >If I have 300cc in my 500cc tank, and I set >the sensor at about the 100cc level, then >a bit of sloshing should not cause the light >to flicker. However, if the level gets to >about 150cc or below, I might see flickering. >Is that what you are saying? Yes . . . or even 110cc or 120cc etc. The closer you get to the "calibrated" switch point, the more likely you are to get periodic false lights. However, if you see ANY light for even a transient condition at say 150cc (1/2 normal) then there has been an observable loss of liquid. It seems immaterial whether the real average level = 100cc calibrated or 150cc and produces transient trips. In this case, the latching circuit is easy to implement and does the job. > > Given your particular application, you're not really > > interested in minute/by/minute interpretation of a > > level in the tank . . . like for a consumable (fuel). > >Exactly. > > > If the level is so low that the light comes on even > > once, then and investigation and remedy is called for. > > What may work best for you is a latching circuit. > > A small relay with holding contacts rigged so that > > once actuated, the light stays on until reset (momentary > > power down). > >This would be fine as long as I can be reasonably sure >it is not a false alarm. > > > The 9011 module I've cited in other posts will be > > re-incarnated as a low fuel warning for tanks with > > floats. The presence of a microcontroller allows us > > to craft warning protocols where the light doesn't > > come on until the float voltage is at or below the > > trip point for say 50% or more of the last 30 seconds. > > After that, the light stays on until the voltage is > > above the trip point for say 100% of the last two > > minutes. > >That sounds perfect! > > > This would offer slosh filtering and precise, no > > hesitation operation of the warning lights. > > > > As you might guess, the options and approaches > > to solution are great in number. What is your vision > > of the elegant solution? > >What you describe above sounds great, in terms of >function. I have no idea what kind of packaging >would be required for the microprocessor, but >obviously the smaller the better! > >Perhaps if the 9011 solution is a ways down the road, >you could tell me how to hook up the previously mentioned >simple solution with the resister/capacitor. No hurry >on this - I've got the wires run and I can add >in the necessary bits and pieces later. The 9011 exists right now. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf This could be re-programmed and offered with a variety of capabilities controlled by software. The package shown is going to house perhaps a dozen new products on the drawing board. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
Subject: Re: dampening circuit request
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I think I actually like the 'flicker' effect associated with being right on the edge of min capacity. If the volume in the tank is dropping slowly, then the flickering will start very intermittently, gradually grow more frequent, then finally the light will stay on continuously. If, however, the level is dropping rapidly (developed serious leak), then the light will go from always off to always on very quickly - indicating that landing as soon as possible is the best bet. Procedurally, check the level in the system prior to starting the engine and make the go-no-go level significantly higher than the sensor level. Then, if the light turns on while on a flight of normal length, you _know_ you have a leak. Matt- > > > >> >> >>Bob, Thanks for your suggestions. >> >> > First, a long time-delay (resistor/capacitor) >> > is the simplest but its an integrator of amplitude >> > with time. It prevents a jittering light but will >> > not insure that it never flashes at or during >> > operation at the level transition. >> >>I'm not sure I understand what you've written here. >> >>If I have 300cc in my 500cc tank, and I set >>the sensor at about the 100cc level, then >>a bit of sloshing should not cause the light >>to flicker. However, if the level gets to >>about 150cc or below, I might see flickering. >>Is that what you are saying? > > Yes . . . or even 110cc or 120cc etc. The closer > you get to the "calibrated" switch point, the more > likely you are to get periodic false lights. However, > if you see ANY light for even a transient condition > at say 150cc (1/2 normal) then there has been an > observable loss of liquid. It seems immaterial whether > the real average level = 100cc calibrated or 150cc > and produces transient trips. In this case, the latching > circuit is easy to implement and does the job. > > >> > Given your particular application, you're not really >> > interested in minute/by/minute interpretation of a >> > level in the tank . . . like for a consumable (fuel). >> >>Exactly. >> >> > If the level is so low that the light comes on even >> > once, then and investigation and remedy is called for. >> > What may work best for you is a latching circuit. >> > A small relay with holding contacts rigged so that >> > once actuated, the light stays on until reset (momentary >> > power down). >> >>This would be fine as long as I can be reasonably sure >>it is not a false alarm. >> >> > The 9011 module I've cited in other posts will be >> > re-incarnated as a low fuel warning for tanks with >> > floats. The presence of a microcontroller allows us >> > to craft warning protocols where the light doesn't >> > come on until the float voltage is at or below the >> > trip point for say 50% or more of the last 30 seconds. >> > After that, the light stays on until the voltage is >> > above the trip point for say 100% of the last two >> > minutes. >> >>That sounds perfect! >> >> > This would offer slosh filtering and precise, no >> > hesitation operation of the warning lights. >> > >> > As you might guess, the options and approaches >> > to solution are great in number. What is your vision >> > of the elegant solution? >> >>What you describe above sounds great, in terms of >>function. I have no idea what kind of packaging >>would be required for the microprocessor, but >>obviously the smaller the better! >> >>Perhaps if the 9011 solution is a ways down the road, >>you could tell me how to hook up the previously mentioned >>simple solution with the resister/capacitor. No hurry >>on this - I've got the wires run and I can add >>in the necessary bits and pieces later. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN)
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" nuckollsr(at)cox.net >>Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN) > > Bob, most of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic? > > It is not a debate of IF you should use a I-VR alternator, but I will >try to address you question, fully knowing you will never be >satisfied. >>Bob N wrote >>If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, >>schematics, test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I >>expect no less. >> > Just call them Bob. What's the big deal? >>Bob you provide a wealth of knowledge and experience. I think >>we all can say is of immense help and enjoyment to us amateur >>airplane electricians. Your help to airplane builders in garages >>and hangers world over is with out dispute. Even if I don't agree >>with you, that does not mean I don't understand your point or >>disrespect your accomplishments. >>You can't have it both ways George. If my experience and >>accomplishments have value, then there must be some useful >>application of tools and philosophies upon which those >>accomplishments are based. In one breath you extol the >>virtues of those accomplishments, and in the next you brush >>my opinion aside because it does not agree with the one you >>formed by calling folks on the phone. I talk to lots of people >>and I read lots of data sheets but these are STARTING places . . . >>I asked you to help explain the inner workings of an exemplar >>regulator with a goal of seeing if advertising hype (and the opinions >>of those you talked to on the phone) have foundation in physics >>and simple-ideas. **Bob we have fundamental and philosophical differences. You want to know the esoteric. I on the other hand want to understand how to install and operate internally regulated ND alternator by looking at real world operational issues, we all can learn from. When I say WE, I mean I-VR alternator users. This is not a debate about I-VR Vs. E-VR, engineers or spec sheets. **Only you know what you want to know. A true scientist is unbiased. You are a smart guy; go figure it out. Get an aftermarket ND I-VR; They can cost $15-$25. Buy one and test it. Better yet go to the auto store and buy lester 14684 (aka Vans Alt). Test it. You seem to ask questions for questions sake. If you read what I have written, than you know how I recommend to install and use an I-VR. If you want to verify spec sheets, knock yourself out. DO IT, but stop talking about it. **You always talk about testing, but you rarely do what you say you are going to do. I can't count how many times you said, I am going to test such and such, but your test data never materializes? Just do the research yourself and stop asking me. OK, thanks. :-) We are all counting on U. **Some how to make a point, you ask questions that people can not or need not really answer (to your liking). It's a waste of time. USE DATA WE HAVE. Trust it or don't trust it, that's your business. The rest of us want to go fly and learn from other users of alternators with I-VR's. **The data you want, IF YOU REALLY WANT IT, is out there. I think you are just blowing smoke Bob. A true scientist or engineer does not need to be spoon fed info but goes out and gets it. Go get it Bob. >>After sorting out the sand in data sheets, it's a good idea >>to hit lab and RUN the thing. It's not common but I've discovered >>things about people's products that they had no understanding >>of (and we didn't either until after a few $hundred thousands$ >>went down the tubes in warranty work). **Agreed, you are smart, spec sheets can be wrong. So? **Let me tell you where WE, us homebuilders are coming from. WE want to fly, be safe and have fun. We want a good, inexpensive, reliable, easily installed alternator that can be replaced anywh The 9011 exists right now. See: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf > > This could be re-programmed and offered with a variety > of capabilities controlled by software. The package > shown is going to house perhaps a dozen new products on > the drawing board. > > Bob . . . > > ere in the country cheaply with a visit to a local AUTOPART store. Not a custom, esoteric single source supplier specialty item (B&C). I LOVE that you want to know the nitty-gritty of a spec sheet verses the real world. GREAT! U-Da-Man! ** **Go get'em Bob. My apathy is not born of ignorance but practicality. Practically speaking it has worked in my plane and others for 10,000's of hours with no problem. It has also worked in MILLION'S of cars trucks and industrial equipment all over the works for over two decades. Test all you want. I don't need to test a wheel to see if it will roll. I do want to learn what the best tire pressure is so I can put fill it properly for best service.** ****I understand there are unknowns of the I-VR, but those unknowns are falling fast as WE, I-VR users talk and compare notes. Understanding the advantages of the I-VR as well as the limitations is critical. OK. In the past much IGNORANCE was stated as fact on this list, most if it negative and faults. This is so anti-scientific I could puke. I am not saying the I- VR is perfect, the greatest thing since sliced bread BUT lets get real. THERE ARE REAL ADVANTAGES INSIDE THE I-VR AND IN USING THEM. The whole industry of small alternators has gone to I-VR.***** **Lets, understand the real characteristics of the I-VR for airplane operations, instead of lies & exaggerated OV tales. Understanding the different ways they might fail and the symptoms prior to failure is what we NEED. Details about a schematic or how engineers don't know what they are doing is NOT important, except to you Mr. Bob N. You have a crusade that you campaign. You also are VERY biased. It gets in the way of being the teacher, engineer and scientist you fancy yourself as. I still like you Bob, but you really have PO'ed a few people with this attitude that WE need to prove things to YOU. Take it or leave it, but leave it alone if you do not want to pursue it. Prove that is NOT that way. Sue me. **That is not what WE want. I am sorry. I can't give you the knowledge you seek oh wise one, this is a journey you must walk alone Sparky. **This is not a big deal; Its an alternator. NO BIGGIE. There are millions and millions of these ND alternators all over the world working famously. They can't be all bad. They DO IN FACT HAVE control and logic functions. I guess if you want to know the info, it's there. Asking me a billion times will not change the fact I-VR have some real advantage over E-VR's. Sorry Bob, Sorry B&C. >>Real engineering (and teaching) can be accomplished only when >>the activities are supported by an understanding and artful >>assemblage of simple-ideas. If you choose to drive your career >>and tutelage based on telephone conversations and faithful >>acceptance of bang-for-the-buck-bullets on data sheets, it's >>your choice - but not mine. What you have accepted and now >>promote as FACT has yet to be demonstrated. >> >>I'll publish the MC33092 trade study to show others on the list >>how the most successful engineering is conducted. By the way, >>"work product" is anything which you have created. The trade >>study will be my work product based on the products of others >>offered as a potential guide for the future efforts of still >>more folks. That's what engineers do George . . . make sure >>all the bits and pieces fit smoothly into the whole. >> >>Bob . . . **Bob N: Sorry, all I got from your above is blaaa blaaa, real engineer, blaaa, blaaa blaaa, bang-for-the-buck-bullets, blaaa, blaaa , career and tutelage, blaaa, blaaa blaaa. Whisky Tango Foxtrot! Focus, focus focus Bob! Stick to the topic, for once. ** I know you are trying to tell me how important this is to you. I BELIEVE YOU. However my apathy is not for lack of intelligence, education or ability. Its that I don't care as an end user. Why? Because I have over 1000 hour of reliable trouble free I-VR experience and my plane is wired so if it does fail, the chance of causing harm to me or the airframe is S000OOOooo remote, I can accept it (without a crow bar) using a CB, manually opened. **With more operational experience of others WE have improved OUR installation and OUR operational philosophy. My rule is essentially wire and operate the alternator as if it where in the vehicle it was designed for. I have some additional recommendations, below as a PS. **Here are the top of the line CB's for the B-lead disconnect: http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-6752-12.htm http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-6752-1xx.htm **If you want to look over Nippondenso or Motorola's REAL engineers who designed the thing in the first place, go for it. I CAN'T tell you how they design and make an IC chip, like an Intel Pentium chip, but I know how to write an e-mail and call them and ask how it works. I know the general theory of semiconductors and silicon wafers, but I don't need to know everything about every IC to use a computer or alternator. I think the engineers at these companies know a thing or two about testing Bob. **I will concede and leave the REAL engineering to you. Good luck. I suggest you pick up the phone and start to ask people who manufacture the stuff. They may be able to guide you in a direction that will further your knowledge. IF YOU DON'T TRY YOU WILL LEARN NOTHING. **If you have any questions on how the I-VR work and not all the blaaa blaaa, just ask me Mr. Bob N. I'll try to help you like I help anyone who has a genuine I-VR question or concern. Again THIS IS NOT about can you, should you, pros and cons or the I-VR verses E-VR. This is just for people who USE the gosh darn I-VR. Once YOU understand WE ARE GOING TO USE IT NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, than it'll get easier for you Bob. Help or get out of the way Sir. **Bob, please stop asking irrelevant questions for 99.9% of us, the users of I-VR. We don't want stories or guesses either. The more we talk about installation issues and REAL operational characteristics the better we will understand how they work. Does B&C publish the internal design for YOUR voltage regulator by the way? If so I want a copy. Single point failure? **As far as COLD temp characteristics, THIS IS INTERESTING. This is a real world field TEST. I never operated in these temps. So the point, is this a NORMAL operating characteristics?; Next time anyone fly's in fringed weather, sees a delay in charge or no charge until a specific RPM, we know what's going on, good or bad. THAT IS IMPORTANT and PRACTICAL. Bob, you have to think like a PILOT more on operational issues, than just the esoterica of an electrical system. **All the other personal stuff and REAL engineer comments are pointless, Sparky. :-) I respect your position, I just think it adds no real value unless you are going to get the first certified I-VR. Being experimental DON'T CARE. **Take Care George (you owe me a book btw) **PS some of my personal rules for installing and using a I-VR alternator: Besides wiring and using the alternator as if it where installed in the vehicle it was designed for, I recommend cooling air on the VR, no continuous duty over 75% and pullable CB on panel for B-lead. Also check or replace brushes every 200 to 500 hours. (I think they cost $1.95 each.) Be sure to use the warning light and remote voltage sense IF IT HAS ONE. NOT ALL ND alternators have remote sense. Vans 14684 does NOT have remote volt sense. Also don't screw with turning the alternator ON/OFF while its turning under load. WHY? Because every guy I know of that does this seems to have problems and it DOES NOT work that way in a Toyota or Geo Metro. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCEINCE. Last and I know this makes Bob mad, don't put an OV relay and crow-bar unless you are darn sure it will not trip unnecessarily. Since nuisance trips are hard to guarantee against, I would not do it at all, but that is an individual choice. ALL manuals for ND alternator installation say DO NOT operate the alternator with out the battery connected to the battery. (sorry Paul). An OV relay does just that and can damage the alternator. Its fine if you actually have an OV, but the chance of a OV that you can't fix by manual opening of the CB is REAL slim, if you follow basics. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com>
Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN)
I'm new to this list, but... the tone of the message below is, IMHO, appalling. Surely this list is not the place for such hyperbolic personal attacks. May I also respectfully suggest, gmcpilot, you are a little presumptuous to claim to speak for "WE builders". You don't speak for me. Please lighten up, and keep to technical discussion, without all the personal invective. That's why most of us subscribe. Thanks. Ron gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote: > >>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" nuckollsr(at)cox.net >>>Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN) > > > > >>AeroElectric-List message posted by: >> >>Bob, most of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic? >> >>It is not a debate of IF you should use a I-VR alternator, but I will >>try to address you question, fully knowing you will never be >>satisfied. > > > >>>Bob N wrote >>>If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, >>>schematics, test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I >>>expect no less. >>> > > > >> Just call them Bob. What's the big deal? > > > >>Bob you provide a wealth of knowledge and experience. I think > >>>we all can say is of immense help and enjoyment to us amateur >>>airplane electricians. Your help to airplane builders in garages >>>and hangers world over is with out dispute. Even if I don't agree >>>with you, that does not mean I don't understand your point or >>>disrespect your accomplishments. > > >>You can't have it both ways George. If my experience and > >>>accomplishments have value, then there must be some useful >>>application of tools and philosophies upon which those >>>accomplishments are based. In one breath you extol the >>>virtues of those accomplishments, and in the next you brush >>>my opinion aside because it does not agree with the one you >>>formed by calling folks on the phone. I talk to lots of people >>>and I read lots of data sheets but these are STARTING places . . . > > > >>>I asked you to help explain the inner workings of an exemplar >>>regulator with a goal of seeing if advertising hype (and the opinions >>>of those you talked to on the phone) have foundation in physics >>>and simple-ideas. > > > > **Bob we have fundamental and philosophical differences. You want to > know the esoteric. I on the other hand want to understand how to install > and operate internally regulated ND alternator by looking at real world > operational issues, we all can learn from. When I say WE, I mean I-VR > alternator users. This is not a debate about I-VR Vs. E-VR, engineers or > spec sheets. > > **Only you know what you want to know. A true scientist is unbiased. > You are a smart guy; go figure it out. Get an aftermarket ND I-VR; They > can cost $15-$25. Buy one and test it. Better yet go to the auto store and > buy lester 14684 (aka Vans Alt). Test it. You seem to ask questions for > questions sake. If you read what I have written, than you know how I > recommend to install and use an I-VR. If you want to verify spec sheets, > knock yourself out. DO IT, but stop talking about it. > > **You always talk about testing, but you rarely do what you say you > are going to do. I can't count how many times you said, I am going to test > such and such, but your test data never materializes? Just do the research > yourself and stop asking me. OK, thanks. :-) We are all counting on U. > > **Some how to make a point, you ask questions that people can not or > need not really answer (to your liking). It's a waste of time. USE DATA > WE HAVE. Trust it or don't trust it, that's your business. The rest of us > want to go fly and learn from other users of alternators with I-VR's. > > **The data you want, IF YOU REALLY WANT IT, is out there. I think you > are just blowing smoke Bob. A true scientist or engineer does not need to > be spoon fed info but goes out and gets it. Go get it Bob. > > >>>After sorting out the sand in data sheets, it's a good idea >>>to hit lab and RUN the thing. It's not common but I've discovered >>>things about people's products that they had no understanding >>>of (and we didn't either until after a few $hundred thousands$ >>>went down the tubes in warranty work). > > > **Agreed, you are smart, spec sheets can be wrong. So? > > > **Let me tell you where WE, us homebuilders are coming from. WE > want to fly, be safe and have fun. We want a good, inexpensive, reliable, > easily installed alternator that can be replaced anywhere in the country > cheaply with a visit to a local AUTOPART store. Not a custom, esoteric > single source supplier specialty item (B&C). I LOVE that you want to know > the nitty-gritty of a spec sheet verses the real world. GREAT! U-Da-Man! ** > > > > **Go get'em Bob. My apathy is not born of ignorance but practicality. > Practically speaking it has worked in my plane and others for 10,000's of > hours with no problem. It has also worked in MILLION'S of cars trucks > and industrial equipment all over the works for over two decades. Test all > you want. I don't need to test a wheel to see if it will roll. I do want to learn > what the best tire pressure is so I can put fill it properly for best service.** > > > ****I understand there are unknowns of the I-VR, but those unknowns are > falling fast as WE, I-VR users talk and compare notes. Understanding the > advantages of the I-VR as well as the limitations is critical. OK. In the > past much IGNORANCE was stated as fact on this list, most if it negative > and faults. This is so anti-scientific I could puke. I am not saying the I- > VR is perfect, the greatest thing since sliced bread BUT lets get real. > THERE ARE REAL ADVANTAGES INSIDE THE I-VR AND IN USING > THEM. The whole industry of small alternators has gone to I-VR.***** > > > > **Lets, understand the real characteristics of the I-VR for airplane > operations, instead of lies & exaggerated OV tales. Understanding the > different ways they might fail and the symptoms prior to failure is what we > NEED. Details about a schematic or how engineers don't know what they > are doing is NOT important, except to you Mr. Bob N. You have a > crusade that you campaign. You also are VERY biased. It gets in the way > of being the teacher, engineer and scientist you fancy yourself as. I still > like you Bob, but you really have PO'ed a few people with this attitude > that WE need to prove things to YOU. Take it or leave it, but leave it alone > if you do not want to pursue it. Prove that is NOT that way. Sue me. > > > **That is not what WE want. I am sorry. I can't give you the knowledge > you seek oh wise one, this is a journey you must walk alone Sparky. > > > **This is not a big deal; Its an alternator. NO BIGGIE. There are millions > and millions of these ND alternators all over the world working famously. > They can't be all bad. They DO IN FACT HAVE control and logic > functions. I guess if you want to know the info, it's there. Asking me a > billion times will not change the fact I-VR have some real advantage over > E-VR's. Sorry Bob, Sorry B&C. > > > >>Real engineering (and teaching) can be accomplished only when > >>>the activities are supported by an understanding and artful >>>assemblage of simple-ideas. If you choose to drive your career >>>and tutelage based on telephone conversations and faithful >>>acceptance of bang-for-the-buck-bullets on data sheets, it's >>>your choice - but not mine. What you have accepted and now >>>promote as FACT has yet to be demonstrated. >>> >>>I'll publish the MC33092 trade study to show others on the list >>>how the most successful engineering is conducted. By the way, >>>"work product" is anything which you have created. The trade >>>study will be my work product based on the products of others >>>offered as a potential guide for the future efforts of still >>>more folks. That's what engineers do George . . . make sure >>>all the bits and pieces fit smoothly into the whole. >>> >>>Bob . . . > > > > **Bob N: Sorry, all I got from your above is blaaa blaaa, real engineer, > blaaa, blaaa blaaa, bang-for-the-buck-bullets, blaaa, blaaa , career and > tutelage, blaaa, blaaa blaaa. Whisky Tango Foxtrot! Focus, focus focus > Bob! Stick to the topic, for once. > > > ** I know you are trying to tell me how important this is to you. I BELIEVE > YOU. However my apathy is not for lack of intelligence, education or ability. > Its that I don't care as an end user. Why? Because I have over 1000 hour > of reliable trouble free I-VR experience and my plane is wired so if it does > fail, the chance of causing harm to me or the airframe is S000OOOooo > remote, I can accept it (without a crow bar) using a CB, manually opened. > > **With more operational experience of others WE have improved OUR > installation and OUR operational philosophy. My rule is essentially wire > and operate the alternator as if it where in the vehicle it was designed for. > I have some additional recommendations, below as a PS. > > > **Here are the top of the line CB's for the B-lead disconnect: > http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-6752-12.htm > http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-6752-1xx.htm > > > **If you want to look over Nippondenso or Motorola's REAL engineers > who designed the thing in the first place, go for it. I CAN'T tell you how > they design and make an IC chip, like an Intel Pentium chip, but I know > how to write an e-mail and call them and ask how it works. I know the > general theory of semiconductors and silicon wafers, but I don't need to > know everything about every IC to use a computer or alternator. I think > the engineers at these companies know a thing or two about testing Bob. > > > **I will concede and leave the REAL engineering to you. Good luck. I > suggest you pick up the phone and start to ask people who manufacture > the stuff. They may be able to guide you in a direction that will further > your knowledge. IF YOU DON'T TRY YOU WILL LEARN NOTHING. > > > **If you have any questions on how the I-VR work and not all the blaaa > blaaa, just ask me Mr. Bob N. I'll try to help you like I help anyone who > has a genuine I-VR question or concern. Again THIS IS NOT about can you, > should you, pros and cons or the I-VR verses E-VR. This is just for > people who USE the gosh darn I-VR. Once YOU understand WE ARE > GOING TO USE IT NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, than it'll get > easier for you Bob. Help or get out of the way Sir. > > > **Bob, please stop asking irrelevant questions for 99.9% of us, the users > of I-VR. We don't want stories or guesses either. The more we talk about > installation issues and REAL operational characteristics the better we will > understand how they work. Does B&C publish the internal design for > YOUR voltage regulator by the way? If so I want a copy. Single point failure? > > > **As far as COLD temp characteristics, THIS IS INTERESTING. This is > a real world field TEST. I never operated in these temps. So the point, > is this a NORMAL operating characteristics?; Next time anyone fly's > in fringed weather, sees a delay in charge or no charge until a specific > RPM, we know what's going on, good or bad. THAT IS IMPORTANT > and PRACTICAL. Bob, you have to think like a PILOT more on > operational issues, than just the esoterica of an electrical system. > > **All the other personal stuff and REAL engineer comments are pointless, > Sparky. :-) I respect your position, I just think it adds no real value unless > you are going to get the first certified I-VR. Being experimental DON'T CARE. > > > **Take Care George (you owe me a book btw) > > > **PS some of my personal rules for installing and using a I-VR > alternator: Besides wiring and using the alternator as if it where installed > in the vehicle it was designed for, I recommend cooling air on the VR, no > continuous duty over 75% and pullable CB on panel for B-lead. Also > check or replace brushes every 200 to 500 hours. (I think they cost $1.95 > each.) Be sure to use the warning light and remote voltage sense IF IT > HAS ONE. NOT ALL ND alternators have remote sense. Vans 14684 > does NOT have remote volt sense. Also don't screw with turning the > alternator ON/OFF while its turning under load. WHY? Because every > guy I know of that does this seems to have problems and it DOES NOT > work that way in a Toyota or Geo Metro. THIS IS NOT ROCKET > SCEINCE. Last and I know this makes Bob mad, don't put an OV relay > and crow-bar unless you are darn sure it will not trip unnecessarily. Since > nuisance trips are hard to guarantee against, I would not do it at all, but > that is an individual choice. ALL manuals for ND alternator installation > say DO NOT operate the alternator with out the battery connected to the > battery. (sorry Paul). An OV relay does just that and can damage the > alternator. Its fine if you actually have an OV, but the chance of a OV that > you can't fix by manual opening of the CB is REAL slim, if you follow basics. > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN)
Date: Mar 01, 2006
Ron, This tirade is typical of jmcjetpilot and has been going on for some time. I don't know where Bob gets the patience. I love good, productive banter and disagreement. I've been hoping for a new tone from this poster for too long. I'm not even involved in the discussion and I've finally had enough and have come to the conclusion that a new mail filter is going into my mail client that transfers mail from this poster directly to the trash. It's just not worth the time. On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Ron Shannon wrote: > I'm new to this list, but... the tone of the message below is, IMHO, > appalling. Surely this list is not the place for such hyperbolic > personal attacks. May I also respectfully suggest, gmcpilot, you are a > little presumptuous to claim to speak for "WE builders". You don't > speak > for me. > > Please lighten up, and keep to technical discussion, without all the > personal invective. That's why most of us subscribe. Thanks. > > Ron Best Regards, Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com>
Subject: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (BobN)
Steve, Understood, and agreed. Nothing wrong with robust debate, and I too favor erring on the side of openness and inclusion of wide-ranging expression. But as you say, simple common courtesy requires _some_ limits. No doubt, we would all do well to review the policies Matronics provides for congenial usage of these fine lists, which do address appropriate online behavior. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming -- all about them @$%&@# LED's, alternators, and crowbar thingys! ;-) Ron Steve Thomas wrote: > > Ron, > > This tirade is typical of jmcjetpilot and has been going on for some > time. I don't know where Bob gets the patience. I love good, > productive banter and disagreement. I've been hoping for a new tone > from this poster for too long. I'm not even involved in the > discussion and I've finally had enough and have come to the > conclusion that a new mail filter is going into my mail client that > transfers mail from this poster directly to the trash. It's just not > worth the time. > > > On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Ron Shannon wrote: > > >>I'm new to this list, but... the tone of the message below is, IMHO, >>appalling. Surely this list is not the place for such hyperbolic >>personal attacks. May I also respectfully suggest, gmcpilot, you are a >>little presumptuous to claim to speak for "WE builders". You don't >>speak >>for me. >> >>Please lighten up, and keep to technical discussion, without all the >>personal invective. That's why most of us subscribe. Thanks. >> >>Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Bill Czygan <bczygan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: FAA Lighting requirements link
You guys probably already have a copy of the FAA requirements for lighting distribution. But for those that don't, here's a link: http://home.comcast.net/~czy/Anticollision_lights.pdf Bill Czygan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com>
Subject: Bob Hoover Air Show]
Fasten your seat belts people. *WOW...quite a performance by the famous pilot Bob Hoover. * ** *Click here: *http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQpVI_aldB0&search=aircraft <http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQpVI_aldB0&search=aircraft> ** *A* ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: FAA Lighting requirements link
Here are the relevant sections of the FAR: http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1385.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1387.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1389.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1391.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1393.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1395.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1397.html For anti-collision lights http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-1401.html LED position lights (especially the tail light) can have a tough time meeting 23.1391 though 23.1395. You have to fill the complete pattern with at least the candlepower specified. Many folks just stick some LEDs on the wingtips and figure it "looks good" without ever actually measuring the light output at all angles. I used a computer model to design my lights so they would give proper coverage with the optimum number of LEDs. It was not at all a simple task. Bill Dube' Bill Czygan wrote: > >You guys probably already have a copy of the FAA requirements for >lighting distribution. But for those that don't, here's a link: > > http://home.comcast.net/~czy/Anticollision_lights.pdf > > Bill Czygan > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Seminar in Bloomington, IL
We've finalized an agreement to do a weekend seminar in EAA Chapter 129's hangar on the 4/5th of November in Bloomington, Illinois. Details at: http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Bloomington.html Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Dampening circuit request
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> Subject: AeroElectric-List: dampening circuit request Hi gurus of electrons, As I mentioned in another thread, I want to have a sensor that tells me when my coolant level is too low. I've ordered a Gems Sensors ELS-900, 12 VDC, Dry, 1/4" NPT, $54, part number 205300: http://www.gemssensors.com/SpecTemplateStandard.asp?nProductGroupID=3D307 which is basically an optical on/off switch when it goes from wet to dry. When the coolant is sloshing around in the tank I suspect that my warning lamp will be flickering on and off. Does anyone know of a very simple way I could "dampen" this so that the warning light will only come on if the sensor goes dry for some period of time? Thanks, Mickey Not trying to dampen anything here Mickey, but why are you trying to fix a problem that you don't even know that you have? Seems to me it would be best to just fly the airplane and if it appears that a fix is needed then deal with it as necessary. Deke ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Dampening circuit request
> > > > Not trying to dampen anything here Mickey, but why are you trying to > > fix a problem that you don't even know that you have? Seems to me it > > would be best to just fly the airplane and if it appears that a fix > > is needed then deal with it as necessary. > >Hi Deke, > >Not a bad idea. I was hoping that the response to my >question would be something along the lines of >"Heck, everyone knows you slap a 99 cent flux capacitor >between the alpha and the gamma leads of your sensor, >and that dampens it for ya." > >I'm pedaling as fast as I can on this electronics stuff! > >-- >Mickey Coggins >http://www.rv8.ch/ >#82007 finishing Deke's point is well taken. I'm not convinced that any auxiliary circuitry beyond perhaps the latching relay is called for. With low fuel warnings (a commodity that is used up EVERY flight) monitored by floats driving analog gages, the gages are often lubricated with 50,000 centistoke silicon oil. The gage is fully free to move on lubricated pivots but is damped to the extreme by the very viscous oil. This is why most folks are unaware of how variable the signal is coming in from the potentiometer on the float . . . If you're in very rough air, the voltage could be very hard to interpret without dampening systems of some type. In the case of your coolant warning, it's a small tank. You're also monitoring a fluid level that is expected to be fixed well above the warning point for all phases of all flights. The fact that you get any warning (flickering or not) is like the low voltage, low vacuum, low oil pressure, etc lights coming on. At this point, filtering or dampening for the purpose of having an orderly behavior of lights on the panel is a secondary concern. It's an event that should not be happening and demands attention. My sense is that the photo/optical sensor you've ordered will work just fine. Go ahead and stick it through the tank wall as planned. I doubt that you're going to discover some operational quirks that demand extraordinary signal conditioning. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Dampening circuit request
Hi Mickey Deke has echoed my thoughts. I'm enjoying following this thread but having spent a couple of years converting a Subaru and obsessing too much over various issues, this one really doesn't sound like it is worth worrying about. I'd also just put the sensor somewhere in the bottom third of the tank and fly it. The liquid level will rise as the coolant heats up of course. Each to his own but I'm finding that my simplest solutions are turning out to be the best and have the least complications. I used a 0 to 28 psi pressure sensor with an EIS 4000 and initial ground running looks like it is going to work very well for a coolant loss monitor for me. It seems to largely track the coolant temperature so far. I did use a semi-transparent plastic reservoir from a Volvo so that the preflight level can be checked so that might be why I'm less concerned about monitoring the exact level. Ken Fox5flyer wrote: > >From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: dampening circuit request >Hi gurus of electrons, >As I mentioned in another thread, I want to have >a sensor that tells me when my coolant level is >too low. > >I've ordered a Gems Sensors ELS-900, 12 VDC, Dry, >1/4" NPT, $54, part number 205300: > >http://www.gemssensors.com/SpecTemplateStandard.asp?nProductGroupID=3D307 > >which is basically an optical on/off switch when it >goes from wet to dry. When the coolant is sloshing >around in the tank I suspect that my warning lamp >will be flickering on and off. Does anyone know of a >very simple way I could "dampen" this so that the >warning light will only come on if the sensor goes >dry for some period of time? > >Thanks, >Mickey > >Not trying to dampen anything here Mickey, but why are you trying to fix a problem that you don't even know that you have? Seems to me it would be best to just fly the airplane and if it appears that a fix is needed then deal with it as necessary. >Deke > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE: George
Date: Mar 02, 2006
AMEN, Harold ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Date: Mar 02, 2006
Subject: Re: RV-List: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Hi Doug, My RV is setup for day/night VFR and I have dual Lightspeeds. I pondered the electrical system options extensively. I originally planned to go with two alternators and one battery. The thing I kept coming back to is that with one battery, you have a single-point failure for the entire electrical system. Notwithstanding the opinion of others to the contrary, it IS possible to have a battery lead break off or come loose. I know people who've had their car quit because of this. I don't know anyone who has had their Lycoming quit from this--yet--but one of the guys on the Aeroelectric List a couple years back did have a battery lead break (in his case it did not result in engine failure, but if he had been using a single battery architecture with dual elec igntion, it would have!). People can argue that it was improper installation or poor maintenance and that's fine, but it has happened and I prefer to design out the possibility in my airplane. Even with dual alternators, if the backup alternator is off and you lose connection to the battery, the alternator is not self-exciting for startup so it does you no good (or at least I wouldn't bank on it). So you lose everything including the engine at that point. I was not personally comfortable with this setup in my plane and decided to go with single alternator, dual battery setup instead. Another advantage to the dual battery setup is that you can avoid the perceived weakness in the Lightspeed system with the Skytec starter that has resulted in damaging kickback with more than one installation. I won't get into the causes and fixes and who's-to-blame thing, but if you have a small backup battery that is isolated from the rest of the elec system, you can use it to power one ignition while cranking the engine from the main battery. This is exactly what I do on my plane with great results so far...I turn on only the ignition powered by the backup battery, leaving the main one off. Crank it and it starts great (even in winter in Iowa, with no primer system). Then I switch on the main ignition and I'm good to go with no chance of kickback from low voltages on the Lightspeed... I wired mine pretty much like Klaus shows with a Schottky diode in between to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the elec system. I elected not to put in a switch like Klaus shows to switch the ignition between main and backup...I didn't see an advantage to it and didn't want to be flipping switches to get my engine started again (would prefer it doesn't quit to begin with!). I simply wired my second igntion directly to the +/- terminals of the backup battery. The main ignition is likewise wired directly to the +/- terminals of the main battery. The only other thing I have connected to the backup battery is a voltmeter just so I can monitor it (note: in my case the path to the voltmeter is switched on/off with the ignition....this is because the voltmeter draws a small current, so if you wired it always-on it would drain the battery while the airplane is powered down). I used a PowerSonic 2.9 Ah battery (PS-1229). It's light and relatively cheap (I think about $25-30...you can Google it and get lots of hits). I plan to change the battery every two years to ensure that it's reasonably fresh. I know Klaus says 4.5 Ah but I thought that was overkill (unless you plan to be flying over some really rugged terrain/ocean with no alternates within an hour or two of flight). The 2.9 Ah batt is theoretically good for almost 3 hours of run time on one ignition (drawing ~ 1A at cruise RPM's). In the unlikely event that I ever find myself operating the engine soley on the backup battery, I will try to have it on the ground within an hour. Remember, if you're flying in that condition it means you've lost everything else in your panel so you're probably not going to be wanting to continue a long XC under those circumstances! If I upgrade to IFR I'll put the backup battery in the Dynon and make sure I have fresh batteries in my handheld comm and GPS. One nice thing about the PS-1229 is that it can fit into the standard Vans battery tray along with an Odyssey PC-680. I have the PC-680 at the back of the tray against the firewall and a piece of angle in front of it (to keep it from sliding forward). The PS-1229 is in the front of the tray. There is about 3/4" of space between the two so any sort of melt down/overheat condition of one battery won't take out the other one. FWIW, I made up a quick checklist in my POH for main alternator failure. If the main alternator quits and I plan to continue my flight for over an hour, I will turn OFF my backup-powered ignition to save the battery just in case it's needed. I will continue to planned destination running the main igntion and reduced panel loads (e-bus) and only turn the backup ignition ON when approaching to land. This way if the main battery craps out on me prior to arrival at my destination I will be able to keep the engine running with the fully-charged backup system. Some may say my setup is overkill, others will think it's inadequate. But it's my airplane and this setup is one that I'm very comfortable with. --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A N2D flying 8.3 hours... Subject: RV-List: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI From: Doug Weiler <dcw(at)mnwing.org> --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Weiler Fellow Listers: I am contemplating converting my mag driven 0-360 to Lightspeed electronic ignition. I may consider the dual Lightspeed installation. Lightspeed calls for a 4.5 amp/hr backup battery (if I so choose). I need something small and light to squeeze this installation in to my RV-4. For those that have done this, what backup battery did you use? Thanks Doug Weiler N722DW, 275 hrs Hi Doug, My RV is setup for day/night VFR and I have dual Lightspeeds. I pondered the electrical system options extensively. I originally planned to go with two alternators and one battery. The thing I kept coming back to is that with one battery, you have a single-point failure for the entire electrical system. Notwithstanding the opinion of others to the contrary, it IS possible to have a battery lead break off or come loose. I know people who've had their car quit because of this. I don't know anyone who has had their Lycoming quit from this--yet--but one of the guys on the Aeroelectric List a couple years back did have a battery lead break (in his case it did not result in engine failure, but if he had been using a single battery architecture with dual elec igntion, it would have!). People can argue that it was improper installation or poor maintenance and that's fine, but it has happened and I prefer to design out the possibility in my airplane. Even with dual alternators, if the backup alternator is off and you lose connection to the battery, the alternator is not self-exciting for startup so it does you no good (or at least I wouldn't bank on it). So you lose everything including the engine at that point. I was not personally comfortable with this setup in my plane and decided to go with single alternator, dual battery setup instead. Another advantage to the dual battery setup is that you can avoid the perceived weakness in the Lightspeed system with the Skytec starter that has resulted in damaging kickback with more than one installation. I won't get into the causes and fixes and who's-to-blame thing, but if you have a small backup battery that is isolated from the rest of the elec system, you can use it to power one ignition while cranking the engine from the main battery. This is exactly what I do on my plane with great results so far...I turn on only the ignition powered by the backup battery, leaving the main one off. Crank it and it starts great (even in winter in Iowa, with no primer system). Then I switch on the main ignition and I'm good to go with no chance of kickback from low voltages on the Lightspeed... I wired mine pretty much like Klaus shows with a Schottky diode in between to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the elec system. I elected not to put in a switch like Klaus shows to switch the ignition between main and backup...I didn't see an advantage to it and didn't want to be flipping switches to get my engine started again (would prefer it doesn't quit to begin with!). I simply wired my second igntion directly to the +/- terminals of the backup battery. The main ignition is likewise wired directly to the +/- terminals of the main battery. The only other thing I have connected to the backup battery is a voltmeter just so I can monitor it (note: in my case the path to the voltmeter is switched on/off with the ignition....this is because the voltmeter draws a small current, so if you wired it always-on it would drain the battery while the airplane is powered down). I used a PowerSonic 2.9 Ah battery (PS-1229). It's light and relatively cheap (I think about $25-30...you can Google it and get lots of hits). I plan to change the battery every two years to ensure that it's reasonably fresh. I know Klaus says 4.5 Ah but I thought that was overkill (unless you plan to be flying over some really rugged terrain/ocean with no alternates within an hour or two of flight). The 2.9 Ah batt is theoretically good for almost 3 hours of run time on one ignition (drawing ~ 1A at cruise RPM's). In the unlikely event that I ever find myself operating the engine soley on the backup battery, I will try to have it on the ground within an hour. Remember, if you're flying in that condition it means you've lost everything else in your panel so you're probably not going to be wanting to continue a long XC under those circumstances! If I upgrade to IFR I'll put the backup battery in the Dynon and make sure I have fresh batteries in my handheld comm and GPS. One nice thing about the PS-1229 is that it can fit into the standard Vans battery tray along with an Odyssey PC-680. I have the PC-680 at the back of the tray against the firewall and a piece of angle in front of it (to keep it from sliding forward). The PS-1229 is in the front of the tray. There is about 3/4" of space between the two so any sort of melt down/overheat condition of one battery won't take out the other one. FWIW, I made up a quick checklist in my POH for main alternator failure. If the main alternator quits and I plan to continue my flight for over an hour, I will turn OFF my backup-powered ignition to save the battery just in case it's needed. I will continue to planned destination running the main igntion and reduced panel loads (e-bus) and only turn the backup ignition ON when approaching to land. This way if the main battery craps out on me prior to arrival at my destination I will be able to keep the engine running with the fully-charged backup system. Some may say my setup is overkill, others will think it's inadequate. But it's my airplane and this setup is one that I'm very comfortable with. --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A N2D flying 8.3 hours... Subject: RV-List: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI From: Doug Weiler dcw(at)mnwing.org -- RV-List message posted by: Doug Weiler dcw(at)mnwing.org Fellow Listers: I am contemplating converting my mag driven 0-360 to Lightspeed electronic ignition. I may consider the dual Lightspeed installation. Lightspeed calls for a 4.5 amp/hr backup battery (if I so choose). I need something small and light to squeeze this installation in to my RV-4. For those that have done this, what backup battery did you use? Thanks Doug Weiler N722DW, 275 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Strange people behavior in debate
I don't know about tirade, may be helpful tirade. Its no different in tone or content than anything Bob writes. If you are mad that I disagree than that is ridiculous, OK. Get over it, please :-) If I say something improper, not true or unfair, than point out a specific thing I said. I'll apologize if I said something wrong. I feel I said nothing wrong, except to disagree with the Bob N, which is a crime? Any *specific* comment where I said something NOT true? Speak up. Try reading what I write with a smile on your face and in good humor, because that is the way I write it. :-) Think of it as a light hearted comments with a smile and friendly suggestions. I don't understand 90% of what Bob writes sometimes. It makes no sense, and I mean it. Sorry? It is true. You translate some of the comments he makes. I am not alone on this either folks. This is not to be hurtful. Bob talks about REAL engineers, he saved the day stories, strange analogies and phrases (bucket of bullets) and all kind of weird stuff I don't understand not related to the topic. I don't think I am alone here? Besides the I-VR, the other RED flag topic is ENGINEERS. Somehow he loves to make comments how he and only he showed some engineers why something was wrong. OK. I find that arrogant. If you did not know it, this list HATES engineers? Why? I am laughing. No one is perfect, especially me, but if you want a tirade, I learned it from Bob N. ; -) *Is that enough emoticons?* For gosh darn sakes, lighten up folks. It is suppose to be fun. This is just an alternator. Get perspective. Do what ever you want. This is America I can say what I want as long as it is not intended to damage. You all have thin skin. I have help many, look at that. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes and its OK to say, HEY you're naked. Some how Bob makes everything personal, and disagreeing is an insult. He especially sees RED when it involves I-VR's. Let me do a little bragging like Bob does. ;-) lol , hahahaha Since I have started my (helpful) tirades on this list there's NOW open dialog on the topic, more people willing to make comments on their I- VR. People where afraid to EVEN admit they used an I-VR before. Many useful details about wiring, operation and maintenance have been discussed in the last year. I had something to to do with it. Biggest improvement? Problems are now reported accurately. Before every problem big or small was OH MY this GUY had smoke and $30,000 dollars of damage from a ND alternator! Yea RIGHT. Now a REALITY check (we now know the above is not true) Read everything Bob has written you will find Bob's not a fan of I-VR alternators and does not recommend using them. He will play along, but his heart is not into it, OK. That is cool. Bob does not support or know much about I-VR's by his own admission. Bob has no incentive or desire to really promote and understand I- VR alternators. If he did he would have tested them by now. Look at the Plane Power Guy, he put effort into it, produces an I-VR's with a self contained crow-bar. Brilliant. Of course he charges a lot for his alternators, but theres NO reason we can not modify our stock alternators the same way. Would Bob lead the effort? (NO) Why? It would take business away from his buddies at B&C. We all understand that and that is cool. (NONE OF THE ABOVE IS BAD, I AM OK WITH ALL OF IT) (AND IF I AM WRONG SHOW ME WHERE I AM WORNG?) (I DO MAKE conjecture, but come on, you all know its true.) When I say WE, who is WE? Well it is not YOU. :-) There are lots of people who use I-VR alternators with no add on OV protection. If that is YOU than you are part of We or Us. If this does not describe YOU, than you are not part of the group. Don't YOU be so presumptuous in thinking I was talking about you. YOU know who YOU are. ;-) (am I emoticon-ing enough?) I do speak for a LARGE group. The group thinks that I-VR are safe and can be used with out all the sensational, Oh My Gosh OV stories. In a year and 1/2, the only OV reported were below 16 to 18 volts!!! Many times they where precipitated by the pilot doing something dumb like turning the alternator OFF/ON under load. FACT LAST OF MY (helpful) TIRADES There are FOUR things Bob recommends, which are fine for an E-VR, but are counter to safe, efficient use of an I-VR: *Crow-Bar and OV relay: This violates all the warnings the alternator manufacture recommends, ie do not disconnect the b-lead from the battery. I take warnings to heart and try not to out think it. IT SAY NO B-lead disconnect. *Cooling Air- Bob says NO, but that is for alternators with NO I- VR. Fact electronics like to be cool for longer life and greater reliability. *Warning Light- Bob attacks the (I-VR internal) warning light and never mentioned it. OK I'll do some boasting. I am the only one that promoted and recommended its use. Bob was typically negative and said it would not work if the VR failed. WRONG (his bius showing) *Fuse on B-Lead- A CB on this lead is important. Not as important for an E-VR. I suppose a crow-bar OV relay is a substitute for a CB you can manually trip. However item (1) is don't use a crow bar OV relay. Fuses are great in the right place. So back off and have a beer and cool down you ALL. Lol, ha ha, :-) and think of all the happy friendly emoticons you can. I am not going to let bullies bully me. OK. I am gathering just arguing my point passionately and not agreeing with Bob N. is my biggest crime. I am not naive, this is BOB's LIST. Its unfortunate its named after Bob's company. We don't need to change the name, just the attitude; all opinions, even non-aeroelectrical opinions are welcomed. If Bob or the list thinks that open discussion is welcomed they are not being honest. We have the 1000lb Gorilla in the corner. Bring the banana and say nice monkey, all is well. Let the monkey throw poo on you and say nothing or else. Yell at the poo throwing monkey, you will get ripped apart. (Oh no! NOW I'M COMING UP WITH LAME analogies :-0 Bob is rubbing off on me. :-) ha ha ha, but mine make sense. :-) LoL, ha ha ha, Take care all. (I am done with this topic) (fight amongst yourself) Cheers George --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: sparrowhawk2(at)mac.com
Subject: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag
Date: Mar 02, 2006
> > >> >> I'm ditching my old Slick mags and going to one Emag and one Pmag. My >> wiring from switches to mags is from the old Z-9 drawing (same mag >> wiring as in >> Z-11). Emagair says that you should switch off power to both the >> emag and the pmag because there is a drain on the battery when they >> are powered up, so direct wiring from the battery bus without a >> switch is out. Both >> ignitions should be ON during start, as opposed to the disabling of >> the right mag during startup now. Is there a way to retain the >> switches I have, including the momentary "start" function on the left >> mag switch rather than replace the switches with 1-3 switches as in >> Z-12? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jerry Carter >> RV-8A approaching 500 hrs >> >> >> >> >> ------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: GEORGE
Date: Mar 02, 2006
"Tirade, a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language." ...courtesy Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Yes George, it's a TIRADE! You are obviously mentally unstable and I suspect in another manic phase of your bipolar affective disorder. See a psychiatrist, get on some Lithium and rejoin the ranks of polite society. George, you are NOT the moderator of this list, Bob is. You are NOT the reason for the success of this list, Bob is. You do NOT represent a large group of OBAM aircraft enthusiasts, Bob does. Without the immense contribution Bob has made to the OBAM aircraft community WORLDWIDE this list would not exist and you sir, would have no audience at all! If you doubt the simple truth of this, get your own list and moderate it! Then the value of your contribution to the OBAM aircraft community will become immediately obvious. I'm willing to bet a month's wages (remember, I'm an MD, that's a significant wager) that your list would not hold a candle to this list. Just try it and see. Put your money where your mouth is! Rodney ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Strange people behavior in debate
> >Any *specific* comment where I said something NOT true? Speak up. > Okay . . . >Read everything Bob has written you will find Bob's not a fan of >I-VR alternators and does not recommend using them. He will play >along, but his heart is not into it, OK. That is cool. Bob does >not support or know much about I-VR's by his own admission. Not true: This isn't about being a "fan" of anything. The aviation community both commercial and military have adopted design goals that I as supplier to those industries am expected to meet. If a customer walks in the door looking to purchase apples, you don't try to sell them oranges. >Bob has no incentive or desire to really promote and understand I- >VR alternators. If he did he would have tested them by now. Look >at the Plane Power Guy, he put effort into it, produces an I-VR's >with a self contained crow-bar. Brilliant. Of course he charges >a lot for his alternators, but theres NO reason we can not >modify our stock alternators the same way. Would Bob lead >the effort? (NO) Why? It would take business away from his >buddies at B&C. We all understand that and that is cool. Not true: Since day-one, I've said that I cannot recommend the IR alternator because I could deduce no way to incorporate them into systems that comply with the design goals I've cited many times: Ability to turn ON/OFF at will without regard to operating conditions and free of concerns for damage to the alternator or other equipment. You accuse me of distorting science as a means to protect the financial well being of B&C? Shame on you sir! I AM testing some alternators to confirm the design parameters under which some new products will be offered that meet the design goals cited. > There are lots of people who use I-VR alternators with no add on >OV protection. If that is YOU than you are part of We or Us. >If this does not describe YOU, than you are not part of the group. >Don't YOU be so presumptuous in thinking I was talking about >you. YOU know who YOU are. ;-) (am I emoticon-ing enough?) Not true: There are people who don't wear helmets while riding motorcycles and others who do not wear seat belts while driving . . . and the vast majority of those individuals are alive and well today. But at the next roll of the dice . . . OV protection has been a part of engine driven power sources in aircraft (and other $high$ systems) for decades. This is because the risk of OV events is not zero. The vast majority of those who fly without it are no different than those who choose not to incorporate risk mitigation activities in their cars or on their motorcycles. They makes their choices and they takes their chances. Please don't paint me as the heretic because I don't RECOMMEND them in their current form. Folks building OBAM airplanes may do as they wish based on any logic that pleases them. When asked, I've only explained my design decisions and recommendations based on design goals established by the customers who have seen fit to help me raise two families and pay my bills. If folks here on the List find the work products of other suppliers attractive, I would not discourage their use except when they're not supported by common sense. For example, the EXP-Bus probably performs exactly as advertised and I perceive no safety issues. The common sense question here is, "what are you getting for your $time$ and are there alternative solutions with attractive features." But to suggest that I would beat up on anyone for installing an EXP-Bus or a stock IR alternator is contrary to fact. > >I do speak for a LARGE group. The group thinks that I-VR are >safe and can be used with out all the sensational, Oh My Gosh OV >stories. In a year and 1/2, the only OV reported were below 16 >to 18 volts!!! Many times they where precipitated by the pilot doing >something dumb like turning the alternator OFF/ON under load. FACT Not true. One individual of several reported voltmeter readings that may in fact have pegged the instrument. Given the damage to his battery, it's the opinion of myself and others that the alternator suffered lost of voltage and was only limited in output current by the magnetics of the device. Others have reported alternator failures that produced damage to avionics. I did not embellish those reports. To brush them aside as overblown or misinterpreted is tantamount to saying those victims are dishonest and that I'm dishonest for promoting automatic protection that has been a standard of the industry for decades. > > *Crow-Bar and OV relay: This violates all the > warnings the alternator manufacture recommends, ie do not > disconnect the b-lead from the battery. I take warnings to heart > and try not to out think it. IT SAY NO B-lead disconnect. Not true: B-lead disconnection under certain circumstances has been shown to be hazardous to the alternator (for reasons we're going to explore in the regulator trade-study paper). This is a byproduct of a system installed with the intent of providing OV protection for the rest of the airplane . . . I did not even consider risks to the alternator itself. My bad. This is why Z-24 was TEMPORARILY withdrawn until more suitable techniques can be crafted. > > *Cooling Air- Bob says NO, but that is for alternators with NO I- > VR. Fact electronics like to be cool for longer life and greater > reliability. Not true. I have never said that it was bad to cool any device but at the same time, it's useful to know when cooling is useful or necessary. The alternators for which I have the most experience are externally regulated and therefore do not contain devices common to internally regulated alternators. If you're suggesting that the IR alternator will always benefit from cooling air because it incorporates the relatively fragile regulator, I cannot dispute it. My advice for cooling decisions has always been to consider how many builders before us have suffered failures properly attributed to lack of cooling. When in doubt, thermocouple studies of the installed alternator are always in order. Measurements trump conjecture any day. I've never seen a blast tube installed on an automobile's alternator so I've assumed that these devices were as robust after regulators went inside as they were when regulators were outside. I.e. I have no compelling observations to suggest we have extraordinary concerns for cooling . . . for EITHER style of machine. If you have data suggesting something else, please share it with us. > > *Warning Light- Bob attacks the (I-VR internal) warning light and > never mentioned it. OK I'll do some boasting. I am the only one that > promoted and recommended its use. Bob was typically negative > and said it would not work if the VR failed. WRONG (his bius showing) Not true. As the regulator trade study will show, the warning light system built into the internal regulator is on the same chunk of silicon as regulator controls and other features. I have not "attacked" it, only suggested that stresses that might cause the regulator to misbehave and equally present for the warning light functions. The design goals for my other customers called for separation of functionality between control, indication and protection. Yes, I have an opinion for the reasons cited. It seems a logical choice. > > *Fuse on B-Lead- A CB on this lead is important. Not as > important for an E-VR. I suppose a crow-bar OV relay is a > substitute for a CB you can manually trip. However item (1) is > don't use a crow bar OV relay. Fuses are great in the right > place. Note true. There are two different considerations: Fuses protect wires such that failures in one wire do not propagate through to other parts of a system. The pullable breaker for OV protection is the same disconnect mechanism as a b-lead contactor. The breaker must be operated manually, the contactor may be manual or automatic. It was the manual operation of the b-lead contactor that brought load-dump vulnerabilities of the IR alternator to light. Those issues will be addressed and solved. The problem with simply pulling a b-lead breaker will be the same as with the orignal Z-24 implementation: Rapidly rising voltage across the contacts may ignite an arc that won't go out. No big deal in the metal can under the cowl. Really BIG deal in a plastic housed breaker on the panel. Further, disconnection of a runaway alternator will protect the rest of the airplane but results in destruction of the alternator. The field winding for sure is toast. The diodes are at risk too. It's better that we figure out a way to bring things to an orderly, quiet, low energy state such that nothing burns, the pilot is advised of the need to switch to Plan-B, and only the failed component need be replaced. There were advantages cited for getting the b-lead breaker off the panel. To bring it back into the cockpit just to allow a pilot to do manual disconnection during an OV event seems a step backwards when solutions to protecting the alternator from its own load-dump are at hand. And this goes back to the originally stated design goal of carefree ON/OFF control of the alternator at any time. (If folks choose to give up this goal in favor of George's recommendations, please know that you're still welcome in my house. I have friends and relatives who don't wear their helmets and seat belts either but I don't rag them about it . . . and MOST of them will probably lead happy, injury free lives.) > >I am not going to let bullies bully me. OK. I am gathering just >arguing my point passionately and not agreeing with Bob N. >is my biggest crime. Your transgression is the promulgation of bad science based on faith combined with your accusations of dishonorable behavior on the part of those who have shared their experiences with us. I've invited you to join me in an analysis of the functionality of an exemplar internal regulator. I even offered to make it a friendly competition. You reacted by changing the rules of engagement, declaring me in default under the new rules, claimed victory for yourself and suggested I write for a mailing address for the prize. That was pretty amazing . . . the next time would you do that in slow motion? Perhaps we can see exactly how the rabbit got into that hat. > >I am not naive, this is BOB's LIST. Its unfortunate its named >after Bob's company. We don't need to change the name, >just the attitude; all opinions, even non-aeroelectrical opinions are >welcomed. If Bob or the list thinks that open discussion is >welcomed they are not being honest. Isn't that what we're doing now? > >We have the 1000lb Gorilla in the corner. >Bring the banana and say nice monkey, all is well. >Let the monkey throw poo on you and say nothing or else. >Yell at the poo throwing monkey, you will get ripped apart. Not true: I've never ripped anyone. I've only offered alternative views along with the simple-ideas that supported them. When you could not respond in kind, you pointed fingers, yelled unkindly things, and accused me and others of dishonorable behavior. Your true colors have been enshrined in the archives forever. You paint my behavior as trying to be king of the sandbox but you're the only one throwing sand. My mother would ban kids from the sandbox for throwing sand. Invitation to debate: Please describe for us your interpretation of the warning/protective features in the MC33092 regulator chip and how well they conform to the classic aircraft systems design goals. If not, what goals should replace them? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Nuckoll-heads
Matte, there's a fund-raiser idea. Print up some "I'm a Nuckoll-Head" t-shirts. Oh, the humor. 8*) -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: George
> > >Peter, > >Of course you're right. Sorry for the tirade. I'll try to do better in the >future. > >But... I consider myself part of the Aeroelectric Connection family. I >consider Bob the head of that family. In any family worth belonging to, when >someone attacks your kin you don't just sit idly by and expect your family >member to "defend himself". You jump, and I do mean JUMP to that family >member's aid. Bob has earned our respect!!! He has earned our loyalty. I do >not consider it any bother at all to jump to his aid. He ain't heavy, he's >my brother :o) > >Bob, if you're reading this, my wife still wants to bake you a cake for all >the help you've been to her husband. If you're ever in eastern Tennessee or >even northern Alabama or Georgia, you've got an open invitation to the guest >room, dinner and your favorite cake. She makes this thing she calls an >eclaire cake that is to die for! Of course, Mrs Nuckolls is also invited. Your respect and kindness is appreciated. I will endeavor to be worthy of both. Actually, Dr. Dee and I have been considering a trek to Atlanta for a weekend seminar soon. It's been two years since we visited that part of the country. Alternatively, we could do it closer to home for you. Where do you live? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Subject: RE: George
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Hi Rodney, Thank you for your reply to "jetpilot". You put into words what many of us think. I find that when he is on the list, I now just delete his message and move on. Bob has helped me on several occasions including phone calls to him direct. George needs his own list (and lithium) where he can do "his thing" on internal regulated alternators. Jim Nelson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: George
Date: Mar 03, 2006
I don't know about George, but I've found that I also learn things from outspoken people. Just because they voice their concerns with some venom doesn't invalidate the ideas they are trying to convey. 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 James H Nelson Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:29 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: George Hi Rodney, Thank you for your reply to "jetpilot". You put into words what many of us think. I find that when he is on the list, I now just delete his message and move on. Bob has helped me on several occasions including phone calls to him direct. George needs his own list (and lithium) where he can do "his thing" on internal regulated alternators. Jim Nelson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> and pmag
Subject: Re: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag
> > > > > > >> > >> I'm ditching my old Slick mags and going to one Emag and one Pmag. My > >> wiring from switches to mags is from the old Z-9 drawing (same mag > >> wiring as in > >> Z-11). Emagair says that you should switch off power to both the > >> emag and the pmag because there is a drain on the battery when they > >> are powered up, so direct wiring from the battery bus without a > >> switch is out. Both > >> ignitions should be ON during start, as opposed to the disabling of > >> the right mag during startup now. Is there a way to retain the > >> switches I have, including the momentary "start" function on the left > >> mag switch rather than replace the switches with 1-3 switches as in > >> Z-12? Emags are a unique product in that as the factory points out, have TWO switchable functions: Power and control. Their installation manuals suggest separate switches but in a quest for the minimalist panel, I crafted the drawing for P-Mags at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf Figure Z-33. . . . now, be aware that the sequence of switching functions depicted have been commented on by the good folks at E-magair suggesting that switch movements should bring power on first followed by activating the magneto. My wiring diagram shows the opposite sequence, ignition "active" first followed by supporting power. The reason is quite simple: There are separate but divergent interests in the ownership and operation of the p-mag: (1) When sitting at the end of the runway doing a pre-flight, the PILOT'S interest is "are the built in alternators for each P-Mag functioning?" By wiring as I've suggested, moving the switch from full up to the mid position deprives a P-Mag of electrical support and (if the run-up RPMS are high enough), the ignition will not falter when dropped to the mid position. Of course, the opposite ignition needs to be completely OFF at this time. Pre-flight test would be: RUN-UP RPM . . . . . Set L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position) Note engine does not falter L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position) R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF Note engine does not falter Both IGN Switches . . . . BAT (2) A secondary interest is what might be called the maintenance mode for ground ops where the mechanic wants to have the systems powered but inactive for using a P-mag's built-in timing features -OR- for hand propping the engine where again, it's useful to be able to hear the timing buzzer. In this mode, you MUST have battery power available to the P-Mags even when in the inactive state. The diagram shows a third switch (accessible through the oil check/ filler door?) that places temporary power on both ignitions while leaving absolute control over activity in the hands of whoever has access to pilot's controls on the panel. If one chooses this architecture, then a light on the panel should be included to alert the pilot should the switch be left in the maintenance position. Not a big risk from a fight operations and safety perspective but it WOULD run the battery down. In answer to your specific question, it's my recommendation that you get a 2-10 switch for the P-mag. Since the E-mag is electrically dependent, a 2-3 switch to handle both sides of the E-mag's switching needs is called for. Your existing mag switches are not suited to this task. Bob . . . OOPS! I just noted that a narrative for Figure Z-33 didn't find its way into the published work. Rats! . . . just sent Rev 11 back to the printers for another 1000 books. I'll get the Z-notes updated and publish an errata sheet. I'm glad you brought up this topic. It showed me where my homework needs some attention. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Not sure I understand the need for the test switch. If I understand correctly to enter "Test mode" one simply needs to leave the P lead grounded (off) and apply power, in this case turn on the master. Of course now the whole ship is powered up but this seems a fairly small inconvenience considering that timing is a pretty simple affair. Am I correct in my understanding here? Thanks Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Changing the mag switches out for emag and pmag and pmag > > > > > > >> > >> I'm ditching my old Slick mags and going to one Emag and one Pmag. > >> My wiring from switches to mags is from the old Z-9 drawing (same > >> mag wiring as in Z-11). Emagair says that you should switch off > >> power to both the emag and the pmag because there is a drain on the > >> battery when they are powered up, so direct wiring from the battery > >> bus without a switch is out. Both ignitions should be ON during > >> start, as opposed to the disabling of the right mag during startup > >> now. Is there a way to retain the switches I have, including the > >> momentary "start" function on the left mag switch rather than > >> replace the switches with 1-3 switches as in Z-12? Emags are a unique product in that as the factory points out, have TWO switchable functions: Power and control. Their installation manuals suggest separate switches but in a quest for the minimalist panel, I crafted the drawing for P-Mags at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf Figure Z-33. . . . now, be aware that the sequence of switching functions depicted have been commented on by the good folks at E-magair suggesting that switch movements should bring power on first followed by activating the magneto. My wiring diagram shows the opposite sequence, ignition "active" first followed by supporting power. The reason is quite simple: There are separate but divergent interests in the ownership and operation of the p-mag: (1) When sitting at the end of the runway doing a pre-flight, the PILOT'S interest is "are the built in alternators for each P-Mag functioning?" By wiring as I've suggested, moving the switch from full up to the mid position deprives a P-Mag of electrical support and (if the run-up RPMS are high enough), the ignition will not falter when dropped to the mid position. Of course, the opposite ignition needs to be completely OFF at this time. Pre-flight test would be: RUN-UP RPM . . . . . Set L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position) Note engine does not falter L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position) R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF Note engine does not falter Both IGN Switches . . . . BAT (2) A secondary interest is what might be called the maintenance mode for ground ops where the mechanic wants to have the systems powered but inactive for using a P-mag's built-in timing features -OR- for hand propping the engine where again, it's useful to be able to hear the timing buzzer. In this mode, you MUST have battery power available to the P-Mags even when in the inactive state. The diagram shows a third switch (accessible through the oil check/ filler door?) that places temporary power on both ignitions while leaving absolute control over activity in the hands of whoever has access to pilot's controls on the panel. If one chooses this architecture, then a light on the panel should be included to alert the pilot should the switch be left in the maintenance position. Not a big risk from a fight operations and safety perspective but it WOULD run the battery down. In answer to your specific question, it's my recommendation that you get a 2-10 switch for the P-mag. Since the E-mag is electrically dependent, a 2-3 switch to handle both sides of the E-mag's switching needs is called for. Your existing mag switches are not suited to this task. Bob . . . OOPS! I just noted that a narrative for Figure Z-33 didn't find its way into the published work. Rats! . . . just sent Rev 11 back to the printers for another 1000 books. I'll get the Z-notes updated and publish an errata sheet. I'm glad you brought up this topic. It showed me where my homework needs some attention. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> and pmag
Subject: Changing the mag switches out for emag and
pmag > > >Not sure I understand the need for the test switch. > >If I understand correctly to enter "Test mode" one simply needs to leave >the P lead grounded (off) and apply power, in this case turn on the >master. Of course now the whole ship is powered up but this seems a >fairly small inconvenience considering that timing is a pretty simple >affair. > >Am I correct in my understanding here? If you wire per Z-33 where powered support is available only from the upper switch position for the purposes of confirming a P-mag's internal power supply during pre-flight, then you have no way to power up but ignition inactive (control lead grounded) without the adding the third maintenance or test switch switch. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PTACKABURY(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Bob: I am sure you have answered this one 700 times but please once more for the not yet informed: I have a Lancair IV which is carbon and fiberglass. The aft upper fuse is fiberglass, under which is an antennae farm for com, gps, elt, etc. This is all pretty standard, built generally IAW the kit guidance. How it is time to select paint and I am considering SW Acry Glo metallic Urethane. The question: will metallic urethane on the aft upper fuse fiberglass section significantly degrade antennae performance? thank you, paul tackabury ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Subject: Re: RE: George
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Bruce, There are proper ways to discuss ideas and "jetpilot" is, in my humble opinion, out of bounds in his replys. If he wants to disect every word that Bob writes, then let him directly e-mail Bob. We don't need to get his "flaming" replys. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Seminar in the South
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Bob, I live very close to Knoxville, TN. Even though I've wired one homebuilt according to the 'Connection and I'm wiring another one right now, I'd love to attend a seminar. Every project teaches me something and sends me back to the 'Connection for a re-read. I keep tabs on your seminar schedule hoping to catch one in this general area. Atlanta is close enough! I'll talk to the guys at EAA Chapter 17 on Tuesday to see if there's an interest here in Knoxville. I'd be happy to help organize. And of course, there's that cake :o) Rodney ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Subject: Re: Seminar in the South
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Rodney, I live in Blue Ridge, GA and our Chapter in Blairsville would probably be willing to participate in trying to get something together with you. Contact me off-list smithhb(at)tds.net Bret Smith RV-9A (91314) Mineral Bluff, GA www.FlightInnovations.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rodney Dunham Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Seminar in the South --> Bob, I live very close to Knoxville, TN. Even though I've wired one homebuilt according to the 'Connection and I'm wiring another one right now, I'd love to attend a seminar. Every project teaches me something and sends me back to the 'Connection for a re-read. I keep tabs on your seminar schedule hoping to catch one in this general area. Atlanta is close enough! I'll talk to the guys at EAA Chapter 17 on Tuesday to see if there's an interest here in Knoxville. I'd be happy to help organize. And of course, there's that cake :o) Rodney ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Strange people behavior in debate
> > >Bob, I think this is Allen Barrett from Barrett Performance Aircraft >Engines. He's almost as "gold" as you :-) > >Bill S >7a wiring Agreed. I got a direct note from him and I'm impressed. Hope to meet him sometime as Dr. Dee and I pass through Tulsa several times a year on our way to see friends in Sallisaw. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: "BPA"
Oops, the note I received was from Allen and he gave me the short history of the company founded by his father Monty. In any case, I'm looking forward to meeting the Tulsa crowd and Allen in particular. I'll plan a visit to their EAA chapter meeting. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Seminar in the South
> > >Bob, > >I live very close to Knoxville, TN. > >Even though I've wired one homebuilt according to the 'Connection and I'm >wiring another one right now, I'd love to attend a seminar. Every project >teaches me something and sends me back to the 'Connection for a re-read. > >I keep tabs on your seminar schedule hoping to catch one in this general >area. Atlanta is close enough! I'll talk to the guys at EAA Chapter 17 on >Tuesday to see if there's an interest here in Knoxville. I'd be happy to >help organize. And of course, there's that cake :o) There's nothing that says we can't do a presentation anywhere except minimum participation levels. If you could put a dipstick into the local enthusiasm level, it would be helpful. Generally speaking if 10 folks are interested locally, the balance can be made up from the surrounding area with advertising on my website. We'd be pleased to meet the builders in Knoxville too! Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
Hi, I've got a S701-1 contactor I purchased from B&C http://www.bandc.biz/S701-1.html which I want to use in a slightly different application. I want to use it as suggested by Eric with his OVP module. http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm The wiring for his OVP module requires that I use the 12v line as the contactor control, not the ground wire used in the battery contactor application. I've read the battery contactor information in chapter 8 several times, but I still really don't quite understand the role of the spike suppression diode, nor whether or not I will need one. Should I use the spike suppression diode? Should it be installed between the two coil terminals? If so, does it matter which terminal is (+) and which is (-)? Thanks for any tips! Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Mickey, It is advisable to put spike suppression across the coil of any relay. It can be accomplished with a diode connected in the reverse polarity to the voltage source being used to energize it, or a transorb device with a rating greater than the voltage being used to energize the coil. The spike suppression is required to dissipate the voltage generated as a result of the magnetic field collapsing when the relay is de energized. I am curious as to the application and wondering if a relay of this size might be overkill.... it really depends on what your application. Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tip Tanks
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Has anyone else tried to modify a set of original wing tips into a pair of tip tanks? If so, I'd like to hear how you did it, and what kinds of issues you have had, if any. I'd also like to know how you made the modifications and the type of glass/resin you used.. Jon Johansen's don't appear to be available on Van's web site anymore. Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
Mickey A diode flows electrons (current) in one direction only exactly like a one way check valve. That is why the schematic diagram of a diode even looks like a one way arrow. The pointed end of the arrow is the end of the diode that is usually marked with a white bar and that end must go to the positive terminal of the coil. Otherwise the positive battery current will flow through it to ground which will destroy the diode and/or blow the fuse. Anytime you have a coil of wire just assume that the current wants to keep flowing after you turn off the power. So the diode lets the current keep flowing from the negative side of the coil back into the positive side of the coil instead of out through other circuitry where you might not want it to go. As mentioned the decaying magnetic field can initiate a significant voltage spike so the diode prevents that and lets the current goes round and round and lowly dissipate as heat. (We could debate which way electrons really flow but most of us still think of electricity as flowing out of the positive battery terminal for the above explanation.) Ken Mickey Coggins wrote: > > > >>It is advisable to put spike suppression across the coil of any relay. It >>can be accomplished with a diode connected in the reverse polarity to the >>voltage source being used to energize it, or a transorb device with a rating >>greater than the voltage being used to energize the coil. >> >> > >Paul, Thanks for your help. > >I've got the diode that was delivered with the contactor, so >I guess that would work. I'm still not clear on which direction >to install the diode. It seems like with the two coil terminals >it doesn't matter which side is positive or negative. Should >the diode restrict flow from (+) to (-) or the other way around? > > > >>The spike suppression is required to dissipate the voltage generated as a >>result of the magnetic field collapsing when the relay is de energized. >> >> > >I'll trust you on that one, but I don't understand. No biggie. > > > >>I am curious as to the application and wondering if a relay of this size >>might be overkill.... it really depends on what your application. >> >> > >It is overkill for just a b-lead switch, but to simplify >my wiring, the starter energy also flows through it. > >Thanks again, >Mickey > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Antennae
Subject: Re: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
> >Bob: I am sure you have answered this one 700 times but please once more >for the not yet informed: I have a Lancair IV which is carbon >and fiberglass. >The aft upper fuse is fiberglass, under which is an antennae farm for com, >gps, elt, etc. This is all pretty standard, built generally IAW the kit >guidance. How it is time to select paint and I am considering SW Acry Glo >metallic Urethane. The question: will metallic urethane on the aft >upper fuse >fiberglass section significantly degrade antennae performance? >thank you, Surface coatings chosen have no measurable effect on antenna performance. Since carbon composite materials have a sheet resistance on the order of 1000 times that of aluminum, they also make poor ground planes under resonant monopole antennas. The goal is to achieve a long lived, low resistance path between the antenna's mounting base and the ground plane . . . which on your airplane will need to be on the inside surface of the skin. Make a solderable mounting base plate from brass or copper. They may be thin. Copper hobby foil or brass shim stock (.010") are good choices. bond your base plate to the underside of the antennas mounting surface and then work to get good conductivity between antenna and base plate via the bolts. In the figure posted at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif I've marked the critical conduction points with an (*). Here's where all the magic happens. All other surfaces may be left as supplied or as finished for corrosion protection. There's no value in cleaning the entire surface of the base or large interfacing surfaces between airframe, antenna and doubler (in this case your doubler is the copper or brass sheet). Then you need radials made from shim stock or copper tape. Wider the better up to 2" or so. Same length as height of antenna. 4 is about the minimum, no measurable differences beyond 8. They don't have to lay flat (they might run up and over a doubler or other surface feature). Solder these to the base plate. This is described in more detail in the antenna chapter. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> question
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
> > >Hi, > >I've got a S701-1 contactor I purchased from B&C >http://www.bandc.biz/S701-1.html which I want to >use in a slightly different application. > >I want to use it as suggested by Eric with his >OVP module. http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm > >The wiring for his OVP module requires that I >use the 12v line as the contactor control, not >the ground wire used in the battery contactor >application. Does Eric recommend this contactor for use with his product? Last I heard, the high-voltage EV series contactors were his associated product of choice. >I've read the battery contactor information in >chapter 8 several times, but I still really >don't quite understand the role of the spike >suppression diode, nor whether or not I will >need one. See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf >Should I use the spike suppression diode? >Should it be installed between the two >coil terminals? What does Eric's installation drawings/instructions say? He might have built the spike suppression diode into the electronics. Perhaps his design does not benefit from the diode or may even be detrimental to it's intended function. Remember folks, questions like this are ALWAYS best addressed to the designer/manufacturer of the product. It's risky and sometimes unethical to inject ourselves into the relationship between customer and supplier until it's determined that the supplier simply doesn't know the answer to your question or in some cases, is simply wrong. Study the drawings, discuss your uncertainties with the supplier. If you're not satisfied or still skeptical, then go to the List for whatever clarification and assistance may be available. >If so, does it matter >which terminal is (+) and which is (-)? Absolutely. The banded end of the diode faces the (+) terminal of the contactor. Reversing the diode may cause serious fault currents to flow and damage something. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Tip Tanks
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Uh, might that be a question for the vanairforce.com forum and not an email list dedicated to "electrical" discussions??? Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred Stucklen Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tip Tanks --> Has anyone else tried to modify a set of original wing tips into a pair of tip tanks? If so, I'd like to hear how you did it, and what kinds of issues you have had, if any. I'd also like to know how you made the modifications and the type of glass/resin you used.. Jon Johansen's don't appear to be available on Van's web site anymore. Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PTACKABURY(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am not interested in a ground plane, I understand that one from your excellent chapter in the "Connection" and used that info when installing my EXTERIOR antennae. My concern is the INTERIOR antennae buried in the upper aft sections of the Lancair IV under the fiberglass skin. Again this is the recommended place for com, gps, etc and has been used successfully by many builders for years so I am not concerned about that either. HOWEVER, I am considering a metallic paint and wonder if the small amounts of metallic in the paint when applied over the fiberglass will degrade the performance of these buried antennae. I don't think metallic paints are used on radomes but I wonder if this is really a concern for my installation. thanks for giving me a second chance, paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Date: Mar 04, 2006
http://www.highrf.com/gallery/Feb-06/DSCN1305 Here is my solution. Couple of notes. 3M makes a copper tape that has acrylic glue on the back and the glue is conductive. They use it in EMI solutions. I first lined the Comm antenna indent in the fuselage with said tape, then I ran the 22" radials out from that area. I then got some copper flashing and made a conductive backing plate. My original plan was to use some solder paste and put the backing plate down and "wick" in some solder around the edges.... HOWEVER, I tested my approach on a sample piece and determined that any soldering iron heat (and I use a Metcal), would degrade the laminate So I'm going to use a little conductive copper no-ox compound. Just a little as it goes a long ways. One other note before I stuck down the radials I did sand down to the exposed carbon so that at least I'd have some sort of electrical bond between the radials and the bottom of the fuse. I later came back and put a 2 bid of 1.7oz glass over each radial just to provide protection. That backing plate will be drilled for nutplates and rivets and once it's down and held in place, I'll come back and drill and countersink a screw from the outside (flush), and put a nut and washer on the inside. This stud will then be ran back to the central ground. Lot of discussion of this approach on the Lancair list. Seems some believe that the ground plane needs to be on the outside and not inside....Oh, well, I didn't want to "paint" the groundplane with copper/silver paint as I've heard it will deteriorate over time... I figured this was next best. Alan -----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 Antennae Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:20 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae Antennae > >Bob: I am sure you have answered this one 700 times but please once >more for the not yet informed: I have a Lancair IV which is carbon and >fiberglass. >The aft upper fuse is fiberglass, under which is an antennae farm for >com, gps, elt, etc. This is all pretty standard, built generally IAW >the kit guidance. How it is time to select paint and I am considering >SW Acry Glo metallic Urethane. The question: will metallic urethane >on the aft upper fuse fiberglass section significantly degrade antennae >performance? >thank you, Surface coatings chosen have no measurable effect on antenna performance. Since carbon composite materials have a sheet resistance on the order of 1000 times that of aluminum, they also make poor ground planes under resonant monopole antennas. The goal is to achieve a long lived, low resistance path between the antenna's mounting base and the ground plane . . . which on your airplane will need to be on the inside surface of the skin. Make a solderable mounting base plate from brass or copper. They may be thin. Copper hobby foil or brass shim stock (.010") are good choices. bond your base plate to the underside of the antennas mounting surface and then work to get good conductivity between antenna and base plate via the bolts. In the figure posted at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif I've marked the critical conduction points with an (*). Here's where all the magic happens. All other surfaces may be left as supplied or as finished for corrosion protection. There's no value in cleaning the entire surface of the base or large interfacing surfaces between airframe, antenna and doubler (in this case your doubler is the copper or brass sheet). Then you need radials made from shim stock or copper tape. Wider the better up to 2" or so. Same length as height of antenna. 4 is about the minimum, no measurable differences beyond 8. They don't have to lay flat (they might run up and over a doubler or other surface feature). Solder these to the base plate. This is described in more detail in the antenna chapter. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Just one comment, Radar uses a much higher frequency than Comm or Nav, etc. So while the metal flake paint messes with radar returns due to it's "reflectivity". I doubt it would do much to the comm antenna Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PTACKABURY(at)aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:38 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am not interested in a ground plane, I understand that one from your excellent chapter in the "Connection" and used that info when installing my EXTERIOR antennae. My concern is the INTERIOR antennae buried in the upper aft sections of the Lancair IV under the fiberglass skin. Again this is the recommended place for com, gps, etc and has been used successfully by many builders for years so I am not concerned about that either. HOWEVER, I am considering a metallic paint and wonder if the small amounts of metallic in the paint when applied over the fiberglass will degrade the performance of these buried antennae. I don't think metallic paints are used on radomes but I wonder if this is really a concern for my installation. thanks for giving me a second chance, paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
> > >Hi Doug, >My RV is setup for day/night VFR and I have dual Lightspeeds. I pondered >the electrical system options extensively. I originally planned to go with >two alternators and one battery. The thing I kept coming back to is that >with one battery, you have a single-point failure for the entire >electrical system. Notwithstanding the opinion of others to the contrary, >it IS possible to have a battery lead break off or come loose. The only cases I've seen for this are (1) batteries with lead posts where the lead wires are much too stiff (e.g. 2AWG 22759 wire). (2) Another case was where the builder had fabricated a stiff copper strap that bolted one end to the battery (-) terminal an the other to the firewall. This was a steel posted battery and it broke the terminal under vibration. Make your short battery jumpers from 4AWG welding cable IRRESPECTIVE of wire sizes used elsewhere in the system. I'm not arguing against multiple battery installations, only suggesting that risk mitigation for broken battery terminals is a no-brainer. BTW, a little bird flew by a few days ago and whispered that a well known supplier of PM alternators just might be bringing a new regulator out that would be self-exciting. Don't quote me on that. The bird was speaking in Swahili and the only words of that language I remember clearly were the favorite expletives of my 8th grade science teacher. We shall see . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae
> >Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't >communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am not >interested >in a ground plane, I understand that one from your excellent chapter in the >"Connection" and used that info when installing my EXTERIOR antennae. My >concern is the INTERIOR antennae buried in the upper aft sections of the >Lancair >IV under the fiberglass skin. Again this is the recommended place for com, >gps, etc and has been used successfully by many builders for years so I >am not >concerned about that either. HOWEVER, I am considering a metallic paint and >wonder if the small amounts of metallic in the paint when applied over the >fiberglass will degrade the performance of these buried antennae. I don't >think metallic paints are used on radomes but I wonder if this is really a >concern for my installation. thanks for giving me a second chance, paul No problem. Attenuation effects of the various paints is a crap shoot. We've studied the effects of various coatings on our nose radomes on the bizjets and yes, there are some paints that you don't want to use. The manufacturer of the paint is unlikely to know and the dealer is almost sure not to know whether your paint of choice represents a hazard to GPS performance. Antennas at lower frequencies are less likely to be affected. For the most part, paints with metal flecks in them don't seem to offer much attenuation. Some builders have reported adequate GPS performance when antennas are under a fabric skin with several coats of aluminum prep. I don't recall any conversations about VHF antennas under paint. But these data are all subjective. The #1, always-works, foolproof method to evaluate your paint is to set your GPS up for operation with the antenna in the clear and get a reading on relative signal strengths. Take a large plastic mixing bowel painted with your proposed coatings and cover the antenna. Drops of 20% or less are probably not going to noticeably affect your radio's performance. If the paint is good for GPS, it's probably fine for other frequencies too. The #2, usually-works method is to find someone who has used the same combination of materials and see what they report. The risk here is that subjective measures of performance can yield wildly variable results. In deference to the Repeatable Experiment, I highly recommend #1. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae
> > >http://www.highrf.com/gallery/Feb-06/DSCN1305 > >Here is my solution. Couple of notes. > >3M makes a copper tape that has acrylic glue on the back and the glue is >conductive. They use it in EMI solutions. I first lined the Comm antenna >indent in the fuselage with said tape, then I ran the 22" radials out from >that area. I then got some copper flashing and made a conductive backing >plate. My original plan was to use some solder paste and put the backing >plate down and "wick" in some solder around the edges.... HOWEVER, I tested >my approach on a sample piece and determined that any soldering iron heat >(and I use a Metcal), would degrade the laminate So I'm going to use a >little conductive copper no-ox compound. Just a little as it goes a long >ways. One other note before I stuck down the radials I did sand down to the >exposed carbon so that at least I'd have some sort of electrical bond >between the radials and the bottom of the fuse. > >I later came back and put a 2 bid of 1.7oz glass over each radial just to >provide protection. > >That backing plate will be drilled for nutplates and rivets and once it's >down and held in place, I'll come back and drill and countersink a screw >from the outside (flush), and put a nut and washer on the inside. This stud >will then be ran back to the central ground. No auxiliary grounding of antenna bases is required or recommended. I've seen some composite aircraft where the interiors had spider-webs of wire supposedly installed to replace the lack of "grounds" offered by metallic aircraft. There is no advantage in doing this and may even make RF interference problems worse. The only things that need to connect to your ground plane is the base of the antenna and the outer braid of the coax feedline. >Lot of discussion of this approach on the Lancair list. Seems some believe >that the ground plane needs to be on the outside and not inside Absolutely not. Looks ugly, hard to do, doesn't work any better . . . >....Oh, well, >I didn't want to "paint" the groundplane with copper/silver paint as I've >heard it will deteriorate over time... I figured this was next best. Aside from the extra ground wire, what you describe should be just fine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Tip Tanks
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Fred, Jon Johansen's tip tanks don't show up on his website either. (http://www.flymore.com.au/) I have a pair for my RV-8A that I bought a couple of years ago from another RV builder. I recall that the location of the filler and possibly the vent is different for a tailwheel aircraft than for a nosewheel one. Mine have not been installed yet, so I would be glad to take some photos to send you on how these are made. They are of the earlier wingtip design, and they have a boss for mounting the surface mounted nav/strobe lights and a tunnel through the tank for the wiring. I also have a set of the older style wingtips from Van's that I have had hanging on my wall as a sculpture for several years now. Jon's site has a couple of other interesting products for RV's -- a heated pitot tube and flush fuel tank drains. Terry RV-8A #80729 Finishing? Seattle Has anyone else tried to modify a set of original wing tips into a pair of tip tanks? If so, I'd like to hear how you did it, and what kinds of issues you have had, if any. I'd also like to know how you made the modifications and the type of glass/resin you used.. Jon Johansen's don't appear to be available on Van's web site anymore. Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: RE: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Great, I haven't done that "extra ground" and can always do it later if deemed necessary... For now, I'll leave it out of the design and try my current approach (minus the extra ground wire). Thanks Bob, Alan PS for those interested, Mouser carries that tape and It think it's a model 1181 or something like that. Google for 3m copper tape and you'll find it, there is a smooth version and a "waffled" version. For obvious reasons, I went with the smooth. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae --> > > >http://www.highrf.com/gallery/Feb-06/DSCN1305 > >Here is my solution. Couple of notes. > >3M makes a copper tape that has acrylic glue on the back and the glue >is conductive. They use it in EMI solutions. I first lined the Comm >antenna indent in the fuselage with said tape, then I ran the 22" >radials out from that area. I then got some copper flashing and made a >conductive backing plate. My original plan was to use some solder >paste and put the backing plate down and "wick" in some solder around >the edges.... HOWEVER, I tested my approach on a sample piece and >determined that any soldering iron heat (and I use a Metcal), would >degrade the laminate So I'm going to use a little conductive copper >no-ox compound. Just a little as it goes a long ways. One other note >before I stuck down the radials I did sand down to the exposed carbon >so that at least I'd have some sort of electrical bond between the radials and the bottom of the fuse. > >I later came back and put a 2 bid of 1.7oz glass over each radial just >to provide protection. > >That backing plate will be drilled for nutplates and rivets and once >it's down and held in place, I'll come back and drill and countersink a >screw from the outside (flush), and put a nut and washer on the inside. >This stud will then be ran back to the central ground. No auxiliary grounding of antenna bases is required or recommended. I've seen some composite aircraft where the interiors had spider-webs of wire supposedly installed to replace the lack of "grounds" offered by metallic aircraft. There is no advantage in doing this and may even make RF interference problems worse. The only things that need to connect to your ground plane is the base of the antenna and the outer braid of the coax feedline. >Lot of discussion of this approach on the Lancair list. Seems some >believe that the ground plane needs to be on the outside and not inside Absolutely not. Looks ugly, hard to do, doesn't work any better . . . >....Oh, well, >I didn't want to "paint" the groundplane with copper/silver paint as >I've heard it will deteriorate over time... I figured this was next best. Aside from the extra ground wire, what you describe should be just fine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
"The thing I kept coming back to is that with one battery, you have a single-point failure for the entire electrical system" I am building a Europa with a Rotax 914 turbo. It has 2 fuel pump, 1 needs to be running to keep the motor running. I plan on flying Day and Night VFR. I also have both 27 foot span go fast wings and 48 foot span go pretty fast glider wings. On automobiles I have had batteries fail open upon start ups. My wife and partner have had cars die in the road from a internal open battery. That said I had a Cessna 170 for 19 years and never had a failure of battery, but not to say it will not happen. I still feel uneasy bout getting a battery opening, especial on start up. I don't like the added weight of a second lead acid battery,especial something able to help out with starting. I am introducing a nontraditional demand, trying to start the motor in air. Now one may recommend a airstart, and that works, but you are spinning a cold motor real quick real fast, hard on motor. Best to use starter. I have a SD-20S as primary alternator and Rotax internal Generator (not self exciting) as back up. It is wired using Z13/8 as a starting place. If you tickled the Rotax generator/Ducati regulator/rectifier, I am confident with our 48K microfarad capacitor it will remain alive and running a fuel pump. I used my head which uses the rest behind the right seat passengers head to make me feel better. I have a 13 cell GP 2200mA NiMh Battery (1.62 oz ea cell) that can supply a few hundred amps for short periods, and easily the 50 or 60 amps the starter requires. It lives nice in the headrest easily accessable by pilot. I have 3 inputs it can supply: If all went to hell, can run aux pump on it (~ 2amp draw, so without test and very cold battery at minimum I would say 30 minutes) Pulling 60 amps, this battery will put out 2000mAs and then still be at .9volts per cell! I can power E-Bus (which it will be diode isolated from to not accept a charge, but 14.4V) even if it did try to charge would not hurt battery too much). Now powering E-Bus can allow me to run things when soaring and not touch main battery, or if my main battery failed upon a start up, could do a airstart running aux pump from E-Bus, then tickle the rotax generator. Can also plumb directly in parallel with main battery to help start. Voltage of pack will be nominal 15.6 volts. May sound complicated, layout is simple and intuitive. I feel very comfortable with it. Smoke or other electrical failure? In 10 seconds I can turn off main battery switch (Flaming River on rear of headrest), E-Bus aux feed battery switch (in headrest) and plumb NiMh battery to pump (right in headrest) and now have a bit of time to think things through. The panel is recessed in headrest 3/4" and has EL strip to illuminate headrest panel. There is a mini Blue LED Voltmeter in there as well that tells either Main or NiMh output. Normal failure of main alternator, just switch off and turn on Rotax. Starter solenoid sticks when doing a in flight start, or other failure on that side of things, turn off main battery switch and select E-Bus alternate feed and turn on Rotax Generator If Battery failed opened upon restart, plumb NiMh to E-Bus to run pump and do a airstart, then tickle Rotax. Although I could probably start on the NiMh autonomous, best not do it in air. Battery flat when away from home, parallel main with NiMh. If NiMh failed, am on ground, so no big deal. Downside is you can not use a lead acid charging system to charge a NiMh direct. If not in a hurry a C/10 by 14 to 16 hour charge is best. If in a hurry a 1C delta peak charge is OK. If in a real hurry or you want to ask 200 amps from battery you want it nice and warm, do a 2 or 3C delta peak charge. Since I fly electric models and gliders, and one reason for having a Europa is to take me to far away soaring sites, I am set up with all the stuff I need. As a matter of fact when transporting models, future designs will (you guessed it) be made using 13 cell packs. Chargers run off normal 1 2volt system. Long winded all right. Anyway if you have a electrical dependent aeroplane, for not much weight you can give yourself imn my opinion a versatile alternative. Ron Parigoris Oh yea it will power something like this as well: http://www.yourzagi.com/wagmax.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Antennae
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
> > >Just one comment, Radar uses a much higher frequency than Comm or Nav, etc. >So while the metal flake paint messes with radar returns due to it's >"reflectivity". I doubt it would do much to the comm antenna > >Alan There are also dielectric loss issues at higher frequencies. I think we've tested coatings and materials that had no metal content but offered unacceptable reflections and/or refraction of the radar signals. Except for these isolated examples I think you're correct in that the lower frequency systems are less vulnerable to coatings that might affect microwaves. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Jim Wickert <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Alan, Jim Wickert here. It is quite well known that foil internal antennas do function well under carbon fiber cloth. they do however function very well under glass substrate. Now with regard to paint. Per a quite an experienced individual Jim Weir VP RST Engineering group who as published "The Reference Text, The RST-820 Antenna which deals strictly with copper Tape Antennas, see quote> "These antennas have worked in glass and fiberglass airplanes with almost every kind of paint and dope (including the aluminum coat used on fabric as a UV protectant) that we could find. A couple of times in the past two years there have been reports that there is a new German metallic paint (sorry, I don't know the brand) that makes ALL hidden antennas (not just ours) work poorly if at all." I know of builder that has his plane flying with a silver metallic paint and he has no problems. Jims Ref manual is about $5.00 and well worth the price of admission for any laying out antennas in composite planes Take care, happy building Jim Wickert Vision Vair #159 Some will have it some will not!! -----Original Message----- >From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> >Sent: Mar 4, 2006 12:35 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae > > >Just one comment, Radar uses a much higher frequency than Comm or Nav, etc. >So while the metal flake paint messes with radar returns due to it's >"reflectivity". I doubt it would do much to the comm antenna > >Alan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >PTACKABURY(at)aol.com >Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:38 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae > > >Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't >communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am not >interested in a ground plane, I understand that one from your excellent >chapter in the "Connection" and used that info when installing my EXTERIOR >antennae. My concern is the INTERIOR antennae buried in the upper aft >sections of the Lancair IV under the fiberglass skin. Again this is the >recommended place for com, gps, etc and has been used successfully by many >builders for years so I am not concerned about that either. HOWEVER, I am >considering a metallic paint and wonder if the small amounts of metallic in >the paint when applied over the fiberglass will degrade the performance of >these buried antennae. I don't think metallic paints are used on radomes >but I wonder if this is really a concern for my installation. thanks for >giving me a second chance, paul > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Jim, thanks for the post. Can I ask for some clarification? Your quote ... "It is quite well known that foil internal antennas do function well under carbon fiber cloth." Is that correct, or should there have been a *NOT* before "function"? Are you trying to say, they do or do not work on carbon? Second and a point of clarification. The Lancair actually uses an "outside antenna". It uses a bent whip from ComAnt. But I wanted to improve the "ground plane" only, so I added those 4 "radials" of 22" and the base plate to provide the counterpoise and conductive attach points for the external antenna. I know of one other Legacy that is completed this same way and he says his Comm antenna works very well. I'm cautiously optimistic. But I think I'll order that $5 book just the same. Thanks and can ya clear up the opening quote for me? Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Wickert Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:21 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae --> Alan, Jim Wickert here. It is quite well known that foil internal antennas do function well under carbon fiber cloth. they do however function very well under glass substrate. Now with regard to paint. Per a quite an experienced individual Jim Weir VP RST Engineering group who as published "The Reference Text, The RST-820 Antenna which deals strictly with copper Tape Antennas, see quote> "These antennas have worked in glass and fiberglass airplanes with almost every kind of paint and dope (including the aluminum coat used on fabric as a UV protectant) that we could find. A couple of times in the past two years there have been reports that there is a new German metallic paint (sorry, I don't know the brand) that makes ALL hidden antennas (not just ours) work poorly if at all." I know of builder that has his plane flying with a silver metallic paint and he has no problems. Jims Ref manual is about $5.00 and well worth the price of admission for any laying out antennas in composite planes Take care, happy building Jim Wickert Vision Vair #159 Some will have it some will not!! -----Original Message----- >From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> >Sent: Mar 4, 2006 12:35 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae > >--> > >Just one comment, Radar uses a much higher frequency than Comm or Nav, etc. >So while the metal flake paint messes with radar returns due to it's >"reflectivity". I doubt it would do much to the comm antenna > >Alan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >PTACKABURY(at)aol.com >Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:38 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, >Antennae > > >Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't >communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am >not interested in a ground plane, I understand that one from your >excellent chapter in the "Connection" and used that info when >installing my EXTERIOR antennae. My concern is the INTERIOR antennae >buried in the upper aft sections of the Lancair IV under the fiberglass >skin. Again this is the recommended place for com, gps, etc and has >been used successfully by many builders for years so I am not concerned >about that either. HOWEVER, I am considering a metallic paint and >wonder if the small amounts of metallic in the paint when applied over >the fiberglass will degrade the performance of these buried antennae. >I don't think metallic paints are used on radomes but I wonder if this >is really a concern for my installation. thanks for giving me a >second chance, paul > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Hi Mark You sound like you are probably well aware of this but "theoretically" I'd expect a lot less than 3 hours at 1 amp. www.power-sonic.com/ps-1229.pdf These specs indicate that at a 1 amp discharge rate you shouldn't expect more than 2 hours under ideal conditions or perhaps 1.5 hours for a cold battery. Apologies for nit-picking. Ken snip > used a PowerSonic 2.9 Ah battery (PS-1229). It's light and relatively cheap (I think about $25-30...you can Google it and get lots of hits). I plan to change the battery every two years to ensure that it's reasonably fresh. I know Klaus says 4.5 Ah but I thought that was overkill (unless you plan to be flying over some really rugged terrain/ocean with no alternates within an hour or two of flight). The 2.9 Ah batt is theoretically good for almost 3 hours of run time on one ignition (drawing ~ 1A at cruise RPM's). In the unlikely event that I ever find myself operating the engine soley on the backup battery, I will try to have it on the ground within an hour. > snip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Re: Soldering question--What am I doing wrong?
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Sounds like your technique is okay but I think the iron may be a bit small. I like about 60w to keep the heat up when it touches the board. Make sure you're heating both the pad on the board and the LED. You don't need to take the old solder off to re-do a solder joint. Greg Just finished assembling my lights. > > > I'm building the Creative Air LED nav light kits, working on the LED's. > > So here's what I am doing. > > First I clean up the boards and LED leads with alcohol. > > Put them in the boards & bend the wires. > > Tin the iron. It's a 15 watt iron. > > Put the iron on the connection, then apply the solder. Bill says the > LED's > are heat sensitive and to only hold the iron on them a couple seconds. > > Half the time the solder doesn't penetrate the board, so I only have a > cone > of solder on the lead on one side of the board, the side I am soldering > on. > > To try to fix it, I try to solder it again. > > If that doesn't work (it rarely does), I remove most of the solder using > the iron and a clean cotton swab to absorb the solder & try again. Rarely > works. > > Some of these I try a dozen times & still no joy. > > How can I get a good soldered joint with a cone of solder on both sides of > the board? I have been told that that's what I need for a good > joint. Maybe that guy was wrong? > > Richard Scott > RV-9A > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
> >Hi Mark >You sound like you are probably well aware of this but "theoretically" >I'd expect a lot less than 3 hours at 1 amp. >www.power-sonic.com/ps-1229.pdf >These specs indicate that at a 1 amp discharge rate you shouldn't expect >more than 2 hours under ideal conditions or perhaps 1.5 hours for a cold >battery. Apologies for nit-picking. Ken This is not nit-picking. It's considered systems integration with understanding. We've discussed many times here on the List how a battery's useful capacity varies with load. We've also discussed the pitfalls of using the battery's labeled capacity without KNOWING what loads were used to rate that capacity. For example, batteries for bizjets are rated for specific situations where the generators are dead and you're required to power certain systems for 30 minutes. Since battery manufacturers are not regulated to do anything, their ratings may be stated in any lucid manner they choose. Most manufacturers of batteries label their products at a 20 hour discharge rate. Here's a recap of situations we've discussed in the past: In this figure, we can see the published capacity vs. load curves for a popular 33 a.h. battery from Panasonic . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/LA1233_Panasonic.gif Note that the 33 a.h. rating is met with a 1.65A discharge after 20 hours. Increase the load to 13.2A and you'll get just under two hours of service for a useful capacity of 23.7 a.h. A substantial drop from the label rating. Here are curves produced here in our shop on a single 18 a.h. SVLA battery . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1217_3n8_Discharge.pdf Note that due to increased losses in the battery's internal impedance, the useful capacity at 8A is 13.5 a.h. for an operating time of 1.7 hours. Useful capacity at 3 A is 16.8 a.h. for an operating time of 5.6 hours. Finally, here's a discharge curve for battery from Concord for a bizjet with a label capacity of 37 a.h. . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Capacity_vs_Voltage.gif Note that it produces 95% of rated capacity when discharged to 22v at 74A . . . this happens in 37/74 hours or 30 minutes. If this battery were re-labeled with a 20 hour rate, the very same battery could be called a 50+ a.h. battery. I'm pleased that you picked up on this Ken, I missed it. Bob . . . >snip > > > used a PowerSonic 2.9 Ah battery (PS-1229). It's light and relatively > cheap (I think about $25-30...you can Google it and get lots of hits). I > plan to change the battery every two years to ensure that it's reasonably > fresh. I know Klaus says 4.5 Ah but I thought that was overkill (unless > you plan to be flying over some really rugged terrain/ocean with no > alternates within an hour or two of flight). The 2.9 Ah batt is > theoretically good for almost 3 hours of run time on one ignition > (drawing ~ 1A at cruise RPM's). In the unlikely event that I ever find > myself operating the engine soley on the backup battery, I will try to > have it on the ground within an hour. > > >snip > > >-- > > Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: My bubble has burst . . .
Some of you may recall that I did some studies on energy content of the various alkaline AA cells some time back and found that of all the brands I could lay my hands on at the time, energy content was about the same irrespective of price or advertising hype. I was in Advance Auto Parts last week and they had a 24-pak of Endurance brand alkaline AA cells for $4.88 . . . about 20 cents per cell. The best price in town. I purchased a pack and just for grins, decided to run some on Brutus the Battery Killer. Tests in the past had produced data like: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test.jpg Two cells tested from my recent purchase look like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Endurance_AA.pdf The 20-cent cell is decidedly lower in energy content. However, in terms of cents per milliampere hour, still a reasonable deal since the other bargain products are pushing 37 cents per cell. I'll watch this product and buy another package in 6 months to a year for a retest. The cells I have may have been produced when the chef was having a bad day in the kitchen. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Soldering question--What am I doing wrong?
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
Sounds like you could use a little solder flux. . You want electronic flux - not plumbing flux. Digikey sells water soluble flux pens that work great. That makes the heat transfer to the PCB a lot better. You want to heat mostly the PCB trace, especially if it is more massive than the LED lead. Ideally, they both reach flow temperature at the same time. The solder should flow evenly on PCB and lead with a concave shape - not convex or bulbous. If flux doesn't do it, get a larger iron. Radio Shack makes a temperature controlled iron for about $70. Set it to about 600 degrees and you get just the right amount of heat at the junction. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg@itmack Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:10 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Soldering question--What am I doing wrong? Sounds like your technique is okay but I think the iron may be a bit small. I like about 60w to keep the heat up when it touches the board. Make sure you're heating both the pad on the board and the LED. You don't need to take the old solder off to re-do a solder joint. Greg Just finished assembling my lights. > > > I'm building the Creative Air LED nav light kits, working on the LED's. > > So here's what I am doing. > > First I clean up the boards and LED leads with alcohol. > > Put them in the boards & bend the wires. > > Tin the iron. It's a 15 watt iron. > > Put the iron on the connection, then apply the solder. Bill says the > LED's > are heat sensitive and to only hold the iron on them a couple seconds. > > Half the time the solder doesn't penetrate the board, so I only have a > cone > of solder on the lead on one side of the board, the side I am soldering > on. > > To try to fix it, I try to solder it again. > > If that doesn't work (it rarely does), I remove most of the solder using > the iron and a clean cotton swab to absorb the solder & try again. Rarely > works. > > Some of these I try a dozen times & still no joy. > > How can I get a good soldered joint with a cone of solder on both sides of > the board? I have been told that that's what I need for a good > joint. Maybe that guy was wrong? > > Richard Scott > RV-9A > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Attitude Gyro
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Artificial Horizon: RCA26AK-4-14V This is an all electric Attitude Gyro that is un-lighted and has an 8 degree panel tilt. It was completely overhauled, by Kelly MFG. CO. 1/10/2006, and is under warranty till 01/10/07. It employs an electrically driven gyro rotor with built-in inverter. Size: 3-3/8"x 7" Wt. 2.7 lbs. Mates with MS3116E8-4S connector. $1,100 or best offer. willfly(at)carolina.rr.com Steve Glasgow N123SG RV-8 Cappy's Toy 704-362-0005 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PTACKABURY(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae
Bob: Thanks for the second prompt response. After considering your recommendation for an experiment, a logical approach indeed, I am reconsidering my paint choices. Since I have six internal antennas in my Lancair, both in the upper aft fuse and each wing tip and since I would like each to operate as well as possible, I now think using any metallic coatings may be a bad idea. Why introduce even a 20% degradation in performance if it can be avoided? So rather than metallic, I think I will use pearl (plastic additives rather than metallic) to achieve the desired effect. It is a bit more difficult to apply and touch up, but it shouldn't effect nav/com reception--should it? paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Bob, Also, I don't want to be a nit-picker but the legend on the graph of your shop discharge test cited below indicates that the black line is a 17AH battery at 3 Amp discharge versus the red line being an 18AH battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume means a 12 volt,17AH battery? >Here are curves produced here in our shop on a single 18 a.h. > SVLA battery . . . >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1217_3n8_Discharge.pdf Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> >>Hi Mark >>You sound like you are probably well aware of this but "theoretically" >>I'd expect a lot less than 3 hours at 1 amp > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: My bubble has burst . . .
Maybe you stumbled upon the reason there cheaper - inconsistent output capacity - produced with lower tolerances, lower acceptance levels (good bin v/s bad reject been), this all affects product cost and shelf price. jerb At 09:26 AM 3/5/2006, you wrote: > > >Some of you may recall that I did some studies on >energy content of the various alkaline AA cells some >time back and found that of all the brands I could >lay my hands on at the time, energy content was about >the same irrespective of price or advertising hype. > >I was in Advance Auto Parts last week and they had a 24-pak >of Endurance brand alkaline AA cells for $4.88 . . . about >20 cents per cell. The best price in town. I purchased a >pack and just for grins, decided to run some on Brutus the >Battery Killer. > >Tests in the past had produced data like: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test.jpg > >Two cells tested from my recent purchase look like this: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Endurance_AA.pdf > > >The 20-cent cell is decidedly lower in energy content. However, >in terms of cents per milliampere hour, still a reasonable deal >since the other bargain products are pushing 37 cents per cell. > >I'll watch this product and buy another package in 6 months >to a year for a retest. The cells I have may have been produced >when the chef was having a bad day in the kitchen. > > > Bob . . . > > > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: My bubble has burst . . .
Date: Mar 05, 2006
A real Gem, and a bit of truth ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
> > >Bob, > >Also, I don't want to be a nit-picker but the legend on the graph of >your shop discharge test cited below indicates that the black line is a >17AH battery at 3 Amp discharge versus the red line being an 18AH >battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding >something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume >means a 12 volt,17AH battery? Good catch. I need to fix that. Both graphs were on the same Panasonic LC-RD1217 battery . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Panasonic/lc-rd1217p.pdf The 18 a.h. reference is a typo. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: My bubble has burst . . .
> >Maybe you stumbled upon the reason there cheaper - inconsistent >output capacity - produced with lower tolerances, lower acceptance >levels (good bin v/s bad reject been), this all affects product cost >and shelf price. Sure . . . but within certain boundaries. A blister-pack of 6-32 screws on Walgreen's hardware rack won't be made of recycled pot metal, they won't be 3-18 stainless either. Within narrower confines, theres only so much you can do to a bread recipe before the product is no longer attractive to any customer. And what savings are to be realized by manipulating materials? Many high quality products keep prices low by eliminating no value added activities like TV advertising, too many handlers in the distribution loop, etc. There's rarely much to be gained by short-changing the materials or manufacturing processes. Over the years, we're seeing fewer products that are graded like the old Sears catalogs that offered good, better and best. Semiconductor companies have largely abandoned the military parts business where they simply screened industrial grade parts for more stringent performance limits. The market was tiny and the labor great. Now if we want "mil-spec" parts, we buy a bunch and screen them ourselves. It's interesting that of the parts we do screen, fallout is very low. Usually zero. We could save a lot of money in certificated aircraft if we abandoned our long standing lovefest with anything mil-spec'd. That class of product is approaching extinction because ordinary consumers are demanding equal or BETTER parts than the military wanted . . . and suppliers are building them. So the interesting question to explore was just how much might one diddle with the recipe for an alkaline battery just to have a lower priced niche in on the shelves? I first considered the question in an article for Sport Aviation a few years ago: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf In that study, I determined that over a wide range of prices, there was little variation in the alkaline batteries to be sampled at the time. I've tested a number of other house brands for folks who sent them to me and found similar results. This new kid on the block seems to be the exception . . . although still a better value than a CopperTop or BunnyBattery purchased at retail. Just a little pothole in the life of those interested in such things . . . I happen to suffer that affliction. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> and Antennae
Subject: Re: Composite planes, Metallic paint, and Antennae
> >Bob: Thanks for the second prompt response. After considering your >recommendation for an experiment, a logical approach indeed, I >am reconsidering my >paint choices. Since I have six internal antennas in my Lancair, both in >the >upper aft fuse and each wing tip and since I would like each to operate as >well as possible, I now think using any metallic coatings may be a bad >idea. >Why introduce even a 20% degradation in performance if it can be avoided? Whoa . . . I'm not suggesting for a moment that ANY paint you test will produce any noticeable degradation. Odds are that it will produce no effects you can observe. Further, if you DO conduct a test for a particular combination of coatings and find that it has no observable effect (or perhaps only barely twitches the readings) . . . that's GOOD data to share with others. >So rather than metallic, I think I will use pearl (plastic additives >rather than >metallic) to achieve the desired effect. It is a bit more difficult to >apply and touch up, but it shouldn't effect nav/com reception--should >it? paul Probably won't . . . but there's no calibration on "probably". So much of what passes for good advice is based on subjective observations. A builder who reports great antenna performance and never talks to stations more than 10 miles away might get similar results with a wet string. On the other hand, a builder who is disappointed that he can't hit an RCO out on the horizon of some leg of a favorite trip might have an entirely different opinion on the same antenna. There's nothing like numbers from the repeatable experiment to add real value to one's advice. Even if backyard experimenting is not your bag . . . risks for using the paint you described are very low. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
J. Mcculley wrote: > > Bob, > > Also, I don't want to be a nit-picker but the legend on the graph of > your shop discharge test cited below indicates that the black line is a > 17AH battery at 3 Amp discharge versus the red line being an 18AH > battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding > something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume > means a 12 volt,17AH battery? The curves look correct to me. They are a bit odd in that normally one plots voltage against time for a given discharge rate (constant current) but you can always divide the amp-hour scale by amps to get the hours. what might be more interesting would be to plot the endpoints (11V or 10.5V, whatever you select for "dead") and the amp-hours delivered for each discharge rate. That would show you how much energy is available from your battery at different discharge rates. You could also calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery so you can figure out its remaining capacity even at varying discharge rates. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding >> something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume >> means a 12 volt,17AH battery? > > Good catch. I need to fix that. Both graphs were on the same > Panasonic LC-RD1217 battery . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Panasonic/lc-rd1217p.pdf > > The 18 a.h. reference is a typo. Is this a gelled electrolyte battery or an AGM battery? My guess from looking at the voltage sag is that it is a gel-cell. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Heated Pitot test
Date: Mar 05, 2006
I bought a used 12v heated pitot removed from a Piper Seminole off of ebay claimed to be servicable and tested. I have never hooked up one of these. It has two terminals to hook up wires. But accually has 2 wires now soldered to one terminal and one wire soldered to the second terminal but appears a second wire was at one time soldered to the second terminal. The only verifiable markings are a "p" and an "s" I believe designate which tube is the pitot and static ports. But no marking for positive or negitive. I will not be installing this for a while since I have a ways to go on building my plane but wish to at least test it before storing it for later. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Heated Pitot test
Brinker wrote: > > I bought a used 12v heated pitot removed from a Piper Seminole off > of ebay claimed to be servicable and tested. I have never hooked up one of > these. It has two terminals to hook up wires. But accually has 2 wires now > soldered to one terminal and one wire soldered to the second terminal but > appears a second wire was at one time soldered to the second terminal. > The only verifiable markings are a "p" and an "s" I believe designate > which tube is the pitot and static ports. But no marking for positive or > negitive. > I will not be installing this for a while since I have a ways to go > on building my plane but wish to at least test it before storing it for > later. Since the heating element is a resistor, there is no polarity. If it was designed to work on either 12V or 24V there will be two elements. Use them in series for 24V and in parallel for 12V. And the latter is just a guess on my part. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Subject: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Date: Mar 05, 2006
I'm making LED instrument floodlights and LED lights for an annunciator panel. I expect the system voltage to vary between about 13.8 volts when the engine and alternator are running, down to about 12.4 volts running just off a lightly loaded battery. When connecting the LEDs in a series string of three, the resistance required to get the voltage to the recommended level for the LEDs at the 13.8 system voltage is different than when the system voltage is 12.4. Although it doesn't make a huge difference in the amount of light that comes out of the LEDs, it is noticeable. I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? I don't have any experience with zener diodes, but the catalogs make it sound like they produce a stable voltage output when operated within their amperage limitations, sort of like a cheap power supply. Digikey sells them for only a little more than resistors, so cost isn't an issue. Admittedly, the varying light output isn't a huge problem, but if it's just as easy and cheap to use zeners, why use resistors? Thanks, Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy #257, wiring in (slow) progress ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Dennis Johnson wrote: > I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? Actually, that would make the problem worse. You would get a huge change in light output with only a tiny change in voltage. Light output from an LED is a function of the current through it and the current through an LED is not linear with applied voltage. The resistor acts as a ballast to make the current change more linear with voltage so that a 0.3V change doesn't cause the LED to go from no output to full output. What you really want to make is a constant current source. This would make the light output independent of bus voltage. Another way to stabilize light output is to regulate your bus voltage down to something like 9V, using that to power your LEDs. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
You can use a resistor and Zener diode to make a constant voltage source for the LEDs as you say. This is not terribly efficient, but easy to assemble. You don't say what the current is that you need. Let's assume that it is 100mA (.1A). If the system voltage is at 13.8V and you want to use just fixed resistors, the voltage drop through the resistor would be 13.8-5.1 (target) or 8.7V. The R required would be Vd/I = R or 8.7/.1 R = 87 ohms... So far, so good. But if the voltage in drops a bit, the same current still gets dropped 8.7V by the R... causing the LEDs to dim a little. You can get a constant 5.1V at the LEDs with a 5.1V Zener. Pick the current you want and the lowest voltage you want. Let's stay with the .1A and set the lower drop out at 10.1V for a Vd of 5V. To get a current of .1A, you would need R to be 50 ohms. But at 13.8V, the drop would not be enough. Zener to the rescue: | -> LED1 -> LED2 -LED3 | Hook up as Vin (14v) -> R ->| | -> gnd | -> Zener(Band-Cathode)---Zener Anode | When the voltage goes above 10.1V, the Zener will conduct enough to cause additional voltage drop through the R, holding the voltage at 5.1V to the LEDs... Finally, you have to look at the wattage for both the R and the Zener. Continuing the example, the max drop across the R would be something like 14.5-5.1 or 9.4V. Watts = V*V/R = 9.4v * 9.4 / 50 , so 1 Watt would work in this example For the Zener, the voltage drop is 5.1V, the current is the current through the R (V/R or 9.4/50 = 188mA), less any current diverted to the LEDs. Assuming they draw .1A, the current through the Zener would be 188-100, or 88mA. So the wattage would be V*I or 9.4*0.088 = .88W. So use a 1W or larger Zener. Hope this helps. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Zener Diodes and LEDs Dennis Johnson wrote: > I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? Actually, that would make the problem worse. You would get a huge change in light output with only a tiny change in voltage. Light output from an LED is a function of the current through it and the current through an LED is not linear with applied voltage. The resistor acts as a ballast to make the current change more linear with voltage so that a 0.3V change doesn't cause the LED to go from no output to full output. What you really want to make is a constant current source. This would make the light output independent of bus voltage. Another way to stabilize light output is to regulate your bus voltage down to something like 9V, using that to power your LEDs. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Short answer.. No. Longer answer below... Resistors limit the current through the LEDs to whatever you want (20 mA maybe). More source voltage just means a little more current and a little brighter LED. The extra voltage is dropped across the resistor, not the LEDs. LEDs actually have a voltage current characteristic similar to zeners which limit the voltage across themselves. If you string the LEDs and a zener together, they will not emit any light until the voltage reaches whatever minimum is required across the LEDs and the zener - 10.2 volts in your case - and then burn out as the voltage tries to go higher.. If what you are suggesting is to place a 5.1V zener in parallel with the LEDs and a resistor in series with the zener and LEDs, that will sorta work as long as you don't mind wasting some extra power. Since LEDs have slightly different voltage drops and since this changes somewhat with temperature and since the same happens with a zener, using a simple circuit like you are suggesting won't really work. You would have to use a zener nd two resistors to make something that would work and you would be throwing away a significant amount of power, since what you would be doing is constructing a simple shunt regulator. Basically you would use the zener and a resistor to create a shunt regulated voltage source and then string the LEDs and an additional resistor across the zener. A better way to accomplish what you want to do would be to use a three terminal regulator such as the LM317 and hook it up as a current sink in series with the LEDs. This requires nothing more than a single resistor and the LM317 and what happens is that the regulator operates to keep the same current through the LEDs regardless what the external power does - keeping the LEDs the same brightness as the voltage varies from 12.4 (or less) to 13.8. You can hook the power source to the regulator and then the regulator to the LEDs and then to ground or you can hook the power source to the LEDs and then to the regulator and then to ground - make no difference as long as they are connected in series. Download the datasheet from: http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM317L.html (about 1/4 down the page) and then look at the bottom of page 17 of the datasheet for a current regulator. You do not need the pot, just a fixed resistor works fine calculated per the accompanying formula (Vref is 1.25V). So to get 20 mA you would use I=1.25/R, or R = 1.25/.02 or 62.5 ohms (or the closest standard resistor value). The part is available from Digikey or Mouser or any number of other electronics supply houses. Or you can just use a resistor and live with the slight change in brightness. Any questions, ask :-) . Dick Tasker Dennis Johnson wrote: > >I'm making LED instrument floodlights and LED lights for an annunciator panel. I expect the system voltage to vary between about 13.8 volts when the engine and alternator are running, down to about 12.4 volts running just off a lightly loaded battery. > >When connecting the LEDs in a series string of three, the resistance required to get the voltage to the recommended level for the LEDs at the 13.8 system voltage is different than when the system voltage is 12.4. Although it doesn't make a huge difference in the amount of light that comes out of the LEDs, it is noticeable. > >I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? > >I don't have any experience with zener diodes, but the catalogs make it sound like they produce a stable voltage output when operated within their amperage limitations, sort of like a cheap power supply. Digikey sells them for only a little more than resistors, so cost isn't an issue. Admittedly, the varying light output isn't a huge problem, but if it's just as easy and cheap to use zeners, why use resistors? > >Thanks, >Dennis Johnson >Lancair Legacy #257, wiring in (slow) progress > > > > > > > > > -- 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. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
Better solution than mine. As you point out, the LEDs need constant current, not constant voltage. Selecting a the zener higher voltage, with current limiting behind it to the LEDs would work fine. But, with less efficiency than a current regulator configuration. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Zener Diodes and LEDs Short answer.. No. Longer answer below... Resistors limit the current through the LEDs to whatever you want (20 mA maybe). More source voltage just means a little more current and a little brighter LED. The extra voltage is dropped across the resistor, not the LEDs. LEDs actually have a voltage current characteristic similar to zeners which limit the voltage across themselves. If you string the LEDs and a zener together, they will not emit any light until the voltage reaches whatever minimum is required across the LEDs and the zener - 10.2 volts in your case - and then burn out as the voltage tries to go higher.. If what you are suggesting is to place a 5.1V zener in parallel with the LEDs and a resistor in series with the zener and LEDs, that will sorta work as long as you don't mind wasting some extra power. Since LEDs have slightly different voltage drops and since this changes somewhat with temperature and since the same happens with a zener, using a simple circuit like you are suggesting won't really work. You would have to use a zener nd two resistors to make something that would work and you would be throwing away a significant amount of power, since what you would be doing is constructing a simple shunt regulator. Basically you would use the zener and a resistor to create a shunt regulated voltage source and then string the LEDs and an additional resistor across the zener. A better way to accomplish what you want to do would be to use a three terminal regulator such as the LM317 and hook it up as a current sink in series with the LEDs. This requires nothing more than a single resistor and the LM317 and what happens is that the regulator operates to keep the same current through the LEDs regardless what the external power does - keeping the LEDs the same brightness as the voltage varies from 12.4 (or less) to 13.8. You can hook the power source to the regulator and then the regulator to the LEDs and then to ground or you can hook the power source to the LEDs and then to the regulator and then to ground - make no difference as long as they are connected in series. Download the datasheet from: http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM317L.html (about 1/4 down the page) and then look at the bottom of page 17 of the datasheet for a current regulator. You do not need the pot, just a fixed resistor works fine calculated per the accompanying formula (Vref is 1.25V). So to get 20 mA you would use I=1.25/R, or R = 1.25/.02 or 62.5 ohms (or the closest standard resistor value). The part is available from Digikey or Mouser or any number of other electronics supply houses. Or you can just use a resistor and live with the slight change in brightness. Any questions, ask :-) . Dick Tasker Dennis Johnson wrote: > >I'm making LED instrument floodlights and LED lights for an annunciator panel. I expect the system voltage to vary between about 13.8 volts when the engine and alternator are running, down to about 12.4 volts running just off a lightly loaded battery. > >When connecting the LEDs in a series string of three, the resistance required to get the voltage to the recommended level for the LEDs at the 13.8 system voltage is different than when the system voltage is 12.4. Although it doesn't make a huge difference in the amount of light that comes out of the LEDs, it is noticeable. > >I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? > >I don't have any experience with zener diodes, but the catalogs make it sound like they produce a stable voltage output when operated within their amperage limitations, sort of like a cheap power supply. Digikey sells them for only a little more than resistors, so cost isn't an issue. Admittedly, the varying light output isn't a huge problem, but if it's just as easy and cheap to use zeners, why use resistors? > >Thanks, >Dennis Johnson >Lancair Legacy #257, wiring in (slow) progress > > > > > > > > > -- 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: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Subject: Followup to Zener/LED Question
Date: Mar 05, 2006
I've already received a few excellent responses to my question about using zener diodes to regulate power to an LED light. Thanks so much for your very thoughtful answers. It's obvious that my understanding of LEDs is flawed. I have a couple of basic questions to get me back on track and that will allow me to fully understand your replies: Assume an LED with a Vf of 2.1 volts and 20 mA rating: 1. If I hook the LED to a power supply fixed at 2.1 volts but with an unlimited capacity to supply current, what would happen to the LED? 2. If I hook up the LED to a power supply set to 48 volts or so but with the current limited to 20 mA, what would happen to the LED? I have a handful of miscellaneous LEDs and I'd try the experiment myself if I had a power supply. It's a great day when I can learn something new, particularly if it's useful! Thanks, Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy --- currently revising my instrument panel LED lighting plan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Followup to Zener/LED Question
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
Basically, you want a current limiter in the circuit. That is what the resistor does. So your 48V/20ma example probably work (depending upon the current spec of the LED). But if you hook to 2.1V supply, you may get no output if the Vf is > 2.1V (high tolerance) or high current, light, and maybe the magic smoke, if the Vf is < 2.1V -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Followup to Zener/LED Question I've already received a few excellent responses to my question about using zener diodes to regulate power to an LED light. Thanks so much for your very thoughtful answers. It's obvious that my understanding of LEDs is flawed. I have a couple of basic questions to get me back on track and that will allow me to fully understand your replies: Assume an LED with a Vf of 2.1 volts and 20 mA rating: 1. If I hook the LED to a power supply fixed at 2.1 volts but with an unlimited capacity to supply current, what would happen to the LED? 2. If I hook up the LED to a power supply set to 48 volts or so but with the current limited to 20 mA, what would happen to the LED? I have a handful of miscellaneous LEDs and I'd try the experiment myself if I had a power supply. It's a great day when I can learn something new, particularly if it's useful! Thanks, Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy --- currently revising my instrument panel LED lighting plan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Followup to Zener/LED Question
Dennis Johnson wrote: > >I've already received a few excellent responses to my question about using zener diodes to regulate power to an LED light. Thanks so much for your very thoughtful answers. It's obvious that my understanding of LEDs is flawed. I have a couple of basic questions to get me back on track and that will allow me to fully understand your replies: > >Assume an LED with a Vf of 2.1 volts and 20 mA rating: > >1. If I hook the LED to a power supply fixed at 2.1 volts but with an unlimited capacity to supply current, what would happen to the LED? > > Well, it depends on whether the power supply is exactly the 2.1 volts of the zener Vf. If it is exactly the 2.1 volts then the zener will light up with the 20 mA brightness. If it is a little higher (2.2V) it will light up much brighter since it will draw much more current. A little higher still and - Toast! If you plot voltage on the X axis and current on the Y axis, a resistor would be a straight line pointing up and to the right. A zener would be "L" shaped with a little bit of rounding at the apex of the "L"- very little current until it reaches the zener voltage and then the current would rise very fast for just a little more voltage. An LED is similar except the apex is a little more rounded than the zener. Zeners and LEDs MUST have something to limit the current or they will overheat and die when the voltage rises a little above the Vf or zener voltage. >2. If I hook up the LED to a power supply set to 48 volts or so but with the current limited to 20 mA, what would happen to the LED? > > It would light to whatever brightness that 20 mA creates. If you use a resistor, the brightness would change if you varied the 48 volts. If you used an active current limiter such as I described earlier, the brightness would stay constant. If you plotted the active limiter as above, you would get a straight horizontal line from about 3V to 38V (the maximum voltage limit of the LM317). Below 3V or so you would get essentially no current. The only drawback to the active current limiter is that it doesn't allow the LED to change brightness if you wanted to dim it with a normal dimmer. You have to use one of the digital dimmers (pulse width controlled) to dim it. >I have a handful of miscellaneous LEDs and I'd try the experiment myself if I had a power supply. > >It's a great day when I can learn something new, particularly if it's useful! > >Thanks, >Dennis Johnson >Lancair Legacy --- currently revising my instrument panel LED lighting plan > -- 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. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Followup to Zener/LED Question
Ooops! Actually, in my previous post it would be a backwards "L" shape. Dennis Johnson wrote: > >I've already received a few excellent responses to my question about using zener diodes to regulate power to an LED light. Thanks so much for your very thoughtful answers. It's obvious that my understanding of LEDs is flawed. I have a couple of basic questions to get me back on track and that will allow me to fully understand your replies: > >Assume an LED with a Vf of 2.1 volts and 20 mA rating: > >1. If I hook the LED to a power supply fixed at 2.1 volts but with an unlimited capacity to supply current, what would happen to the LED? > >2. If I hook up the LED to a power supply set to 48 volts or so but with the current limited to 20 mA, what would happen to the LED? > >I have a handful of miscellaneous LEDs and I'd try the experiment myself if I had a power supply. > >It's a great day when I can learn something new, particularly if it's useful! > >Thanks, >Dennis Johnson >Lancair Legacy --- currently revising my instrument panel LED lighting plan > -- 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. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Heated Pitot test
Randy, There are two heating elements in the Piper style heated pitot tube. One is a 70 watt unit, the other is 100 watts. I've seen the wires of both heating elements crimped together before. Cut the wires apart, so that you can insure that BOTH elements work. Check for continuity between both wires of each element. I believe my pitot elements ohm out at about 3 ohms. An infinite reading will be that the element being tested is bad. Connect each elements 2 wires to a 12 volt battery (check one element at a time) using 16 or 14 AWG wire. The Pitot should start to warm up in your hand within 30 to 60 seconds. Do not apply power for a period of time longer than is needed to verify that each element works. If you have a bad element, they can be replaced. A number of outfits will charge you a hefty price for these parts. RV-9A builder Peter Laurence tracked down the "source" for these units. They are available for a reasonable price from HotWatt. See Peter's email to me below for more info. Charlie Kuss Charlie, Here is the info. Heaters are made by Hotwatt Http://www.hotwatt.com/cartridg.htm Hotwatt part #s For Pitot: 13A7025 70 W 12V Static 13A7026 100W 14V Piper part #s 464-356 for the 70W 12V 464-357 for the 100W 14V These are called cartridge heaters. They are 3"X 3/16" and 4"X 3/16" Check the ceramic plug where the wire enters the cartridge. If there's any movement of the wire, it should be replaced. Peter Laurence > > I bought a used 12v heated pitot removed from a Piper Seminole off >of ebay claimed to be servicable and tested. I have never hooked up one of >these. It has two terminals to hook up wires. But accually has 2 wires now >soldered to one terminal and one wire soldered to the second terminal but >appears a second wire was at one time soldered to the second terminal. > The only verifiable markings are a "p" and an "s" I believe designate >which tube is the pitot and static ports. But no marking for positive or >negitive. > I will not be installing this for a while since I have a ways to go >on building my plane but wish to at least test it before storing it for >later. > >Randy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
> >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding > >> something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume > >> means a 12 volt,17AH battery? > > > > Good catch. I need to fix that. Both graphs were on the same > > Panasonic LC-RD1217 battery . . . > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Panasonic/lc-rd1217p.pdf > > > > The 18 a.h. reference is a typo. > >Is this a gelled electrolyte battery or an AGM battery? My guess from >looking at the voltage sag is that it is a gel-cell. Gel cells are almost non-existent in the wild. If you have a real gel-cell it will probably say so in the literature and even on the side of the battery. Gels are a modified flooded battery where enough jello like stuff was added to make the normally liquid stuff stay in place when the battery was inverted. Globe Union were biggies in Gels about 25 years ago, Sonnenschein makes them in Europe. The first spill proof battery B&C sold was the Gates energy jelly-roll cells which were a true AGM, SVLA, RG, Immmobilized Electrolyte, starved electrolyte battery . . . but not a gel-cell. When the Gates product proved unworthy of flight in aircraft, B&C switched to the Sonnenschein gels for a time but those were replaced by the Genesis series (all the above types) and ultimately STD'd onto a bunch of airplanes. Gel-cells are popular for deep cycle applications like electric wheelchairs. They seem to perform better than their dryer cousins. I think B&C still has one gel-cell offering. Some folks like Delmar Benjamin swear by them and he Bill aims to please. The vast majority of lead-acid products are of the SVLA/RG variety and you have to go out of your way to find a gel-cell. Unfortunately, most of the storefronts who stock these modern marvels refer to them as gel-cells and help perpetuate a huge mis-information. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson(at)showmeproductions.com>
Subject: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Looks like this is what you need. See http://www.periheliondesign.com/Vregflyer.htm Malcolm. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Zener Diodes and LEDs --> I'm making LED instrument floodlights and LED lights for an annunciator panel. I expect the system voltage to vary between about 13.8 volts when the engine and alternator are running, down to about 12.4 volts running just off a lightly loaded battery. When connecting the LEDs in a series string of three, the resistance required to get the voltage to the recommended level for the LEDs at the 13.8 system voltage is different than when the system voltage is 12.4. Although it doesn't make a huge difference in the amount of light that comes out of the LEDs, it is noticeable. I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of resistors? I don't have any experience with zener diodes, but the catalogs make it sound like they produce a stable voltage output when operated within their amperage limitations, sort of like a cheap power supply. Digikey sells them for only a little more than resistors, so cost isn't an issue. Admittedly, the varying light output isn't a huge problem, but if it's just as easy and cheap to use zeners, why use resistors? Thanks, Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy #257, wiring in (slow) progress -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Gel cells are almost non-existent in the wild. If you have a real > gel-cell it will probably say so in the literature and even on the > side of the battery. Gels are a modified flooded battery where > enough jello like stuff was added to make the normally liquid > stuff stay in place when the battery was inverted. Gel-cells are rather common in the boating community. They are clearly delineated as such. > Globe Union were biggies in Gels about 25 years ago, Sonnenschein > makes them in Europe. The first spill proof battery B&C sold was > the Gates energy jelly-roll cells which were a true AGM, SVLA, > RG, Immmobilized Electrolyte, starved electrolyte battery . . . but > not a gel-cell. When the Gates product proved unworthy of flight > in aircraft, B&C switched to the Sonnenschein gels for a time but > those were replaced by the Genesis series (all the above types) > and ultimately STD'd onto a bunch of airplanes. No argument there. > Gel-cells are popular for deep cycle applications like electric > wheelchairs. They seem to perform better than their dryer > cousins. I think B&C still has one gel-cell offering. Some folks > like Delmar Benjamin swear by them and he Bill aims to please. I happen to like gels myself as their acceptable absorption charge voltage range overlaps with the acceptable float charge voltage range. You can get away with a single-voltage charging system (like an aircraft's alternator). Also, gels seem to tolerate extended partial discharge better than AGMs. This makes them more attractive in power systems where the battery does not get completely recharged every time. But their higher internal resistance makes them poor starting batteries unless they are oversized for the task. > The vast majority of lead-acid products are of the SVLA/RG Gel-cells are RG (recombinant gas) batteries also. I am not familiar with the term SVLA tho. RG - recombinant gas VRLA - valve-regulated lead-acid AGM - absorbed glass-mat GELA - gelled-electrolyte lead-acid BTW, VRLA or RG can refer to *either* GELA or AGM batteries. I am attaching a really good treatise on VRLA batteries from Deka-Penn. Clearly they are trying to sell their own product and it is a bit simplistic in some areas but their stuff on charging and discharging is really good. The best thing about it is that it addresses the differences in operation of GELA and AGM batteries. > variety and you have to go out of your way to find a gel-cell. I disagree. I have no trouble finding gel-cells and use them where I think they will perform better. They have higher internal resistance than do AGMs but they are less prone to failure on overcharge than are AGMs. They also tolerate partial or complete discharge better than AGMs. > Unfortunately, most of the storefronts who stock these modern > marvels refer to them as gel-cells and help perpetuate a huge > mis-information. Bob, I know the difference. I read the manufacturer's literature so I know what I am buying. I don't trust what stores tell me because, frankly, I usually know more about the topic than does the store. GELA batteries are common enough that I would not pretend to know what is inside the case unless the lit clearly states one way or another. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
> > >J. Mcculley wrote: > > > > > Bob, > > > > Also, I don't want to be a nit-picker but the legend on the graph of > > your shop discharge test cited below indicates that the black line is a > > 17AH battery at 3 Amp discharge versus the red line being an 18AH > > battery at 8 Amp discharge. Is this a typo or am I missing understanding > > something? I see the 1217,3n8 notation in the web address which I assume > > means a 12 volt,17AH battery? > >The curves look correct to me. They are a bit odd in that normally one >plots voltage against time for a given discharge rate (constant current) >but you can always divide the amp-hour scale by amps to get the hours. > >what might be more interesting would be to plot the endpoints (11V or >10.5V, whatever you select for "dead") and the amp-hours delivered for >each discharge rate. That would show you how much energy is available >from your battery at different discharge rates. You could also calculate >Peukert's exponent for your battery so you can figure out its remaining >capacity even at varying discharge rates. Yeah . . . I've had some conversation with the folks at WestMountainRadio about this. Obviously, the ampere-hour is NOT a measure of energy. When I purchased my first battery tester from them, I suggested some enhancements for the next release of their software. We engineers would really like to see constant wattage and constant resistance discharge functions in addition to the standard constant current function. Then too, as you've noted, a volts vs. time and energy vs. time plots would be more meaningful along with an box on the graph that displayed watt-seconds of energy at the endpoint. He seemed receptive. I'll write again and see where that might set on his stove's burners. I'd REALLY like to recommend his tool to others in the battery business but most would like some features besides the arcane and poorly-descriptive ampere-hour display. He's 100% of the way there with hardware, what he needs now is a really cool GUI. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Backup battery - Lightspeed EI
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Yeah . . . I've had some conversation with the folks at WestMountainRadio > about this. Obviously, the ampere-hour is NOT a measure of energy. But it is easily converted into energy (amp-hours x volts = watt-hours) and it more readily conforms to how a battery works. Good batteries tend to have very high coulombic efficiency (one coulomb removed requires one coulomb to be replaced). I am used to batteries with coulombic efficiencies on the order of 97%. The energy loss in a battery is a function of the voltages involved, i.e. you need a higher voltage to push the coulombs back into the battery than you get when taking them out. (For those of you wondering what I am talking about, a coulomb is the measure of a pot full of electrons. An amp is one coulomb of electrons flowing through a wire in one second. Think of the cell of a battery as a tank full of coulombs of electrons.) > When > I purchased my first battery tester from them, I suggested some enhancements > for the next release of their software. We engineers would really like to > see constant wattage and constant resistance discharge functions in addition > to the standard constant current function. Then too, as you've noted, a > volts vs. time and energy vs. time plots would be more meaningful along > with an box on the graph that displayed watt-seconds of energy at the > endpoint. > He seemed receptive. I'll write again and see where that might set on his > stove's burners. Well, then let's build our own. Not hard to do. It is just some simple hardware and then SMOP (small matter of programming). Hardware consists of a load bank made up of a bunch of paralleled MOSFETs driven from a D:A converter. (Use MOSFETs because they won't current hog.) The battery voltage and current is measured by an A:D converter. The software looks at these values and controls the load bank to make it do what you want it to do. > I'd REALLY like to recommend his tool to others in the battery business > but most would like some features besides the arcane and poorly-descriptive > ampere-hour display. He's 100% of the way there with hardware, what he > needs now is a really cool GUI. Well, the hardware is the easy part. :-) I would like to see his tester. You know, with the requirement for testing of batteries in certified aircraft, you would think there would be a market for a good, cheap battery tester. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: bursting bubbles
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: My bubble has burst . . . > > >The 20-cent cell is decidedly lower in energy content. However, >in terms of cents per milliampere hour, still a reasonable deal >since the other bargain products are pushing 37 cents per cell. > >I'll watch this product and buy another package in 6 months >to a year for a retest. The cells I have may have been produced >when the chef was having a bad day in the kitchen. > > > Bob, could you make a note of the date of manufacture that should be stamped on each battery when you do these test. It is my suspicion that you will find more correlation between capacity and DOM than capacity and cost. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Jim Wickert <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae
Alan, Sorry fat fingers "DO Not" they are quite functional under glass and kelvar but not Carbon Fiber. Take care. Jim Wickert Vision Vair #159 -----Original Message----- >From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> >Sent: Mar 4, 2006 10:08 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae > > >Jim, thanks for the post. Can I ask for some clarification? Your quote >... "It is quite well known that foil internal antennas do function well >under carbon fiber cloth." Is that correct, or should there have been a >*NOT* before "function"? Are you trying to say, they do or do not work on >carbon? > >Second and a point of clarification. The Lancair actually uses an "outside >antenna". It uses a bent whip from ComAnt. But I wanted to improve the >"ground plane" only, so I added those 4 "radials" of 22" and the base plate >to provide the counterpoise and conductive attach points for the external >antenna. > >I know of one other Legacy that is completed this same way and he says his >Comm antenna works very well. I'm cautiously optimistic. > >But I think I'll order that $5 book just the same. > >Thanks and can ya clear up the opening quote for me? > >Alan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim >Wickert >Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:21 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, Antennae > >--> > >Alan, > >Jim Wickert here. It is quite well known that foil internal antennas do >function well under carbon fiber cloth. they do however function very well >under glass substrate. Now with regard to paint. Per a quite an >experienced individual Jim Weir VP RST Engineering group who as published >"The Reference Text, The RST-820 Antenna which deals strictly with copper >Tape Antennas, see quote> > >"These antennas have worked in glass and fiberglass airplanes with almost >every kind of paint and dope (including the aluminum coat used on fabric as >a UV protectant) that we could find. A couple of times in the past two >years there have been reports that there is a new German metallic paint >(sorry, I don't know the brand) that makes ALL hidden antennas (not just >ours) work poorly if at all." > >I know of builder that has his plane flying with a silver metallic paint and >he has no problems. Jims Ref manual is about $5.00 and well worth the price >of admission for any laying out antennas in composite planes > >Take care, happy building > >Jim Wickert >Vision Vair #159 >Some will have it some will not!! > >-----Original Message----- >>From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> >>Sent: Mar 4, 2006 12:35 PM >>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, >Antennae >> >>--> >> >>Just one comment, Radar uses a much higher frequency than Comm or Nav, >etc. >>So while the metal flake paint messes with radar returns due to it's >>"reflectivity". I doubt it would do much to the comm antenna >> >>Alan >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>PTACKABURY(at)aol.com >>Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:38 AM >>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Composite planes, Metallic paint, >>Antennae >> >> >>Bob: Thanks for your prompt response to my question, BUT: I didn't >>communicate my concern well and therefore need to retransmit. I am >>not interested in a ground plane, I understand that one from your >>excellent chapter in the "Connection" and used that info when >>installing my EXTERIOR antennae. My concern is the INTERIOR antennae >>buried in the upper aft sections of the Lancair IV under the fiberglass >>skin. Again this is the recommended place for com, gps, etc and has >>been used successfully by many builders for years so I am not concerned >>about that either. HOWEVER, I am considering a metallic paint and >>wonder if the small amounts of metallic in the paint when applied over >>the fiberglass will degrade the performance of these buried antennae. >>I don't think metallic paints are used on radomes but I wonder if this >>is really a concern for my installation. thanks for giving me a >>second chance, paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: bursting bubbles
> > > > > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > >Subject: AeroElectric-List: My bubble has burst . . . > > > > > >The 20-cent cell is decidedly lower in energy content. However, > >in terms of cents per milliampere hour, still a reasonable deal > >since the other bargain products are pushing 37 cents per cell. > > > >I'll watch this product and buy another package in 6 months > >to a year for a retest. The cells I have may have been produced > >when the chef was having a bad day in the kitchen. > > > > > > >Bob, could you make a note of the date of manufacture that should be >stamped on each battery when you do these test. It is my suspicion that >you will find more correlation between capacity and DOM than capacity >and cost. Excellent point. I know that a famous battery manufacturer has suffered a number of manufacturing runs where the chef was having a bad day. This could well be the same phenomenon. This batch of batteries are marked "best if used by Dec 2012". I suspect they were manufactured in Dec of 2005. I'll make SURE the next package I buy is a different date. Thanks for the suggestion. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: Power reqmts - buss evaluation?
Date: Mar 06, 2006
All, I'm looking for a little help. I've got a panel design conceptualized, as a result I need to verify the most optimal buss, switch breaker, breaker and fuse counts. http://www.highrf.com/Rockets/Panel%20Final.jpg - Panel layout I've been using a spreadsheet that includes all the information including some tables that show busses and what's on each buss. I'm primarily focused on pull breakers, but all the detail are there for switch breakers and fuses. http://www.highrf.com/Rockets/Breaker%20Counts.xls - spreadsheet This is a dual alt/batt 24v system with a 60 or 100amp main alt, and an SD-20 as backup. It will be using a slightly modified Z14 (modified because there is an avionics master on the primary buss. Please let me know if you see any "gaping" holes in my thot process. The airplane uses a Chelton dual screen EFIS with electric instrument backup. There is no vacuum system. Thanks for your time and any help is appreciated. Alan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Zener Diodes and LEDs
Yes you can use zeners but you need resistors also. What you want to do is to provide a stable voltage to drive the LED's so that the intensity does not change with the battery voltage. Using the example of three LED's each with a 1.7 volt drop connected in series with a desired current of 20 mA. With the three LED's connected in series and the cathode of the end one connected to ground connect the anode of the other end of the string to a 45 ohm resistor. Connect that resistor to a 320 ohm resistor, connect that resistor to battery voltage. Connect a 6 volt zener diode cathode to the junction of the two resistors. Connect the other end of the zener diode to ground. By the way I didn't check to see if these values are exactly available this is just an example. When operated at the minimum voltage of 12.4 volts at 20 mA the voltage drop across the 320 ohm resistor will be 6.4 volts leaving 6 volts across the zener diode which will not conduct. Now when operated the total voltage drop across the three LED's will be 5.1 volt leaving 0.9.volts across the 45 ohm resistor thus the current will be 20 mA. When the battery voltage rises to 13.8 volts the zener will conduct current causing an increased voltage drop across the 320 ohm resistor to maintain the voltage across it at 6 volts and the LED's will have a stable current source. Tim Shankland Malcolm Thomson wrote: > >Looks like this is what you need. See >http://www.periheliondesign.com/Vregflyer.htm > >Malcolm. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis >Johnson >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 4:49 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Zener Diodes and LEDs > > >--> > >I'm making LED instrument floodlights and LED lights for an annunciator >panel. I expect the system voltage to vary between about 13.8 volts when >the engine and alternator are running, down to about 12.4 volts running just >off a lightly loaded battery. > >When connecting the LEDs in a series string of three, the resistance >required to get the voltage to the recommended level for the LEDs at the >13.8 system voltage is different than when the system voltage is 12.4. >Although it doesn't make a huge difference in the amount of light that comes >out of the LEDs, it is noticeable. > >I'm wondering (which often gets me into trouble) if I couldn't use zener >diodes instead of resistors to solve the problem of the light output >varying with system voltage. For example, if I have an array of three LEDs, >each with a Vf of 1.7 volts, could I use a 5.1 volt zener diode instead of >resistors? > >I don't have any experience with zener diodes, but the catalogs make it >sound like they produce a stable voltage output when operated within their >amperage limitations, sort of like a cheap power supply. Digikey sells them >for only a little more than resistors, so cost isn't an issue. Admittedly, >the varying light output isn't a huge problem, but if it's just as easy and >cheap to use zeners, why use resistors? > >Thanks, >Dennis Johnson >Lancair Legacy #257, wiring in (slow) progress > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Attn: Collin von Ahlefeldt
Tuesday, March 7, 2006 Collin, Don't know if you subscribe to the List but on the odd chance that you'll spot this . . . I tried to respond to your direct inquiry but the e-mail bounced. Perhaps a typo? ------------------------------------ Comments/Questions: I am building an RV 6 with elevator trim in the 2 stick grips. I have the coolie hat supplied by Van's and the 8A Mac servo but did not buy the relay deck as i didnt know i would need it. Can i use your drawing "Pitch trim" 8-20-00 and use four relays, one set(2) per coolie hat or can i simply wire the coolie hats in parallel. What would happen if one pilot would push down and the other one up on the coolie hat? What 12 volt relay can i buy that would not vibrate in flight and accidently activate the trim motor? Do you think i need a speed control for the elevator? You can wire the switches in parallel. Simultaneous conflicting commands will result in the motor simply stopping. No smoke, no popped fuses, etc. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz(at)comgz.com>
Subject: Coolie hat as pointing device
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Hi Bob and Group, On my Stag-Ez I've mounted a tablet PC to show moving maps in sectional format (OziExplorer programs). Although my tablet has got a sensitive display, I would need an easily operable pointing device other than a mouse which is cumbersome to use in the cockpit. To this end, I thought I maybe could use the coolie hat and two buttons (Infinity type) I've got on my stick grip: has someone already studied this possibility and come up with some solution? Thank you. Gianni Zuliani Tel/Fax +41 91 9710850 Mobile +41 79 3373439 Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Coolie hat as pointing device
Doesn't your tablet PC have a touch screen? When you turn on your radios, do you get noise from the tablet PC? See www.MyGlassCockpit.com for something similar to what you're doing. I have not licked the RFI problem yet. Dave Morris At 02:33 AM 3/8/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Bob and Group, >On my Stag-Ez I've mounted a tablet PC to show moving maps in sectional >format (OziExplorer programs). >Although my tablet has got a sensitive display, I would need an easily >operable pointing device other than a mouse which is cumbersome to use in >the cockpit. >To this end, I thought I maybe could use the coolie hat and two buttons >(Infinity type) I've got on my stick grip: has someone already studied this >possibility and come up with some solution? >Thank you. >Gianni Zuliani >Tel/Fax +41 91 9710850 >Mobile +41 79 3373439 >Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR >http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Coolie hat as pointing device
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Here's some ideas: http://www.littlepc.com/keyboards_pointing.htm Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gianni Zuliani Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:33 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coolie hat as pointing device Hi Bob and Group, On my Stag-Ez I've mounted a tablet PC to show moving maps in sectional format (OziExplorer programs). Although my tablet has got a sensitive display, I would need an easily operable pointing device other than a mouse which is cumbersome to use in the cockpit. To this end, I thought I maybe could use the coolie hat and two buttons (Infinity type) I've got on my stick grip: has someone already studied this possibility and come up with some solution? Thank you. Gianni Zuliani Tel/Fax +41 91 9710850 Mobile +41 79 3373439 Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Coolie hat as pointing device
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Go to Comp USA and pickup a flat panel pointing device. We did this on one of our Lancair's with a tablet PC and it worked very well. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:30 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Coolie hat as pointing device Here's some ideas: http://www.littlepc.com/keyboards_pointing.htm Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gianni Zuliani Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:33 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coolie hat as pointing device Hi Bob and Group, On my Stag-Ez I've mounted a tablet PC to show moving maps in sectional format (OziExplorer programs). Although my tablet has got a sensitive display, I would need an easily operable pointing device other than a mouse which is cumbersome to use in the cockpit. To this end, I thought I maybe could use the coolie hat and two buttons (Infinity type) I've got on my stick grip: has someone already studied this possibility and come up with some solution? Thank you. Gianni Zuliani Tel/Fax +41 91 9710850 Mobile +41 79 3373439 Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm -- 1/16/2006 -- 1/16/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
I'm building some test fixtures for RAC with lots of lights and switches on the front. I like to lay out placards in AutoCAD, print to paper (sometimes colored) and then hot laminate. I've used contact cements for years with good results to attach the placards but I ran across a rather amazing product yesterday that may surpass contact cements and/or other forms of double sided adhesive: Hobby Lobby stocks a stuff called SUPER TACKY Thermoweb. You can find it on E-bay using that search term. I was putting placard down on a panel yesterday and accidently allowed the placard to settle poorly positioned onto the panel. Past experiences with this were no big deal, peel it up and reposition. This stuff grabbed on so hard that I wrinkled the placard trying to get it off. Also, this adhesive is advertised as a thermoset. It may be just the ticket for mounting placards to various places in an airplane. If anyone has a chance to try it on one or more situations, I'd be pleased to know of your experiences with it. I'm stocking it here in the shop and will report any down-sides I discover. I may also do an under-the hood test. I have some blocks of steel that I use to test adhesives in real life. I glue them to the underside of the hood of my van. If they stay put for over a year, I call 'em good for flight too. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Coolie hat as pointing device
Gianni Zuliani a crit : > >Hi Bob and Group, >On my Stag-Ez I've mounted a tablet PC to show moving maps in sectional >format (OziExplorer programs). >Although my tablet has got a sensitive display, I would need an easily >operable pointing device other than a mouse which is cumbersome to use in >the cockpit. >To this end, I thought I maybe could use the coolie hat and two buttons >(Infinity type) I've got on my stick grip: has someone already studied this >possibility and come up with some solution? > > Gianni, Just wondering, my Dell Latitude laptop has one such little "micro joystick" between the keys in the middle of my keyboard. Don't use it much, but this may be what you're looking for. The day you drop your laptop, just cannibalize it..;-) FWIW, Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
I glue them to the underside of the hood of my van. If they stay put for over a year, I call 'em good for flight too. Bob . . . And if they come loose, the drivers behind you have an interesting time...? ;-) Good hint. I'll check this product out. I just used a combo of Scotch double-sided foam tape and a perimeter fillet of GOOP to mount Bosch-style ice cube relays to aluminum plate. The bond seems quite sturdy, but it took overnight to achieve. -Bill B. -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product I'm building some test fixtures for RAC with lots of lights and switches on the front. I like to lay out placards in AutoCAD, print to paper (sometimes colored) and then hot laminate. I've used contact cements for years with good results to attach the placards but I ran across a rather amazing product yesterday that may surpass contact cements and/or other forms of double sided adhesive: Hobby Lobby stocks a stuff called SUPER TACKY Thermoweb. You can find it on E-bay using that search term. I was putting placard down on a panel yesterday and accidently allowed the placard to settle poorly positioned onto the panel. Past experiences with this were no big deal, peel it up and reposition. This stuff grabbed on so hard that I wrinkled the placard trying to get it off. Also, this adhesive is advertised as a thermoset. It may be just the ticket for mounting placards to various places in an airplane. If anyone has a chance to try it on one or more situations, I'd be pleased to know of your experiences with it. I'm stocking it here in the shop and will report any down-sides I discover. I may also do an under-the hood test. I have some blocks of steel that I use to test adhesives in real life. I glue them to the underside of the hood of my van. If they stay put for over a year, I call 'em good for flight too. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
> Remember folks, questions like this are ALWAYS > best addressed to the designer/manufacturer > of the product. ... You are right. I was thinking of the product as the contactor, and Eric's product as a switch. In any case, Eric has a nifty product to protect the coils from doing whatever bad thing it is that they do. He calls them "snapjacks", and they do the trick. http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm Just an aside - I *really* like doing business with Eric. He makes it easy to buy his stuff (paypal, logical website) and gives me no hassle about shipping international via USPS. Stuff usually arrives three to five days after ordering. Not to mention that he has some cool products! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> product
Subject: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
> > I glue them to the underside of the hood of my van. If they >stay put for over a year, I call 'em good for flight >too. > > > Bob . . . > > >And if they come loose, the drivers behind you have an interesting time...? No, there's a tether on the block to keep it from falling out. > >;-) > >Good hint. I'll check this product out. I just used a combo of Scotch >double-sided foam tape and a perimeter fillet of GOOP to mount Bosch-style >ice cube relays to aluminum plate. The bond seems quite sturdy, but it >took overnight to achieve. The GOOP/Sho-Goo/E-6000 products are pretty robust but as you've noted, they're a solvent based adhesive that takes TIME to reach full strength. If you're mounting something as light as a relay, a simple spot of E-6000 will do it. I've tested this. We also used the E-6000 to attach bond studs. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/Bond_Stud_A.jpg The stud shown was installed with JB Weld. It pass the pull tests fine. E-6000 worked too and was easier to use. I'm working on a new source for bond studs. I'll try this thermoset adhesive on them when I get the samples. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> question
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
> > > > Remember folks, questions like this are ALWAYS > > best addressed to the designer/manufacturer > > of the product. ... > >You are right. I was thinking of the product as >the contactor, and Eric's product as a switch. >In any case, Eric has a nifty product to protect >the coils from doing whatever bad thing it is >that they do. In this case, systems integration issues go beyond the magnetic field collapse in the coils. Folks here on the list have raised legitimate issues with respect to the contactor's ability to reliably open a runaway alternator's output. This has almost nothing to do with the coil circuit and everything to do with contact spreading velocity and ultimate gap (or double gap) distance in the open contactor. If Eric or anyone else has called out this class of contactor as suited to the task when combined with his product, then other folks here on the list are ill prepared to dispute it without an exchange of simple ideas that support (or fail to support) the manufacturer's design decision. Therefore questions going to suitability to task must to start with folks who offer the product. If the simple-ideas don't assemble correctly, others with knowledge and experience can illuminate the errors of logic. Until I'm apprised differently, I can only say that based on objections raised earlier (for which we've seen no test data to the contrary) I am skeptical of this contactor's ability to handle the task (Note 1). I'd be delighted to have that skepticism put to rest but I'm not presently in a position do it myself. Bob . . . Note 1. The "task" is to make/break the b-lead of an alternator under a variety of conditions the most important of which is OV management. If the contactor is expected to be damaged in an OV management event, so be it as long as the event is handled to the benefit of the rest of the airplane's systems. There are less stressful make-break issues too. I would expect anyone who recommends a device for this service to be capable of articulating the capabilities and LIMITS of the system. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Subject: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Bob - You have no idea how useful those studs are/were for our wiring. We used E-6000 and the worked like a charm. Still could use a dozen of them to replace the nylon-zip tie kind. We shaved off the double sided tape on the nylon kind and used E-6000, but they are not as robust as the studs. Let the list know when you get the studs. John Schroeder Lancair ES - Painting complete > The stud shown was installed with JB Weld. It pass the pull > tests fine. E-6000 worked too and was easier to use. > > I'm working on a new source for bond studs. I'll try this > thermoset adhesive on them when I get the samples. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Coolie hat as pointing device
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Re pointing device, How about a Logitech Track ball, USB plug one hand operation. Thumb moves the ball, index finger left click or wheel, and middle finger right click . I gave up on the notebook touch pad, and this goes where the notebook goes...wouldn't be without it Harold ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2006
From: Andrew Rowley <ajrow(at)westnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > In this case, systems integration issues go > beyond the magnetic field collapse in the > coils. Folks here on the list have raised > legitimate issues with respect to the contactor's > ability to reliably open a runaway alternator's > output. This has almost nothing to do with > the coil circuit and everything to do with > contact spreading velocity and ultimate gap > (or double gap) distance in the open contactor. Out of curiosity, would a large capacitor across the contactor similar to points ignition help? Or is there too much energy involved for a reasonably sized capacitor to absorb? -- Andrew Rowley ajrow(at)westnet.com.au ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coolie hat as pointing device
We use trackballs on our airborne instruments. Other pointing devices are hard to use in turbulent air. Touch pads are nearly impossible to use in rough air. Here is a picture of the instrument that I built a couple of years ago on the NOAA WP3 Hurricane Hunter: http://www.al.noaa.gov/2004/photos/P3/13.jpg Notice the tiny track ball in the corner of the laptop tray. You "left click" by pulling the trigger button with your index finger. It is quite comfortable to work the ball with your thumb. Easy to use in rough air as your thumb moves with your hand and the whole mouse moves with your hand too. Here is a link to the exact "finger" trackball: http://www.sfcable.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=MS4-USB I've seen them for sale at Walmart, but I couldn't find them on their website. I bet you could mount one on top of your control stick. (Be sure to buy a spare. They are not ultra high quality.) We held ours in place with Velcro. You can see how your hand could grip the stick while working the trackball by looking at the picture in the advertisement. Just photoshop a control stick in. :*) Bill Dube' Harold wrote: > >Re pointing device, How about a Logitech Track ball, USB plug one hand >operation. > Thumb moves the ball, index finger left click or wheel, and middle finger >right click . >I gave up on the notebook touch pad, and this goes where the notebook >goes...wouldn't be without it >Harold > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> question
Subject: Re: Continuous duty contactor wiring question
> >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > In this case, systems integration issues go > > beyond the magnetic field collapse in the > > coils. Folks here on the list have raised > > legitimate issues with respect to the contactor's > > ability to reliably open a runaway alternator's > > output. This has almost nothing to do with > > the coil circuit and everything to do with > > contact spreading velocity and ultimate gap > > (or double gap) distance in the open contactor. > >Out of curiosity, would a large capacitor across the contactor similar >to points ignition help? Or is there too much energy involved for a >reasonably sized capacitor to absorb? Excellent question! and I would bet that the answer is "yes". It would function in very much the same manor as the ignition points you cited and as arc-suppression duties as I discussed in the 'Connection in the OV Protection chapter and as shown across the relay contacts on page 3 of: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf It could be calculated if the system characteristics were accurately known . . . or crafted by empirically during bench tests. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
> > >Bob - > >You have no idea how useful those studs are/were for our wiring. We used >E-6000 and the worked like a charm. Still could use a dozen of them to >replace the nylon-zip tie kind. We shaved off the double sided tape on the >nylon kind and used E-6000, but they are not as robust as the studs. Let >the list know when you get the studs. I will. I've been besieged with requests and I've bugged the junk dealer that supplied them until he's no long happy to see me walk in the door. I owe him a 5th of his favorite. In any case, I had dinner with some folks from Amphenol's skunk works a couple of weeks ago. They're helping me with a really small but super rugged wire and fiber optics combo connector. During the course of our discussions, I mentioned the bond studs and we scratched on the back of a napkin for awhile. I think we've got a reasonable design that won't break the bank for tooling or minimum quantities . . . but I'll still have to buy 10-20 thousand at a whack. Hope to hear back from them soon. And you can bet that once I have a bushel basket full of them on the shelf, I'm a sure bet to make that fact known! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Bob, We have a CNC bar feed lathe. It could make those fairly easily. We keep the machine pretty busy, but we might be able to make those in a graveyard shift. Any idea what the price point might be? Regards, George -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:35 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Heads-up on a double sided adhesive product > > >Bob - > >You have no idea how useful those studs are/were for our wiring. We used >E-6000 and the worked like a charm. Still could use a dozen of them to >replace the nylon-zip tie kind. We shaved off the double sided tape on the >nylon kind and used E-6000, but they are not as robust as the studs. Let >the list know when you get the studs. I will. I've been besieged with requests and I've bugged the junk dealer that supplied them until he's no long happy to see me walk in the door. I owe him a 5th of his favorite. In any case, I had dinner with some folks from Amphenol's skunk works a couple of weeks ago. They're helping me with a really small but super rugged wire and fiber optics combo connector. During the course of our discussions, I mentioned the bond studs and we scratched on the back of a napkin for awhile. I think we've got a reasonable design that won't break the bank for tooling or minimum quantities . . . but I'll still have to buy 10-20 thousand at a whack. Hope to hear back from them soon. And you can bet that once I have a bushel basket full of them on the shelf, I'm a sure bet to make that fact known! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2006
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Coolie hat as pointing device
Morning, Bill... >>Here is a link to the exact "finger" trackball:<< Now THAT'S a great little accessory! Can even use that here at the desktop! Did a little search, and found it is offered on several websites for as little as $11.95 and as much as $24.95 (its MSRP). Also found a couple of WIRELESS finger trackball (logitech makes one) for a bit more ($30-50)...that sounds like a possibility as well. Also found this unique little unit...a wireless, rechargeable, RF finger trackball! Not sure what's in the handle (probably batteries) but it sure looks like the control stick might fit up inside it (at least mine, which is still the plans called Long EZ version)...maybe replace the batteries with a hard wired modification with the wires through the stick? Make a neat looking control stick. Almost Thrustmaster style. www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=FDM-B4D-RF&cat=MOU&cpc=MAC Think I'll take a trip around the local stores this morning and see what's available here (we have ALL the big stores here in Henrietta within a mile or so of each other...Wal-Mart, Sam's, BJ's, Target, Best Buy, CompUSA, Circuit City, Radio Shack, Sears, Wegman's , etc, etc.)

February 27, 2006 - March 09, 2006

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fm