AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fo
March 21, 2006 - April 06, 2006
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Are there any service letters, SB's, or
> AD's addressing a problem with the switch?
http://tinyurl.com/j3m5j
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc:
| Subject: | Securing Your Airplane |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Bill
Denton"
<<.....skip......But in the interests of learning something here, how would
you secure your
airplane other than with a keyed ignition switch?>>
Fair question Bill, but first each aircraft owner / builder needs to answer
some other questions:
A) Security under what aircraft conditions?
B) What kind of security?
I won't try to give complete answers to those two questions, but I will list
some items to think of:
Aircraft Conditions:
A1) Aircraft at home field inside a locked hangar with 24/7 FBO operations
nearby on the ramp.
A2) Aircraft at home field inside locked hangar.
A3) Aircraft at home field tied down outside on ramp with padlocks on tie
downs.
A4) Aircraft at home field tied down outside on ramp.
A5) Aircraft at away field tied down or chocked for a few hours in the day
time with frequent foot traffic on the ramp.
A6) Aircraft at away field tied down on ramp for one or more overnight stays
with airport basically deserted at night.
Kind of security:
B1) Only access to interior is to remove / rip / cut off cloth airplane
cover (which prevents seeing interior of aircraft) and then physically break
door locks or smash through a window.
B2) Only access to interior is to physically break door locks or smash
through a window.
B3) Access to interior is through unlocked door. (Rather have thief open
door and remove avionics or whatever than have thief damage aircraft and
then remove avionics or whatever.)
B4) After access to interior, hidden or trick engine cranking / ignition
switches would prevent any normal thief from starting engine and flying
airplane.
B5) After access to interior, padlocked control locks would prevent any
normal theif from flying the airplane even if he got the engine started.
B6) After access to interior, a padded chain or cable padlocked around the
propeller would prevent normal engine operation.
B7) After access to interior, only figuring out the ignition and start
switchology prevents flying the airplane.
B8) After removing standard (unlocked tiedowns), gaining access to interior,
and removing easily removed control stops, only getting past a standard
keyed ignition switch prevents flying the airplane.
There are probably situations in addition to those above. Each owner,
builder, pilot needs to go through a litany or hierarchy of scenarios, which
can change from from time to time, before he can best answer the question: "
How to secure my airplane?" I am not saying that a keyed ignition switch is
an absolutely unacceptable item to have in your amateur built experimental
aircraft, but it sure is very low on my list and not just for security
reasons.
OC
PS: A couple of comments:
I spent some time a few years back standing around a beautiful Lancair IV at
Sun 'n Fun. The builder would ask interested spectators to figure out how to
open his door which had a hidden handle / latch system. I did not see
anybody succeed.
I am intimately familiar with an airplane that has the door latches secured
by a socket head cap screw threaded in to a recessed hole in the door
handle. Not really hidden, but it is not obvious that the hole is providing
the locking mechanism and unless the thief is carrying the right sized Allen
wrench he cannot unlock and then open the doors in a normal fashion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
> http://tinyurl.com/j3m5j
A simple toggle switch could fail in this same way, not grounding the mags. The
only way you would know is if you tested it to ensure the engine cuts off when
you throw the switch. Definitely related to safety, but not an issue in flight.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23187#23187
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
I will try this again. The first time I tried to snip. Didn't work.
The OV/UV sensor came from B&C.
The light comes on steady when the mic is keyed. We aslo thought if might be
RF.
Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small stranded
wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
dissconnect contactor was burned in two. I did have a OV trip a few months
back while taxi testing, but figured it was a nuisance trip. Without the
small wire the alternator has been functioning. The battery seems to have
full charge. Did not use a tester it was at home. Just looked at the
voltmeter. Turning the master on did not bring up the LV sensor light.
Any ideas?
Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B 2.6 HRS
Flying!!!!
on 3/20/06 11:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> I was making my third flight in my Tri Q 200 this past Sat. I noticed that
>> every time I presses the mic remote key switch, the OV light would come on.
>> Nothing is connected to ships power at this time. Using nine volt on
>> intercom, and a new IC-A6 with it's own battery. Ever heard of anything like
>> this before? I did not have the ships antenna hooked up either. Rubber ducky
>> only.
>
> Who's OV light?
>
>> I did not notice it on the first two flights, but may have not been aware of
>> it. Had other tasks on my mind.
>
> At first blush, it sounds like the OV sensor is sensitive
> to RF. Hand-helds with rubber duck antennas can be the
> worst antagonists with respect to cockpit mounted accessories.
> In fact, I used my hand-held as a quick-looksee for RF susceptibility
> for hardware on the bench.
>
> 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: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
Check your wiring. When I turn on the master without the engine
running/alternator producing energy, the LV light is blinking. I can also
get the LV light to blink at low rpms with heavy load, i.e., all the lights
on ( I have an 30 amp alt.)
If your wiring checks out, I'd call B&C to see what they think about
possibilities that you have a bad regulator.
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Boddicker" <trumanst(at)netins.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: UV Light
>
> Bob,
> I will try this again. The first time I tried to snip. Didn't work.
> The OV/UV sensor came from B&C.
> The light comes on steady when the mic is keyed. We aslo thought if might
> be
> RF.
> Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small
> stranded
> wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
> dissconnect contactor was burned in two. I did have a OV trip a few months
> back while taxi testing, but figured it was a nuisance trip. Without the
> small wire the alternator has been functioning. The battery seems to have
> full charge. Did not use a tester it was at home. Just looked at the
> voltmeter. Turning the master on did not bring up the LV sensor light.
> Any ideas?
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Luana, Iowa
> Tri Q200 N7868B 2.6 HRS
> Flying!!!!
>
>
> on 3/20/06 11:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>> I was making my third flight in my Tri Q 200 this past Sat. I noticed
>>> that
>>> every time I presses the mic remote key switch, the OV light would come
>>> on.
>>> Nothing is connected to ships power at this time. Using nine volt on
>>> intercom, and a new IC-A6 with it's own battery. Ever heard of anything
>>> like
>>> this before? I did not have the ships antenna hooked up either. Rubber
>>> ducky
>>> only.
>>
>> Who's OV light?
>>
>>> I did not notice it on the first two flights, but may have not been
>>> aware of
>>> it. Had other tasks on my mind.
>>
>> At first blush, it sounds like the OV sensor is sensitive
>> to RF. Hand-helds with rubber duck antennas can be the
>> worst antagonists with respect to cockpit mounted accessories.
>> In fact, I used my hand-held as a quick-looksee for RF susceptibility
>> for hardware on the bench.
>>
>> 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: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Key ignition switch |
I read with interest the sage remarks on safeguarding your aircraft. I have
taken note of the qualities of magnetism in separating concious from
ulterior motives in opening up my treasure. (I am considering a secret code
ring which contains a tiny ultimate magnet - to be brushed past an
unassuming position on the fuselage as I move forward to open the door - a
lesson learnt from Chris Staines).
If the thief wants my electronic gear he will have to prove break-and-enter
practices to aid my insurance folk.
Ferg
A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Isolation amp inputs |
Comments/Questions: I built your ISO Amp and it works great. I would like
to add an additional warning tone input(GRT EFIS on the way). Can I add
another input circuit in parallel with the existing warning tone input? It
wouldn't be the cleanest solution, but perhaps effective. Is there a better
way to add an input?
Yes, just duplicate the same networks as used for
the other inputs. There's no practical limit
to the number of inputs you can have.
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: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Thanks for the reply.
The documentaion that came with my unit states " A flashing light indicates
a bus voltage greater than 15.5 volts DC. Steady light indicates bus voltage
below 12.5 volts DC."
Mine too will ack as yours at low RPM. Must be just at the LV set or below.
Increasing 50 RPM or so will make it disappear.
Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B
Flying!!!!
on 3/22/06 6:31 AM, LarryRobertHelming at lhelming(at)sigecom.net wrote:
>
>
> Check your wiring. When I turn on the master without the engine
> running/alternator producing energy, the LV light is blinking. I can also
> get the LV light to blink at low rpms with heavy load, i.e., all the lights
> on ( I have an 30 amp alt.)
>
> If your wiring checks out, I'd call B&C to see what they think about
> possibilities that you have a bad regulator.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
>
> "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
> at your own risk."
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Boddicker" <trumanst(at)netins.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: UV Light
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> I will try this again. The first time I tried to snip. Didn't work.
>> The OV/UV sensor came from B&C.
>> The light comes on steady when the mic is keyed. We aslo thought if might
>> be
>> RF.
>> Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small
>> stranded
>> wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
>> dissconnect contactor was burned in two. I did have a OV trip a few months
>> back while taxi testing, but figured it was a nuisance trip. Without the
>> small wire the alternator has been functioning. The battery seems to have
>> full charge. Did not use a tester it was at home. Just looked at the
>> voltmeter. Turning the master on did not bring up the LV sensor light.
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Luana, Iowa
>> Tri Q200 N7868B 2.6 HRS
>> Flying!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> on 3/20/06 11:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>> I was making my third flight in my Tri Q 200 this past Sat. I noticed
>>>> that
>>>> every time I presses the mic remote key switch, the OV light would come
>>>> on.
>>>> Nothing is connected to ships power at this time. Using nine volt on
>>>> intercom, and a new IC-A6 with it's own battery. Ever heard of anything
>>>> like
>>>> this before? I did not have the ships antenna hooked up either. Rubber
>>>> ducky
>>>> only.
>>>
>>> Who's OV light?
>>>
>>>> I did not notice it on the first two flights, but may have not been
>>>> aware of
>>>> it. Had other tasks on my mind.
>>>
>>> At first blush, it sounds like the OV sensor is sensitive
>>> to RF. Hand-helds with rubber duck antennas can be the
>>> worst antagonists with respect to cockpit mounted accessories.
>>> In fact, I used my hand-held as a quick-looksee for RF susceptibility
>>> for hardware on the bench.
>>>
>>> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
>
>Bob,
>I will try this again. The first time I tried to snip. Didn't work.
>The OV/LV sensor came from B&C.
>The light comes on steady when the mic is keyed. We aslo thought if might be
>RF.
Could be. I don't remember details of the design.
It may have some sensitivity to RF . . particularly
from hand held radios.
>Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small stranded
>wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
>dissconnect contactor was burned in two.
The S701-1 comes wired for use as a battery master contactor.
For use as an alternator disconnect relay, that wire should
be removed. Looks like the system removed it for you. Check
the schematic.
> I did have a OV trip a few months
>back while taxi testing, but figured it was a nuisance trip. Without the
>small wire the alternator has been functioning.
Yup.
> The battery seems to have
>full charge. Did not use a tester it was at home. Just looked at the
>voltmeter. Turning the master on did not bring up the LV sensor light.
>Any ideas?
Use a voltmeter to see if the bus voltage is sufficiently
low to cause the light to come on. I think it's calibrated
to come on at 12.5 and below. Your battery won't drop below
that level until you load it. I.e., turn on some stuff with
the alternator OFF and wait a minute or so.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Key Ignition Switch |
HI George-
My comment about using the dome light was for illustrative purposes, but my
sense of humor has gotten me into trouble before and I shouldn't put things
that way in this forum. The odd switch in my starter interlock is
conveniently located, altho it is left as an exercise for the reader to
figure out which one it is ; - ) Also, given that a stopped prop implies
either a seized engine or that I'm in the flare to land, I am entirely
comfortable with my particular configuration. I offer it only as food for
thought to those who are interested.
A couple other points on the security side occur to me. As I've been told
in the past by A&P's, there are only something like 13 different key cuts
in all of GA. Having a canopy lock from Home Depot will (hopefully)
increase our odds of keeping crooks out.
Next, the canopy cover that someone suggested is an excellent idea as it
keeps folks from 'casing' the panel and cockpit access provisions.
The last idea is face mounted avionics. As I understand it, the process
for sucessfull avionics pilferring involves pulling a tray mounted and
allen wrench secured set from one plane and then swapping that set with a
second plane. That way, the serial numbers for the 'resold' avionics don't
turn up as stolen. By using face mounted units (BMA, Becker, Val, PSE,
etc) one could theoretically increase the pilfer and swap logistics so much
as to make your plane an unatractive target.
As ever, FWIW, YMMV, yada, yada, yada...
>Those proposed anti theft precautions are going to make for some very
>interesting Emergency checklists.
>Engine Failure - (1) Dome Light - "ON" (2) Mixture - "RICH" etc..etc.
>
>George in Langley BC
Glen wrote:
>>But in the interests of learning something here, how would you secure your
>>airplane other than with a keyed ignition switch?
>>
>>
>>
> I too will be locking my canopy. In addition, there will be a specific
>switch configuration for starting. >>>>>snip>>>>>> Those who don't have as
>complex an electrical system could easily do the same sort of thing by
>requiring the dome light to be on, or an auto pilot armed, or the baggage
>light to be on, or >>>>>>>>.
>
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Key Ignition Switch |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>But in the interests of learning something here, how would you secure your
>>airplane other than with a keyed ignition switch?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I too will be locking my canopy. In addition, there will be a specific
>switch configuration for starting. For example, when shut down, all
>switches will be off.
>
I am also voting for the locking canopy. I got a lock from an IBM
computer case. Mounts with just barely a bump on the canopy. The key
is the only external handle to open the canopy with. I'm hoping the
very smooth surface will both throw off the opportunist AND be more
aerodynamic.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
Bob ...
How does the alternator disconnect relay do it's job? None of the Z's show
this relay between the alternators and the schematic wiring. Is this relay
an add-on to the ANL approach or the field CB? What is the most reliable
hardware to protect from OV? Slogging through electrical in Illinois ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
>>Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small
>>stranded
>>wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
>>dissconnect contactor was burned in two.
>
> The S701-1 comes wired for use as a battery master contactor.
> For use as an alternator disconnect relay, that wire should
> be removed. Looks like the system removed it for you. Check
> the schematic.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key ignition switch |
Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> I read with interest the sage remarks on safeguarding your aircraft. I have
> taken note of the qualities of magnetism in separating concious from
> ulterior motives in opening up my treasure. (I am considering a secret code
> ring which contains a tiny ultimate magnet - to be brushed past an
> unassuming position on the fuselage as I move forward to open the door - a
> lesson learnt from Chris Staines).
> If the thief wants my electronic gear he will have to prove break-and-enter
> practices to aid my insurance folk.
If you want to go the high-tech route and use an electronic key you
might want to look at the iButton technology. They are about the size of
a pair of stacked nickels (US $0.05) and contain memory, processor, and
communications. Your on-board system could query the presence of an
iButton before enabling the aircraft's systems.
http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/
Another possibility would be RFID technology. Then you just climb in the
airplane with your RFID tag in your wallet and everything works. If the
RFID tag isn't there, nothing works. Pretty cool magic in that.
Yes, of course this is crazy overkill. Still, these are people's toys
and they want all the really cool stuff.
--
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans type alternator |
>
>
>I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
>alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
>alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
>I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
>have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
>The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
>Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
. . . don't understand this . . . something to do
with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
> Overvoltage detect point is 17.0 V.
>
>Does this mean that the alternator has its own OV protection?
Probably not. The upcoming publication of the MC33092 internal
regulator chip study will show that there is no 'protection"
offered by this particular chip. The lv, ov sensor circuits
only drive the warning light.
From an aviation perspective, 'protection' means active
override of the effects of a hazardous event. To simply
light a bulb is 'annunciation' or 'notification' and not
'protection'.
Of course, to really know if any particular product truly
offers what advertisements claim, one must dissect the
schematics, block diagrams, etc. Which is what I've done
with the MC33092. Now, the alternator you have may indeed
offer what it advertises . . . but without seeing the detailed
data (or testing it on the bench) you cannot know for sure.
Further, I nor anyone else will be able to advise you from a
position of knowledge.
>Does this mean that the B&C OV module wired into the IG will control the
>field?
Probably not.
>Any comments on how to wire this alternator would be greatly
>appreciated.
Wire it per Van's recommendations . . . for now. The next greatest
thing is in the works. I've finished one of the test tools
needed to quantify design parameters for achieving absolute,
any-time, any-conditions, no-hazard control over an internally
regulated alternator. Folks with an interest in having this
capability will be able to take advantage of it. Folks not
interested can wire per Van's suggestions. It will be easy to
add to a Van's-style installation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
>
>Bob ...
>How does the alternator disconnect relay do it's job? None of the Z's show
>this relay between the alternators and the schematic wiring. Is this relay
>an add-on to the ANL approach or the field CB? What is the most reliable
>hardware to protect from OV? Slogging through electrical in Illinois ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
Z-24 was temporarily removed from the z-figures when
some folks discovered that a pilot might induce a
load dump failure of the alternator's regulator
by manipulating the control switch at inappropriate
times. Hence the idea for a system that allows
any-time, any-conditions, no-hazard, absolute
control over an IR alternator.
Revision A has been crafted and work is plodding along
to make it a reality. If my boss were as interested in
working on RVs and Kitfoxes as he is in Hawkers and
Kingairs, this project would be moving along faster.
> >>Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small
> >>stranded
> >>wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
> >>dissconnect contactor was burned in two.
> >
> > The S701-1 comes wired for use as a battery master contactor.
> > For use as an alternator disconnect relay, that wire should
> > be removed. Looks like the system removed it for you. Check
> > the schematic.
You can see the old z-24 drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Z24_temp.pdf
I presume this is what you have installed if you had
a "nuisance trip" earlier. The fact that you burned the
extra jumper raises concerns about whether or not your
ov module has been damaged.
Send it to me for a checkup.
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: | Denso 100 211-1630 |
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy asks me about wiring a Denso 100 211-1630 alternator for his
wood and fabric homebuilt.
I didn't closely follow the internal/ external regulator discussion, but
I suppose it is an internally regulated unit ?
Any advice I could pass on to him ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Denso 100 211-1630 |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A buddy asks me about wiring a Denso 100 211-1630 alternator for his
>wood and fabric homebuilt.
>I didn't closely follow the internal/ external regulator discussion, but
>I suppose it is an internally regulated unit ?
Probably. Externally regulated alternators are
a special deal for automotive applications less
than 30+ years old.
>Any advice I could pass on to him ?
It's probably a fine alternator and certainly longer
average service life than 'aircraft' alternators
certified onto most single engine aircraft. However,
it's unlikely that it can be controlled in the same
manner as pilots of certified aircraft have come to
expect and will require some extra-ordinary system
integration efforts which are in the works.
Bob .. .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Thanks Bob.
As always, you have cleared things up. Z24 shows what you are speaking of
with reguard to the small wire.
Again Many Thanks
Kevin
on 3/22/06 8:03 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> I will try this again. The first time I tried to snip. Didn't work.
>> The OV/LV sensor came from B&C.
>
>> The light comes on steady when the mic is keyed. We aslo thought if might be
>> RF.
>
> Could be. I don't remember details of the design.
> It may have some sensitivity to RF . . particularly
> from hand held radios.
>
>> Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small stranded
>> wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
>> dissconnect contactor was burned in two.
>
> The S701-1 comes wired for use as a battery master contactor.
> For use as an alternator disconnect relay, that wire should
> be removed. Looks like the system removed it for you. Check
> the schematic.
>
>
>> I did have a OV trip a few months
>> back while taxi testing, but figured it was a nuisance trip. Without the
>> small wire the alternator has been functioning.
>
> Yup.
>
>> The battery seems to have
>> full charge. Did not use a tester it was at home. Just looked at the
>> voltmeter. Turning the master on did not bring up the LV sensor light.
>> Any ideas?
>
> Use a voltmeter to see if the bus voltage is sufficiently
> low to cause the light to come on. I think it's calibrated
> to come on at 12.5 and below. Your battery won't drop below
> that level until you load it. I.e., turn on some stuff with
> the alternator OFF and wait a minute or so.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z diagrams and fuseable links |
When you see protection
at both ends of a wire, it suggests that their are sources
of energy that put the wire at risk from either end.
Bob,
This brings up another question. I have a Lancair ES and the weight and
balance requires the batteries to be aft of the baggage compartment. I have
the battery contactor within 6 inches of the battery but then have about a
12 foot run up to the main bus. If I need to have the battery contactor in
the rear to keep from having a long 'hot' wire why don't I need something
at the front end to keep the alternator from making the long wire 'hot' from
the other end?
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
Yes I do have it wired as per Z24.
I would be happy to send the ov Module. Is it OK to fly without it ?
Kevin
on 3/22/06 10:05 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob ...
>> How does the alternator disconnect relay do it's job? None of the Z's show
>> this relay between the alternators and the schematic wiring. Is this relay
>> an add-on to the ANL approach or the field CB? What is the most reliable
>> hardware to protect from OV? Slogging through electrical in Illinois ...
>> Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
> Z-24 was temporarily removed from the z-figures when
> some folks discovered that a pilot might induce a
> load dump failure of the alternator's regulator
> by manipulating the control switch at inappropriate
> times. Hence the idea for a system that allows
> any-time, any-conditions, no-hazard, absolute
> control over an IR alternator.
>
> Revision A has been crafted and work is plodding along
> to make it a reality. If my boss were as interested in
> working on RVs and Kitfoxes as he is in Hawkers and
> Kingairs, this project would be moving along faster.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Today, while doing a cowl off inspection, I noticed that the small
>>>> stranded
>>>> wire from the large post to the small post on the S701-1 over voltage
>>>> dissconnect contactor was burned in two.
>>>
>>> The S701-1 comes wired for use as a battery master contactor.
>>> For use as an alternator disconnect relay, that wire should
>>> be removed. Looks like the system removed it for you. Check
>>> the schematic.
>
> You can see the old z-24 drawing at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Z24_temp.pdf
>
> I presume this is what you have installed if you had
> a "nuisance trip" earlier. The fact that you burned the
> extra jumper raises concerns about whether or not your
> ov module has been damaged.
>
> Send it to me for a checkup.
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
>
>Thanks Bob.
>As always, you have cleared things up. Z24 shows what you are speaking of
>with reguard to the small wire.
>Again Many Thanks
>Kevin
My pleasure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
>
>Bob,
>Yes I do have it wired as per Z24.
>I would be happy to send the ov Module. Is it OK to fly without it ?
>Kevin
sure . . . risks are low but not zero. I'll turn it around quickly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans type alternator |
Yup.
Some carbed vehicles used to feed the electrically heated automatic
choke from the L terminal of the alternator. This alternator won't
supply sufficent current on the L lead for that purpose.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
>>alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
>>alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
>>I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
>>have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
>>The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
>>Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
>>
>>
>
> . . . don't understand this . . . something to do
> with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Denso 100 211-1630 |
40 amps nominal, internal regulator.
Works fine without the L lead connected or a light can be installed L
terminal to +12 volts.
It will draw about 3.2 amps through the b-lead for the field any time
there is +12 volts on the IG terminal whether or not the alternator is
turning.
Ken
Gilles Thesee wrote:
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A buddy asks me about wiring a Denso 100 211-1630 alternator for his
>wood and fabric homebuilt.
>I didn't closely follow the internal/ external regulator discussion, but
>I suppose it is an internally regulated unit ?
>
>Any advice I could pass on to him ?
>
>Thanks,
>Regards,
>Gilles Thesee
>Grenoble, France
>http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Great. I will get it in the mail ASAP.
Thanks,
Kevin
on 3/22/06 8:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> Yes I do have it wired as per Z24.
>> I would be happy to send the ov Module. Is it OK to fly without it ?
>> Kevin
>
> sure . . . risks are low but not zero. I'll turn it around quickly.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z diagrams and fuseable links |
I think because the long wire is thick enough to not overheat from max
alternator output.
A 40 amp alternator can't put much more than 40 amps into the wire and
it is sized to handle that. A battery can put out many hundreds of amps
and overheat that wire. Remember overcurrent protection is only to
prevent overheating of the wire. A fuse won't shutdown something like a
high resistance arcing short to ground that draws less current than the
fuse rating. Hopefully you'd also be able to shut down the alternator if
you were experiencing smoke or obvious electrical distress.
Ken
John McMahon wrote:
>
> When you see protection
> at both ends of a wire, it suggests that their are sources
> of energy that put the wire at risk from either end.
>
>
>Bob,
>This brings up another question. I have a Lancair ES and the weight and
>balance requires the batteries to be aft of the baggage compartment. I have
>the battery contactor within 6 inches of the battery but then have about a
>12 foot run up to the main bus. If I need to have the battery contactor in
>the rear to keep from having a long 'hot' wire why don't I need something
>at the front end to keep the alternator from making the long wire 'hot' from
>the other end?
>
>--
>John McMahon
>Lancair Super ES
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Vans Type Alternator |
Snip...
>I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
>alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
>alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
>I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
>have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
>The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
>Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
. . . don't understand this . . . something to do
with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
Snip...
Now I am really confused. I assumed that this was a reference to an
electric device called a choke and was wondering how that played into
alternators.
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Type Alternator |
Whoops!! I should have read on down the list before replying!!
Thanks, Ken
Bill Bradburry
Yup.
Some carbed vehicles used to feed the electrically heated automatic
choke from the L terminal of the alternator. This alternator won't
supply sufficent current on the L lead for that purpose.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:28 AM
Subject: Vans Type Alternator
Snip...
>I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
>alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
>alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
>I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
>have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
>The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
>Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
. . . don't understand this . . . something to do
with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
Snip...
Now I am really confused. I assumed that this was a reference to an
electric device called a choke and was wondering how that played into
alternators.
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Type Alternator |
>
>
>Snip...
> >I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
> >alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
> >alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
> >I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
> >have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
> >The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
> >Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
>
> . . . don't understand this . . . something to do
> with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
>Snip...
>
>Now I am really confused. I assumed that this was a reference to an
>electric device called a choke and was wondering how that played into
>alternators.
Yeah, there is an electrical device called a "choke" or more
properly, an "inductor". However, there are chokes on carburetors,
shotguns and no doubt many more in other venues.
The terminal capable of bringing out the kind of energy necessary
for heated choke operation was the center tap of a wye-wound
alternator and was usually labeled 'aux'. One could get 1/2
system voltage at mucho current from this terminal. Of course
it was only present when the engine was running and the alternator
performing normally. It made an ideal power source for gradual
warming of the bi-metal spring that closed the choke in cold
weather to keep the engine running reasonably smooth until
it got warmed up.
Haven't seen an 'aux' terminal on a new alternator in many
moons. Since the advent of electronically controlled fuel
injection, the need for them in cars has faded away.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Type Alternator |
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> Snip...
>> I just bought an ND alternator, Lester #14684. This is the same
>> alternator supplied with Vans kits. The regulator used in the
>> alternator is the IN219. The terminal identification is D-IG-L.
>> I was looking into how to control the field on this alternator and I
>> have the following questions which I hope someone can answer.
>> The repair circuit is TRI219. Comments are: Ignition activated. Load
>> Dump protected, L-Terminal does NOT drive a choke.
>
> . . . don't understand this . . . something to do
> with electrically heated choke on carburetor?
> Snip...
>
> Now I am really confused. I assumed that this was a reference to an
> electric device called a choke and was wondering how that played into
> alternators.
Ha, this is funny.
Many cars have an automatic choke that comes on when the car is cold and
goes off when it warms up. Some of these are electrical and use the
stator output of the alternator to drive the heating element in the
choke on the carb. The logic is, if the alternator is not turning, the
engine is not running and the choke should not open. When you start the
car and the alternator comes on-line, the choke starts to open. It works
pretty well ...
... and has absolutely nothing to do with airplanes. :-)
--
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: | "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance Bus Voltage Measurement |
Bob and others,
My electrical system is pretty much finished. I have started with Z-12 and
used SB-8 instead of 20A alternator.
On the endurance bus I have wired:
GNC300XL GPS/COM 0.221 A measured when not transmitting
Attitude Indicator 0.16 A
Autopilot (2 axis independent controlled) 1.6 A each
Volts/Amp E.I. gauge 0.089 A
If both axis of the autopilot are engaged, the total load is 3.67A.
My problem lies with the installed volt/amp gauge. The reason I installed
it on the endurance bus is to monitor the
decreasing voltage while running battery only. While this of course of a
highly unlikely situation with 2 alternators
I decided to install it there anyways. The better use of the gauge on to
monitor to current draw current SD8 operation
to ensure it is below the max output of the alt.
Enough rambling. Here is my problem:
I currently have no fuses installed in the MAIN Bus. I turn the Endurance
X-Feed on and measure 12.81V at
the endurance bus fuse block attachment. However I also measure 6.77V at the
MAIN fuse block terminal. The diode is
allowing current to leak backwards. With no fuses in the MAIN fuse block
the volts/amps gauge reads the correct
12.8V. It does not indicate current at this point since the shunts are in
the alternator leads, not battery leads.
Now the confusing part starts. If I install ALL the fuses in the Main fuse
block, the volt/amp gauge indicates 0V.
I still measure 12.74V at the endurance bus fuse block and the volt/amp
gauge turns on so the voltage sensed by
the gauge does not match the voltage at the terminal. Now if I turn the
MASTER ON, the voltage is then correct
back to 12.8V. With all the fuses on (Endurance switch ON, MASTER OFF) the
voltage at EBus is 12.74.
Voltage at MAIN bus is 0.45V.
Is it normal for the diode to leak voltage back to the MAIN bus when the
Endurance switch is ON?
Here is a couple of other weird anomalies with the volt/amp gauge. If I only
install the fuse for the dimmer control
module (on MAIN bus), the indicated voltage jumps to 36.6V. The HI VOLTS
light does not come on, and the
measured voltage at the EBus is still only 12.8V.
Remove the Dimmer fuse, install the Encoder fuse (again on MAIN Bus) and
indicated voltage is 2.3V. Measured
at Ebus is still 12.8V.
Remove encoder fuse, install Low voltage Warn fuse, volt/amp gauge indicates
0V. Measure 12.8V still.
So:
Is the diode working correctly by allowing voltage to leak to MAIN bus
when on EBus Feed switch is on?
Any ideas on why this volt/amps gauge reads odd in some cases?
I have contacted E.I. and they state to check the wiring. Done. Obviously
the first step. They also said that "if there
is not bus voltage on the shunt you may not get a correct rading on either
volts or amps position."
Besides this all instruments/indictors/lights work correctly. When the
MASTER is On the volt/amp also works
correctly.
Thanks
Steve Hurlbut
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | Steppint power down |
Hi Bob,
I have an intercom that runs on a 9 volt battery. I would like to attach
the leads to my 12 volt power source. What is a good way to step the 12
volts down to 9 volts?
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
I have a 1971 C-172L with a KMA 20 audio panel with 2 Nav-Coms and one Nav-Com
(a KX-170B) will bleed though and be heard by the tower when I am transmitting
with the other Nav-Com (a Narco MK-12D+). I have heard it also on other transmissions
from other planes. Anybody have an idea about how to fix it??
John
N7607G
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Denso 100 211-1630] |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Denso 100 211-1630 |
Bob and Ken,
Thank you for your replies. I'll take a closer look at those IR messages.
Best regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Steppint power down |
Bob
7809 voltage regulator chip and 2 capacitors, one before, one after the
chip - google "7809 regulator" for values. Pot it in a small plastic box
with suitable connectors on flying leads
Best Regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Steppint power down
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> I have an intercom that runs on a 9 volt battery. I would like to attach
> the leads to my 12 volt power source. What is a good way to step the 12
> volts down to 9 volts?
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Battery charging |
I'm planning on using dual Light Speed ignition on my RV10, but I don't
feel comfortable using just one battery for both systems. Can someone
explain how to charge a second battery with different AMP hr rating,
with a single alternator system?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery charging |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Connect both positive terminals together...Thats the short answer.
BUT if you have a major ground fault on the primary battery you'll want
to stop the second battery losing all its charge. Put a Shotkey diode
(small forward voltage drop) in the line tying the two batteries
together...The the alt will feed the small second battery but it won't
flow the other way.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery charging
-->
I'm planning on using dual Light Speed ignition on my RV10, but I don't
feel comfortable using just one battery for both systems. Can someone
explain how to charge a second battery with different AMP hr rating,
with a single alternator system?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Brick" <jebrick(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance Bus Voltage Measurement |
Pay close attention to what EI said... "if there
is not bus voltage on the shunt you may not get a correct reading on either
volts or amps position."
I have the Z11 architecture and had to install a second shunt in the wire
from the ebus switch to the ebus. And then a relay to switch between shunts
when ebus switch is turned on.
Jb
RV-4 N474JB.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve &
Denise
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Endurance Bus Voltage Measurement
Bob and others,
My electrical system is pretty much finished. I have started with Z-12 and
used SB-8 instead of 20A alternator.
On the endurance bus I have wired:
GNC300XL GPS/COM 0.221 A measured when not transmitting
Attitude Indicator 0.16 A
Autopilot (2 axis independent controlled) 1.6 A each
Volts/Amp E.I. gauge 0.089 A
If both axis of the autopilot are engaged, the total load is 3.67A.
My problem lies with the installed volt/amp gauge. The reason I installed
it on the endurance bus is to monitor the
decreasing voltage while running battery only. While this of course of a
highly unlikely situation with 2 alternators
I decided to install it there anyways. The better use of the gauge on to
monitor to current draw current SD8 operation
to ensure it is below the max output of the alt.
Enough rambling. Here is my problem:
I currently have no fuses installed in the MAIN Bus. I turn the Endurance
X-Feed on and measure 12.81V at
the endurance bus fuse block attachment. However I also measure 6.77V at the
MAIN fuse block terminal. The diode is
allowing current to leak backwards. With no fuses in the MAIN fuse block
the volts/amps gauge reads the correct
12.8V. It does not indicate current at this point since the shunts are in
the alternator leads, not battery leads.
Now the confusing part starts. If I install ALL the fuses in the Main fuse
block, the volt/amp gauge indicates 0V.
I still measure 12.74V at the endurance bus fuse block and the volt/amp
gauge turns on so the voltage sensed by
the gauge does not match the voltage at the terminal. Now if I turn the
MASTER ON, the voltage is then correct
back to 12.8V. With all the fuses on (Endurance switch ON, MASTER OFF) the
voltage at EBus is 12.74.
Voltage at MAIN bus is 0.45V.
Is it normal for the diode to leak voltage back to the MAIN bus when the
Endurance switch is ON?
Here is a couple of other weird anomalies with the volt/amp gauge. If I only
install the fuse for the dimmer control
module (on MAIN bus), the indicated voltage jumps to 36.6V. The HI VOLTS
light does not come on, and the
measured voltage at the EBus is still only 12.8V.
Remove the Dimmer fuse, install the Encoder fuse (again on MAIN Bus) and
indicated voltage is 2.3V. Measured
at Ebus is still 12.8V.
Remove encoder fuse, install Low voltage Warn fuse, volt/amp gauge indicates
0V. Measure 12.8V still.
So:
Is the diode working correctly by allowing voltage to leak to MAIN bus
when on EBus Feed switch is on?
Any ideas on why this volt/amps gauge reads odd in some cases?
I have contacted E.I. and they state to check the wiring. Done. Obviously
the first step. They also said that "if there
is not bus voltage on the shunt you may not get a correct rading on either
volts or amps position."
Besides this all instruments/indictors/lights work correctly. When the
MASTER is On the volt/amp also works
correctly.
Thanks
Steve Hurlbut
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
I understand if you connect hte two batteries the second, and smaller
battery will get somewhat of a charge, but will the second battery stay
in a charged state, and be at full capacity when you need it? Looks to
me if you connect the two together, they act as one battery, as far as
the voltage regulator is concerned, and if the little battery demands
volts from the voltage regulator, the other battery gets over charged,
or vice versa. Am I thinking right here, can they be charged separately
with only one voltage regulator?
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>Connect both positive terminals together...Thats the short answer.
>
>BUT if you have a major ground fault on the primary battery you'll want
>to stop the second battery losing all its charge. Put a Shotkey diode
>(small forward voltage drop) in the line tying the two batteries
>together...The the alt will feed the small second battery but it won't
>flow the other way.
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
>Marlow
>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:20 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery charging
>
>-->
>
>I'm planning on using dual Light Speed ignition on my RV10, but I don't
>feel comfortable using just one battery for both systems. Can someone
>explain how to charge a second battery with different AMP hr rating,
>with a single alternator system?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery charging |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
According people much smarter than me (electrically speaking this would
be BOB!) you can use a single charger to charge two batterries wired in
parallel.
Thus if you simply connected the batteries together they look like one
battery and they both get fully charged.
The problem with a diode is that is has a forward voltage
drop...Radioshack diodes lose about 1 volt going forward but apparently
the Shotkey loses only about 0.25volts.
My little battery says it needs about 1 volt less than what my big
battery does...so I usead a RS diode, thinking all would be well...Bob
pointed out though that because the chemsitry of the big battery and the
little one is the same, they must both have the same charging
voltage...Bit of a bummer but I guess I'll be changing to the Shotkey at
some point.
The other thing is to plug a smart charger in and that can be presumably
wired directly to both batteries, i.e bypassing the diode.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery charging
-->
I understand if you connect hte two batteries the second, and smaller
battery will get somewhat of a charge, but will the second battery stay
in a charged state, and be at full capacity when you need it? Looks to
me if you connect the two together, they act as one battery, as far as
the voltage regulator is concerned, and if the little battery demands
volts from the voltage regulator, the other battery gets over charged,
or vice versa. Am I thinking right here, can they be charged separately
with only one voltage regulator?
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Steppint power down |
| From: | Deene Ogden <deene(at)us.ibm.com> |
I have built a number of these little power supplies for friends to power
their ANR headsets. I usually use a 10v 7810 3-terminal regulator
(Digikey p/n 296-1975-5-ND, TI UA7810) as Peter mentions below. I use
the 10v instead of the 9v version...either will work fine.
I solder a small 1uf capacitor between the input leads and use a 0.1uf cap
between the output leads and use the TO220 terminals as posts to solder
the input wires, caps and output wires. Then I encapsulate the whole
thing in shrink tubing. Take alook at the associated datasheet for the
device to see the TO220 package and pins and you will easily figure this
out.
Good Luck
Deene
"Peter Mather"
Sent by: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
03/23/2006 01:16 PM
Please respond to
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
To
cc
Subject
Re: AeroElectric-List: Steppint power down
Bob
7809 voltage regulator chip and 2 capacitors, one before, one after the
chip - google "7809 regulator" for values. Pot it in a small plastic box
with suitable connectors on flying leads
Best Regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Steppint power down
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> I have an intercom that runs on a 9 volt battery. I would like to attach
> the leads to my 12 volt power source. What is a good way to step the 12
> volts down to 9 volts?
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Steppint power down |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Before you go cobbling together a fix--It is likely that the 9V intercom will run
fine on 12V. If you can get the schematic or take a peek inside you can determine
this by looking up the parts.
Is there a cigar lighter plug adapter available for it? That would be a clue.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23816#23816
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
>
>I'm planning on using dual Light Speed ignition on my RV10, but I don't
>feel comfortable using just one battery for both systems. Can someone
>explain how to charge a second battery with different AMP hr rating,
>with a single alternator system?
You can add as many auxiliary batteries of any size
as you like/need as illustrated in Figure Z-30 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
If they're smaller than the main battery, don't close their
respective contactors until after the engine is started.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery charging |
>
>
>Connect both positive terminals together...Thats the short answer.
>
>BUT if you have a major ground fault on the primary battery you'll want
>to stop the second battery losing all its charge. Put a Shotkey diode
>(small forward voltage drop) in the line tying the two batteries
>together...The the alt will feed the small second battery but it won't
>flow the other way.
"Major ground faults" that take down the main battery
are interesting to hypothesize but exceedingly rare. In
fact, I've never heard of one in any of our aircraft. I'll
check with the folks in customer service . . . especially
the old gray-beards on the prop airplanes. The only reason
we ever use diodes in power distribution is to power one
load from multiple sources (like those shown in Z-19). This
is necessary when a double or triple-feed bus needs to power
up and not back-feed an alternative source, like the e-bus
normal feedpath diode on Z-11.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
>
>I understand if you connect hte two batteries the second, and smaller
>battery will get somewhat of a charge, but will the second battery stay
>in a charged state, and be at full capacity when you need it? Looks to
>me if you connect the two together, they act as one battery, as far as
>the voltage regulator is concerned, and if the little battery demands
>volts from the voltage regulator, the other battery gets over charged,
>or vice versa. Am I thinking right here, can they be charged separately
>with only one voltage regulator?
Batteries charge based on voltage presented at their terminals.
They have no way to know how or why the applied voltage got to
be where it is right now. It might be that your alternator is
overloaded or your voltage regulator setting is wrong but a battery
no way to know (or react to) any number of additional batteries on
line.
There's a lot of myth and misunderstanding about the performance one
can expect both in the charging and discharging of paralleled batteries.
If your alternator and voltage regulator are doing their job, ALL batteries
of ANY size will be serviced to their individual needs. When discharging
paralleled batteries, you will have access to 100% of energy available
from the sum total of energy stored irrespective of size or condition
of the individual batteries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV/LV light (was: UV Light) |
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
I have the OV module in hand.
What is your mailing address?
Thanks,
Kevin
on 3/22/06 8:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> Yes I do have it wired as per Z24.
>> I would be happy to send the ov Module. Is it OK to fly without it ?
>> Kevin
>
> sure . . . risks are low but not zero. I'll turn it around quickly.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Out of town for several days. |
Dr. Dee and I are packed and loaded for the Chesapeake, VA
seminar this weekend. Will be back on line Monday.
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: | "Clint \"Sandy\" McNabb" <mink(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Two batteries and one alternator |
I'm going to use two batteries and one alternator. Can anyone direct me to
where I can get a good schematic? I don't see one in AeroElectric
Connection.
Sandy McNabb
Glass Goose
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two batteries and one alternator |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Take a look at Z-19.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z19K_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z19K_2.pdf
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
-------------------------------------------------
I'm going to use two batteries and one alternator. Can anyone direct me
to where I can get a good schematic? I don't see one in AeroElectric
Connection.
Sandy McNabb
Glass Goose
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hand held GPS/NAV. |
Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
your opinions with me about them?
Does anyone want to sell their unit?
Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
AvMap EKP 111C
AvMap EKP 1V
I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Battery charging |
Bob said:
"There's a lot of myth and misunderstanding about the performance one
can expect both in the charging and discharging of paralleled batteries.
If your alternator and voltage regulator are doing their job, ALL batteries
of ANY size will be serviced to their individual needs. When discharging
paralleled batteries, you will have access to 100% of energy available
from the sum total of energy stored irrespective of size or condition
of the individual batteries."
This presumes identical battery chemistry. It would be uncertain that charge requirements
would be identical for an adsorbed glass mat (AGM) and a gel cell,
for example. The flooded battery type would be yet another voltage point. Some
battery chargers have a switch to choose the battery type. Recall that the
specific gravity of the battery acid used to activate aircraft flooded cells
in higher than that used for cars, and that the specific gravity of sufuric acid
in a sealed AGM battery is dependent on the choice of the manufacturer. I
suspect that the biggest difference in charge voltage is between those handy-available-in-smaller-size
gel cells, and the AGM and flooded cell batteries, which
are more similar. The gel cell is a nice, low current drain type of cell,
but it may not parallel well with the other types.
Jim Foerster, J400, still building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand held GPS/NAV. |
Hi, Bill!
I just reviewed the EKP IV in the April KITPLANES (page 47), after
flying with it for 80+ hours. Overall, a very nice unit.
Rick Lindstrom, Contributing Editor
WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
>your opinions with me about them?
>
>Does anyone want to sell their unit?
>
>Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
>
>AvMap EKP 111C
>
>AvMap EKP 1V
>
>I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
>"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
>
>Thanks
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Battery charging |
Typically, your alternator will be set at about 13.8 to 14.2 volts. All
the variations in lead-acid battery chemistry will "fully" charge at
that voltage. Some may take longer than others to charge up completely,
but the difference will not be that great. This is because 13.8 volts is
above the "float" voltage of all of the various flavors of lead-acid
batteries.
You can parallel lead-acid batteries with no worries.
The only possible downside to paralleling batteries is if one of
them develops a shorted cell. This bad battery will discharge the good
one if you don't have some sort of battery isolator to prevent that.
Bill Dube' <http://www.KillaCycle.com>
James Foerster wrote:
>
>Bob said:
>
> "There's a lot of myth and misunderstanding about the performance one
> can expect both in the charging and discharging of paralleled batteries.
> If your alternator and voltage regulator are doing their job, ALL batteries
> of ANY size will be serviced to their individual needs. When discharging
> paralleled batteries, you will have access to 100% of energy available
> from the sum total of energy stored irrespective of size or condition
> of the individual batteries."
>
>This presumes identical battery chemistry. It would be uncertain that charge
requirements would be identical for an adsorbed glass mat (AGM) and a gel cell,
for example. The flooded battery type would be yet another voltage point.
Some battery chargers have a switch to choose the battery type. Recall that the
specific gravity of the battery acid used to activate aircraft flooded cells
in higher than that used for cars, and that the specific gravity of sufuric
acid in a sealed AGM battery is dependent on the choice of the manufacturer.
I suspect that the biggest difference in charge voltage is between those handy-available-in-smaller-size
gel cells, and the AGM and flooded cell batteries,
which are more similar. The gel cell is a nice, low current drain type of cell,
but it may not parallel well with the other types.
>
>Jim Foerster, J400, still building
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand held GPS/NAV. |
I've been using the 2000C in my Cessna 140 since last summer and really like
it - great unit with lots of features, good screen size & visibility. I
built a mount into my RV-6A panel for the 2000C. I had used a Garmin 195
for quite a while before buying the 2000C and am impressed with the upgrade.
I don't have the terrain awareness upgrade yet but will get that soon and
would recommend making sure that's included if you go with the Airmap.
Terrain feature wasn't available when I bought mine.
Chris Hand
RV-6A, finishing stages (still)
----- Original Message -----
From: <WRBYARS(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hand held GPS/NAV.
>
> Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
> your opinions with me about them?
>
> Does anyone want to sell their unit?
>
> Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
>
> AvMap EKP 111C
>
> AvMap EKP 1V
>
> I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
> "Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand held GPS/NAV. |
I have a Garmin GPS 89, I would sell, don't use it much anymore.
Sam
WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
>your opinions with me about them?
>
>Does anyone want to sell their unit?
>
>Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
>
>AvMap EKP 111C
>
>AvMap EKP 1V
>
>I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
>"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
>
>Thanks
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand held GPS/NAV. |
sam,
isnt the lowrance 2000 the one with the biggest screen? a friend mounted
one this year in a vfr plane and it is very easy to work and easy to see. it
may not be state of the art but has a lot more than i need. its screen is so
BIG! at $700 or so it will be my choice in a year when my project is done.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Marlow" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hand held GPS/NAV.
>
>
> I have a Garmin GPS 89, I would sell, don't use it much anymore.
> Sam
>
> WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
>>your opinions with me about them?
>>
>>Does anyone want to sell their unit?
>>
>>Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
>>
>>AvMap EKP 111C
>>
>>AvMap EKP 1V
>>
>>I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
>>"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand held GPS/NAV. |
I think your right, but Garmin has some new products worth looking into!
bob noffs wrote:
>
>sam,
> isnt the lowrance 2000 the one with the biggest screen? a friend mounted
>one this year in a vfr plane and it is very easy to work and easy to see. it
>may not be state of the art but has a lot more than i need. its screen is so
>BIG! at $700 or so it will be my choice in a year when my project is done.
> bob noffs
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sam Marlow" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:22 AM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hand held GPS/NAV.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have a Garmin GPS 89, I would sell, don't use it much anymore.
>>Sam
>>
>>WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
>>>your opinions with me about them?
>>>
>>>Does anyone want to sell their unit?
>>>
>>>Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
>>>
>>>AvMap EKP 111C
>>>
>>>AvMap EKP 1V
>>>
>>>I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
>>>"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Cranking Power |
I took some measurements today because my Panasonic LCRD1217P battery cranking
power seems marginal on cold, 45 degree, days with my O360A1A and SkyTek permanent
magnet starter. I saw 5.5 to 6.5v from the starter side of the starter relay
to a stud on the vaccum pad of the engine accessory case. I also saw 5.5
to 6.5 v from the battery + terminal to airframe ground. The battery was fully
charged and measured 12.8v and was new. Assuming the battery - terminal to
airframe ground connection is good, it's new, and that about 200a is being drawn
by the starter, this gives a 25 milliohm internal battery resistance to explain
the 6 volt drop on starting. The specs claim the battery has 12 milliohm
resistance at 77 degrees. Would the 30 degree temperature drop be enough to
reasonably explain this big increase in internal resistance? Could the starter
be taking 400a? When the starter would stall, the battery voltage dropped
to about 4.5v.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Power |
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> I took some measurements today because my Panasonic LCRD1217P battery cranking
power seems marginal
If you want to see if your battery is holding up under cranking current,
you need to measure the voltage on the battery terminals. If you are
looking for losses, you need to measure the voltage on the starter
itself. You need BOTH measurements to figure voltage drop.
There are inexpensive meters that you just hold against the hot lead
from battery to starter that will show starter current draw. You should
be able to get one at a well-stocked auto parts store.
With those three measurements in hand you can get a really good feel for
now your battery and starting system are performing.
--
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: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Power (Good Info on wiring Battery/Starter!) |
Dear David:
per Sky Tec's info, their PM starter current draw is approx 320 AMPS!
Reference this source: http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_Experimental.pdf
This document has good info on wiring the starter.
Cheers George
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Cranking Power
I took some measurements today because my Panasonic LCRD1217P battery
cranking power seems marginal on cold, 45 degree, days with my O360A1A and
SkyTek permanent magnet starter. I saw 5.5 to 6.5v from the starter side of the
starter relay to a stud on the vacuum pad of the engine accessory case. I also
saw
5.5 to 6.5 v from the battery + terminal to airframe ground.
The battery was fully charged and measured 12.8v and was new. Assuming the
battery - terminal to airframe ground connection is good, it's new, and that about
200a
is being drawn by the starter, this gives a 25 milliohm internal battery resistance
to
explain the 6 volt drop on starting. The specs claim the battery has 12 milliohm
resistance at 77 degrees. Would the 30 degree temperature drop be enough to
reasonably explain this big increase in internal resistance? Could the starter
be
taking 400a? When the starter would stall, the battery voltage dropped to about
4.5v.
Dave Reel - RV8A
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus Voltage Measurement |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I ditto what JB says.
I also want to add that poking around with a mulimeter and trying to figure out
why there is voltage where you think there should not be, can be frustrating,
unnecessary and lead to Analysis-Paralysis.
All electronic circuits and their parts can be considered to have tiny add-on phantoms.
Every straight wire is a resistor, inductor, and capacitor plate, too.
Every diode has some leakage. All insulators have some conductivity. Young electronic
engineers have posters on their walls that remind them that "Ohm's Law
is Only a Crude Approximation".
So asking the question is the right thing to do; but even simple things can get
REAL complicated when one examines them too closely.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24350#24350
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Neubauer" <markn(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Power |
Brian:
You have hit the problem on the head. A serious drawback to the SkyTec
starters is their very high current draw on each compression stroke. I
believe it is entirely possible that your starter is indeed drawing 400 amps
twice per engine revolution. It was for this reason, and using dual
Lightspeed III ignition systems, that I swapped my SkyTec over to a field
wound starter. They weigh more, but their cranking current is around half of
the series wound models. High current draw like this will pull the battery
voltage way down as you measured
As a footnote, I discussed this phenomenon with a representative from SkyTec
at Oshkosh in 2004. He could not have been more evasive and curt. I believe
his response to my query was something like "Cranking current is not our
concern, that is the airframe manufacturer's problem"
Mark Neubauer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Neubauer" <markn(at)fuse.net> |
I purchased a Lowrance 2000c last July and love it. It acts as the ultimate
back-up to my $9000 Garmin GNS-480, but I use the Lowrance most of time. It
doesn't have the screen resolution of the 296/396 series from Garmin, or the
cachet, but its display is bigger and it gets the job done very well for
about 1/3 the price. Also, think about this: the display on the Lowrance is
"portrait" format, whereas Garmin's is "landscape". Not sure why Garmin does
this, cause I'd much rather have more "screen" ahead of me than to the
sides.
Mark Neubauer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Alt/Batt switch question |
Take Z14 for example. I know there has been lots of discussion about not
doing Avionics masters, but I have a somewhat related question.
I have an IO-550 with dual alt/batts. One alt will be a regular engine
driven one and it will be on the primary buss. The other, and SD-20, will
be on the essential buss.
So, in the scenario where I perform the initial startup, How does the VR and
the Backup alternator perform under this scenario.
A) I put the primary master in ALT+BATT.
B) I leave the CROSS TIE contactor OFF,
C) I put the Essential buss master to BATT only, not to ALT. I do this
because the engine instrumentation is on the essential buss and I want to
prime and watch for static fuel pressure, etc.
So, the primary battery provides all the power required for start and the
fuel pump (it's a Mag based engine). The backup battery is providing just
the power for the essential buss (in my case, the PFD EFIS, the AHRS, the
Magnetometer and the Engine instruments).
Once running, I switch the essential master to ALT and that should start the
backup alternator charging the system.
My real question is, is just having the ALT switch to the VR open, enough to
cause the alternator *not* to put out a charge until after I switch the
switch?
Perhaps I don't understand all the mechanics, but from the B&C datasheet on
the VR, (it's one of theirs), that is how you test it, so I figured, it
wouldn't hurt to start this way?
Would it be better to switch the cross tie on prior to switching on the
second alternator, or does *any* of this matter?
Thanks for reading and any replies.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Peter Braswell'" <pbraswell(at)alterthought.com> |
| Subject: | Denso Alternator Hook-up |
All,
I'm certain this is going to be a 101 question, forgive me.
I'm about to hookup my Denso alternator and it has two wires
protruding from the back, one labeled 'L' and the other labeled 'I'.
I'm certain one is for the "idiot light" and the other should be the
input for 12V and I'm no certain which is which. Any help would be greatly
appreciated!
-peter
Peter J. Braswell
CTO/CIO Canal Capital LLC
804.934.0300 ext 21
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 5V regulated supply |
I wanted to post back to the list that I did get these parts
and have them working. I actually had to re-order as I accidently
ordered the ones listed below, and I needed NEF0100500B0. The other
ones were surface mount...didn't catch that quick enough.
The 5V DC-DC converters hold a solid 5V real well, it's a 10A unit,
and has multiple outputs. I have now flown and used it and it works
very good. I don't get the huge screeching nose I used to. I
do still get a slight alternator whine, so I'd be curious as to how
an isolated converter would be in comparison....I may order one
just to try it out. They were only $8.50, so it's a great deal
on a nice converter.
Tim
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Great tip Brian, I found them on Mouser, found a 10A version
> that will do what I need, for only $8.50. Bought
> 2 just because they were cheap. Should easily be able to
> do the job. I'll post back if it doesn't work. I bought
> the NEF0100500S0.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>> One of the players had an AC supply that says 5V@1A, and the
>>> other says 5V@2A, so I would have thought the 7805 had a
>>> fighting chance, but I guess that's with a heatsink or something.
>> Just for grins I did a search on Google. Seems that Mouser has several
>> that might work for you. Mouser is having a blow-out on discontinued C&D
>> switching DC-DC converters. Prices for a complete power supply capable
>> of delivering 25A at 5V are in the $10 range. There are also other
>> manufacturers.
>>
>> Give the time and effort needed to build something vs. just buy a
>> high-quality DC-DC converter, I think the answer is pretty clearly "buy".
>>
>> Give Mouser a call and tell them you need a 12V-in 5V-out supply that
>> can be isolated or non-isolated. You should be able to find something at
>> under $30.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | guy fulton <truecolor32bit(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Off, R, L, Both, Start switch |
-=Guy=-
I converted to Dual electronic ignition 2years ago,
now am doing a complete dash replacment. Now use a
series of toggle switches for each of the two ignition
systems. I wanted to use a standard aircraft ignition
switch but it works opposite of what is needed for
electronic ignition. Is there an aircraft switch
manufactured that would work with the electronic
ignition? Is there a modification I could make to a
standard switch that would work?
thanks for any help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Denso Alternator Hook-up |
> I'm about to hookup my Denso alternator and it has two wires
> protruding from the back, one labeled 'L' and the other labeled 'I'.
>
> I'm certain one is for the "idiot light" and the other should be the
> input for 12V and I'm no certain which is which. Any help would be greatly
> appreciated!
Peter,
The L connection would be for the warning light, and the I
would be for the ignition, that is, to start the alternator.
Here are some photos and more information about my denso
alternator - most of the information should apply to
yours, too.
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=2004112513263691
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Denso Alternator Hook-up |
Peter:
It would be good to have a part number but I think I got it. When you say wire
protruding I assume from a "T" shape plug.
Some more info:
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg
(Ignore the round plug, the D terminal is a Dummy terminal for the model shown)
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9978/toyota7gf.jpg
(Shown for refrence only, slightly modified Toyota diagram, it shows fuse and
fusible
links with the wavy line or lines respectively. You can and should sub in CB's
in some
locations.)
Yes a CB on the "B-lead" (Battery lead the big heavy gage wire from the alternator
output to the battery. It is NOT one of the two small wires in the plug. The
CB should
be of the type that can be pulled manually, that is my suggestion. It just allows
you
another way to isolate the alternator if needed.)
From: "'Peter Braswell'" <pbraswell(at)alterthought.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Denso Alternator Hook-up
All,
I'm certain this is going to be a 101 question, forgive me.
I'm about to hookup my Denso alternator and it has two wires
protruding from the back, one labeled 'L' and the other labeled 'I'.
I'm certain one is for the "idiot light" and the other should be the
input for 12V and I'm no certain which is which. Any help would be
greatly appreciated!
-peter
Peter J. Braswell
CTO/CIO Canal Capital LLC
804.934.0300 ext 21
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc:
| Subject: | Off, R, L, Both, Start switch |
3/27/2006
Hello Guy, So you want to take this notoriously fickle switch,
(see this web page for
example//http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191792-1.html),
modify it, and put it into your electronic ignition circuits where a single
point failure can render both of your electronic ignitions inoperative.
Why would you want to do that?
OC
From: guy fulton <truecolor32bit(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off, R, L, Both, Start switch
-=Guy=-
I converted to Dual electronic ignition 2years ago,
now am doing a complete dash replacment. Now use a
series of toggle switches for each of the two ignition
systems. I wanted to use a standard aircraft ignition
switch but it works opposite of what is needed for
electronic ignition. Is there an aircraft switch
manufactured that would work with the electronic
ignition? Is there a modification I could make to a
standard switch that would work?
thanks for any help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | wiring starter and mag switches for Left on / Right |
off
Can someone point me to the description or schematic of how to wire my mag switches
so that when the right mag is ON the starter will not engage? I'm trying
to avoid a seperate starter on/off switch
Thanks
Ron Patterson
N8ZD(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | wing tip HID lights and lenses |
anyone know a good source for small bulkheads and lenses for the RV-4 wintips?
I'm using creative air landinig lights but they don't sell the 110 degree bulkheads
or plexiglass lenses.
Thanks
Ron Patterson
N8ZD(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
Just wondered if anyone has any experience with the Power Board from
Blue Mountain. It has a nice switch arrangement for lighted, engraved
low voltage switches that really look nice. I'm a bit concerned about
reliability though. Any thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
Sam
I'm not familiar with this switchboard. However, If the switches are
soldered to a board and a crtical one fails, you might be stuck while you
wait for a replacement. . I'd stick with Carling toggles. A trip to the
local hardware store would get you home.
Ask me how I know this.
Peter
>
> Just wondered if anyone has any experience with the Power Board from
> Blue Mountain. It has a nice switch arrangement for lighted, engraved
> low voltage switches that really look nice. I'm a bit concerned about
> reliability though. Any thoughts?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Power |
>
>Brian:
>
>You have hit the problem on the head. A serious drawback to the SkyTec
>starters is their very high current draw on each compression stroke. I
>believe it is entirely possible that your starter is indeed drawing 400 amps
>twice per engine revolution. It was for this reason, and using dual
>Lightspeed III ignition systems, that I swapped my SkyTec over to a field
>wound starter. They weigh more, but their cranking current is around half of
>the series wound models. High current draw like this will pull the battery
>voltage way down as you measured
>
>As a footnote, I discussed this phenomenon with a representative from SkyTec
>at Oshkosh in 2004. He could not have been more evasive and curt. I believe
>his response to my query was something like "Cranking current is not our
>concern, that is the airframe manufacturer's problem"
>
>Mark Neubauer
This is precisely why B&C stayed with wound-field
starters after considerable evaluation of the simpler
technology many years ago. The PM starters may indeed put
out more torque at a given terminal voltage but at higher
current draws too (you don't get something for nothing).
You can take advantage of this feature only if your battery's
internal resistance combined with the system's series resitance
is sufficiently low to deliver the power demand.
Yes, it is the manufacturer's problem to deal with the
hardware they select for integration into their products . . .
unfortunately, few folks in the airframe systems business
choose to be very well informed.
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: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cranking Power |
The PM starters will try to run at a specific RPM. They will draw the
current needed to do that, or they will sag the battery voltage trying
to do it. If the engine turns hard, they will draw a very large current.
If the engine turns easy, they will draw much less current. (The PM
starter RPM will be proportional to the supply voltage.)
The behavior of a series-wound starter is more complicated, but they
tend to put out a constant HP (rather than a constant speed.) They run
faster if the engine turns easier, and turn slower if the engine turns
harder. The current draw from the battery tends to be much more constant
than with a PM starter.
Bill Dube'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Left on / Right off |
| Subject: | Re: wiring starter and mag switches for Left on / |
Right off
>
>Can someone point me to the description or schematic of how to wire my mag
>switches so that when the right mag is ON the starter will not engage? I'm
>trying to avoid a seperate starter on/off switch
> Thanks
> Ron Patterson
> N8ZD(at)yahoo.com
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off, R, L, Both, Start switch |
>
>-=Guy=-
>I converted to Dual electronic ignition 2years ago,
>now am doing a complete dash replacment. Now use a
>series of toggle switches for each of the two ignition
>systems. I wanted to use a standard aircraft ignition
>switch but it works opposite of what is needed for
>electronic ignition. Is there an aircraft switch
>manufactured that would work with the electronic
>ignition? Is there a modification I could make to a
>standard switch that would work?
>thanks for any help.
Not all electronic ignitions use the same
switching philosophies. I believe Lightspeed
is designed to mimic magneto switching functions
so as to seamlessly integrate with the classic
off-l-r-both-start type mag switch. Also, the
next greatest system (e-mags/p-mags) will also
use this style of switch if you so choose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PIAVIS" <piavis(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Z-13 Component Locations for RV-7 |
I'm starting to figure out where all the components for the Z-13 system get
located in my RV-7. I'm tempted to have everything except the main current
limiter and the battery/starter contactors on the hot side of the firewall,
with everything else on the cold side. Is this how most have installed the
system?
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Piavis
Redmond, WA
RV-7 Fuselage
http://adap.com/rv7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Battery charging |
>
>
>Bob said:
>
> "There's a lot of myth and misunderstanding about the performance one
> can expect both in the charging and discharging of paralleled batteries.
> If your alternator and voltage regulator are doing their job, ALL
> batteries
> of ANY size will be serviced to their individual needs. When discharging
> paralleled batteries, you will have access to 100% of energy available
> from the sum total of energy stored irrespective of size or condition
> of the individual batteries."
>
>This presumes identical battery chemistry. It would be uncertain that
>charge requirements would be identical for an adsorbed glass mat (AGM) and
>a gel cell, for example. The flooded battery type would be yet another
>voltage point. Some battery chargers have a switch to choose the battery
>type. Recall that the specific gravity of the battery acid used to
>activate aircraft flooded cells in higher than that used for cars, and
>that the specific gravity of sufuric acid in a sealed AGM battery is
>dependent on the choice of the manufacturer. I suspect that the biggest
>difference in charge voltage is between those
>handy-available-in-smaller-size gel cells, and the AGM and flooded cell
>batteries, which are more similar. The gel cell is a nice, low current
>drain type of cell, but it may not parallel well with the other types.
Why would one put a gel cell in an airplane? When we certified
the Gates Genesis series RG batteries into TC aircraft the
cold cranking test results were profound. After cold soaking
new gel, flooded, and RG batteries in the deep freeze overnight
(about -10F), each battery was subjected to a 300A constant current
load for 15 seconds and terminal voltage plotted. The RG battery
had higher terminal voltage AFTER 15 seconds than the flooded battery
STARTED with. The gel wouldn't deliver 300A at any useful voltage.
All three batteries would crank an engine nicely at room temp
but the cold weather performance differences made it a hands-down
decision as to the superior technology for service in aircraft.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Two batteries and one alternator |
>
>
>
>I'm going to use two batteries and one alternator. Can anyone direct me to
>where I can get a good schematic? I don't see one in AeroElectric
>Connection.
You can add a second battery to ANY system as shown in Figure
Z-30 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
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: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Two batteries and one alternator |
How does the second battery get charged if the aux bat switch is open,
or do you operate normally with it closed, (on)?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm going to use two batteries and one alternator. Can anyone direct me to
>>where I can get a good schematic? I don't see one in AeroElectric
>>Connection.
>>
>>
>
> You can add a second battery to ANY system as shown in Figure
> Z-30 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Two batteries and one alternator |
>
>How does the second battery get charged if the aux bat switch is open,
>or do you operate normally with it closed, (on)?
Yes, normal operations are with all battery contactor(s)
closed. All batteries can usually help crank. All batteries
can charge from the single alternator. It's only when the
low voltage warning light comes on that you open battery
contactors to isolate each battery to it's "plan-b" duties.
Bob . . .
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm going to use two batteries and one alternator. Can anyone direct me to
> >>where I can get a good schematic? I don't see one in AeroElectric
> >>Connection.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You can add a second battery to ANY system as shown in Figure
> > Z-30 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
> >
> > 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 >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
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: | Jack Kuehn <jkuehn(at)mountaintime.myrf.net> |
I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
Jack,
I suspect the problem is the impedance level. Another way of saying
this is that the voltage (but not power) level of the cellphone is too
low to drive the intercom's music input. I added a tiny 8-ohm to
1000-ohm transformer to step up the audio level when I connected my MP3
player's headphone output to the music input of my Softcomm ATC-2P with
good results. (The 8-ohm winding is connected to the MP3 player of
course). Without the transformer the audio level was too low to be useful.)
Also, I'd encourage you to telephone Softcomm in Chandler, AZ. On the
two occasions I've dealt with them, I've found their service to be
outstanding.
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
On 29-Mar-06 03:35 Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
> I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
> am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
> tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
> input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
> anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>
> Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Thanks to those who responded to the survey on annunciator
panel functions. I had lunch with the 'crew' yesterday and
turned the data from 21 useful responses over to them.
We'll see how it influences their design decisions.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
> Speaking of RF...I have had a long standing noise in my radio
>problem...Ok unitl the alternator starts charging then you get
>everything, ignition, alternator, strobes...Lovely....And its not on the
>intercom as it varies with radio volume.
>
>A complete aside...While working in my shop I noticed National public
>broadcasting got noisy the moment I plugged in my battery drill battery
>to its smart charger...Hmmm I wonder?
>
>In the plane I have a battery charger on the GPS powered from ship....So
>yesterday while out flying I unplugged it.
>
>Noise went away immediately and I can turn the noise on and off by
>plugging and plugging the power lead...Ah HA!
>
>Did I simply not ground the charger properly?
Not necessarily. I have several cigar lighter chargers
for maintaining cell phones in the car. One particular
model is a prodigious producer of noise in the AM broadcast
band. The types and numbers of switchmode power supplies in
the wild on consumer products have made the FCC's noble rules
for management of inter-system interference a fond wish with
zero chance for meaningful enforcement.
This phenomenon is going to grow.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
> I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
> am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
> tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
> input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
> anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
There is a basic problem here. Your cellphone is a full-duplex device in
that it receives and transmits at the same time. If you connect a
headphone output to the input of your cellphone and the earphone output
of your cellphone to the music input on your intercom, you have set up a
feedback path. Everything that your cellphone receives will be sent
right back out your cellphone again. You need to somehow isolate the
receive audio from getting back into the mic input on the cellphone.
There are cellphone adapters that put the cellphone between your headset
and the rest of the airplane's audio system. These seem to work quite
well. PS Engineering also has cellphone support in their audio panel.
This is probably the most elegant (and expensive) solution.
Probably the simplest solution is to just wire your audio panel so that
the cell phone appears as another comm radio. You would have to use it
half-duplex and set it up so that PTT activates the mic audio to the
cell phone and mutes the receive audio from the cell phone. A DPDT relay
driven by the PTT line that uses one set of NC contacts to close the
path for the receive audio and the other set of NO contact to close the
path for the transmit audio would make this work just fine.
--
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: | Jon & Kathryn Hults <legacy(at)speedband.com> |
Bob,
I need a large (not miniature) lever-locking toggle/bat switch for my
landing gear. Problem is it needs to have 12 contacts (does that make it a
4PDT?). The one I have is WAY too small for a landing gear switch.
I've search the web and all the catalogs I have to no avail. Any ideas from
your vast knowledge of sources?
Thanks,
Jon Hults
Legacy #250
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/vsg_compare.asp?FAM=trSG&ITEMLIST=14345
9,143460,143461,143462,143464
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 Jon &
Kathryn Hults
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Switch
Bob,
I need a large (not miniature) lever-locking toggle/bat switch for my
landing gear. Problem is it needs to have 12 contacts (does that make it a
4PDT?). The one I have is WAY too small for a landing gear switch.
I've search the web and all the catalogs I have to no avail. Any ideas from
your vast knowledge of sources?
Thanks,
Jon Hults
Legacy #250
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Why do you need a switch like that?
Mike
Legacy # 268 Flying with a dual gear safety system.
Bob,
I need a large (not miniature) lever-locking toggle/bat switch for my
landing gear. Problem is it needs to have 12 contacts (does that make
it a
4PDT?). The one I have is WAY too small for a landing gear switch.
I've search the web and all the catalogs I have to no avail. Any ideas
from
your vast knowledge of sources?
Thanks,
Jon Hults
Legacy #250
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Jon,
Try www.onlinecomponents.com, p/n 4NT1-12, $33.00/ea. According to
their web site they have 38 in stock.
Mark Steitle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon &
Kathryn Hults
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Switch
Bob,
I need a large (not miniature) lever-locking toggle/bat switch for my
landing gear. Problem is it needs to have 12 contacts (does that make
it a
4PDT?). The one I have is WAY too small for a landing gear switch.
I've search the web and all the catalogs I have to no avail. Any ideas
from
your vast knowledge of sources?
Thanks,
Jon Hults
Legacy #250
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Response |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > (from)... time to time, it
> > would make sense to shut off the main alternator and energize the SD-8 (on
> > downwind to landing, for example, in daylight) every now and then just to
> > keep the electrons knowing where to go within the rather un-used wiring and
> > to verify, via the voltmeter, that the SD-8 is indeed pumping and keeping
> > the busses filled.
> >
> >
>
> You can pre-flight check it. In fact, this is one of several
> design goals for being able to turn either alternator on or off
> at any time under any conditions. During mag check at elevated
> RPM you could cycle the alternators to see that both are alive.
>
> Bob . . .
Does this not invite load dump spikes? If not, why? I'm more than happy to add
this to the run-up checks if it won't damage the systems.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=25080#25080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Response |
>
>
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > (from)... time to time, it
> > > would make sense to shut off the main alternator and energize the
> SD-8 (on
> > > downwind to landing, for example, in daylight) every now and then just to
> > > keep the electrons knowing where to go within the rather un-used
> wiring and
> > > to verify, via the voltmeter, that the SD-8 is indeed pumping and keeping
> > > the busses filled.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You can pre-flight check it. In fact, this is one of several
> > design goals for being able to turn either alternator on or off
> > at any time under any conditions. During mag check at elevated
> > RPM you could cycle the alternators to see that both are alive.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Does this not invite load dump spikes? If not, why? I'm more than happy to
>add this to the run-up checks if it won't damage the systems.
Not if they're designed out of the system. This has
never been an issue with contemporary certified systems.
It's not an issue for any of the B&C products.
It's this designer's goal to see that they're not
an issue with OBAM aircraft installations using
any brand of internally regulated alternator.
It's my intent to offer a means by which any alternator may
be turned on or off at any time under any conditions for any
reason without regard or concern for damaging anything.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
>
>
>Take Z14 for example. I know there has been lots of discussion about not
>doing Avionics masters, but I have a somewhat related question.
>
>I have an IO-550 with dual alt/batts. One alt will be a regular engine
>driven one and it will be on the primary buss. The other, and SD-20, will
>be on the essential buss.
>
>So, in the scenario where I perform the initial startup, How does the VR and
>the Backup alternator perform under this scenario.
>
>A) I put the primary master in ALT+BATT.
>B) I leave the CROSS TIE contactor OFF,
>C) I put the Essential buss master to BATT only, not to ALT. I do this
>because the engine instrumentation is on the essential buss and I want to
>prime and watch for static fuel pressure, etc.
You can turn on battery only or turn on both alternators too . . .
doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
>So, the primary battery provides all the power required for start and the
>fuel pump (it's a Mag based engine). The backup battery is providing just
>the power for the essential buss (in my case, the PFD EFIS, the AHRS, the
>Magnetometer and the Engine instruments).
>
>Once running, I switch the essential master to ALT and that should start the
>backup alternator charging the system.
>
>My real question is, is just having the ALT switch to the VR open, enough to
>cause the alternator *not* to put out a charge until after I switch the
>switch?
Assuming that you're using externally regulated alternators as illustrated
in Z-14 then if the alternator switch is not ON, then the alternator
controlled
by that switch is OFF. You can turn it on after starting or before
starting,
it doesn't matter.
>Perhaps I don't understand all the mechanics, but from the B&C datasheet on
>the VR, (it's one of theirs), that is how you test it, so I figured, it
>wouldn't hurt to start this way?
It doesn't HURT anything to start any way you wish. What you do
want to do is craft a preflight test that sorts through all your
marbles to see that they're in place before takeoff. From a human
factors perspective, you want to do one thing and observe one result.
MAIN bat ON . . . . stuff lights up. MAIN LO VOLTS
flashes.
AUX bat ON . . . . more stuff lights up. AUX LOW
VOLTS light flashes.
Engine START . . . . oil pressure rises.
MAIN alt ON . . . . MAIN LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
AUX alt ON . . . . AUX LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
>Would it be better to switch the cross tie on prior to switching on the
>second alternator, or does *any* of this matter?
Why? The cross tie is there for one of two reasons: (1) allow sharing
of energy sources during a failure event on one side or the other and
(2) letting two batteries do the job of getting the engine started. If
stuff on the aux bus doesn't run well in the real world of starter-
in-rush-brown-out, then (2) is not an option for you. This leaves only
(1) which (given the inherent reliability of modern batteries and
alternators) should be a very rare event. You might want to include it
in the pre-flight checklist by closing the cross tie, turn aux battery
and alternator OFF to see that the aux bus stays lit then return the
system to the flight configuration.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Can the loadmeter outputs from the main and SD-8 alternators be connected to the
same ammeter? I'm thinking that when the main goes silent, the load showing
will just be the SD-8. If so, do I need to do anything in the way of additional
diodes or such?
I'm using the EIS-4000 with the current sensor option.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=25086#25086
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Ammeters |
>
>Can the loadmeter outputs from the main and SD-8 alternators be connected
>to the same ammeter? I'm thinking that when the main goes silent, the load
>showing will just be the SD-8. If so, do I need to do anything in the way
>of additional diodes or such?
>
>I'm using the EIS-4000 with the current sensor option.
If you plan to run the EIS-4000 from the e-bus, then it
makes sense to run both alternator feeders through the
same sensor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
> I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom.
Hello Jack,
May I suggest this as a definitive answer to your problem.
http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/build1509/main-page.html
Click on Accessories then look at the 3rd item down.
I bought one and gave it to one of my sons who is flying regularly in a
C206. When he rings me, I cannot tell whether is in the aircraft or
not. Works incredibly well and I highly recommend it.
Regards
Kingsley in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Ammeters |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Yes, E-bus.
Thanks for the VERY quick reply.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=25103#25103
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Reese" <webfootboat(at)comcast.net> |
Excuse me for jumping in here. I have a ps8000sr that includes a cell phone
connection which I have not been able to try simply because it requires a
cord with a 2.5 mm connection of each end (stereo I believe) and I have not
been able to find a cable anywhere. Any suggestions?
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone
Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
> I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
> am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
> tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
> input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
> anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
There is a basic problem here. Your cellphone is a full-duplex device in
that it receives and transmits at the same time. If you connect a
headphone output to the input of your cellphone and the earphone output
of your cellphone to the music input on your intercom, you have set up a
feedback path. Everything that your cellphone receives will be sent
right back out your cellphone again. You need to somehow isolate the
receive audio from getting back into the mic input on the cellphone.
There are cellphone adapters that put the cellphone between your headset
and the rest of the airplane's audio system. These seem to work quite
well. PS Engineering also has cellphone support in their audio panel.
This is probably the most elegant (and expensive) solution.
Probably the simplest solution is to just wire your audio panel so that
the cell phone appears as another comm radio. You would have to use it
half-duplex and set it up so that PTT activates the mic audio to the
cell phone and mutes the receive audio from the cell phone. A DPDT relay
driven by the PTT line that uses one set of NC contacts to close the
path for the receive audio and the other set of NO contact to close the
path for the transmit audio would make this work just fine.
--
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: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Sorta repeat question |
I sent a note to the list looking for a little feedback, but I didn't get
any, perhaps I asked too complicated of a question so I'll try again.
In a dual alt/batt system (Z14). Can I start the airplane with the primary
switch in ALT+BATT, and the secondary switch in BATT only? By doing so
*and* leaving the cross tie switch OFF, I use the primary battery for
starting. My engine monitor and other items are on the secondary buss and
it would be running on the secondary battery only.
Then is there then any issue with switching the secondary switch into the
ALT+BATT mode to start the secondary alternator?
What kind of "inrush" problems might I have. I designed for electronic
ignition even tho phase 1 will I'll be using mags.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
amount of bandwidth.
See
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
Dave Morris
At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
>am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
>tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
>input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>
>Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
But it does not prohibit the use of a cell phone while on the ground
with the engine running. Very useful when at an airport with out a
tower trying to get a clearance.
Larry
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
>amount of bandwidth.
>
>See
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
>
>Dave Morris
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> amount of bandwidth.
That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
--
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: | "Wayne Reese" <webfootboat(at)comcast.net> |
It is a good way to close your flight plan while taxing to parking however.
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Morris "BigD"
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
amount of bandwidth.
See
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov
/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
Dave Morris
At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
>am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
>tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
>input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>
>Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Kuehn <jkuehn(at)mountaintime.myrf.net> |
Yes of course, did anyone suggest using cell phones in the air? It's
for those last minute calls to Flight Service, family, and for off
airport communication while waiting in line for departure. It is for
that reason I can't justify spending $300 for a cell phone patch.
Jack
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
>amount of bandwidth.
>
>See
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
>
>Dave Morris
>
>
>At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
>>am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
>>tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
>>input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>>anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Lane
Lolo, MT 59847
(406) 273-6801
(406) 546-1086 (cell)
(406) 273-2563 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Kuehn <jkuehn(at)mountaintime.myrf.net> |
| Subject: | legal Cell phone |
That is interesting, and I bet not too many pilots know this. Why then
are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
"safe?"
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
>>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
>>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
>>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
>>amount of bandwidth.
>>
>>
>
>That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
>technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
>of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
>There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
>operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
>phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
>
>
>
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Lane
Lolo, MT 59847
(406) 273-6801
(406) 546-1086 (cell)
(406) 273-2563 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | very sensitive current monitor? |
Has anyone here come across an affordable (< $50) current monitor
(preferably hall effect) with a max range of ~1 A? I'm looking for
something that is usable with scaling of mV/mA rather than mV/A.
The form factor of those little ampsense units is perfect... but the
sensitivity offered by their smallest unit (25A) just isn't sensitive
enough.
Thanks for any guidance you can offer!
D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Corner <jcorner(at)shaw.ca> |
Now that we have established the need for a cheap solution to this
problem I offer the following
$10-$20 solution,
Purchase a hands free earphone-mic with the flex connection between
ear and mike elements.
Place both elements (ear and mike) in the ear cup of your head set,
ANR probably works best.
I sometimes place the ear element in my ear under the headset, seems
to work a little better.
Talk to your cell phone party over the intercom. The drawback is
that your cell phone party
will hear your take-off clearance and refuse to talk to you any more.
Try it ---- you'll like it!
Jim
On Mar 29, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
>
> Yes of course, did anyone suggest using cell phones in the air? It's
> for those last minute calls to Flight Service, family, and for off
> airport communication while waiting in line for departure. It is for
> that reason I can't justify spending $300 for a cell phone patch.
>
> Jack
>
> Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
>> (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
>> is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
>> multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
>> amount of bandwidth.
>>
>> See
>> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/
>> edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
>>
>> Dave Morris
>>
>>
>> At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom,
>>> and I
>>> am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the
>>> intercom. I
>>> tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and
>>> music
>>> input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>>> anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jack Kuehn
> 5565 Brady Lane
> Lolo, MT 59847
>
> (406) 273-6801
> (406) 546-1086 (cell)
> (406) 273-2563 (fax)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Kuehn <jkuehn(at)mountaintime.myrf.net> |
WOW I am speechless at the simplicity of this!! Thank you!! I'll try
it ASAP!
Jack
Jim Corner wrote:
>
>Now that we have established the need for a cheap solution to this
>problem I offer the following
>
>$10-$20 solution,
>
>Purchase a hands free earphone-mic with the flex connection between
>ear and mike elements.
>
>Place both elements (ear and mike) in the ear cup of your head set,
>ANR probably works best.
>
>I sometimes place the ear element in my ear under the headset, seems
>to work a little better.
>
>Talk to your cell phone party over the intercom. The drawback is
>that your cell phone party
>
>will hear your take-off clearance and refuse to talk to you any more.
>
>Try it ---- you'll like it!
>
>Jim
>
>
>On Mar 29, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Yes of course, did anyone suggest using cell phones in the air? It's
>>for those last minute calls to Flight Service, family, and for off
>>airport communication while waiting in line for departure. It is for
>>that reason I can't justify spending $300 for a cell phone patch.
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
>>>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
>>>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
>>>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
>>>amount of bandwidth.
>>>
>>>See
>>>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/
>>>edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
>>>
>>>Dave Morris
>>>
>>>
>>>At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom,
>>>>and I
>>>>am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the
>>>>intercom. I
>>>>tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and
>>>>music
>>>>input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>>>>anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>>>>
>>>>Jack
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Jack Kuehn
>>5565 Brady Lane
>>Lolo, MT 59847
>>
>>(406) 273-6801
>>(406) 546-1086 (cell)
>>(406) 273-2563 (fax)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Lane
Lolo, MT 59847
(406) 273-6801
(406) 546-1086 (cell)
(406) 273-2563 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
Jack Kuehn wrote:
>
> That is interesting, and I bet not too many pilots know this. Why then
> are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
> Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
> "safe?"
Correct. The rules for part 121 and 135 ops are different than they are
for part 91. The pilots have no discretion in that case.
--
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: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
I have a GRT EIS4000 and want to add the ammeter function. I forgot to
buy the sensor from GRT but I do have a spare hall effect sensor from
the previous Rocky Mountains EIS I was using. I'm wondering what the
voltage (I assume) output of these devices is? The RkyMtns one has three
input wires - is anyone familiar with these and how I might connect the
sensor to read volts into the GRT?
I've emailed GRT a couple of times but got no reply - I guess its
understandable that they want to sell me the $60 sensor rather than have
me use the one I have.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Allan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Wayne,
I had the same issue until I found the cable. PS-Eng sells them but
for a super high price. I bought this one, from here, and it works
great.
http://www.midi-classics.com/c/c23895.htm
Maker: Hosa Technology
Code: CMM-403
That should be some help for you....they're really cheap.
To use this one, you will need to buy a 2.5mm jack for the input.
If you wired a 3.5mm jack, you'll need a 2.5mm to 3.5mm male cable,
which I haven't shopped for.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
PS, that PS8000 is one hot intercom. I can't believe how
great it functions in many ways!
Wayne Reese wrote:
>
> Excuse me for jumping in here. I have a ps8000sr that includes a cell phone
> connection which I have not been able to try simply because it requires a
> cord with a 2.5 mm connection of each end (stereo I believe) and I have not
> been able to find a cable anywhere. Any suggestions?
> Wayne
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: current sensor (GRT hall effect current sensor) |
Allan:
I can assure you the lack of reply has nothing to do with wanting to sell
you something. They are slow to respond sometimes and it is Sun and
Fun time. However if you must get them, CALL them and email them both.
Sandy may be out sick or helping Greg get ready for S&F. I do NOT work
for them or personally know them. I have just had a eis4000 and several
earlier models going back at least 15 years. Great products and super nice
folks.
They make the best products at very good prices. Nuff said on GRT, that
is the reason they have not responded yet.
Now for your Hall effect. The three wires are output, ground and power
supply.
You should be able to get it to work. There is no guarantee it will work,
but the EIS is pretty flexible and hall effect sensor have pretty standard
specs. Once you get it figured out GRT can give you the settings or I.
You have to tell me or GRT what its output and range is. With that info
you can figure out the Offset factor (OF) and Scale factor (SF) to make it
work (read correctly). As you know the Aux inputs have these two factors.
You also have to set the EIS resolution (decimal place) and if its forward
sensing (see your EIS manual).
So contact the company that sold you the hall effect and find out the
specs, or you could test it. The supply power to the hall effect,
is usually nominally 5 volts, not sure about the one you have. The
power input to most hall effect sensors is +4.5v to + 8.0v DC. The EIS
has an on-board 4.8volt power supply to power aux sensors. (see your
EIS manual).
Depending on the capacity of your hall effect (25, 50 or 100 amps) it will
produce a linear voltage, mill volts, on the output based on how much
current is passing thru the wire you are measuring. I am guessing you
have an AMPLOC brand. Model? AMP100 or ZAP50? Both sensors
read to 100 amps linearly. (total guess call them).
This mV output is read and converted to a reading on the EIS4000.
Warning the max Aux input to the eis4000 is 5.5 volts. Any more than
that will damage it. Depending on the Hall Effect sensor, the typical out
put will be between 0.9V to 1.9V so this is not an issue. However NEVER
pump 12volts direct into an aux input. I never did it but the manual says it
is a bad thing.
Write me off list if you want more info. You NEED:
Rated current capacity capacity
Peek voltage at rated current
What range you are trying to measure
You need to know supply voltage, the EIS 4.8 volts will likely do fine.
Depending on what model EIS (software version) may affect settings.
George
Subject: current sensor
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
I have a GRT EIS4000 and want to add the ammeter function. I
forgot to buy the sensor from GRT but I do have a spare hall effect
sensor from the previous Rocky Mountains EIS I was using. I'm
wondering what the voltage (I assume) output of these devices is?
The RkyMtns one has three input wires - is anyone familiar with
these and how I might connect the sensor to read volts into the
GRT?
I've emailed GRT a couple of times but got no reply - I guess its
understandable that they want to sell me the $60 sensor rather than
have me use the one I have.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Allan
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: very sensitive current monitor? |
>
>Has anyone here come across an affordable (< $50) current monitor
>(preferably hall effect) with a max range of ~1 A? I'm looking for
>something that is usable with scaling of mV/mA rather than mV/A.
>
>The form factor of those little ampsense units is perfect... but the
>sensitivity offered by their smallest unit (25A) just isn't sensitive
>enough.
>
>Thanks for any guidance you can offer!
You can get more sensitivity from these products by passing
the current carrying wire through the aperture more times.
I've wound as many as 30 turns through the little Amploc
devices for 30x the sensitivity.
If you're needing 1000x the sensitivity, it's going to
be much harder. You may have discovered that the simple
hall devices have quite a bit of retentivity and tend to
take a "set" in the direction of the last current pulse
that makes zero current readings something of a moving target.
This makes it difficult to simply add gain to the device's
output for more sensitivity.
You might consider a "servoed" hell sensor where there are
two windings on the device. One is driven by an op-amp
set up to watch the hall output and then bias the core
so that net magnetic field is held at zero. The second winding is
your sense winding . . . any field generated by this winding
is exactly offset by the op-amp. This makes the retentivity
thing go away and allows you to put lots of gain on the
current measurement in the null winding which is an exact
image (within limits of the op-amp's dynamic limits)
of the current in the sense winding.
Have you considered the low cost, high common mode
instrumentation amps like the AD626? These can be
used with appropriate shunts to get the kinds of
sensitivity you cited also.
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: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: current sensor |
Allan
The EIS sensor has a 5 volt input (they call it 4.8 volts for some
reason), a ground, and an output that outputs 0 to 5 volts. At zero
sensed current it output about 2.5 volts (half the supply voltage). At
max forward current it will output about 5 volts. At max reverse current
it will output about 0 volts. The EIS sense parameters (offset and scale
factor) can be adjusted to calibrate most sensors. Remember that you can
loop the sensed wire through the sensor more than once to increase the
sensitivity if you wish. My sensors all came from GRT but I have still
tweaked most of the sensor parameters a bit to calibrate them accurately.
Many industrial applications would feed a positive supply and a negative
supply to the sensor (instead of ground) so that the output at zero
sensed current is zero volts but that is not required with the EIS setup.
I don't recall anyone else mentioning the problem but I had to puzzle
out my own parameters to calibrate an extra liquid temp sensor as the
GRT numbers seemed to be way out of the ballpark for any kind of
accuracy. That was the only sensor that needed the reverse sensing
option selected on my install. I guess one should be hesitant to believe
any gauge until it is calibrated. I have found that support from GRT is
fast and excellant but if it were my business I'd probably also be
hesitant to spend time supporting products that I didn't sell. I am
assuming that they would be in favour of any discussion here though that
supports their product.
Ken
Allan Aaron wrote:
>
>I have a GRT EIS4000 and want to add the ammeter function. I forgot to
>buy the sensor from GRT but I do have a spare hall effect sensor from
>the previous Rocky Mountains EIS I was using. I'm wondering what the
>voltage (I assume) output of these devices is? The RkyMtns one has three
>input wires - is anyone familiar with these and how I might connect the
>sensor to read volts into the GRT?
>
>I've emailed GRT a couple of times but got no reply - I guess its
>understandable that they want to sell me the $60 sensor rather than have
>me use the one I have.
>
>Thanks for your suggestions.
>Allan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Alt/Batt switch question |
Bob, Thanks for the reply. I unfortunately didn't see your reply before I
wasted the bandwidth and send a second message.... Sorry bout that :(.
Your checklist idea is an excellent one. I had thought thru most of it but
seeing it in simple black and white certainly reinforces the results and
benefit.
Thanks again
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
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alt/Batt switch question
-->
>
>
>Take Z14 for example. I know there has been lots of discussion about
>not doing Avionics masters, but I have a somewhat related question.
>
>I have an IO-550 with dual alt/batts. One alt will be a regular engine
>driven one and it will be on the primary buss. The other, and SD-20,
>will be on the essential buss.
>
>So, in the scenario where I perform the initial startup, How does the
>VR and the Backup alternator perform under this scenario.
>
>A) I put the primary master in ALT+BATT.
>B) I leave the CROSS TIE contactor OFF,
>C) I put the Essential buss master to BATT only, not to ALT. I do this
>because the engine instrumentation is on the essential buss and I want
>to prime and watch for static fuel pressure, etc.
You can turn on battery only or turn on both alternators too . . .
doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
>So, the primary battery provides all the power required for start and
>the fuel pump (it's a Mag based engine). The backup battery is
>providing just the power for the essential buss (in my case, the PFD
>EFIS, the AHRS, the Magnetometer and the Engine instruments).
>
>Once running, I switch the essential master to ALT and that should
>start the backup alternator charging the system.
>
>My real question is, is just having the ALT switch to the VR open,
>enough to cause the alternator *not* to put out a charge until after I
>switch the switch?
Assuming that you're using externally regulated alternators as
illustrated
in Z-14 then if the alternator switch is not ON, then the alternator
controlled
by that switch is OFF. You can turn it on after starting or before
starting,
it doesn't matter.
>Perhaps I don't understand all the mechanics, but from the B&C
>datasheet on the VR, (it's one of theirs), that is how you test it, so
>I figured, it wouldn't hurt to start this way?
It doesn't HURT anything to start any way you wish. What you do
want to do is craft a preflight test that sorts through all your
marbles to see that they're in place before takeoff. From a human
factors perspective, you want to do one thing and observe one result.
MAIN bat ON . . . . stuff lights up. MAIN LO VOLTS
flashes.
AUX bat ON . . . . more stuff lights up. AUX LOW
VOLTS light flashes.
Engine START . . . . oil pressure rises.
MAIN alt ON . . . . MAIN LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
AUX alt ON . . . . AUX LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
>Would it be better to switch the cross tie on prior to switching on the
>second alternator, or does *any* of this matter?
Why? The cross tie is there for one of two reasons: (1) allow sharing
of energy sources during a failure event on one side or the other and
(2) letting two batteries do the job of getting the engine started. If
stuff on the aux bus doesn't run well in the real world of starter-
in-rush-brown-out, then (2) is not an option for you. This leaves only
(1) which (given the inherent reliability of modern batteries and
alternators) should be a very rare event. You might want to include it
in the pre-flight checklist by closing the cross tie, turn aux battery
and alternator OFF to see that the aux bus stays lit then return the
system to the flight configuration.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Brian you are probably right. I can't seem to find any limitations
in the PCS part of the regulations, other than for "antenna height",
and that seems to apply to ground stations.
Dave
At 07:56 PM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> > (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> > is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> > multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> > amount of bandwidth.
>
>That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
>technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
>of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
>There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
>operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
>phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
>
>--
>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: | "Wayne Reese" <webfootboat(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks, just ordered it.
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone
Wayne,
I had the same issue until I found the cable. PS-Eng sells them but
for a super high price. I bought this one, from here, and it works
great.
http://www.midi-classics.com/c/c23895.htm
Maker: Hosa Technology
Code: CMM-403
That should be some help for you....they're really cheap.
To use this one, you will need to buy a 2.5mm jack for the input.
If you wired a 3.5mm jack, you'll need a 2.5mm to 3.5mm male cable,
which I haven't shopped for.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
PS, that PS8000 is one hot intercom. I can't believe how
great it functions in many ways!
Wayne Reese wrote:
>
> Excuse me for jumping in here. I have a ps8000sr that includes a cell
phone
> connection which I have not been able to try simply because it requires a
> cord with a 2.5 mm connection of each end (stereo I believe) and I have
not
> been able to find a cable anywhere. Any suggestions?
> Wayne
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs.
As I said in earlier messages, the use of *AMPS* cellphones (the older
analog phones that transmit using narrow-band FM in the 800MHz band) in
an airplane in the air is prohibited by the FCC. It is *NOT* against FCC
regs to use PCS phones (digital phones such as CDMA, TDMA, and GSM)
while in flight. As far as the FCC is concerned AMPS and PCS are
completely different services and operate under completely different rules.
--
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> Brian you are probably right. I can't seem to find any limitations
> in the PCS part of the regulations, other than for "antenna height",
> and that seems to apply to ground stations.
One thing to considers: many phone are "dual-band", i.e. they can
operate both PCS *and* AMPS. Often when your phone roams it is switching
to AMPS mode. This would be against FCC regs if you let this happen
while flying. If you wish to use your PCS phone in your plane you need
to go into the phone's settings and disable AMPS mode. I just lock mine
to my home provider and don't let it roam. That solves the problem and
prevents "surprise" roaming charges.
--
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: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
From 91.21:
"In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be
used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by
the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft."
Operator not = pilot.
Dave Morris
At 08:42 PM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>That is interesting, and I bet not too many pilots know this. Why then
>are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
>Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
>"safe?"
>
>Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >>
> >>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> >>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> >>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> >>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> >>amount of bandwidth.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
> >technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
> >of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
> >There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
> >operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
> >phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>Jack Kuehn
>5565 Brady Lane
>Lolo, MT 59847
>
>(406) 273-6801
>(406) 546-1086 (cell)
>(406) 273-2563 (fax)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> Bryan- how does one determine type of cell phone? Anything newer than "X"
> years OK? All dualbands OK? TIA!
In the US Sprint, Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon all operate under the PCS
laws. Only the older cell-phone franchises still have AMPS. AMPS doesn't
support any of the newer features like text messaging, internet access,
picture phone capability, etc. Customer feature requirements dictate
that one sell PCS services these days.
So virtually all phones sold today are PCS.
For instance, my phone, a Samsung SP500i from Sprint, has three choices
under "roming":
-automatic
-Sprint
-analog
By setting it to "Sprint" I prevent it from switching to analog (AMPS)
roaming mode.
But the definitive answer is: RTFM. ;-)
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Thanks for the clarification.
r
do nor archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Brian Lloyd; Date: 06:13 AM 3/30/2006
-0800)
rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs.
As I said in earlier messages, the use of *AMPS* cellphones (the older
analog phones that transmit using narrow-band FM in the 800MHz band) in
an airplane in the air is prohibited by the FCC. It is *NOT* against FCC
regs to use PCS phones (digital phones such as CDMA, TDMA, and GSM)
while in flight. As far as the FCC is concerned AMPS and PCS are
completely different services and operate under completely different rules.
--
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: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: RV-List: Engine compartment wiring] |
Interesting presentation on "by the book" aircraft wiring practices
(from the RV list)
Bill Dube'
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine compartment wiring
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:26:04 -0800
From: Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org>
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Allison
better yet, download it here:
www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/training/der_present/la_may/media/Electrical%20Wiring.pdf
Bob C. wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. "
>
> Ralph,
>
> I have a power-point that I down loaded from the FAA? It's overkill but
> very informative.
>
> I send you a copy . . . If anyone else would like a copy send me an email
> off line.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
Please disregard...something odd happening with my new email
ISP......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Actually air carrier, schedule passenger airline, have FAR restrictions.
If its company policy (in the operation certificate or airline flt manual it's
law), it is
forbidden. The FAR's are less spacific and more general, giving the Captain
(PIC) authority to allow certain portable electronic devices. However if explicitly
stated in the Op Spec's his hands are tied. Flight attendants are doing their
job.
Airlines have there own set of custom rules they must abide by.
Most airlines allow cell use on the ground, after landing during taxi.
In flight below 10,000 forget any device.
Any Fan's of the Discovery Channel show Myth Busters? One
of the most recent discussed this very thing. It was interesting. It was
Episode 49,"Cell Phones on a Plane", first aired on March 15, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Episode_49_.E2.80.94_.22Cell_Phones_on_a_Plane.22
They did a test with a high powered Cell test transmitter and got an old
Cessna ARC VOR to jump. They tried it in Hawker Business Jet with
EFIS flight deck. No effect. They wanted to fly but where not allowed by
the FAA? FCC? The bottom line was it was BUSTED! Older aircraft can
be affected, but modern shielded systems are virtually impervious.
The FAA's stand at least with commercial traffic is to err on the side of
conservatism. At some lower altitude they will not work anyway.
Check local basic cable listings, it is well worth a watch.
How the cell phone companies feel about it? I don't know. I always heard
it would "block" too many towers but read here this is untrue?
Any device can put out RF. I don't want an argument of shielded
electronics, we are talking conservatism. Frankly if I am IMC flying an
apprach to Mins, I don't want any electronic decives on.
What about GA aviation? Well it is one of those things, no harm not foul?
Cheers George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | thermocouple wires |
Cold junction compensation: I have a system from Grand Rapids
Technology that recommends using ThermoCouple(TC) wire all the way
from the box to the TC connectors on the engine. The CHT uses type J
and the EGT type K. The people that did my panel used copper to a
bulkhead connector (expensive Mil-spec with gold-plated terminals)
and then I, without too much thinking, kept going with copper wire to
each TC connector. Now I'm worried about the errors will occur
because of all the wire material mismatch. The only good thing going
is that the TC wires are equal length so the + and - connectors are
right next to each other. Big errors? Small errors? I'm almost
tempted to pull out the whole thing, bulkhead connector and all, and
run TC wire in one length from the box to each TC. I looked at the
JPI system in my certified aircraft and that's the way it was done.
And then while I'm at it I could buy real TC connectors that will
keep all the materials correct. Should I?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
On 31 Mar 2006, at 06:39,
wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Episode_49_.E2.80.94_.
> 22Cell_Phones_on_a_Plane.22
>
>
> They did a test with a high powered Cell test transmitter and got
> an old
> Cessna ARC VOR to jump. They tried it in Hawker Business Jet with
> EFIS flight deck. No effect. They wanted to fly but where not
> allowed by
> the FAA? FCC? The bottom line was it was BUSTED! Older aircraft can
> be affected, but modern shielded systems are virtually impervious.
> The FAA's stand at least with commercial traffic is to err on the
> side of
> conservatism. At some lower altitude they will not work anyway.
There are so many variables that it is pretty much impossible to
define a guaranteed safe set of circumstances to use personal
electronic devices. One device might be OK, but the next one of the
same model was misassembled, or dropped, and that could affect the
shielding. Most seats in an aircraft might be OK, but a few seats
might be close to a coax connector that might allow some signal to
leak into the coax. Most aircraft might be OK, but one serial number
might have a bad piece of coax. One cell phone model might be OK,
until the manufacturer changes the production process.
A few tests showing no interference do not constitute proof that
there cannot be interference under any circumstances. There have
been enough reports of interference from various devices to know that
there can be problems in the right set of circumstances.
I talked to a Canadair Challenger pilot about 10 years ago who
related an incident. They were in cruise, when they noted strange
indications on the NAVs. He sent the copilot back to the cabin to
see if anything strange was going on. He found the CEO's son playing
with a GameBoy. He asked him to turn the GameBoy OFF - the NAVs
returned to normal. Turned the GameBoy back ON, the NAVs started
acting up again. GameBoy OFF for the rest of the flight.
> Any device can put out RF. I don't want an argument of shielded
> electronics, we are talking conservatism. Frankly if I am IMC
> flying an
> apprach to Mins, I don't want any electronic decives on.
I agree 100% for commercial ops. For private ops, it is up to the
PIC to use his own best judgement.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Actually air carrier, schedule passenger airline, have FAR restrictions.
>
> If its company policy (in the operation certificate or airline flt
> manual it's law), it is
>forbidden. The FAR's are less spacific and more general, giving the Captain
>(PIC) authority to allow certain portable electronic devices. However if
>explicitly
> stated in the Op Spec's his hands are tied. Flight attendants are doing
> their job.
>
> Airlines have there own set of custom rules they must abide by.
>
>Most airlines allow cell use on the ground, after landing during taxi.
>In flight below 10,000 forget any device.
>
>
>Any Fan's of the Discovery Channel show Myth Busters? One
>of the most recent discussed this very thing. It was interesting. It was
>Episode 49,"Cell Phones on a Plane", first aired on March 15, 2006.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Episode_49_.E2.80.94_.22Cell_Phones_on_a_Plane.22
>
>
>They did a test with a high powered Cell test transmitter and got an old
>Cessna ARC VOR to jump. They tried it in Hawker Business Jet with
>EFIS flight deck. No effect. They wanted to fly but where not allowed by
>the FAA? FCC? The bottom line was it was BUSTED!
I saw this episode. If it were not offered with such good
intentions, it would have been laughable. Their techniques
for deducing sensitivity of various systems to radiation from
cell phone emissions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding
of how both systems work and how one conducts repeatable experiments
to quantify and qualify results.
Take it from someone who has written dozens of test plans and
spent a goodly part of a career in a screen-room, the "results"
from their tests had no scientific validity. Now, that's not
to say that their conclusion was incorrect . . . I've done a LOT
of testing of equipment that was radiated strongly by sources
that cover the cell phone frequencies and found no effect on
the equipment under test. Indeed, that's a design goal of the
supplier and a requirement for certification. Suffice it to say
that squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching to
see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test . . . I WISH
it were so simple. Could have save my bosses $millions$.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: thermocouple wires |
>
>Cold junction compensation: I have a system from Grand Rapids
>Technology that recommends using ThermoCouple(TC) wire all the way
>from the box to the TC connectors on the engine. The CHT uses type J
>and the EGT type K. The people that did my panel used copper to a
>bulkhead connector (expensive Mil-spec with gold-plated terminals)
>and then I, without too much thinking, kept going with copper wire to
>each TC connector. Now I'm worried about the errors will occur
>because of all the wire material mismatch. The only good thing going
>is that the TC wires are equal length so the + and - connectors are
>right next to each other. Big errors? Small errors? I'm almost
>tempted to pull out the whole thing, bulkhead connector and all, and
>run TC wire in one length from the box to each TC. I looked at the
>JPI system in my certified aircraft and that's the way it was done.
>And then while I'm at it I could buy real TC connectors that will
>keep all the materials correct. Should I?
One is never wrong to follow the manufacturer's instructions.
Your concerns for degraded calibration of the instruments
due to mis-wiring are well founded. See chapter 14 in the 'Connection.
Thermocouples are neat things. They work well but only if
one follows the design rules. As soon as you stick a foreign
material (copper) in the loop, one must DESIGN for a specific
set of circumstances that should honored if you want to
maintain system integrity. If the manufacturer calls for
100% t/c wire from measurement of interest to the instrument,
then those are the rules.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I talked to a Canadair Challenger pilot about 10 years ago who
>related an incident. They were in cruise, when they noted strange
>indications on the NAVs. He sent the copilot back to the cabin to
>see if anything strange was going on. He found the CEO's son playing
>with a GameBoy. He asked him to turn the GameBoy OFF - the NAVs
>returned to normal. Turned the GameBoy back ON, the NAVs started
>acting up again. GameBoy OFF for the rest of the flight.
>
> > Any device can put out RF. I don't want an argument of shielded
> > electronics, we are talking conservatism. Frankly if I am IMC
> > flying an
> > apprach to Mins, I don't want any electronic decives on.
>
>I agree 100% for commercial ops. For private ops, it is up to the
>PIC to use his own best judgement.
>
>
>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
This was almost certainly an in-band interference event . . .
meaning that the interfering device had emissions on a specific
frequency of interest. What the Mythbusters did not understand
was that risks were probably NOT due to emissions on the cell-phone's
frequency of operation but for unexplored and uncontrolled emissions
on OTHER frequencies shared with the aircraft's systems.
The idea that emissions on cell phone frequencies would affect anything
in the cockpit is a very weak concern . . . those things are fully
explored during certification of that equipment. The concern is that
electronics in the foreign system has emissions in the vhf or uhf
frequencies where on-board equipment is trying to resolve signals
of interest in the microvolt levels while being bombarded with
much stronger, local interference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Sent: Friday, 31 March, 2006 6:18
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone
>> snip<< I tried to make a call, and
> even though I had a nice signal, I could never
> make a call. Not once. My bud who is a GSM guru
> said that at the speed we were flying, I was not
> staying on a tower long enough. I think until
> there are "towers" installed in the aircraft, we won't
> have to worry about sitting next to someone yaking
> their heads off.
>> snip <<
Hallelujah! Thank you for small blessings. Now if they could only make the
towers cut off communications when the phone is moving above 20 mph!
Alluding, of course, to all those who feel their attention to detail is not
diverted by running their mouth.
Doug Windhorn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Endurance Bus Diode & Voltage leak |
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
Bob,
Is it normal for a diode to leak voltage back onto the MAIN bus?
With the EBus X Feed Switch on (no MAIN bus) it get 12.8V at the Endurance
bus and about 6.85 V at the MAIN bus terminal. With the MASTER Off.
I understand the forward voltage drop when the MAIN bus is powered and I
measured it to be 0.6V. But I can't find any reference to this backwards
'leak' of voltage by the diode.
The diode is the standard 1" by 1" block (D-25) from B&C.
Another question: Some diagrams show only attaching 2 of the tabs on the
diode. One to Endurance and one to MAIN.
Other diagram shows joining the two terminal on the diode and then going
to the Endurance Bus. Is this for redundancy since these 2 terminals are
electrically the same?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus Diode & Voltage leak |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Reverse biased diodes _do_ leak (current). Maybe a few microamps.
The voltage behind a reverse biased diode will depend on what it's
connected to. Presumably, the bus that your diode is connected to has all
of the switches turned off - very light loading with which to discharge
the leakage current through the diode. I would guess that if you
connected a 1kohm resistor between the bus and ground and remeasured the
voltage, it would be very low (V = IR = 0.000005A * 1000ohm = 0.005V).
Matt-
>
> Bob,
>
> Is it normal for a diode to leak voltage back onto the MAIN bus?
>
> With the EBus X Feed Switch on (no MAIN bus) it get 12.8V at the
> Endurance bus and about 6.85 V at the MAIN bus terminal. With the MASTER
> Off.
>
> I understand the forward voltage drop when the MAIN bus is powered and I
> measured it to be 0.6V. But I can't find any reference to this backwards
> 'leak' of voltage by the diode.
>
> The diode is the standard 1" by 1" block (D-25) from B&C.
>
> Another question: Some diagrams show only attaching 2 of the tabs on the
> diode. One to Endurance and one to MAIN.
>
> Other diagram shows joining the two terminal on the diode and then going
> to the Endurance Bus. Is this for redundancy since these 2 terminals
> are electrically the same?
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: thermocouple wires |
In a thermocouple circuit, the voltage is generated along the wire as it
passes through regions of different temperature. If part of the circuit
is the wrong alloy (like the connectors, contacts, joints, wire,
corrosion,) and there is a temperature difference across these regions
of incorrect alloy, you will get the wrong temperature reading.
The error will depend on how big the temperature gradient is, and
the Seebeck coefficient of the improper alloy in that region. Copper
oxide, for example, has HUGE Seebeck coefficient, so the errors
generated at slightly corroded copper joints can be enormous.
Having said all that, keep in mind that if there is no temperature
gradient, no voltage is generated.
Also, if both legs of the circuit are the same alloy, and are
subjected to the same temperature gradient, no voltage will be
generated. This can be good, or bad. If you have copper wires running
from the gage to the engine block, then TC wire running from the block
to the exhaust probe, the gage will read the difference in temperature
between the block and the probe (approximately.) If the block was hot,
and the probe slightly colder, you would read a negative temperature on
the gage.
Complicating this is the reference (cold) junction compensation in
the gage. It assumes that you have the correct alloy wire everywhere. It
will add or subtract the temperature of the gage from the voltage it
reads from the TC circuit. If the transition from copper wire to TC wire
is not at the gage terminals, but on the engine block, the reading will
be off by the difference in temperature between the block and the gage.
The firewall bulkhead connector and the connector near the engine
are the ones to be concerned about. They are almost certain to have a
significant temperature difference imposed on them. If they are not the
correct alloy, they will introduce an error.
Connectors with the correct alloy are not terribly expensive.
Sometimes you can buy pins for existing connectors that are the proper
TC alloys. Teflon TC wire is also not very expensive. If you want the
reading on the gage to be correct, take the time to do the wiring correctly.
Bill Dube'
Gary Casey wrote:
>
>Cold junction compensation: I have a system from Grand Rapids
>Technology that recommends using ThermoCouple(TC) wire all the way
>from the box to the TC connectors on the engine. The CHT uses type J
>and the EGT type K. The people that did my panel used copper to a
>bulkhead connector (expensive Mil-spec with gold-plated terminals)
>and then I, without too much thinking, kept going with copper wire to
>each TC connector. Now I'm worried about the errors will occur
>because of all the wire material mismatch. The only good thing going
>is that the TC wires are equal length so the + and - connectors are
>right next to each other. Big errors? Small errors? I'm almost
>tempted to pull out the whole thing, bulkhead connector and all, and
>run TC wire in one length from the box to each TC. I looked at the
>JPI system in my certified aircraft and that's the way it was done.
>And then while I'm at it I could buy real TC connectors that will
>keep all the materials correct. Should I?
>
>Gary Casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus Diode & Voltage leak |
>
>Bob,
>
>Is it normal for a diode to leak voltage back onto the MAIN bus?
>
>With the EBus X Feed Switch on (no MAIN bus) it get 12.8V at the Endurance
>bus and about 6.85 V at the MAIN bus terminal. With the MASTER Off.
>
>I understand the forward voltage drop when the MAIN bus is powered and I
>measured it to be 0.6V. But I can't find any reference to this backwards
>'leak' of voltage by the diode.
>
>The diode is the standard 1" by 1" block (D-25) from B&C.
Diodes are not 'perfect' . . . they have forward voltage drop
and reverse leakage. Keep in mind that the input impedance of
a digital voltmeter is on the order of 10-20 MEGohms. To get
a reading of 6.85 volts due to leakage, you need only
6.85/10,000,000 or 685 NANOamps. If you turn on any single load
on the main bus, the reading will drop like a stone.
I went to the bench and wired a Fluke multimeter, 12v supply
and several diodes in series with a voltage measurement crafted
to show the effects of diode reverse leakage. From a selection
of parts in the bins, I got reverse leakage voltage readings from
.3 to 7.5 volts on regulator power silicon junction diodes.
When I measured a Shottky device, the leakage reading was 12V! I put
a 10,000 ohm load across the voltmeter and the reading dropped to
.25 volts. This shows that Shottky device leakage is several orders
of magnitude greater than for silicon junctions.
Bottom line is that your readings are understandable and not
significant in the grand scheme of things.
>Another question: Some diagrams show only attaching 2 of the tabs on the
>diode. One to Endurance and one to MAIN.
>
>Other diagram shows joining the two terminal on the diode and then going
>to the Endurance Bus. Is this for redundancy since these 2 terminals are
>electrically the same?
The four diodes contained in a bridge rectifier are identical.
If you noodle out their position in the device, you can use any
of 4 combinations of terminals to effect the desired operation.
But you can't go wrong with wiring per:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
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: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
After trying unsuccessfully to implement a Pentium II 120MHz computer
in the cockpit of my airplane (until I suddenly realized, duh, that
the clock speed was smack dab in the middle of the aircraft band and
would break the squelch full quieting on about 100 different commonly
used aircraft comm frequencies), and then switching to a 240MHz
version of the same computer and still wiping out the entire aircraft
band with RF interference, I honestly don't know how airliners stayed
in the air back in the days when laptops were running at such slow speeds.
But, as Bob said below, it's not just the "one" main frequency that's
producing interference. In a laptop computer there are several
different clocks (aka transmitters) all putting out junk. In a
cellphone, you might have oscillators for the receiving circuits,
oscillators for the transmitting circuits, oscillators for the LCD
display, oscillators for the dial pad, the PC sync cable, the
bluetooth, the WiFi, the 400MHz CPU, etc. etc. etc. Every oscillator
puts out a signal on its design frequency, and on harmonics (2x, 3x,
4x, etc.), so I imagine a spectrum analysis of a typical airliner
with everybody playing on laptops, gameboys, PDAs, DVD players, etc.
must be an incredibly awesome sight.
I agree that the mythbusters have strayed and nowadays most of their
shows are mostly entertainment, with little real scientific evidence
to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic.
Dave Morris
At 08:24 AM 3/31/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >Actually air carrier, schedule passenger airline, have FAR restrictions.
> >
> > If its company policy (in the operation certificate or airline flt
> > manual it's law), it is
> >forbidden. The FAR's are less spacific and more general, giving the Captain
> >(PIC) authority to allow certain portable electronic devices. However if
> >explicitly
> > stated in the Op Spec's his hands are tied. Flight attendants are doing
> > their job.
> >
> > Airlines have there own set of custom rules they must abide by.
> >
> >Most airlines allow cell use on the ground, after landing during taxi.
> >In flight below 10,000 forget any device.
> >
> >
> >Any Fan's of the Discovery Channel show Myth Busters? One
> >of the most recent discussed this very thing. It was interesting. It was
> >Episode 49,"Cell Phones on a Plane", first aired on March 15, 2006.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Episode
> _49_.E2.80.94_.22Cell_Phones_on_a_Plane.22
> >
> >
> >They did a test with a high powered Cell test transmitter and got an old
> >Cessna ARC VOR to jump. They tried it in Hawker Business Jet with
> >EFIS flight deck. No effect. They wanted to fly but where not allowed by
> >the FAA? FCC? The bottom line was it was BUSTED!
>
>
>
>
> I saw this episode. If it were not offered with such good
> intentions, it would have been laughable. Their techniques
> for deducing sensitivity of various systems to radiation from
> cell phone emissions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding
> of how both systems work and how one conducts repeatable experiments
> to quantify and qualify results.
>
> Take it from someone who has written dozens of test plans and
> spent a goodly part of a career in a screen-room, the "results"
> from their tests had no scientific validity. Now, that's not
> to say that their conclusion was incorrect . . . I've done a LOT
> of testing of equipment that was radiated strongly by sources
> that cover the cell phone frequencies and found no effect on
> the equipment under test. Indeed, that's a design goal of the
> supplier and a requirement for certification. Suffice it to say
> that squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching to
> see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test . . . I WISH
> it were so simple. Could have save my bosses $millions$.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>I agree that the mythbusters have strayed and nowadays most of their
>shows are mostly entertainment, with little real scientific evidence
>to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic.
>
>
>
What, you mean proving you can't die from your own farts in a sealed
room wasn't scientific? *wink* :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Brick" <jebrick(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance Bus Diode & Voltage leak |
Another source of voltage to the main bus, with the master (and alternator
field) off, is the alternator when the engine is running. There is enough
residual magnetism or something...at least on my L-40 alternator, to produce
about 3.5 volts at high rpm and about half a volt at low rpm. This is with
minimal load on the bus. Significance in my case was that a shunt relay
powered by the main bus would not unlatch in flight when the Bat/Alt switch
was turned off, but it would on the ground at idle.
jb
-----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 31, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Endurance Bus Diode & Voltage leak
>
>Bob,
>
>Is it normal for a diode to leak voltage back onto the MAIN bus?
>
>With the EBus X Feed Switch on (no MAIN bus) it get 12.8V at the Endurance
>bus and about 6.85 V at the MAIN bus terminal. With the MASTER Off.
>
>I understand the forward voltage drop when the MAIN bus is powered and I
>measured it to be 0.6V. But I can't find any reference to this backwards
>'leak' of voltage by the diode.
>
>The diode is the standard 1" by 1" block (D-25) from B&C.
Diodes are not 'perfect' . . . they have forward voltage drop
and reverse leakage. Keep in mind that the input impedance of
a digital voltmeter is on the order of 10-20 MEGohms. To get
a reading of 6.85 volts due to leakage, you need only
6.85/10,000,000 or 685 NANOamps. If you turn on any single load
on the main bus, the reading will drop like a stone.
I went to the bench and wired a Fluke multimeter, 12v supply
and several diodes in series with a voltage measurement crafted
to show the effects of diode reverse leakage. From a selection
of parts in the bins, I got reverse leakage voltage readings from
.3 to 7.5 volts on regulator power silicon junction diodes.
When I measured a Shottky device, the leakage reading was 12V! I put
a 10,000 ohm load across the voltmeter and the reading dropped to
.25 volts. This shows that Shottky device leakage is several orders
of magnitude greater than for silicon junctions.
Bottom line is that your readings are understandable and not
significant in the grand scheme of things.
>Another question: Some diagrams show only attaching 2 of the tabs on the
>diode. One to Endurance and one to MAIN.
>
>Other diagram shows joining the two terminal on the diode and then going
>to the Endurance Bus. Is this for redundancy since these 2 terminals are
>electrically the same?
The four diodes contained in a bridge rectifier are identical.
If you noodle out their position in the device, you can use any
of 4 combinations of terminals to effect the desired operation.
But you can't go wrong with wiring per:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: thermocouple wires |
I would.
David M.
Gary Casey wrote:
>
> Cold junction compensation: I have a system from Grand Rapids
> Technology that recommends using ThermoCouple(TC) wire all the way
> from the box to the TC connectors on the engine. The CHT uses type J
> and the EGT type K. The people that did my panel used copper to a
> bulkhead connector (expensive Mil-spec with gold-plated terminals)
> and then I, without too much thinking, kept going with copper wire to
> each TC connector. Now I'm worried about the errors will occur
> because of all the wire material mismatch. The only good thing going
> is that the TC wires are equal length so the + and - connectors are
> right next to each other. Big errors? Small errors? I'm almost
> tempted to pull out the whole thing, bulkhead connector and all, and
> run TC wire in one length from the box to each TC. I looked at the
> JPI system in my certified aircraft and that's the way it was done.
> And then while I'm at it I could buy real TC connectors that will
> keep all the materials correct. Should I?
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>3) I have an idea for a really neat insect catcher, but first I need
to know: Can bats see an F117?
No. See Aviation Week and Space Technology Oct 17, 1991
"An acoustic-guided submunition call the BAT may be good against tanks, but not
against an F-117. A reader who works on the stealth fighter in Saudi Arabia says
bats (the natural ones) occasionally work their way into F-117 hangars. One
night, a hungry bat turned right into an F-117 rudder and fell stunned to the
floor. He flew away groggily, leaving behind a heightened impression of the
aircraft's stealth. "I don't know what the radar return is for the vertical tails
of the F-117 but I always thought it had to be more than an insect's," the
reader said. "I guess I was wrong." There may be some "science" in this - the
ultrasound wavelengths used by bats are roughly the same as X-band radar. "
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 |
If true, now that is some cool info!
David M.
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>>3) I have an idea for a really neat insect catcher, but first I need
>
> to know: Can bats see an F117?
>
>
> No. See Aviation Week and Space Technology Oct 17, 1991
>
> "An acoustic-guided submunition call the BAT may be good against tanks, but not
against an F-117. A reader who works on the stealth fighter in Saudi Arabia
says bats (the natural ones) occasionally work their way into F-117 hangars.
One night, a hungry bat turned right into an F-117 rudder and fell stunned to
the floor. He flew away groggily, leaving behind a heightened impression of the
aircraft's stealth. "I don't know what the radar return is for the vertical
tails of the F-117 but I always thought it had to be more than an insect's," the
reader said. "I guess I was wrong." There may be some "science" in this - the
ultrasound wavelengths used by bats are roughly the same as X-band radar. "
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 |
I don't know, but the infrared auto-focus of my automatic camera
couldn't lock onto one either at the air show. The pilot standing
there just smiled and said "your tax dollars at work".
Dave Morris
At 04:21 PM 3/31/2006, you wrote:
>
>3) I have an idea for a really neat insect catcher, but first I need
>to know: Can bats see an F117?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokow(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 |
>3) I have an idea for a really neat insect catcher, but first I need
> >to know: Can bats see an F117?
>
>
> Fellas, fellas, fellas.... Most bats can see an F117 as well as you and I
> can. Tsk, tsk. They have eyes you know!
> Most bats echolocate using frequency modulation in the 20-200 kilohertz
> range, although some use <20khtz so are audiible to us. What they can't do
> well is process target texture and density information that hasn't been
> previoulsy mapped either by an individual or by the group. Bats frequently
> run into large man-made objects when placed in an entirely new articifial
> environment, e.g., a hangar. Desert bats don't have a whole lot of
> experience with airports, I guess. Sheesh...di I have to explain everything
> :)
Bill Yamokoski, advising not to land yout plane in a cornfield in August
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dead face Annunciators |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
We were fooling with some 5/8" square LEDs tonight. They have 2 or 3 LEDs
potted and a flat face. We wanted to cover them with a label and use them
for a dead face annunciator. Just not bright enough. OK for night, but not
day.
After a bit of fooling and thinking we somehow managed to find ourselves
at the checkout line of Home Depot with a "Egg Crate" style Chrome plated
piece of plastic diffuser for a dropped ceiling.
We are planning on putting 2 or more LEDs in each 5/8" square, mounted to
a higher quality through plated breadboard. Probably 12 Annunciators
driven by a IL12A:
http://www.vx-aviation.com/page_2.html#IL-4A,%20IL-12A_more
Panel is .090" thick. Will make a through hole the ID of two high by 6
wide, then mill a pocket ~.070" deep the OD of 2 x 6. Idea is to first
drop in printed or engraved face, then the Egg Crate over that and redux
it to the panel.
Any suggestions on above?
Any suggestions on how to make labeling? Thin engraved black over white?
P-Touch?
Other?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern |
On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission during my
initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had transmitted. I
was climbing with the tower at my back and at a pretty steep angle due to other
problems. Except during this climb phase, I heard the tower loud and clear.
Refering to the radiation pattern in figure 13-7 of the AeroElectric Connection
book, I'm theorizing that my comm antenna, which is mounted beneath the left
wing/fuselage joint so that about a half foot of the bent antenna protrudes
behind the left flap on my RV8A, was blocked by the wing/fuselage from radiating
towards the tower. So, I have two questions.
First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation deep enough
to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly?
Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone
Dj: THANK YOU! WINK ;-)
Dave and Bob:
Come-on guys Myth Busters is entertainment. Lighten
up. Sorry I mentioned it. However they did get a
result albeit contrived, it was interesting and I
would not blow it off as laughable.
The test they did was valid for the hypothesis they
postulated. I think they defined their test objective
and tested for that. It may not pass FAA/FCC mustard
but it was interesting.
I think its fair to evaluate the transmission freq of the
celphone as the potential main offender. Spurious RF
coming out the back cover in a different spectrum is
always possible and almost expected. However most of
the electronics are shielded in the phone (I have a
friend at Ericsson-Sony). Notice FCC stickers on
electronic devices. "Other" RF is at much lower power.
Dave wrote:
>"..... and would break the squelch full quieting on
>about 100 different commonly used aircraft comm
>frequencies), and then switching to a 240MHz version
>of the same computer and still wiping out the entire
>aircraft band with RF interference, I honestly don't
>know how airliners stayed in the air back in the
>days"
Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would
look into your avionics installation or get a new
laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years
ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel
phones rare.
All major consumer electronic devices has to meet
FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before
everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes
out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of
little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters
have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded
from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a
worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios
and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners.
To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable
device should be used, including computers, but the
fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for
that. We agree the risk is small. Yes?
The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq
you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV
signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't
radiate enough energy.
Dave wrote:
>"I agree (Bob) mythbusters have strayed and
>nowadays most of their shows are mostly
>entertainment, with little real scientific evidence
>to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic"
Back to myth busters. If you think these guys are
buffoons, they have lots of consultants who are way
smarter than all of us put together. In fact on the
cellphone subject matter, I am sure their researchers
and consultants (aerospace avionics experts) helped
them define and limited the scope of the test and was
indeed valid for what it was.
Bob wrote:
>"demonstrated a complete lack of understanding"
>"Take it from someone who has written dozens of test
>plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a
>screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no
>scientific validity"
>"squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching
>to see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test.
>I WISH it were so simple. Could have save my bosses
>$millions$."
Bob, you obviously know more and could do better,
write them with your test plan. They often revisit
myths and retest. How do you do it Bob? I agree
the purpose is entertainment, which most TV shows
are. Just remember Bob it needs to fit into 15-20
minutes of TV time and be interesting. How many
EMF and RFI test have you done on avionics? I
thought you guys just bought what Honeywell or
Collins sold and you all just bolted it in.
AS FAR AS MYTHBUSTERS!!!
Aviation Related Mythbuster Shows:
Pilot 1 - "Jet Assisted Chevy" (JATO car flys)
Pilot 2 - "Vacuum Toilet" (Fat woman stuck to toilet seat )
Episode 9 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)"
Episode 10 - "Explosive Decompression"
Episode 13 - "Jet (blast vs.) Taxi"
Episode 14 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" (Revisited)
Episode 32 - "Jet Pack"
Episode 33 - "Killer Brace Position" (seat test)
Episode 37 - "Escape Slide Parachute"
Episode 37 - "Exploding Hair Cream" (F-104 pilot O2 mask fire)
Episode 38 - "Explosive Decompression" (Revisited)
Episode 45 - "Shredded Plane"
Cel Phone Shows:
Episode 2 -"Cell Phone Destruction" (gas station fill-up blow-up)
Episode 33 - "Cell Phones vs. Drunk Driving" (dive now talk later)
Episode 49 - "Cell Phones on a Plane"
(info above found at http://en.wikipedia.org/)
Myth Busters RULES!
As a current airline pilot and former aerospace engineer DER
I can say episodes 9,10, 33 are killer. Yes Boeing spends
millions doing these test, but mythbusters reproduces valid
test for peanuts. Any one can spend money, but thats not a
measure of the quality of a test.
"Don't try this at home, we are what you call professionals"
:-) hahaha
Cheers George
-----------------------------------------------------
>From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
>
>>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>>
>>
>>I agree that the myth busters have strayed and
>>nowadays most of their shows are mostly
>>entertainment, with little real >>scientific
>>evidence to back up their "busted / not busted"
>>binary logic.
>
>
> What, you mean proving you can't die from your
>own farts in a sealed room wasn't scientific?
>*wink* :-)
-Dj
------------------------------------------------
>posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
>
>
>
>After trying unsuccessfully to implement a Pentium
>II 120MHz computer in the cockpit of my airplane
>(until I suddenly realized, duh, that the clock
>speed was smack dab in the middle of the aircraft
>band and would break the squelch full quieting on
>about 100 different commonly used aircraft comm
>frequencies), and then switching to a 240MHz version
>of the same computer and still wiping out the entire
>aircraft band with RF interference, I honestly don't
>know how airliners stayed in the air back in the
>days when laptops were running at such slow speeds.
>But, as Bob said below, it's not just the "one" main
>frequency that's producing interference. In a
>laptop computer there are several different clocks
>(aka transmitters) all putting out junk. In a
>cellphone, you might have oscillators for the
>receiving circuits, oscillators for the transmitting
>circuits, oscillators for the LCD display,
>oscillators for the dial pad, the PC sync cable, the
>bluetooth, the WiFi, the 400MHz CPU, etc. etc. etc.
>Every oscillator puts out a signal on its design
>frequency, and on harmonics (2x, 3x, 4x, etc.), so I
>imagine a spectrum analysis of a typical airliner
>with everybody playing on laptops, gameboys, PDAs,
>DVD players, etc. must be an incredibly awesome
>sight.
>I agree that the mythbusters have strayed and
>nowadays most of their shows are mostly
>entertainment, with little real scientific evidence
>to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic.
Dave Morris
--------------------------------------------------
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>I saw this episode. If it were not offered with
>such good intentions, it would have been laughable.
>Their techniques for deducing sensitivity of various
>systems to radiation from cell phone emissions
>demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how
>both systems work and how one conducts repeatable
>Experiments to quantify and qualify results.
>
>Take it from someone who has written dozens of test
>plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a
>screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no
>scientific validity. Now, that's not to say that
>their conclusion was incorrect . . .
>I've done a LOT of testing of equipment that was
>radiated strongly by sources that cover the cell
>phone frequencies and found no effect on the
>equipment under test. Indeed, that's a design goal
>of the supplier and a requirement for certification.
>Suffice it to say that squirting a bit of RF around
>the cockpit while watching to see if anything
>twitches is not a noteworthy test . . . I WISH
> it were so simple. Could have save my bosses
>$millions$.
>
> Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation |
My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
Dave Morris
At 06:07 AM 4/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would
>look into your avionics installation or get a new
>laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years
>ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel
>phones rare.
>
> All major consumer electronic devices has to meet
>FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before
>everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes
>out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of
>little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters
>have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded
>from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a
>worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios
>and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners.
>
> To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable
>device should be used, including computers, but the
>fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for
>that. We agree the risk is small. Yes?
>
>The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq
>you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV
>signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't
>radiate enough energy.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern |
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission during my
initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had transmitted.
> ...
> First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation deep
enough to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly?
It could be. There really is no way to tell without testing with
something like a far-field field-strength meter. You should do some
flyover tests with someone on the ground who has a receiver with a
signal strength meter so you can plot signal strength vs. position. It
is tough to do on the ground because of ground proximity distorting the
radiation pattern.
> Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem?
Any time you can put the antenna on an uncluttered ground plane with
clear line-of-sight is going to be better but there are so many
variables in this picture that I just can't advise you.
Again, if you can mount it on an uncluttered ground plane with a clear
LoS it will work as good as it can. The gear legs very well could be
distorting the radiation pattern.
--
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: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | power for headsets |
Good Morning Mickey,
I went through that exercise a couple of years ago and I did install Bose
jacks and used the Bose interface cord.
I think I made a mistake.
Now, I can only use my Bose headsets in the airplane that has the special
Bose Jacks.
Our number one son decided to live with batteries so that he could use his
Bose headsets in any airplane desired. Works fine for him. The Bose X
headsets automatically shut of the power if the unit is not used so the batteries
do
last a long time
A very close friend had another idea.
He made a small plastic device that fit in the Bose battery compartment and
picked up the connection to the battery terminals. From that he extended a
cord that fit in a small two and half or three and a half millimeter power
receptacle. When he wanted to use the Bose headsets in his airplane he used his
homemade attachment to provide power from the aircraft system. For use in other
airplanes, he just stuck in the batteries.
I believe my friend's solution is the most elegant of all!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 4/1/2006 10:35:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand,
I need to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks
and the AA battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195,
or USD 164 (can't tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31
installation kits for the aircraft.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php
After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work
with Bose headsets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone
>
>Dj: THANK YOU! WINK ;-)
>
> Dave and Bob:
>
>
> Come-on guys Myth Busters is entertainment. Lighten
>up. Sorry I mentioned it. However they did get a
>result albeit contrived, it was interesting and I
>would not blow it off as laughable.
Humor is, of course, in the mind of the observer.
If I observed a "cabinet maker" measuring with a
yardstick and cutting with an ax, it would seem
humorous to me. But if the guy was offering his
skills and techniques as a do-it-yerself show . . .
it's another matter.
>
>The test they did was valid for the hypothesis they
>postulated. I think they defined their test objective
>and tested for that. It may not pass FAA/FCC mustard
>but it was interesting.
It was not valid. If you screen your refrigerator
for e-coli and find it 'clean' it does not explain
nor offer remedy for illness promulgated by fungi.
While they were setting adjacent to an airport
and experimenting to see if the OBS/VOR/LOC needle
"twitched" the radio was not in it's intended mode
of operation. Sitting in a cockpit attempting to
visually OBSERVE effects of interference was
totally lame (believe it or not, there are SOME
FAA approved tests that do just that . . .
absolutely mindless).
Science is deeply rooted in the quantified, qualified
repeatable experiment. The Mythbusters episode
on cell phones didn't even emulate science. The
episode on Franklin's kite/lightning experiment
was so badly hosed as to bring tears to the eyes
of real scientists.
Entertainment? Yes. Interesting? Most of the time.
I enjoy watching it. Valid as a teaching or
demonstration tool? Very rarely due either to badly
crafted experiments, lack of quantification, or to
a mis-understanding of the science they're attempting
to illustrate.
>
>I think its fair to evaluate the transmission freq of the
>celphone as the potential main offender.
Absolutely not. When we find an actionable interference
problem to be fixed, it's NEVER at operating frequency
of the antagonist. The potential antagonist does what
it's supposed to do to function. You have strong emissions
sources on all aircraft. Transponders, radar, comm
transmitters, radar altimeters, etc. One EXPECTS these
signals to be strong in the vicinity of all potential
victims. Therefore, victims are designed and tested
to operate reliably in a predictable environment that
includes those signal sources.
> Spurious RF
>coming out the back cover in a different spectrum is
>always possible and almost expected. However most of
>the electronics are shielded in the phone (I have a
>friend at Ericsson-Sony). Notice FCC stickers on
>electronic devices. "Other" RF is at much lower power.
Define "lower". Here is a exemplar emissions limits
plot from DO-160. Note that for some device to be
qualified to live in the real world of airplanes, signals
that it spews into the environment must be at or below
values on the curve:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Emissions_Limits.gif
Note that levels are cite in MICROVOLTS per meter. Note
further that emissions in frequencies of interest to on board
systems are restricted still further by as much as 20db
(100x smaller) in some cases.
Now look at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Susceptibility_Limits.gif
Here we see that depending on what class of equipment is
being tested, it's bombarded by potentially interfering
signals measure in tens to hundreds of VOLTS per meter.
These signals may be tens of millions of times stronger
than the emission limits cited above. The run-of-the
mill testing for most electrowhizzies is done at 50
VOLTS per meter.
The idea that a cell phone or even their non-quantified
super-cell-phone signal would irradiate the airplane's
equipment at anything close DO-160 test limits is suspect.
In any case, the cell phone equipment radiates a signal
that is many orders of magnitude stronger than any "allowable
limits" cited in the earlier chart . . . and if any given
cell phone were being qualified for aircraft use, this
fact would be ignored. This is because it has to run at
that power level to be functional just like your 10W
comm transmitter, 100W transponder and 10KW radar.
This is why the emissions limit testing speak only to
spurious signals that are much smaller than susceptibility
limits which the Mythbuster's episode DID NOT explore
or demonstrate. I could take my personal cell-phone to
the lab and probably show that it could be qualified for
use on airplanes. Okay, how about your cell phone?
Or anyone else's cell phone? Given the huge numbers of
such devices that roll over in style and features
every few months, it's a given that they will NEVER
be qualified for use on aircraft simply because the
folks who design and sell them would not stand up to
the costs of qualifying each new model (about $25K
worth of testing for each product).
The idea that most individuals got from watching
the Mythbusters is that government imposed limits
on use of their phones is without foundation because
some entertainers were unable to duplicate an urban
myth for which they had no scientific data and
attempted to demonstrate with a yardstick and and
axe.
>
> Back to myth busters. If you think these guys are
>buffoons, they have lots of consultants who are way
>smarter than all of us put together. In fact on the
>cellphone subject matter, I am sure their researchers
>and consultants (aerospace avionics experts) helped
>them define and limited the scope of the test and was
>indeed valid for what it was.
Where are the facts to back up this statement?
I've seen nothing in their presentations that suggest
anything of the kind. When virtually all of Hollywood's
productions are stroked for entertainment value
at the expense of all scientific objectiveness
how is it that this one television show becomes
so elevated?
>
>
> Bob wrote:
> >"demonstrated a complete lack of understanding"
>
> >"Take it from someone who has written dozens of test
> >plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a
> >screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no
> >scientific validity"
>
> >"squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching
> >to see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test.
> >I WISH it were so simple. Could have save my bosses
> >$millions$."
>
> Bob, you obviously know more and could do better,
>write them with your test plan. They often revisit
>myths and retest. How do you do it Bob? I agree
>the purpose is entertainment, which most TV shows
>are. Just remember Bob it needs to fit into 15-20
>minutes of TV time and be interesting. How many
> EMF and RFI test have you done on avionics? I
> thought you guys just bought what Honeywell or
> Collins sold and you all just bolted it in.
>
>
> AS FAR AS MYTHBUSTERS!!!
>
> Aviation Related Mythbuster Shows:
>
>Pilot 1 - "Jet Assisted Chevy" (JATO car flys)
>Pilot 2 - "Vacuum Toilet" (Fat woman stuck to toilet seat )
> Episode 9 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)"
>Episode 10 - "Explosive Decompression"
>Episode 13 - "Jet (blast vs.) Taxi"
>Episode 14 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" (Revisited)
> Episode 32 - "Jet Pack"
>Episode 33 - "Killer Brace Position" (seat test)
>Episode 37 - "Escape Slide Parachute"
>Episode 37 - "Exploding Hair Cream" (F-104 pilot O2 mask fire)
>Episode 38 - "Explosive Decompression" (Revisited)
> Episode 45 - "Shredded Plane"
>
> Cell Phone Shows:
>
>Episode 2 -"Cell Phone Destruction" (gas station fill-up blow-up)
>Episode 33 - "Cell Phones vs. Drunk Driving" (dive now talk later)
>Episode 49 - "Cell Phones on a Plane"
>
> (info above found at http://en.wikipedia.org/)
>
>Myth Busters RULES!
>
> As a current airline pilot and former aerospace engineer DER
>I can say episodes 9,10, 33 are killer. Yes Boeing spends
>millions doing these test, but mythbusters reproduces valid
>test for peanuts. Any one can spend money, but thats not a
>measure of the quality of a test.
>
> "Don't try this at home, we are what you call professionals"
Yes, just enough credibility to lull the uneducated
into mindless acceptance. Engineers and scientists do not
get a pass on any given piece of work just because they've
been mostly right and/or un-controversial in the past. Every
piece of work is fair game for critical review and real scientists
welcome the opportunity to resist any wedges that learned
individuals might try to drive into their ideas . . . it's how
bad ideas get headed off at the pass. In the cases of Franklin
and cell phone interference aboard aircraft, they were way
out in left field.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | power for headsets |
Bose will sell you the old style "series II" battery pack, and cable. It
allows the panel mount connector to plug into it when running off batteries
and then it has the 2 cables that you plug into the regular headphone/mic
plugs. When you are in a panel mounted airplane, you just plug into the
panel mount jack.
I have no idea how much they want for it... Or go buy a used set of II's and
just use the battery pack/cord. I suspect that the X's will last a good
long time on the old sytle box. It's a 9v box with 6 - AA's in it :)
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 12:14 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets
Good Morning Mickey,
I went through that exercise a couple of years ago and I did install Bose
jacks and used the Bose interface cord.
I think I made a mistake.
Now, I can only use my Bose headsets in the airplane that has the special
Bose Jacks.
Our number one son decided to live with batteries so that he could use his
Bose headsets in any airplane desired. Works fine for him. The Bose X
headsets automatically shut of the power if the unit is not used so the
batteries do last a long time
A very close friend had another idea.
He made a small plastic device that fit in the Bose battery compartment and
picked up the connection to the battery terminals. From that he extended a
cord that fit in a small two and half or three and a half millimeter power
receptacle. When he wanted to use the Bose headsets in his airplane he used
his homemade attachment to provide power from the aircraft system. For use
in other airplanes, he just stuck in the batteries.
I believe my friend's solution is the most elegant of all!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 4/1/2006 10:35:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand, I need
to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks and the AA
battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195, or USD 164 (can't
tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31 installation kits for the
aircraft.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php
After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work with Bose
headsets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Dual shunts and amp gauge |
I have single battery/dual alt setup. I also have EI volt/amp gauge.
The amp gauge works using an external shunt but the value of the shunt must
be known in order for
the gauge to work properly. Therefore my gauge is VA-1A-60, works with
50mV/60amp shunt.
The shunt wires to the aux alternator lead is 50mv/10A and therefore may not
work properly. I
would like to replace this aux shunt with 50mV/60amp so that I can switch
from MAIN alterntor
to AUX alternator and read the current on the EI gauge.
Is there any harm in using 50mV/60amp shunt for the aux alt when
aeroelectric connection shows 50mv/10A?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Headset jack cables - shielded or not? |
I've read the discussion on shielded wires on page
18-13, and it's pretty clear. I still have a question
about it. The intercom I'm installing (Flightcom 403)
does not indicated shielded wires to the headset and
mic jacks on the wiring diagram, but has this in the
instructions "You may need to use shielded wire on
audio, mic and headphone lines."
I take it that if I get some noise, then they suggest
re-wiring with shielded wire.
What is the "real world" experience with shielding
these wires? Has anyone run unshielded and wished
they had run shielded?
I've got plenty of shielded wire handy, but this
sentence in Bob's text gives me pause: "...there
is greater risk that shielding improperly terminated at
both ends is 100x more likely to be the root cause
of a noise problem (due to ground loop) than if the
wire had never been shielded in the first place
(electrostatic coupling to some high noise wiring)."
Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the
shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded
at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Wiki! |
Dear Listers,
I have added a new feature to the Email List Forums at Matronics called a Wiki. What's "Wiki" you ask? A Wiki is a website. You go to it and browse just like you would any other web site. The difference is, you can change it. You can put anything you want on this web site without having to be a web designer or even being the owner. You can write a new page just like writing an email message on the BBS. You don't need to send it off to anyone to install on the site. It is kind of like a Blog (weblog) in which anyone can post. Here is a great page on where the term Wiki came from and what it means in the context of a website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
So on to the new Matronics Email List Wiki... I've created this site for anyone
from any of the Email Lists to use. I envision that there are a great many
things that can be added to this new Wiki since there are always new and interesting
tidbits of useful information traversing the Lists.
Off the main Matronics Email List Wiki page, you will find a link called "Community
Portal". Here you will find more links to stubs for all the various Lists
found at Matronics (and a few other links). Brian Lloyd and others from the
Yak-List have already begun adding content in a number of areas. Bob Nuckolls
of AeroElectric fame has added a great article on "Ageing Aircraft".
I have discussed the new Matronics Email List Wiki with Tedd McHenry and Dwight Frye of the RV Wiki Site and they have decided to merge their site over onto the new Matronics Wiki server giving everyone a single source for information on RV building and flying! This migration will begin today and you should be able to find all of the content currently found at www.rvwiki.org moved over to the Matronics Wiki within a few days.
To make edits to the Matronics Wiki, you will need to have a login account on the
Matronics Wiki and I have disabled anonymous edits. This protects the Wiki
site from automated spam engines and other nuisances that could compromise the
data at the site.
Signing up for an account is fast and easy and begins by clicking on the "create
an account or log in" link in the upper right hand corner of any page. Note
that you do not have to have a login or be logged in to view any of the content.
The Matronics Email List Wiki is YOUR Wiki! It is only as useful as the content
found within. The concept of the Wiki is that the people the use it and update
it. If you've got an interesting procedure for doing something, MAKE A WIKI
PAGE ON IT! You can even upload pictures. Saw something interesting at a
flyin? MAKE A WIKI PAGE ON IT! Don't be shy, this is YOUR site to share information
with others with similar interests.
Here is a users guide on using the Wiki implemented at Matronics: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents This gives a lot of great information on how to get started editing pages.
And finally, here is the URL for the Matronics Email List Wiki:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Brian Lloyd has written an excellent introduction to Wikis on the front page.
I encourage you to read it over, then drill into the "Community Portal" and HAVE
FUN!!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? |
>
>
>I've read the discussion on shielded wires on page
>18-13, and it's pretty clear. I still have a question
>about it. The intercom I'm installing (Flightcom 403)
>does not indicated shielded wires to the headset and
>mic jacks on the wiring diagram, but has this in the
>instructions "You may need to use shielded wire on
>audio, mic and headphone lines."
>
>I take it that if I get some noise, then they suggest
>re-wiring with shielded wire.
I suspect it's a CYA statement. I've never encountered
a noise problem that was cured by converting properly
installed microphone or headphone wiring from twisted
individual strands to a shielded equivalent.
>What is the "real world" experience with shielding
>these wires? Has anyone run unshielded and wished
>they had run shielded?
I don't believe so.
>I've got plenty of shielded wire handy, but this
>sentence in Bob's text gives me pause: "...there
>is greater risk that shielding improperly terminated at
>both ends is 100x more likely to be the root cause
>of a noise problem (due to ground loop) than if the
>wire had never been shielded in the first place
>(electrostatic coupling to some high noise wiring)."
I LIKE shielded pairs, trios and quads for a LOT
of applications that do not call for shielding. This
is because I'm offered a multi-conductor bundle with
a smooth outer surface that is easy to work with
if you have the tools. I have strippers and solder
sleeves that make multi-conductor bundles a snap
whether the shielding is called for or not. More often
than not, the shield provides yet another conductor
in the bundle.
>Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the
>shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded
>at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice!
That will work. But know too that a single shielded
and a twisted pair as a headset feeder are equally
likely to perform as desired. The insulating washers
or other isolation techniques used to separate mic
and headset grounds from the airframe are far more
critical than which style of wire you use.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation |
>
>
>My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
>computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
>close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
>computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
>shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
>on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
>1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
>my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
>
>www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
>
>Dave Morris
Yup, those things can be horrific radiators. Processor
based autopilots I've tested were quite noisy at and
below the processor clock speed. We always mounted them
in totally enclosed cabinets and brought wiring out
through filtered pathways. They're FCC Part 15 tested
which says, "Yeah, I'm really noisy but still below certain
limits and by the way, if I do interfere with some other
system, its your duty to turn me off or separate me from
the higher priority service."
For the most part, portable devices aboard large aircraft
are located far enough from antennas and from cockpit mounted
equipment to be very tiny risks. But as you've noted, when
you bring this class of product aboard a small aircraft and
even consider mounting it on the panel, the playing field
can change dramatically.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual shunts and amp gauge |
>
>
>I have single battery/dual alt setup. I also have EI volt/amp gauge.
>
>The amp gauge works using an external shunt but the value of the shunt must
>be known in order for
>the gauge to work properly. Therefore my gauge is VA-1A-60, works with
>50mV/60amp shunt.
>
>The shunt wires to the aux alternator lead is 50mv/10A and therefore may not
>work properly. I
>would like to replace this aux shunt with 50mV/60amp so that I can switch
>from MAIN alterntor
>to AUX alternator and read the current on the EI gauge.
>
>Is there any harm in using 50mV/60amp shunt for the aux alt when
>aeroelectric connection shows 50mv/10A?
No. If you have a 10A shunt from either me or B&C, I'll
swap it for a 60A.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the
> shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded
> at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice!
That is the right answer.
--
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern |
>
>On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission
>during my initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had
>transmitted. I was climbing with the tower at my back and at a pretty
>steep angle due to other problems. Except during this climb phase, I
>heard the tower loud and clear. Refering to the radiation pattern in
>figure 13-7 of the AeroElectric Connection book, I'm theorizing that my
>comm antenna, which is mounted beneath the left wing/fuselage joint so
>that about a half foot of the bent antenna protrudes behind the left flap
>on my RV8A, was blocked by the wing/fuselage from radiating towards the
>tower. So, I have two questions.
>
>First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation
>deep enough to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly?
>
>Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem?
The variables here are huge. First, we know that the radiation/reception
pattern of antennas mounted on aircraft seldom have lab-perfect
shapes. Further, depending on operating frequency, antenna location
and aircraft geometry, the variability from minimum to maximum
performance can be large . . . notice "large" is not quantified.
If you just departed an airport and had trouble communicating from
less than 5 miles away, I'm skeptical that ordinary distortions
of the antenna's pattern could cause the tower to drop away markedly
in strength. They use 20-50 watt transmitters and very omni-directional
antennas.
You'll need to conduct some experiments to see if you can duplicate the
condition. Then vary your heading by 20 degrees or so either side of
the "null" without changing deck angle. If the signal strength comes
up markedly by changing directions, then pattern is certainly a component
of your difficulty. How's your performance at altitude for stations out
at the horizon?
One of the problems for testing comm antenna patterns is that there
are no steady-on ground based signal sources like we have with
VOR, LOC, VOT, etc.
At RAC, we have a steady-on beacon we can use to radiate for flight
testing antennas. The aircraft flies a zero-bank 360 out 100 miles
or so and we plot the received signal strength from the ground
beacon. Gives very nice pattern data.
You may be suffering from both pattern effects and efficiency problems.
A weakly performing antenna will display pattern effects that are
otherwise quite tolerable. I've had a friend stand in a clear space
with a hand held and give me several minutes of long "aaaaaahhhhhhh" while
I did the a merry-go-'round maneuver to check for deep nulls.
Be sure the hand-held will tolerate this. MANY comm transmitters are not
rated for long transmissions like this. If the hand-held has a high-low
power setting, you can certainly do it in the low power setting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 |
>
>An IQ is your measure of intelligence right? Or is
>it? I'm confused. Can you explain it? I know you're smart so I hope this is
>the right forum to post this in.
Not my area of expertise so I checked my answer with Dr. Dee.
She agrees so here goes . . .
Most tests offered by the public schools can be maxed out
by folks who can memorize facts. Knowledge is a demonstration
of memory. Intelligence is demonstrated of one's ability to
use knowledge. For example, there are well documented individuals
capable of amazing tasks of memory and/or certain demonstrations
of mental dexterity. They can recite back long lists of numbers,
do big math problems in their head, etc. One would think that all
folks having such a command of knowledge would be successful
but such is not the case.
At the same time, there are successful individuals who's
imagination and motivations limit them to narrow interests that
make them appear dull when in fact they may converse quite
well with the likes of Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss.
When crafting a test to measure IQ, one must spend a lot of
time and experimentation to design an instrument that is
knowledge and culture-neutral. The fact that batteries of
IQ test tools yield a wide range of results on the same
individuals attests to the difficulty of the task. Tests
for knowledge are easy . . . facts, is facts, is facts.
The fact that your friend can get good grades suggests
that the doors for in flow of information are wide open to him.
Whether or not he can make exceptional use of that information
may not be apparent for years . . . and even if he does not,
it may not be due to lack of intelligence.
On the other hand, individuals with a high degree of
intelligence can be crippled by a lack of knowledge.
They are probably very adept at thriving in their
environment but never get past the stone age for lack
of discovery.
The presence of both qualities is certainly the most
desirable circumstance - a shortage of either can be
severely limiting of one's fortunes as an honorable
individual. Of course if one chooses to be dishonorable,
a lack of intelligence, knowledge or both can be
compensated for to some degree but at increased hazard
from those dedicated to the protection of liberty.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation (FCC part 15, everything you |
want know)
Here is some interesting info on FCC part 15
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html#Myths
Interesting. Part 15 sticker may not necessarily mean it meets it.
(Read article above, honor system)
However, Part 15 does address a very small amount of *harmful interference*
but not necessarily none. It also describes classes and other good info.
Read link above, it is written in easy to understand English and I found it
very interesting.
George
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Computer radiation
>AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>--> Posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
>>
>>My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
>>computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
>>close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
>>computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
>>shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
>>on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
>>1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
>>my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
>>
>>www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
>>
>>Dave Morris
>Yup, those things can be horrific radiators. Processor
>based autopilots I've tested were quite noisy at and
>below the processor clock speed. We always mounted them
>in totally enclosed cabinets and brought wiring out
>through filtered pathways. They're FCC Part 15 tested
>which says, "Yeah, I'm really noisy but still below certain
>limits and by the way, if I do interfere with some other
>system, its your duty to turn me off or separate me from
>the higher priority service."
>For the most part, portable devices aboard large aircraft
>are located far enough from antennas and from cockpit mounted
>equipment to be very tiny risks. But as you've noted, when
>you bring this class of product aboard a small aircraft and
>even consider mounting it on the panel, the playing field
>can change dramatically.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
......followed the string on the reduced signal level climbing out.
Perhaps I shouldn't push this too often, but signal levels around
antennas is old and easy stuff for Hams - it's what many old-timers do now
that surface-mount technology has squeezed home building somewhat.
The easy way is to contact your local Amateur Radio club. Many are
listed locally in the 'phonebook, but can be found at ARRL website. Drop by
on meeting night, or dial up the big kahuna (?) and ask if anyone is
interested in measuring your baby. Someone is bound to offer and the job
will probably be done in an hour - often with a graph sheet to store in the
build log.
I have done several of these (you get to see another build project
up close) and it's worth the time. Home builds and AR have much in common.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna siting |
That's a good point, Ferg. And if any of you are still unable to
locate a ham radio club, email me privately and I'll see if I can
find you somebody local from among the 100,000 hams registered
worldwide on one of the web sites I operate.
Dave Morris, N5UP
At 08:16 AM 4/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>......followed the string on the reduced signal level climbing out.
> Perhaps I shouldn't push this too often, but signal levels around
>antennas is old and easy stuff for Hams - it's what many old-timers do now
>that surface-mount technology has squeezed home building somewhat.
> The easy way is to contact your local Amateur Radio club. Many are
>listed locally in the 'phonebook, but can be found at ARRL website. Drop by
>on meeting night, or dial up the big kahuna (?) and ask if anyone is
>interested in measuring your baby. Someone is bound to offer and the job
>will probably be done in an hour - often with a graph sheet to store in the
>build log.
> I have done several of these (you get to see another build project
>up close) and it's worth the time. Home builds and AR have much in common.
>Ferg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Computer radiation |
Dave, make a study of Tempest computer techniques.
David M.
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely
> computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in
> close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet
> computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a
> shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display
> on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic
> 1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of
> my com radio from a distance of 100 feet.
>
> www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 06:07 AM 4/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would
>>look into your avionics installation or get a new
>>laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years
>>ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel
>>phones rare.
>>
>> All major consumer electronic devices has to meet
>>FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before
>>everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes
>>out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of
>>little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters
>>have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded
>
>>from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a
>
>>worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios
>>and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners.
>>
>> To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable
>>device should be used, including computers, but the
>>fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for
>>that. We agree the risk is small. Yes?
>>
>>The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq
>>you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV
>>signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't
>>radiate enough energy.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
I'm looking for another red power switch similar to the red split rocker
Cessna type switch for my Aux battery power. Also I haven't been able to
find the wide white rocker engraved switches,as seen in the Gulf Coast
Avionics catalog. Anybody have any ideas, and yess I've Googled for
them, to confusing, with all the choices. Help would be appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I'm looking for another red power switch similar to the red split rocker
>Cessna type switch for my Aux battery power. Also I haven't been able to
>find the wide white rocker engraved switches,as seen in the Gulf Coast
>Avionics catalog. Anybody have any ideas, and yess I've Googled for
>them, to confusing, with all the choices. Help would be appreciated!
Carling used to make the split rocker for Cessna in a
style that matched all the other switches used on the
panel. I don't know if that was consistent throughout the
history of rockers on Cessnas products nor do I know
what they're using today.
Going with rocker switches on your project invariably locks
you down to the single supplier who offers that switch and
the style may not be available in all the popular switching
functions.
Places to begin looking include the Carling site at:
http://rocker-switches.carlingtech.com/index.asp#Full-Sized%20Rocker%20Switches
Honeywell
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/tr/
NKK
http://www.nkkswitches.com/
Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer
http://commercialcontrols.eaton.com/VCBU/catalog/index.html
ITT-Cannon
http://www.ittcannon.com/products/products.asp?pid=1027&cf=pl
etc.
These listings just scratch the surface of the range
of styles and functionality of rocker switches. Once you've
identified the manufacturer of choice, you need to locate
inventory for sale. Due to the huge variability of products
by even a single manufacturer, it's unlikely that you'll find
anyone who stocks the full range of any particular product.
This is why I've advised builders to consider purchasing and
properly storing a complete set of spare rocker switches for
their project . . . especially if one selects switches from
a relatively low-profile manufacturer. This is a hedge against
style changes and/or changes of stocking distributors ideas of
what they want to keep on the shelves.
Good luck!
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> |
Honeywell Microswitch AML 34 series.
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 Sam
Marlow
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches
I'm looking for another red power switch similar to the red split rocker
Cessna type switch for my Aux battery power. Also I haven't been able to
find the wide white rocker engraved switches,as seen in the Gulf Coast
Avionics catalog. Anybody have any ideas, and yess I've Googled for
them, to confusing, with all the choices. Help would be appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | OVM nuisance trips during engine start |
Well now that I also have some hours on the engine and am on record as
saying that nuisance OVM trips should not be tolerated, I must report
that I am experiencing an OVM crowbar trip about every 10 th start or
start attempt. This is a 12 volt Z-14 with small AGM batteries that
parallel during cranking. Usually both homebuilt OVM's trip. If they
trip it is usually on the first start (or start attempt) of the day and
then no more on that day.
My theory is that the cranking voltage is sagging way below the 12 volt
zener and dragging the reference voltage down faster than it is dragging
down the trigger voltage. (The time constant of the trigger circuit is
higher than the time constant of the RC reference filter) My first
inclination was to just add a lot of capacitance across the zener,
especially since I haven't upgraded my 4.7 uF cap there to the 22 uF
that is shown on the latest revision. However that would mean that after
cranking ceases, the rising voltage would drive up the trigger voltage
faster than the reference voltage and again possibly cause a trip. I am
planning to try an intermediate experiment with a 68uF cap just for love
of an experiment on one of the OVMs.
I think the best solution however is to use a lower voltage zener
perhaps 8 or 9 volts and adjust the appropriate resistor values. I
believe that would tend to make the circuit imune to low 8 or 9 volt
cranking voltages and still retain acceptable accurancy. After all the
24 volt version uses a 12 volt zener and I suspect it is imune to this
type of tripping?? I plan to do that on at least one of my OVM's and
will report the results. The engine cranks briskly and has fairly short
starter wires. The cranking voltage does drop enough to cause my EIS4000
engine monitor to reset however.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual shunts and amp gauge |
I countersunk the mounting holes in my 60A shunt so its no longer 'as new'.
I'll buy another one from B&C. Thanks for the offer!
Steve
RV7A
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual shunts and amp gauge
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >I have single battery/dual alt setup. I also have EI volt/amp gauge.
> >
> >The amp gauge works using an external shunt but the value of the shunt
must
> >be known in order for
> >the gauge to work properly. Therefore my gauge is VA-1A-60, works with
> >50mV/60amp shunt.
> >
> >The shunt wires to the aux alternator lead is 50mv/10A and therefore may
not
> >work properly. I
> >would like to replace this aux shunt with 50mV/60amp so that I can switch
> >from MAIN alterntor
> >to AUX alternator and read the current on the EI gauge.
> >
> >Is there any harm in using 50mV/60amp shunt for the aux alt when
> >aeroelectric connection shows 50mv/10A?
>
> No. If you have a 10A shunt from either me or B&C, I'll
> swap it for a 60A.
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM nuisance trips during engine start |
>
>Well now that I also have some hours on the engine and am on record as
>saying that nuisance OVM trips should not be tolerated, I must report
>that I am experiencing an OVM crowbar trip about every 10 th start or
>start attempt. This is a 12 volt Z-14 with small AGM batteries that
>parallel during cranking. Usually both homebuilt OVM's trip. If they
>trip it is usually on the first start (or start attempt) of the day and
>then no more on that day.
>
>My theory is that the cranking voltage is sagging way below the 12 volt
>zener and dragging the reference voltage down faster than it is dragging
>down the trigger voltage. (The time constant of the trigger circuit is
>higher than the time constant of the RC reference filter) My first
>inclination was to just add a lot of capacitance across the zener,
>especially since I haven't upgraded my 4.7 uF cap there to the 22 uF
>that is shown on the latest revision. However that would mean that after
>cranking ceases, the rising voltage would drive up the trigger voltage
>faster than the reference voltage and again possibly cause a trip. I am
>planning to try an intermediate experiment with a 68uF cap just for love
>of an experiment on one of the OVMs.
Ken, thank you for sharing this with us. Another thing to
consider is putting a diode in series with the 392 ohm
resistor. This will keep the momentary brown-out spike from
pulling down on the capacitor during the transient.
>I think the best solution however is to use a lower voltage zener
>perhaps 8 or 9 volts and adjust the appropriate resistor values. I
>believe that would tend to make the circuit imune to low 8 or 9 volt
>cranking voltages and still retain acceptable accurancy. After all the
>24 volt version uses a 12 volt zener and I suspect it is imune to this
>type of tripping?? I plan to do that on at least one of my OVM's and
>will report the results. The engine cranks briskly and has fairly short
>starter wires. The cranking voltage does drop enough to cause my EIS4000
>engine monitor to reset however.
Have you ever put a 'scope on it to find out how low it
goes? It would be interesting to know. Also, since I'm
phasing out the MBS4991 trigger diode for all future
production, I have an inventory that I'm going to offer
for those who would like to fabricate the original circuit
that was not plagued with the phenomenon you've identified.
In any case, I think your analysis has merit and adding the
diode would break the pull-down path during brownout time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM nuisance trips during engine start |
Thank you for your thoughts Bob.
I considered adding a diode in series with the 392 R resistor to pull up
the reference voltage quicker but discarded the idea. I was thinking
that while the voltage was rising immediately after cranking, such a
diode would give the trigger voltage a 0.6 volt headstart so to speak.
As you point out though that doesn't matter if the reference voltage
doesn't sag in the first place. Have to check again but I think I'm just
barely seeing over 12 volts at the time that I start cranking so not
much headroom to bring the ref. voltage up to 12 volts before cranking.
Maybe there's a schottky type diode in my junk pile... er..parts bin.
This is an EFI engine so it does not normally need much cranking. I will
try this diode on one of the OVM's this morning but it will take awhile
before I know whether it does the trick.
My analog scope is not the greatest tool for capturing one shot
transients. I've been searching for a low cost portable or laptop DSO
for the last couple of days as I'd also like some proof that my ignition
is not occasionally missing a beat. There are a couple of offerings that
seem like they might be useful in the $200 to $400. range. The
megasquirt backup fuel injection that I'm using has datalog capability
to a laptop and that is opening my eyes a bit to how useful digital
recording can be.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Well now that I also have some hours on the engine and am on record as
>>saying that nuisance OVM trips should not be tolerated, I must report
>>that I am experiencing an OVM crowbar trip about every 10 th start or
>>start attempt. This is a 12 volt Z-14 with small AGM batteries that
>>parallel during cranking. Usually both homebuilt OVM's trip. If they
>>trip it is usually on the first start (or start attempt) of the day and
>>then no more on that day.
>>
>>My theory is that the cranking voltage is sagging way below the 12 volt
>>zener and dragging the reference voltage down faster than it is dragging
>>down the trigger voltage. (The time constant of the trigger circuit is
>>higher than the time constant of the RC reference filter) My first
>>inclination was to just add a lot of capacitance across the zener,
>>especially since I haven't upgraded my 4.7 uF cap there to the 22 uF
>>that is shown on the latest revision. However that would mean that after
>>cranking ceases, the rising voltage would drive up the trigger voltage
>>faster than the reference voltage and again possibly cause a trip. I am
>>planning to try an intermediate experiment with a 68uF cap just for love
>>of an experiment on one of the OVMs.
>>
>>
>
> Ken, thank you for sharing this with us. Another thing to
> consider is putting a diode in series with the 392 ohm
> resistor. This will keep the momentary brown-out spike from
> pulling down on the capacitor during the transient.
>
>
>
>
>>I think the best solution however is to use a lower voltage zener
>>perhaps 8 or 9 volts and adjust the appropriate resistor values. I
>>believe that would tend to make the circuit imune to low 8 or 9 volt
>>cranking voltages and still retain acceptable accurancy. After all the
>>24 volt version uses a 12 volt zener and I suspect it is imune to this
>>type of tripping?? I plan to do that on at least one of my OVM's and
>>will report the results. The engine cranks briskly and has fairly short
>>starter wires. The cranking voltage does drop enough to cause my EIS4000
>>engine monitor to reset however.
>>
>>
>
> Have you ever put a 'scope on it to find out how low it
> goes? It would be interesting to know. Also, since I'm
> phasing out the MBS4991 trigger diode for all future
> production, I have an inventory that I'm going to offer
> for those who would like to fabricate the original circuit
> that was not plagued with the phenomenon you've identified.
>
> In any case, I think your analysis has merit and adding the
> diode would break the pull-down path during brownout time.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Component Locations for RV-7 |
>
>I'm starting to figure out where all the components for the Z-13 system get
>located in my RV-7. I'm tempted to have everything except the main current
>limiter and the battery/starter contactors on the hot side of the firewall,
>with everything else on the cold side. Is this how most have installed the
>system?
Not sure what you mean by "everything" . . .
As a general rule, battery contactors mount as close as practical
to batteries. Starter contactors as close as practical to starters.
Place other equipment items so as to minimize the numbers of wires
passing through the firewall.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
>
>
>At 09:59 AM 1/27/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >If you
> >get in a crash and the engine is ripped off, I don't think the battery
> >cable will be you only problem. George
> >
>
>It may not be, but it could mean the difference between walking away doused
>in gasoline, and walking away on fire, hoping somebody can get to you
>quickly enough to put out the flames.
>
>This happened to a friend of mine who would have walked away from a crash
>if it had not been for that one little spark. I'm putting a starter
>contactor on the firewall to absolutely shut off any possibility of the fat
>wire going to the starter chafing against baffling material or anything
>else in the event the engine decides to leave its normal upright, and
>locked position.
>
>What's a few bucks, guys? My experience with this friend of mine has made
>me a believer in steel braided fuel hose, Earl's fittings, Nomex clothing,
>and a lot of other things that may cost a few dollars extra, but could
>avoid years of skin graft surgery.
The external contactor has nothing to do with crash safety.
We recommended an external starter contactor for use with
ALL starters having modern automotive style contactor/engagement
solenoids. This policy was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite
of the fact that their new light-weight offering already had
a "useful" contactor built in. The reasoning was based on starter's
need for a low impedance path between battery and the solenoid winding
for energetic engagement of pinion gear and max performance closure
of the built in contactor mechanism. The reason for this is explained
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
The external contactor recommended is MUCH less abusive of the starter
switch. Failure of many starter manufacturers to recognize this stress
is root cause of premature failures of the ACS off-l-r-both-start
ignition switch of some years back when an AD was issued to replenish
the start switch contacts within the switch and to add a diode across
the switch to mitigate inductive effects for breaking the circuit.
The original AD placed the diode in the wrong place as I've described
in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
A later edition of the AD corrected the error and repositioned the
diode. The diode only mitigates the switch-break-spike condition,
not the switch-make-inrush condition. The larger than usual inrush
is still present and is still a life limiting effect on the ACS or
any other style switch.
When PM starters came along, the wiring techniques recommended by
B&C and the 'Connection were not compatible with starter motors which
generated strong energies during wind-down and caused undesirable
delays in pinion gear engagement.
This is what prompted Figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
where a boost relay is used to relived panel mounted starter switches
of the stresses cited. Reasoning was that I'd much rather replace a
$5 relay under the cowl than ANY switch on the panel, especially
an off-l-r-both-start keyswitch.
I'll stand by the recommendations for wiring as show in either
Z-22 (boost relay) or any other Z-figure where and external
contactor is shown. It's a system performance, service life
and cost of ownership consideration.
------------------------------
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post . . .
I am designing my electrical system very similar to Z-11 with the exception
of the essential bus and a keyed starter. My new Lycoming engine came
with an SkyTec starter so I assume I'll need to use a relay as shown in
Z-14. Does this mean I don't need a starter contactor? Does this relay
replace the contactor or is it additional to it? Thanks
Matt
A problem arises when the starter utilizes a permanent
magnet motor. These motors are also efficient generators
During spin-down of the motor after the starter
is de-energized, the motor puts out a substantial amount
of power sufficient to KEEP the pinion gear solenoid
ENGAGED for several seconds after you release the pushbutton.
The technique described in our wiring diagrams was
developed as a compromise between maintaining good
starter solenoid/contactor performance with a variety
of starter switches.
Problems with the philosophy didn't arise until the
permanent magnet motor showed up. Again, we sought
a solution that maintained performance of the starter's
built in solenoid/contactor system that did not
transfer the system's unique loads to the circuitry
that controls the starter. Hence, the "boost" relay
described in Figure Z-22.
One COULD choose to use the boost relay with ANY
of the modern, lightweight starters that feature
electro-mechanically engaged pinion gears. This
would move the ideal alternator b-lead feedpoint
from a contactor on the firewall down to the
main power terminal of the starter solenoid/
contactor assembly.
-----------------------------------------
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM nuisance trips during engine start |
>
> Thank you for your thoughts Bob.
>
>I considered adding a diode in series with the 392 R resistor to pull up
>the reference voltage quicker but discarded the idea. I was thinking
>that while the voltage was rising immediately after cranking, such a
>diode would give the trigger voltage a 0.6 volt headstart so to speak.
>As you point out though that doesn't matter if the reference voltage
>doesn't sag in the first place. Have to check again but I think I'm just
>barely seeing over 12 volts at the time that I start cranking so not
>much headroom to bring the ref. voltage up to 12 volts before cranking.
>Maybe there's a schottky type diode in my junk pile... er..parts bin.
>This is an EFI engine so it does not normally need much cranking. I will
>try this diode on one of the OVM's this morning but it will take awhile
>before I know whether it does the trick.
I don't think there's an issue with how fast the ref
voltage comes up, we just want to keep it from being pulled down
during the locked-rotor inrush current that every starter imposes
on a battery for the first few milliseconds while the motor
is spinning up. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
Here we see bus voltage dipping to 7.5 volts and it takes
about 600 mS before the voltage rises above 12v. All during
this time, vref in the ov module is going to be something
lower than 12v. 392 ohms and 22uf has a time constant of
8.6 milliseconds; the brownout interval is significantly longer.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif
This is a tighter view that shows the slope of the voltage
during starter spin-up.
There's no 'load' on Vref, it's a sinking reference that's
keeping the ref point from rising at trip time. The only reason
for the 392 resistor is to bias the zener into a low impedance
region of relatively stable voltage. You could replace the 392
ohm resistor with something much higher and also make the 'problem'
go away . . . but Vref will fall slightly with the lower bias
current and have a slight effect on setpoint stability.
I think the diode in series is the best bet. A 1N4000 series
would be fine . . . or a 1N4148/914 would work good too. What
ever you can put your hands on easiest.
>My analog scope is not the greatest tool for capturing one shot
>transients. I've been searching for a low cost portable or laptop DSO
>for the last couple of days as I'd also like some proof that my ignition
>is not occasionally missing a beat. There are a couple of offerings that
>seem like they might be useful in the $200 to $400. range. The
>megasquirt backup fuel injection that I'm using has datalog capability
>to a laptop and that is opening my eyes a bit to how useful digital
>recording can be.
You got that right. I beat that drum every chance I get at RAC.
We've been able to walk up to a $30,000 car for 20 years, plug
in and have it spill it's guts. We STILL can't do that on a
$5-$20 million bizjet's systems.
Keep an eye on ebay for a TDS-210 scope. GREAT value. Even at
new prices, the TDS-210 cost 1/2 of the first good scope I
ever owned and it does 10 times as much. If the tornado
sirens go off while I'm at the bench, the TDS-210 goes with
me to the 'fraid-hole with me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | B&C SD 8 alternator |
Has anyone installed the B&C SD8 alternator on the RV10? I am trying to determine
if there is any interference problems with the firewall.
Thanks for any info.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power for headsets |
On Apr 1, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Mickey Coggins wrote:
> matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>
> I'm about to install the headset and mic jacks, and I'm
> wondering if there is an "industry standard" way to
> provide power for ANR type headsets. I've got the
> Bose, and they want USD 31 for a special jack, and
> USD 195 for the new headset cord. That would buy
> a lot of batteries.
>
> Is there a better way?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
Mickey--the Bose (a.k.a. "Redel") connectors are rapidly becoming a
de facto standard in new factory GA aircraft. I have flown or ridden
on four fixed-wing aircraft and two helicopters built since '03 and
all had the "bose" connectors paralleled to the old standard headset
jacks. They work fine in parallel, and you can mix and match
headsets on then intercom.
When I fly the Cirrus, I use Telex ANR headsets with the new
connector, and I usually use an old Bose headset in the RV with a
battery pack.
As I type this, I have two of the Bose connectors sitting on my desk,
waiting for a rainy day to install them in the RV-8.
All of the headset manufacturers (Bose, Telex, Lightspeed, and Peltor
at least) will sell a headset wired this way. If you can build an
airplane, you can install the connector yourself.
You could also buy a female plug like the one in the battery pack for
your Bose and wire that for power (If you have the old ones with a
separate battery pack)
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | power for headsets |
one note on this.
I believe the DC also uses a similar jack - HOWEVER, there are 8 pin and 6
pin. To my knowledge, only DC uses the 8. Everyone else uses the 6 (better
known as the Bose connector).
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Freeman
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets
On Apr 1, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Mickey Coggins wrote:
> matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>
> I'm about to install the headset and mic jacks, and I'm wondering if
> there is an "industry standard" way to provide power for ANR type
> headsets. I've got the Bose, and they want USD 31 for a special jack,
> and USD 195 for the new headset cord. That would buy a lot of
> batteries.
>
> Is there a better way?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
Mickey--the Bose (a.k.a. "Redel") connectors are rapidly becoming a
de facto standard in new factory GA aircraft. I have flown or ridden
on four fixed-wing aircraft and two helicopters built since '03 and
all had the "bose" connectors paralleled to the old standard headset
jacks. They work fine in parallel, and you can mix and match
headsets on then intercom.
When I fly the Cirrus, I use Telex ANR headsets with the new
connector, and I usually use an old Bose headset in the RV with a
battery pack.
As I type this, I have two of the Bose connectors sitting on my desk,
waiting for a rainy day to install them in the RV-8.
All of the headset manufacturers (Bose, Telex, Lightspeed, and Peltor
at least) will sell a headset wired this way. If you can build an
airplane, you can install the connector yourself.
You could also buy a female plug like the one in the battery pack for
your Bose and wire that for power (If you have the old ones with a
separate battery pack)
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: power for headsets |
> Mickey--the Bose (a.k.a. "Redel") connectors are rapidly becoming a
> de facto standard in new factory GA aircraft. I have flown or ridden
> on four fixed-wing aircraft and two helicopters built since '03 and
> all had the "bose" connectors paralleled to the old standard headset
> jacks. They work fine in parallel, and you can mix and match
> headsets on then intercom.
OK, I found the manufacturer for the connector, they're about
an hour drive from where I live. Now I know why these plugs
are so expensive - they're made in Switzerland! :-)
http://www.lemo.com/
The price for the raw plugs in units of one are about USD 40
each. I think I'll just stick with the batteries for now.
http://www.distrelec.com/ishopWebFront/search/luceneSearch.do?dispatch=find&showImage=on&artnrPhrase=116248
Many thanks for the details, gentlemen!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Glide Slope Antenna |
| From: | "N395V" <N395V(at)direcway.com> |
I am looking at the diagram of Bobs homemade glideslope antenna.
It is not clear to me whers and how the coax and shield attach to the two whiskers.
It will be going in a composite... do I need a ground plane???? If so how is this
placed relative to the antenna?
Can the Nav antenna serve also as the Glideslope antenna?
Thanks
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26571#26571
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dynon systems display? |
>Comments/Questions: Bob
>I am reading your book and following the Matronics forum as I build my
>RV10. I have several questions that I will post on the forum, after I
>complete my studies, if they continue to be un-answered. I have one
>question for you that I would like to ask off line. What do you think of
>the Dynon engine monitoring system?
I have no personal knowledge or experience with Dynon's
products. The feedback I've heard on the 'net about their
mini-efis has all been favorable. If they've added a systems
readout to their stable of products, I have no reason to believe
that their acceptance in the marketplace will be any weaker
than for the mini-efis.
>I have gone to the Dynon factory and looked at them, and talked to the
>people, and am nearly sold on the system for several reasons,however I
>haven't talked to any actual user that could provide feedback on the
>engine system.
I think your risks are low. Systems monitoring is 1/10th the
effort of sensing, deducing and displaying platform dynamics.
Systems monitoring is a cake walk for anyone who can do well
with the flight instruments.
>The EFIS feedback has been very positive, but no-one has any experience
>with the engine system. I need to commit to a system now, and Alan Barrett
>sugested that you would probably have had some contact with a user, and
>might be able to help. Thanks
Sorry, not to any greater degree than I've outlined above.
If it were my money, I'd sure give them a whack at being
on board my airplane.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: intercom ground loop? |
>
>
>My flightcom 403 intercom has a ground wire, and the
>case itself is grounded. Will I be creating a ground
>loop if the case itself is grounded to the airframe
>via the panel? Should I try to isolate the intercom
>from the panel?
No way to know right now. Depending on how the intercom
is wired within, the possibility of a ground loop exists.
Wait until you've flown the airplane and see what turns
up. Your astute observation and consideration of the
possibilities will point to potential remedies if something
pops up.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glide Slope Antenna |
>
>I am looking at the diagram of Bobs homemade glideslope antenna.
>
>It is not clear to me whers and how the coax and shield attach to the two
>whiskers.
Shield to one side center conductor to other side.
>It will be going in a composite... do I need a ground plane????
Dipole antennas like those depicted for VOR and GS do not
need ground planes.
> If so how is this placed relative to the antenna?
N/a . . . see above
>Can the Nav antenna serve also as the Glideslope antenna?
Yes, there are couplers you can purchase to steal a
GS signal off the Nav antenna. They're about $80
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon systems display? |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I have not flown mine yet but the installation setup is a piece of cake.
The premade wiring harness makes this so easy.
One minor error is the oil temp is way off...This maybe a Dynon problem
or a bad temp sensor...I will be investigating this in the next few
weeks. Dynon has given me some pointers.
CHT's were all spot on accuracy wise
Great company to deal with and I like the screen swap feature and it
works great on the ground.
Frank
Rv7A...almost to paint stage.
-----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, April 05, 2006 6:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon systems display?
-->
>Comments/Questions: Bob
>I am reading your book and following the Matronics forum as I build my
>RV10. I have several questions that I will post on the forum, after I
>complete my studies, if they continue to be un-answered. I have one
>question for you that I would like to ask off line. What do you think
>of the Dynon engine monitoring system?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon systems display? |
Mine has about 25 hrs on it (swapped out an RYM engine monitor) I have
only positive feedback and found out about some defect sensors, my oil
temps is straight on as well, so I can only give a positive feedback.
Werner (HB-YKP, Glastar, 164 hrs, 25h EMS-10, 120h D10-A)
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>I have not flown mine yet but the installation setup is a piece of cake.
>The premade wiring harness makes this so easy.
>
>One minor error is the oil temp is way off...This maybe a Dynon problem
>or a bad temp sensor...I will be investigating this in the next few
>weeks. Dynon has given me some pointers.
>
>CHT's were all spot on accuracy wise
>
>Great company to deal with and I like the screen swap feature and it
>works great on the ground.
>
>Frank
>Rv7A...almost to paint stage.
>
>-----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, April 05, 2006 6:34 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon systems display?
>
>-->
>
>
>
>
>>Comments/Questions: Bob
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>I am reading your book and following the Matronics forum as I build my
>>RV10. I have several questions that I will post on the forum, after I
>>complete my studies, if they continue to be un-answered. I have one
>>question for you that I would like to ask off line. What do you think
>>of the Dynon engine monitoring system?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon systems display? |
I was a passenger in an RV when Dynon was testing their new programmable
split screen EFIS/Engine monitor system.I was very impressed with the display
and the multitude of options for display pages.
I use the smaller Dynon EFIS which is a great instrument but this new larger
model really impressed me.
Mike Sigman
N7092N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon systems display? |
Only experience I have is with the smaller unit, and for those of us
with bifocals, the vertical speed readout was hard to see.
Sigmo(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>I was a passenger in an RV when Dynon was testing their new programmable
>split screen EFIS/Engine monitor system.I was very impressed with the display
>and the multitude of options for display pages.
>I use the smaller Dynon EFIS which is a great instrument but this new larger
>model really impressed me.
>
>Mike Sigman
>N7092N
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glide Slope Antenna |
Hi Bob,
Where would I find the GS antenna diagram that is referred to here?
Richard Dudley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am looking at the diagram of Bobs homemade glideslope antenna.
>>
>>It is not clear to me whers and how the coax and shield attach to the two
>>whiskers.
>>
>>
>
> Shield to one side center conductor to other side.
>
>
>
>>It will be going in a composite... do I need a ground plane????
>>
>>
>
> Dipole antennas like those depicted for VOR and GS do not
> need ground planes.
>
>
>
>> If so how is this placed relative to the antenna?
>>
>>
>
> N/a . . . see above
>
>
>
>
>>Can the Nav antenna serve also as the Glideslope antenna?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, there are couplers you can purchase to steal a
> GS signal off the Nav antenna. They're about $80
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EMS-10 |
should precise that:
> and found out about some defect sensors,
>
which I took over from my Rocky mountain monitor, I could swap most of
the RMY sensors on to the EMS (except carbi, oil temp, current)
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
Listers,
Anything wrong with using machined pins for splicing 20-22AWG wires with a
heatshrink cover? Just seems neater and quicker than soldering or butt
splices..
Jerry Cochran
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub pins for low bulk splicing |
>
>Listers,
>
>Anything wrong with using machined pins for splicing 20-22AWG wires with a
>heatshrink cover? Just seems neater and quicker than soldering or butt
>splices..
Obviously the "weak" link is that heatshrink offers less grip on
the pins than do connector bodies . . . but it is surprisingly high.
I just tried it with some clear heatshrink and found that tension
on the wires stretched the shrink and the pins did
not slide inside the heatshrink. I put several pounds
of pull on it causing the pins to disengage slightly but when
I relaxed the pull, the shrink slowly returned to original
length and full engagement of the pins.
Do some experimenting with the materials you have. Odds are
it will be fine.
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: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned] Radios OFF |
during startup
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 06:33:51 -0000
From: Rick Gray <rgray67968(at)aol.com>
>From and 'unnamed source' (smile).
Rick at the Buffalo Farm - read on:
My new Rocket is a blast!
I have to be careful to keep off the transmit button, so the Cessnas
don't hear me giggle as I leap over them in the circuit.
OK, maybe I slipped once or twice . . . :)
The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start the engine
with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a
blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the
wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage spikes, fuses
don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must
have been distracted by that Cessna . . .
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OhioValleyRVators-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Ford" <psychden(at)sonic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: power for headsetspower for headsets |
Regarding the Bose connector- Don't forget the need to utilize your headset with
your back-up hand held com radio when the panel mount croaks. It happened to
me near Northway, Alaska when my Garmin 250 XL display went blank taking the
GPS and Com functions with it. The return trip to California was a non event with
the hand held Com and GPS units that I carried (thanks for advice on the redundancy,
Bob). I would anticipate that a Bose connector interface with the
hand held for mic and phones is possible but the power for the ANR might require
a dedicated battery pack as part of the interface. Here's a design challenge
to create something elegant to stow with the hand held.
Larry Ford, Glasair N149LF flying for three years, 410 hours and making lots of
great memories
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glide Slope Antenna |
>
>Hi Bob,
>Where would I find the GS antenna diagram that is referred to here?
The diagram we've been discussing is Figure 13-13 in the
'Connection. Finding someplace to mount such a beast is the
hard part. I think I'd go for the coupler approach. Or, if
you have a fiberglass airplane, try sticking an 8" piece of wire
into a BNC connector and let it dangle out the back of the
GS receiver. When on the runway centerline, glideslope and
localizer signals are huge. You're looking right down the
"barrel" of a 5w transmitter from a couple miles away max.
A wet string would probably get you a good enough signal.
If a compromise antenna doesn't work, go for the coupler
from http://www.chiefaircraft.com and others. Looks
like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/CI_507.jpg
I'd much rather install a coupler somewhere than try
to find a 'nice' place to mount a stand-alone GS
antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glide Slope Antenna |
My GS antenna is invisibly built into my left wing tip which is made of
fiberglass. Works. Made it from info in Bob's Connection book. MB antenna
also works and it is inside the engine cowling. Right wing tip has the VOR
antenna. Only antennas I have exposed (which are commercially built) are
the Com and Transponder. Indiana Larry, RV7
----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Bob,
>>Where would I find the GS antenna diagram that is referred to here?
>
> The diagram we've been discussing is Figure 13-13 in the
> 'Connection. Finding someplace to mount such a beast is the
> hard part. I think I'd go for the coupler approach. Or, if
> you have a fiberglass airplane, try sticking an 8" piece of wire
> into a BNC connector and let it dangle out the back of the
> GS receiver. When on the runway centerline, glideslope and
> localizer signals are huge. You're looking right down the
> "barrel" of a 5w transmitter from a couple miles away max.
> A wet string would probably get you a good enough signal.
>
>
> If a compromise antenna doesn't work, go for the coupler
> from http://www.chiefaircraft.com and others. Looks
> like this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/CI_507.jpg
>
> I'd much rather install a coupler somewhere than try
> to find a 'nice' place to mount a stand-alone GS
> antenna.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>"The external contactor has nothing to do with
>crash safety."
Bob, this was posted back in January. You must be bored.
First, no one said the crash safety was the ONLY
reason for having an extra starter contactor/relay
on the firewall. However its clearly a concern for
many people. I know because I asked. Personally
I don't think its an issue but understand and respect
those who do think its a concern.
From the electrical design standpoint, everyone
understands that the possible 30 amp inrush
current (6 amp continuous) requires a switch capable
of this. PERIOD, END-O-STORY. Put a 30 amp
push button switch on. Done.
A big 750 amp relay is overkill and not needed to
switch the starter's on board solenoid. I don't get
it. You make it sound as if a big secondary relay
is needed. Its like you are selling them or have
stock in the relay company or something?
Its a throw back to old Bendix style starters that
needed this device. Its time to think out of the box.
Consider modern wiring to match a modern starter.
Bob I know you only focus on electrical but I can
tell you weight is critical on a planes. You tend to
never say NO to a pound of weight if its part of
the electrical system.
There is a very simple solution; get a momentary
single pole push button switch with a 30 amp or
greater capacity as a start switch, which is easy:
A few of many choices:
http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM626BP
http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM490BP
http://tinyurl.com/g5r3p
If you want to use a small tiny (low amp rating)
push button and a small light 30-40 amp relay.
You can buy them, 5 for $10 on eBay.
http://www.chiefent.com/products/product_details.asp?id=3
> We recommended an external starter contactor for
> use with ALL starters having modern automotive
> style contactor/engagement solenoids. This
> POLICY was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite
> of the fact that their new light-weight offering
> already had a "useful" contactor built in. The
> reasoning was based on starter's need for a low
> impedance path between battery and the solenoid
> winding for energetic engagement of pinion gear
> and max performance closure of the built in
> contactor mechanism.
Bob, all the conversation about impedance and key
switches is faulty logic and clouds the issue. Instead
of the *Non sequiturs*, get to the facts. Who cares
what B&C's policy is. What does that matter? You
say it like B&C is the center of the universe.
(non sequiturs = fallacy in logic, not necessarily wrong
just conclusion does not follow from the premise.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
The starter is DESIGNED to work with a starter switch
or switch & (small) relay. Its a good alternative, option to
a BIG FAT firewall relay of the olden days.
There's no other real good reason for using a 750 amp
relay, other than you don't want a Hot Bat/Starter feed,
which is no big deal (according to Bob).
Just install a $12.00 switch capable of 30 amps or a
relay of 30-40 amp capacity. Use 14 awg wire.
The BIG old FAT 750 amp starter relay is an enigma
with today's modern starters with solenoids. Now if
you are uncomfortable with a hot battery cable, than
by all means keep the 750 amp relay and all the extra
connections, weight, cost, but don't do it for any other
reason than you don't like the hot Bat / Starter feed.
Start switches (+30 amp) are cheap and easy to find.
Here are some wiring diagrams that show what I mean.
-No Relay/Contactor wiring:
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1963/norelaysalt4qo.jpg
(optional big fuse shown. I would go the next fuse
size up, 400 amps, since PM starters can draw over
300 amps. Bussmann makes fuses up to 750 amp.)
-Traditional, with both master and starter relay:
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg
(Not bad, works, nothing wrong with it, but two heavy
relays, (4) connections, weight and complication. Plus
if you ask me they relays are a big "spark" hazzard.)
Bob, you talk abut key switches of cars and planes
going bad? So what. The whole system needs to be
designed to work with these "modern starters". Here
is how Toyota (and most car makers) does it:
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h7.pdf
(Note: Toyota key switch uses a small start relay)
You point to some switch failure on a car or key
switch as proof of WHAT? Thats silly logic. You
make these verbose platitudes as evidence to
support your opinion. The solution is easy.
You make simple simple simple DC circuits
sound so hard. Its a switch and a coil, no biggie.
I am ready for Bob to hurl insults at me and tell
me how I don't understand and uninformed I am.
I would respectfully say Bob's way is fine, but his
reasons are obtuse and not relevant. Don't be
alarmed at Bob's reply, I am use to it and ignore
it.
Bob is right; I'm wrong. I would never dream of
arguing with him, since he has an uncanny way
of always being right. I am just saying there is
another way to consider.
I don't feel a need to argue and make large
stretches of logic and exaggerate to make my
point. Take it or leave it. I am not using big
separate firewall contactors/relays/solenoids.
One $12.00 push switch (start) and a small
solid state relay (master relay), replaces over
a pound of weight and several large connections.
With the no firewall starter relay the battery cable
goes direct to the starter, just like a car. No
extra relays to fail, no extra connections, less
weight, cost and better reliability.
Note:
Bob N is what you call an Expert, so his way is
always the best way, of course.
As far as NOT using a big firewall starter relay
safety its not issue (according to Bob).
>"The external contactor has nothing to do with
>crash safety."
I agree with the Expert.
Using a quality 2 awg Bat to starter cable/wire,
well routed, well supported and well protected, the
chance of sparks is small.
However each to their own.
BTW
With a HOT Bat/starter feed, the chance of it
causing a spark is nill. Also with the optional
fuse its protect it from hard dead short, but the
fuse is not needed, just an option.
Think about the firewall relays, with all those
BIG brass jump straps (un-shilded). They are
a spark hazard. There is no fusing between battery
and structure. Many people have fuel gascolators
and prime lines right next to their firewall relay!
Cheers George
DISCLAIMER: All comments are my opinion and
based on common wiring practices used in millions of
cars. However I am not an expert, nor have I written
a book on wiring so please feel free to ignore my advice,
which is provided for entertainment purposes only. Any
attempt at using this info otherwise is at your own risk.
If you agree, disagree or just want to call me names,
feel free to write me direct off list. Thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | capacitor - regulator noise |
hi bob,
i have an ov module to install. the directions say to keep the regulator in the
cabin for cooler temps. a knowledgeable source told me it was better to have
it firewall forward than to put the noisy lead from the cap. to the reg. in the
cabin by the radio.
1. is 6'' too close to run this wire to the comm. radio?
2. am i really shortening the life of the cap. that much or is it like a service
life in a plane down from 30 yrs to 10 yrs by mounting the cap. forward of
the firewall?
3. if i shield this wire is 6'' from the comm. radio acceptable?
thanks, bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why use starter contactor? |
>
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
> >"The external contactor has nothing to do with
> >crash safety."
>
> Bob, this was posted back in January. You must be bored.
If you're going to be a teacher, you have to expect
and accept the task of covering the same ground
over and over with every new class. Else why would
we need teachers? Just hand out text books, conduct
tests every few weeks and look at all the money
we would save. No teachers, no classrooms, shucks
we could get rid of whole universities. What a deal!
>
>
> First, no one said the crash safety was the ONLY
> reason for having an extra starter contactor/relay
> on the firewall. However its clearly a concern for
> many people. I know because I asked. Personally
> I don't think its an issue but understand and respect
> those who do think its a concern.
Never said that. That WAS the rationale for the extra
contactor when the thread started. You read things
into people's words that are not there.
>
> From the electrical design standpoint, everyone
> understands that the possible 30 amp inrush
>current (6 amp continuous) requires a switch capable
>of this. PERIOD, END-O-STORY.
> Put a 30 amp push button switch on. Done.
But suppose the builder wants to use his key-switch?
How about the guy who wants the starter button
on his stick grip (that's where many helicopters
put it)? I guess one might consider Z-22 as an
alternative to the extra contactor as I've written
many times.
>
> A big 750 amp relay is overkill and not needed to
> switch the starter's on board solenoid. I don't get
> it. You make it sound as if a big secondary relay
> is needed. Its like you are selling them or have
> stock in the relay company or something?
>
> Its a throw back to old Bendix style starters that
> needed this device. Its time to think out of the box.
> Consider modern wiring to match a modern starter.
A 30A push button is 'modern'? We had one on our
Fordson tractor when I was a kid . . . Cars have
migrated to Z-22 like features. We airplane designers
can do it too.
>
> Bob I know you only focus on electrical but I can
> tell you weight is critical on a planes. You tend to
> never say NO to a pound of weight if its part of
> the electrical system.
That's not true. I've never tossed weight out of
the mix of ingredients for design goals. But
consider this. 20 years ago OBAM aircraft were
bolting pig starters, rino alternators and big-dog
flooded batteries into their airplanes but getting
the same fat grins on their faces the first time
their projects broke ground.
Now we have alternatives that have reduced empty
weights of the same airplanes by as much as 30
pounds with improved performance. It's all a part of design
goals. If you worked for Burt Rutan, he might just
have you just hang two wires out to touch together
to get the engine started. His empty weight had
a 6x multiplier on it for gross weight at takeoff
for going around the world.
I've suggested welding cable in lieu of 22759
as low cost and a joy to work with but at some
sacrifice of the 30# savings cited. I've suggested
that one might consider rotating a 15# main battery
into an aux battery slot for a total weight of 30#
of batteries as a low cost of ownership alterative
to one big and one little battery. Your suggestion
that I'm hard over about squandering that 30# savings
is false on the face of it.
>
>There is a very simple solution; get a momentary
>single pole push button switch with a 30 amp or
>greater capacity as a start switch, which is easy:
>
> A few of many choices:
> http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM626BP
>http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM490BP
>http://tinyurl.com/g5r3p
>
>If you want to use a small tiny (low amp rating)
> push button and a small light 30-40 amp relay.
> You can buy them, 5 for $10 on eBay.
>http://www.chiefent.com/products/product_details.asp?id=3
>
>
> > We recommended an external starter contactor for
> > use with ALL starters having modern automotive
> > style contactor/engagement solenoids. This
> > POLICY was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite
> > of the fact that their new light-weight offering
> > already had a "useful" contactor built in. The
> > reasoning was based on starter's need for a low
> > impedance path between battery and the solenoid
> > winding for energetic engagement of pinion gear
> > and max performance closure of the built in
> > contactor mechanism.
>
>
> Bob, all the conversation about impedance and key
> switches is faulty logic and clouds the issue. Instead
> of the *Non sequiturs*, get to the facts. Who cares
> what B&C's policy is. What does that matter? You
> say it like B&C is the center of the universe.
I cite B&C because it's the venue under which
I gained my earliest experiences with the OBAM
aircraft industry. I've often cited Electromech
too because it was my university of hard knocks
in the certified world. George, you read far too
much into what I say. If it distresses you so much
to have me mention my various employers, I'll try to
avoid the practice.
You've acknowledged the starter control loop
impedance issue by your own recommendation of
a 14AWG wire . . . how was my citation of the
concern "faulty" or an obscuration of the
facts?
>
> (non sequiturs = fallacy in logic, not necessarily wrong
> just conclusion does not follow from the premise.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
>
>
> The starter is DESIGNED to work with a starter switch
> or switch & (small) relay. Its a good alternative, option to
> a BIG FAT firewall relay of the olden days.
Yeah, that was the DESIRE of the designers but after
a few years in the field, many of the automobiles
that incorporated the new two-stage contactors
were burning up starter switch contacts just as
described in the AD against the ACS key-switch.
The start switch wasn't going to change so they
did exactly what's described in Z-22 and added
the relay.
>
> There's no other real good reason for using a 750 amp
> relay, other than you don't want a Hot Bat/Starter feed,
> which is no big deal (according to Bob).
Is it a 'big deal'? How? The battery contactor is
tasked with making the airplane max-cold in a pre-
crash condition. I've never even considered making
the starter feed a component of crash safety analysis.
It's truly not a big deal but not because of anything
I said about it. It's the WAY THINGS ARE in airplanes
because they have battery master contactors.
Some folks on the List have advocated wiring
airplanes just like cars and dumping the battery
master contactor idea completely . . . don't recall
now who was championing that architecture. That
idea WOULD raise new concerns for configuring an
electrical system for landing on unfriendly terrain.
>
> Just install a $12.00 switch capable of 30 amps or a
> relay of 30-40 amp capacity. Use 14 awg wire.
>
> The BIG old FAT 750 amp starter relay is an enigma
> with today's modern starters with solenoids. Now if
> you are uncomfortable with a hot battery cable, than
> by all means keep the 750 amp relay and all the extra
> connections, weight, cost, but don't do it for any other
> reason than you don't like the hot Bat / Starter feed.
> Start switches (+30 amp) are cheap and easy to find.
>
>
> Here are some wiring diagrams that show what I mean.
>
> -No Relay/Contactor wiring:
> http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1963/norelaysalt4qo.jpg
> (optional big fuse shown. I would go the next fuse
> size up, 400 amps, since PM starters can draw over
> 300 amps. Bussmann makes fuses up to 750 amp.)
Interesting. Fusing the starter feed line is a new
concept for light aircraft. I've never seen this done before.
Can you elaborate on the supporting simple-ideas that
support this feature? What new hazards have been deduced
to suggest this ADDED WEIGHT and cost is a useful
thing to do?
>
> -Traditional, with both master and starter relay:
>http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg
> (Not bad, works, nothing wrong with it, but two heavy
> relays, (4) connections, weight and complication. Plus
> if you ask me they relays are a big "spark" hazzard.)
Hmmm . . . explosion hazard. That's a new one. Perhaps
we should consider flame arresters on our exhaust
stacks? How about the contactor built into the starter
itself? You know those brushes in the starter really
spark good too. Perhaps some beads of RTV around
all the seams for DIY hermetic sealing? May we assume
that both WEIGHT and SPARKS are now decision drivers?
>
>
> Bob, you talk abut key switches of cars and planes
> going bad? So what. The whole system needs to be
> designed to work with these "modern starters". Here
> is how Toyota (and most car makers) does it:
> http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h7.pdf
> (Note: Toyota key switch uses a small start relay)
Where have I argued with that? George, the 'Connection
is loaded with alternatives. You've painted my words
as if I'm trying to drive folks toward singular
goals. If that were true, the 'Connection could be
replaced with a single drawing, a bill of materials
and I could rant about how folks are not following
MY recommendations by not using MY design. The 'Connection
is a shopping mall of designs. As a teacher I'm obligated to
consider every alternative that comes to light
and explain the simple-ideas that help a builder
choose the most attractive direction that fits
his/her desires and mission.
>
>
> You point to some switch failure on a car or key
> switch as proof of WHAT?
Yes, we know sir. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis
according to George, failures of parts are not proof
of anything. You've said that puffed up batteries,
smoked radios and burned wires are not good indicators
of a runaway alternator - these are all 'unsubstantiated'
stories. Stories cited only to support my wild-eyed notions
that no piece of electronics is perfect and that some
items hold the keys to severe consequences worthy of
consideration in the FMEA. I must continue to beg your
indulgence for my alternate reality.
> Thats silly logic.
. . . hmmmm . . . should I be insulted here?
Was that intended to be an insult or was it
just a considered observation? Let's see . . . what
adjective might I use to describe your position
on OV failures in the field that won't insult you.
I'll have to think about it.
> You make these verbose platitudes as evidence to
> support your opinion. The solution is easy.
> You make simple simple simple DC circuits
> sound so hard. Its a switch and a coil, no biggie.
>
>
> I am ready for Bob to hurl insults at me and tell
> me how I don't understand and uninformed I am.
Please cite any insult I've hurled at you or
anyone else . . .
> I would respectfully say Bob's way is fine, but his
> reasons are obtuse and not relevant. Don't be
> alarmed at Bob's reply, I am use to it and ignore
> it.
George, allow me to be really alarming here and suggest
that you've accurately described an alternative design
goal that's been illustrated and explained in my writings
for years.
>
> Bob is right; I'm wrong. I would never dream of
> arguing with him, since he has an uncanny way
> of always being right. I am just saying there is
> another way to consider.
>
> I don't feel a need to argue and make large
> stretches of logic and exaggerate to make my
> point. Take it or leave it. I am not using big
> separate firewall contactors/relays/solenoids.
> One $12.00 push switch (start) and a small
> solid state relay (master relay), replaces over
> a pound of weight and several large connections.
>
> With the no firewall starter relay the battery cable
>goes direct to the starter, just like a car. No
>extra relays to fail, no extra connections, less
>weight, cost and better reliability.
>
> Note:
> Bob N is what you call an Expert, so his way is
> always the best way, of course.
Are you being insulting here George? I can't tell.
Are we being teachers here or is this a script
for a Mythbusters show?
>
> As far as NOT using a big firewall starter relay
> safety its not issue (according to Bob).
>
> >"The external contactor has nothing to do with
> >crash safety."
>
> I agree with the Expert.
>
> Using a quality 2 awg Bat to starter cable/wire,
> well routed, well supported and well protected, the
> chance of sparks is small.
>
> However each to their own.
"To each their own?" I thought the thrust of
your missive was to explain the silliness of my
logic and that a savings of under a pound of weight
is an overriding concern. However, you seem to suggest
that when all is said, what anyone does is a matter of
comfort. Help us understand your recommendations.
>
> BTW With a HOT Bat/starter feed, the chance of it
> causing a spark is nill. Also with the optional
> fuse its protect it from hard dead short, but the
> fuse is not needed, just an option.
Under what design considerations would you say the
fuse is a good option? Are there other locations
where adding some fuses is a good or better option?
If you're going to toss that idea on the table sir,
please be a teacher and explain when and why it makes
sense and what hazard condition is being mitigated.
Have you ever seen how much "sparking" can be generated
downstream of a 300A current limiter without opening
the limiter? I'm having trouble understanding when
the 'option' would be deemed useful.
>
> Think about the firewall relays, with all those
> BIG brass jump straps (un-shilded). They are
> a spark hazard. There is no fusing between battery
> and structure. Many people have fuel gascolators
> and prime lines right next to their firewall relay!
Let us 'think' also that we sit between at least two tanks
filled with gallons of fuel plumbed with dozens of fittings
and moved with pumps that put lots of pressure on
a flammable liquid. May I suggest these are part-n-parcel
of systems design and integration were selection of materials
and techniques reduce risks?
You've accused me of being trivial with respect to starter
switch selection. Please consider that my suggestions
allow the design goal of using of ANY starter switch (key,
toggle, push-button, etc.).
I DO confess to adding between 0.2 and 0.9 pounds to the airplane
depending on whether the builder uses Z-22 or the external
contactor. But if you're going to add the ANL limiter for
about 0.5 pounds more, perhaps the drive to save weight by not
having an external contactor becomes even less significant.
You have tossed lack of explosion proofing and new current limiters
into the discussion. Are you suggesting these are useful points of
consideration for our airplane building brothers?
>Cheers George
Cheers to you too George, and please know that no
words I've written were intended to insult or demean.
We're only trying to understand . . . I've explained the
rationale behind the external contactor recommendation
and 'fessed up to the added weight for this and MANY
other system features we've discussed for years.
The best understanding I have of your present missive is that
I'm perhaps 0.4 pounds heavier than your recommendations
when the builder opts for the ANL limiter.
I will suggest that your design recommendation for
a fat starter push button is restrictive compared to what
I've suggested in the 'Connection and here on the List.
However, if the builder is shaving ounces and buys into the
appropriately sized, independent starter button, then your
recommendations are spot on. But I'll have to think about those
sparks some more.
Hmmmm . . . for ounce shavers, keep in mind that moving an
under-the-cowl starter contactor from firewall out to the
starter will, on airplanes with rear mounted batteries,
add ounces of wire for the bus feeders that used to
tie onto the firewall starter contactor. Gee, every decision
has so many consequences to consider! Kinda makes one's head
feel tight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
Another thing I like is that integrity of the joint is easily checked if you
use clear shrink... Saves room if in a bundle, also.
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 4/6/2006 12:05:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splicing
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> Anything wrong with using machined pins for splicing 20-22AWG wires with a
> heatshrink cover? Just seems neater and quicker than soldering or butt
> splices..
It works great. I learned that trick from Bob here on this
list, or in his book - I can't recall which. It's a bit more
expensive than soldering, but much faster and neater.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Small wire splicing |
Here's a new comic book on the topic and technique . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Bob . . .
>
>
>Another thing I like is that integrity of the joint is easily checked if you
>use clear shrink... Saves room if in a bundle, also.
>
>Jerry Cochran
>
>
>In a message dated 4/6/2006 12:05:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
March 21, 2006 - April 06, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fo