AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fw
July 15, 2006 - July 24, 2006
end on the center conductor. You should measure an open from center conductor
to shield. And you should measure a short from end to end on the outer
shield of the fittings. It sounds like you may have a bad (loose) connection.
The 50 ohms refers to the high frequency characteristic impedance of the cable.
That is the ratio of voltage to current in the cable is (or should be) 50
ohms while it is conducting RF.
Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from radio
shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a spare
comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna with
the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if makes
any difference at all.
Forget trying to use the 800 MHz antenna on the VHF Aircraft Band -- not a
good idea at all.
Any ideas from the list?
I recommend finding a ham operator with an MFJ-259B or similar type
instrument that will measure the SWR of your antenna system. That is, check out
your
feedline and antenna. Try to determine if the antenna is OK then check
antenna and feedline together, etc.
Make sure the antenna is grounded to the aircraft skin by measuring from the
coax fitting with the coax disconnected to the skin with a DC ohmmeter. You
should measure a short.
Hope this helps,
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
In a message dated 7/15/2006 10:05:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of post install
test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand held and it seemed
fine at the time...
It seems to me like I had to put some star washers between the antenna and
skin to make connection there. The antenna must be grounded to the aircraft
skin.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
Lucky,
I'm don't know the definitive answer to your problems but here are a couple
thoughts. This problem will most certainly take some time and investigation
to solve.
Sounds like the radio is not transmitting at enough power. If this is
caused by a bad cable, it can be tested for continuity with a handheld
ohmmeter but will not be 58 ohms. The center conductor should read almost 0
ohms end to end. Also test it to see that there is NO conductivity
(infinite ohms) between the center conductor and the outer shield. Do these
tests with both ends disconnected from the radio and antenna. Repeat the
test for no continuity between the center and ground with the antenna
installed
If you need 2200uF and all you have is 4700uF, put two in series to yield
2350uF. This will get you closer.
If when you key the mic you get more strobe noise, most likely you are
getting noise introduced via the activated mic line or through the radio
itself. The mic wiring should be checked for proper isolation. Check to see
that the mic jacks are NOT grounded at the jack. Check to see that the mic
line is not run close and parallel to any wiring going to/from the strobe
power supply.
You might try to transmit with the same antenna and cable using a handheld
radio. If the range improves, then the Xcom radio is suspect. If the range
is the same, try the handheld with it's own antenna. If the handheld and
it's own antenna is better, there is likely a problem with the aircraft
antenna. Is the aircraft antenna on the belly or top?
I would think that these two problems are separate issues, but you never
know.
Bevan
RV7A finish kit.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:54 PM
I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are grounded with
the radio ground and even when I put power noise filters on. However, the
Radio Shack noise filters reference on Bob's web site were reported to me to
be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find locally
which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead of 2200 uF
like Radio Shack apparently was.
More specifically, the strobe noise is relatively faint until I select the
Push to Talk button. Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
there. Looking for ideas from this list.
Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference on the effectiveness
overall of the noise filter? It made no measurable difference regardless of
whether I installed it just before the radio or out at the strobe's power
supply just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even reversed
direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really bummed out
about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have made some
observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
2) The second overall problem is that the radio still is reported to me by
other pilots as weak when I get much beyond a couple of miles and breaks up
in the pattern a lot. I'm guessing it's because I can't put out enough
consistent power to break their squelch consistently. When on the actual
ground taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and another
airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground I seem to be just fine
for the relatively close distances I've tried even when the plane is inside
an open hangar and come in just as loud on the hand held as anyone else is.
It also doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on or not as
far as whether or not the range/strength improves. ie, even with them off
the lack of range doesn't improve.
I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of post
install test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand held and
it seemed fine at the time...
Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should the
center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My actual
reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying to
read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between the
center conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter so
I'm guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from radio
shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a spare
comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna
with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if
makes any difference at all.
Any ideas from the list?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
In a message dated 7/15/06 10:05:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
=========================================
Dear UN-Lucky:
Reading your post you seem to have answered your own questions. I have
inserted my comments within the body of your post. Please read on ...
> I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
yet.
> I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
>
> 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are grounded with
> the radio ground and even when I put power noise filters on. However, the
> Radio Shack noise filters reference on Bob's web site were reported to me
to
> be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find locally
> which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead of 2200
uF
> like Radio Shack apparently was.
- - - - - - - - - -
[Barry] - Strobe ground and Radio ground? I'm not sure what you are
referring to here. Can you elaborate a bit more?
BUT, if you are talking about using a SHIELDED wire as your ground ... The
shield should be grounded ONLY at the STROBE and you should use two conductor
and a shield wire.
As for the value of the capacitor, in 99.9% of the noise cases concerning a
DC circuit [our planes] the bigger the value the better. I really doubt if the
filter was designed ONLY for a specific frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
>
> More specifically, the strobe noise is relatively faint until I select the
> Push to Talk button. Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
there.
> Looking for ideas from this list.
- - - - - - - - - - -
[Barry] Yup, sure sounds like the Ground for the PTT is the same Ground for
the Strobe. Here is where a problem may exist. Reading from either side of
the PTT to ground should NOT show continuity. This is a general statement, each
radio may be different but you would want to check this out and make sure the
PTT runs all the way back to the radio and NOT to A/C ground.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference on the effectiveness
> overall of the noise filter? It made no measurable difference regardless
of
> whether I installed it just before the radio or out at the strobe's power
> supply just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even reversed
> direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really bummed out
> about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have made some
> observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
- - - - - - - - - -
[Barry] - QUESTIONS:
How many leads does the filter have?
What are they labeled?
Most filters will have three of four leads. They may be: (4 lead) Pos & Neg
INPUT with Pos & Neg OUTPUT. Or, (3 lead) Pos & Neg INPUT with a Pos OUTPUT
{common Ground/Neg}.
The filter should go ON the device that is making the noise ... STROBE.
But, you have to go back and check how you hooked up the GROUNDS.
I'm betting that:
1 - The filter is not right next to the strobe.
2 - The power leads are not shielded.
3 - The ground goes all the way back to the area of the radios.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> 2) The second overall problem is that the radio still is reported to me
by
> other pilots as weak when I get much beyond a couple of miles and breaks up
> in the pattern a lot. I'm guessing it's because I can't put out enough
> consistent power to break their squelch consistently. When on the actual
> ground taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and another
> airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
>
> When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground I seem to be just fine
> for the relatively close distances I've tried even when the plane is inside
> an open hangar and come in just as loud on the hand held as anyone else is.
> It also doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on or not as
> far as whether or not the range/strength improves. ie, even with them off
> the lack of range doesn't improve.
>
> I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
> difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of post
> install test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand held and
> it seemed fine at the time...
- - - - - - - - - - - -
[Barry] - What kind of antenna are you using and where is it mounted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should
the
> center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My actual
> reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying to
> read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between the
center
> conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter so I'm
> guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
>
> Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from
radio
> shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a spare
> comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna
> with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if
> makes any difference at all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Barry] - YOU just answered your own question. The RESISTANCE of a COAX when
disconnected from both ends should read OPEN _ INFINITY between center
conductor and shield. It should read SHORT_ ZERO between one end shield and the
other end shield. It should also read SHORT_ ZERO between one end center
conductor to other end center conductor.
As for the COAX, RG-400 is 75 ohm impeadance cable it is also a quad shield
cable a VERY good cable but not suited for our needs. We should be using RG-58
or RG-58A/U. It works for us very well. Oh, notice I used the term
IMPEDANCE. This is an AC resistance and is NOT measured with an OHM Meter.
Concerning the RG-800 .... I am not familiar with it. RG-58 is what you need
to use.
As for the Radio Shack (Real $hit) pre-made COAX stay away from it. I have
seen so many problems in their assembly, wrong coax, poor connections and
CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
My answers and corrections to your wrong guesses/assumptions below:
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> In a message dated 7/15/06 10:05:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
> ==========================================
> Dear UN-Lucky:
>
> Reading your post you seem to have answered your own questions. I have
> inserted my comments within the body of your post. Please read on ...
>
>
> > I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
> yet.
> > I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
> >
> > 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are grounded with
> > the radio ground and even when I put power noise filters on. However, the
> > Radio Shack noise filters reference on Bob's web site were reported to me
> to
> > be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find locally
> > which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead of 2200
> uF
> > like Radio Shack apparently was.
> - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - Strobe ground and Radio ground? I'm not sure what you are
> referring to here. Can you elaborate a bit more?
Lucky: My 2 strobe power supplies are installed at the wing tip and grounded to
the wing spar locally. Moving the grounds to back in the area where the rest
of my electronics were grounded including the XCOM radio didn't have any affect.
Also, disconnecting one strobe's power supply at a time didn't show that just one
was the culprit. They were both equal contributors. Installing the audio
noise filters out at the wing tips on the 14vdc input line just prior to the strobe
power supply had no affect. Installing one of those audio noise filters
(a plastic box with an inductor and a capacitor) on the 14vdc input line to the
xcom radio itself also had no affect.
BTW, after I originally bought and installed the Xcom radio, they revised their
drawing and FAQ section to REQUIRE owners install a 22,000 uF cap betwee the
xcom and it's power source near the radio. I didn't do that. Couldn't locally
find such cap.
> BUT, if you are talking about using a SHIELDED wire as your ground ... The
> shield should be grounded ONLY at the STROBE and you should use two conductor
> and a shield wire.
> As for the value of the capacitor, in 99.9% of the noise cases concerning a
> DC circuit [our planes] the bigger the value the better. I really doubt if the
> filter was designed ONLY for a specific frequency
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the wiring to the
strobes was shielded or not. I'll check on that today to see if I or Van's
made a mistake because there is NO evidence shielded wiring was used for the strobe
power supply. It's been a long time since I hooked that up originally and
haven't looked at that angle yet so details are very fuzzy. The noise filter
was marketed to address noise introduced into radios when the car's engine RPM
is increased. But pulling its case open revealed it's just the same 3 wire
setup that Radio Shack was selling for while but with a different cap rating.
> -------------
> >
> > More specifically, the strobe noise is relatively faint until I select the
> > Push to Talk button. Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
> there.
> > Looking for ideas from this list.
> - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] Yup, sure sounds like the Ground for the PTT is the same Ground for
> the Strobe. Here is where a problem may exist. Reading from either side of
> the PTT to ground should NOT show continuity. This is a general statement, each
> radio may be different but you would want to check this out and make sure the
> PTT runs all the way back to the radio and NOT to A/C ground.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: I'll check it out today. The original PTT switch came pre-wired with the
radio harness but I cut it off to use a different switch already installed
in my grip but just mirrored the pre-made setup.
> >
> > Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference on the effectiveness
> > overall of the noise filter? It made no measurable difference regardless
> of
> > whether I installed it just before the radio or out at the strobe's power
> > supply just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even reversed
> > direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really bummed out
> > about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have made some
> > observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
> - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - QUESTIONS:
> How many leads does the filter have?
> What are they labeled?
> Most filters will have three of four leads. They may be: (4 lead) Pos & Neg
> INPUT with Pos & Neg OUTPUT. Or, (3 lead) Pos & Neg INPUT with a Pos OUTPUT
> {common Ground/Neg}.
> The filter should go ON the device that is making the noise ... STROBE.
> But, you have to go back and check how you hooked up the GROUNDS.
> I'm betting that:
> 1 - The filter is not right next to the strobe.
> 2 - The power leads are not shielded.
> 3 - The ground goes all the way back to the area of the radios.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: Filter has 3 leads. A postive IN, a Positive OUT and a ground lead coming
from the same physical side off the box as the Positive OUT lead. It was
installed literally adjacent to the strobes power supply's input voltage matching
the filter's instructions with no affect and I reversed the filters Positive
In/Out leads just for grins but again it made zero difference. I put in on
just before the radio too and it also made no difference. The directions that
came with it were assuming you were going to install it between a car radio
and it's input voltage to clean up the input voltage. Not somewhere else near
the actual source of "noise".
> -
> > 2) The second overall problem is that the radio still is reported to me
> by
> > other pilots as weak when I get much beyond a couple of miles and breaks up
> > in the pattern a lot. I'm guessing it's because I can't put out enough
> > consistent power to break their squelch consistently. When on the actual
> > ground taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and another
> > airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
> >
> > When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground I seem to be just fine
> > for the relatively close distances I've tried even when the plane is inside
> > an open hangar and come in just as loud on the hand held as anyone else is.
>
> > It also doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on or not as
> > far as whether or not the range/strength improves. ie, even with them off
> > the lack of range doesn't improve.
> >
> > I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
> > difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of post
> > install test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand held and
> > it seemed fine at the time...
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - What kind of antenna are you using and where is it mounted?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's one of the bent which antennas that Van's sells. Don't remember the brand.
Will look it over again today.
> -------
> > Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should
> the
> > center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My actual
> > reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying to
> > read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between the
> center
> > conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter so I'm
> > guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
> >
> > Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from
> radio
> > shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a spare
> > comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna
> > with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if
> > makes any difference at all.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - YOU just answered your own question. The RESISTANCE of a COAX when
> disconnected from both ends should read OPEN _ INFINITY between center
> conductor and shield. It should read SHORT_ ZERO between one end shield and the
> other end shield. It should also read SHORT_ ZERO between one end center
> conductor to other end center conductor.
> As for the COAX, RG-400 is 75 ohm impeadance cable it is also a quad shield
> cable a VERY good cable but not suited for our needs. We should be using RG-58
> or RG-58A/U. It works for us very well. Oh, notice I used the term
> IMPEDANCE. This is an AC resistance and is NOT measured with an OHM Meter.
> Concerning the RG-800 .... I am not familiar with it. RG-58 is what you need
> to use.
Lucky: RG-800? Why did you bring that up? Also, I think RG-400 is RF the same
as RG-58 but better shielded as you point out and it should be superior to RG-58
if cable flexibility isn't an issue. It should NOT be the problem BUT I
threw out using RS pre-made RG-58 just to rule out some manufactering/fabrication
of the pre-made RG-400 cables.
Thanks for the ideas and feedback,
Lucky
> As for the Radio Shack (Real $hit) pre-made COAX stay away from it. I have
> seen so many problems in their assembly, wrong coax, poor connections and
> CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
>
> NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
>
>
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My answers and corrections to your wrong guesses/assumptions below:
<P>-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com <BR><BR>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/15/06 10:05:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>
luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
> ==========================================
> Dear UN-Lucky:
>
> Reading your post you seem
to have answered your own questions. I have
> inserted my comments within
the body of your post. Please read on ...
>
>
> > I
have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
>
yet.
> > I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
> >
> > 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when
they are grounded with
> > the radio ground and even when I put power
noise filters on. However, the
> > Radio Shack noise filters reference
on Bob's web site were reported to me
>
to > > be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find
locally
> > which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF
instead of 2200
> uF
> > like Radio Shack apparently was.
>
- - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - Strobe ground and Radio ground?
I'm not sure what you are
> referring to here. Can you elaborate a bit
more?
Lucky: My 2 strobe power supplies are installed at the wing tip and grounded
to the wing spar locally. Moving the grounds to back in the area
where the rest of my electronics were grounded including the XCOM radio didn't
have any affect.
Also, disconnecting one strobe's power supply at a time didn't show that just
one was the culprit. They were both equal contributors. Installing
the audio noise filters out at the wing tips on the 14vdc input line just prior
to the strobe power supply had no affect. Installing one of those audio
noise filters (a plastic box with an inductor and a capacitor) on the 14vdc input
line to the xcom radio itself also had no affect.
BTW, after I originally bought and installed the Xcom radio, they revised their
drawing and FAQ section to REQUIRE owners install a 22,000 uF cap betwee the
xcom and it's power source near the radio. I didn't do that. Couldn't
locally find such cap.
> BUT, if you are talking about using a SHIELDED wire as your ground
... The
> shield should be grounded ONLY at the STROBE and you should use
two conductor
> and a shield wire.
> As for the value of the
capacitor, in 99.9% of the noise cases concerning a
> DC circuit [our planes]
the bigger the value the better. I really doubt if the
> filter
was designed ONLY for a specific frequency
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the wiring
to the strobes was shielded or not. I'll check on that today to see if
I or Van's made a mistake because there is NO evidence shielded wiring
was used for the strobe power supply. It's been a long time since I hooked
that up originally and haven't looked at that angle yet so details are very
fuzzy. The noise filter was marketed to address noise introduced into radios
when the car's engine RPM is increased. But pulling its case open revealed
it's just the same 3 wire setup that Radio Shack was selling for while
but with a different cap rating.
> -------------
> >
> > More specifically, the strobe
noise is relatively faint until I select the
> > Push to Talk button.
Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
> there.
>
> Looking for ideas from this list.
> - - - - - - - - - - -
>
[Barry] Yup, sure sounds like the Ground for the PTT is the same Ground for
> the Strobe. Here is where a problem may exist. Reading from either
side of
> the PTT to ground should NOT show continuity. This is a general
statement, each
> radio may be different but you would want to check
this out and make sure the
> PTT runs all the way back to the radio and
NOT to A/C ground.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: I'll check it out today. The original PTT switch came pre-wired
with the radio harness but I cut it off to use a different switch already
installed in my grip but just mirrored the pre-made setup.
> >
> > Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference
on the effectiveness
> > overall of the noise filter? It made
no measurable difference regardless
> of
> > whether I installed
it just before the radio or out at the strobe's power
> > supply
just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even reversed
> >
direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really bummed out
>
> about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have made
some
> > observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
>
- - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - QUESTIONS:
> How many leads
does the filter have?
> What are they labeled?
> Most filters
will have three of four leads. They may be: (4 lead) Pos & Neg
>
INPUT with Pos & Neg OUTPUT. Or, (3 lead) Pos & Neg INPUT with a Pos OUTPUT
> {common Ground/Neg}.
> The filt
er sho
uld go ON the device that is making the noise ... STROBE.
> But, you have
to go back and check how you hooked up the GROUNDS.
> I'm betting that:
> 1 - The filter is not right next to the strobe.
> 2 - The power
leads are not shielded.
> 3 - The ground goes all the way back to
the area of the radios.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky: Filter has 3 leads. A postive IN, a Positive OUT and a ground
lead coming from the same physical side off the box as the Positive OUT lead.
It was installed literally adjacent to the strobes power supply's input
voltage matching the filter's instructions with no affect and I reversed
the filters Positive In/Out leads just for grins but again it made zero difference.
I put in on just before the radio too and it also made no difference.
The directions that came with it were assuming you were going to install
it between a car radio and it's input voltage to clean up the input voltage.
Not somewhere else near the actual source of "noise".
> -
> > 2) The second overall problem is that the radio still
is reported to me
> by
> > other pilots as weak when I get
much beyond a couple of miles and breaks up
> > in the pattern a lot.
I'm guessing it's because I can't put out enough
> > consistent power
to break their squelch consistently. When on the actual
> > ground
taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and another
>
> airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
> >
> > When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground
I seem to be just fine
> > for the relatively close distances I've
tried even when the plane is inside
> > an open hangar and come in
just as loud on the hand held as anyone else is.
>
> > It also
doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on or not as
>
> far as whether or not the range/strength improve
s. ie,
even with them off
> > the lack of range doesn't improve.
> >
> > I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it
made no
> > difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do
any kind of post
> > install test besides checking it out with my
comm radio and a hand held and
> > it seemed fine at the time...
>
- - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Barry] - What kind of antenna are you
using and where is it mounted?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's one of the bent which antennas that Van's sells. Don't remember the
brand. Will look it over again today.
> -------
> > Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made
RG-400 cables. What should
> the
> > center conductor's resistance
read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My actual
> > reading bounces
all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying to
> > read
it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between the
> center
> > conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter
so I'm
> > guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
>
>
> > Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58
cable from
> radio
> > shack and try it instead of the RG-400
cables. Also, I don't have a spare
> > comm antenna but I think RS
carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna
> > with the right BNC
connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if
> > makes
any difference at all.
> - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
- -
> [Barry] - YOU just answered your own question. The RESISTANCE of
a COAX when
> disconnected from both ends should read OPEN _ INFINITY between
center
> conductor and shield. It should read SHORT_ ZERO between
one end shield and the
> other end shield. It should also read SHORT_
ZERO between one end center
> conductor to other end center conductor.
> As for the COAX, RG-400 is 75 ohm impeadance cable it is also a quad
shield
> cable a VERY good cable but not suited for our needs. We should
be using RG-58
> or RG-58A/U. It works for us very well. Oh, notice
I used the term
> IMPEDANCE. This is an AC resistance and is NOT measured
with an OHM Meter.
> Concerning the RG-800 .... I am not familiar with
it. RG-58 is what you need
> to use.
Lucky: RG-800? Why did you bring that up? Also, I think RG-400
is RF the same as RG-58 but better shielded as you point out and it should
be superior to RG-58 if cable flexibility isn't an issue. It should NOT
be the problem BUT I threw out using RS pre-made RG-58 just to rule out some
manufactering/fabrication of the pre-made RG-400 cables.
Thanks for the ideas and feedback,
Lucky
atroni
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak |
Hi Barry
My references indicate that RG-400 and RG-58 are both 50 ohm coax and
that RG-400 is lower loss and preferable ??
Ken
snip
>As for the COAX, RG-400 is 75 ohm impeadance cable it is also a quad shield
>cable a VERY good cable but not suited for our needs. We should be using RG-58
>or RG-58A/U. It works for us very well. Oh, notice I used the term
>IMPEDANCE. This is an AC resistance and is NOT measured with an OHM Meter.
>Concerning the RG-800 .... I am not familiar with it. RG-58 is what you need
>to use.
>As for the Radio Shack (Real $hit) pre-made COAX stay away from it. I have
>seen so many problems in their assembly, wrong coax, poor connections and
>CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
>
>NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
-------------- Original message --------------
In a message dated 7/15/2006 10:05:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, luckymacy(at)comcast.net
writes:
Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should the center
conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My actual reading
bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying to read it.
Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between the center conductor
and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter so I'm guessing the plugs
were installed correctly.
No, with a DC meter the cable should read very low resistance from end to end on
the center conductor. You should measure an open from center conductor to shield.
And you should measure a short from end to end on the outer shield of
the fittings. It sounds like you may have a bad (loose) connection. The 50 ohms
refers to the high frequency characteristic impedance of the cable. That
is the ratio of voltage to current in the cable is (or should be) 50 ohms while
it is conducting RF.
Lucky: Yep, what was I thinking when I wrote that. The resistance from tip to
tip is basically zero and both sides off the cable show open between the center
conductor's tip and the shield.
Also, I mention using this cable not because it should work well but to use ANY
antenna temporarily that's isolated from the airframe to help in figuring out
of the current one is part of the problem.
Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from radio shack
and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a spare comm antenna
but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna with the right
BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if makes any difference
at all.
Forget trying to use the 800 MHz antenna on the VHF Aircraft Band -- not a good
idea at all.
Any ideas from the list?
I recommend finding a ham operator with an MFJ-259B or similar type instrument
that will measure the SWR of your antenna system. That is, check out your feedline
and antenna. Try to determine if the antenna is OK then check antenna and
feedline together, etc.
Make sure the antenna is grounded to the aircraft skin by measuring from the coax
fitting with the coax disconnected to the skin with a DC ohmmeter. You should
measure a short.
Hope this helps,
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/15/2006 10:05:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, luckymacy(at)comcast.net
writes:
Instead
of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should
the center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right?
My actual reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in trying
to read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short between
the center conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a multimeter
so I'm guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
No, with a DC meter the cable should read very low resistance from end to
end on the center conductor. You should measure an open from center conductor
to shield. And you should measure a short from end to end on the outer
shield of the fittings. It sounds like you may have a bad (loose) connection.
The 50 ohms refers to the high frequency characteristic impedance
of the cable. That is the ratio of voltage to current in the cable
is (or should be) 50 ohms while it is conducting RF.
Lucky: Yep, what was I thinking when I wrote that. The resistance
from tip to tip is basically zero and both sides off the cable show open between
the center conductor's tip and the shield.
Also, I mention using this cable not because it should work well but to use
ANY antenna temporarily that's isolated from the airframe to help in figuring
out of the current one is part of the problem.
Things
I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from
radio shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have
a spare comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner antenna
with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just to see if
makes any difference at all.
Forget trying to use the 800 MHz antenna on the VHF Aircraft Band -- not a
good idea at all.
Any
ideas from the list?
I recommend finding a ham operator with an MFJ-259B or similar type instrument
that will measure the SWR of your antenna system. That is, check out
your feedline and antenna. Try to determine if the antenna is OK then
check antenna and feedline together, etc.
Make sure the antenna is grounded to the aircraft skin by measuring from the
coax fitting with the coax disconnected to the skin with a DC ohmmeter.
You should measure a short.
Hope this helps,
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tomcostanza(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Landing lights & relays |
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag flashing of
landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off, wig-wag, landing,
taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3 toggle switches and
a complicated switch operation. Using transistors would lower the voltage at
the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the issue further, I have wingtip landing
and taxi lights (1 landing and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using
relays would solve my problems, but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag flashing
of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3 toggle
switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors would lower the
voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the issue further, I have
wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights
total. Using relays would solve my problems, but I don't know the longevity
of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duane Wilson <aaa(at)pacifier.com> |
| Subject: | Hall effect amp meter telling the truth? |
I have a Hall effect current sensor hooked up to my GRT EIS-4000. I
have set the parameters in the EIS as stated on the instillation sheet
for the Hall effect sensor.
When I turn on my 2 GRT Horizon 1 displays, my Val avionics VOR, Garmin
300XL, transponder (standby) and panel lights I get a reading of about
.6 on the EIS.
This seems low to me. How can I verify the current draw. I don't have
an amp meter.
Duane Wilson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | VM1000 light system failure |
Fellow listers,
Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying to
remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might cause the
failure mode sooooo........
Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
Pin 22 has continuity to ground
These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
least getting to the DPU.
Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
display?
I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their response.........
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Burson <n821x(at)yahoo.com> |
I noticed the old figure Z-7 for the Rotax 912 installation has been replaced
by figure Z-16. I've had my Rans S7 flying for over 200 hours and was wondering
if I should make the changes to my system to update it to the new schematic?
Was there a problem with the old figure Z-7?
Mike
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 15, 2006, at 9:54 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to
> completion yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made
> harness.
>
> 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are
> grounded with the radio ground and even when I put power noise
> filters on. However, the Radio Shack noise filters reference on
> Bob's web site were reported to me to be no longer carried by
> them. So I used the only ones I could find locally which were sold
> by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead of 2200 uF like
> Radio Shack apparently was.
Make sure your mic and headphone jacks are insulated from the
airframe. Use fiber insulating washers between the jack and the panel.
The 4700 uF cap is fine as it will have about twice the filtering of
a 2200 uF cap. OTOH, if all your filter is is a capacitor, it will
have almost no effect. You also need a choke in series with the power
lead like this:
fuseblock ---------[choke]----+-------->[radio]
|
[capacitor]
|
v
ground
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
Tom,
One way to look at this is that if landing/taxi lights (nor wig/wag) are
not required for night flight, so what does it matter if the relay
fails? One landing without the benefit of them? I would just get a
quality relay and let the longevity concern take care of itself - don't
plan to do much night flying anyway.
Do you preflight check all the lights and wig/wag function? (This is
rhetorical. If not, then how do you not know whether a light has burned
out, a more likely event that losing a relay, I think. I would check
light function only if I thought I would have the potential to use them
during a flight. Obviously, if you use wig-wag as a safety feature
during normal flights, one would check proper operation before takeoff.)
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: tomcostanza(at)comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, 16 July, 2006 6:53
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Landing lights & relays
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the
issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1
taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my problems,
but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
Not sure how many lights you have Tom. I have a landing light and a taxi
light in both wingtips. Four lamps total. One toggle switch turns on
both landing lights. Another toggle switch turns on both taxi lights. A
third toggle switch selects whether the two taxi lights stay on steady
or wig wag when the taxi lights are on. No relays, diodes, or
transistors. Common cheap toggle switches and an off the shelf cheap
automotive mechancal flasher (OK I guess there is a relay inside the
flasher ;) Seemed pretty simple to me. For daytime operation all I
ever touch is the taxi light switch.
Ken
tomcostanza(at)comcast.net wrote:
> What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
> flashing of landing lights?
>
> I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
> wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
> toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
> would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse
> the issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing
> and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my
> problems, but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Costanza
>
> RV-7A Fuselage
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect amp meter telling the truth? |
Hi Duane
The stuff you mentioned doesn't draw much so it might be OK but I do
seem to recall having to tweak the settings to get mine to read
accurately. Best way is a cheap digital meter as I've seen ones that
will read 10 amps for under $10. You almost have to have something like
that in your bag of tools anyway. For a gross check within 10 or 20%
how about connecting up something with a known resistance or current
draw like perhaps a landing light?
Ken.
Duane Wilson wrote:
>
> I have a Hall effect current sensor hooked up to my GRT EIS-4000. I
> have set the parameters in the EIS as stated on the instillation sheet
> for the Hall effect sensor.
>
> When I turn on my 2 GRT Horizon 1 displays, my Val avionics VOR,
> Garmin 300XL, transponder (standby) and panel lights I get a reading
> of about .6 on the EIS.
>
> This seems low to me. How can I verify the current draw. I don't
> have an amp meter.
>
> Duane Wilson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Manvel" <hmanvel(at)manvel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 light system failure |
I had one that failed and had to send it in to Vision and get the lighting
repaired. It still would light, but real dim. Not sure what caused it but
it's fixed now.
Harry Manvel
Defiant N2HM
PTK / Pontiac, MI
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:08 AM
>
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
> lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying
> to remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might
> cause the failure mode sooooo........
>
> Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
>
> Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
> Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
> Pin 22 has continuity to ground
>
> These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
> least getting to the DPU.
> Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
> display?
>
> I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their
> response.........
>
> Ralph Capen
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding lugs |
Ok, got the transponder info, now...
I am still wondering if I need to change out the 1/4" brass thru firewall
studs put in by Lancair. I am using #2 welding cable for the batteries. If
I've done the calculations correctly the diameter of AWG2 is .27", just
slightly more than 1/4". Would that .02 require going to 5/16" studs?
Thanks to all who jumped in on the transponder part of the question.
>
>
> > > Second question regards the transmission of the transponder
> > > signal. Does the signal rediate from the shaft and the ball or
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding lugs |
My mistake, They are steel not brass...
On 7/16/06, John McMahon wrote:
>
> Ok, got the transponder info, now...
>
> I am still wondering if I need to change out the 1/4" brass thru firewall
> studs put in by Lancair. I am using #2 welding cable for the batteries. If
> I've done the calculations correctly the diameter of AWG2 is .27", just
> slightly more than 1/4". Would that .02 require going to 5/16" studs?
>
> Thanks to all who jumped in on the transponder part of the question.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Second question regards the transmission of the transponder
> > > > signal. Does the signal rediate from the shaft and the ball or
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> John McMahon
> Lancair Super ES, N9637M
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding lugs |
In a message dated 7/16/2006 5:18:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
blackoaks(at)gmail.com writes:
Ok, got the transponder info, now...
I am still wondering if I need to change out the 1/4" brass thru firewall
studs put in by Lancair. I am using #2 welding cable for the batteries. If
I've done the calculations correctly the diameter of AWG2 is .27", just
slightly more than 1/4". Would that .02 require going to 5/16" studs?
Thanks to all who jumped in on the transponder part of the question.
John,
No, It doesn't make any difference. Even steel is OK. In fact brass is not
a very good conductor, believe it or not. It is much closer to steel than
to copper. There is not that much resistance in the short length we are
talking about. The main thing is a clean connection that won't corrode, and that
is mechanically strong enough that it is reliable.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding lugs |
On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:10 PM, John McMahon wrote:
> Ok, got the transponder info, now...
>
> I am still wondering if I need to change out the 1/4" brass thru
> firewall studs put in by Lancair. I am using #2 welding cable for
> the batteries. If I've done the calculations correctly the
> diameter of AWG2 is .27", just slightly more than 1/4". Would
> that .02 require going to 5/16" studs?
No. The existing 1/4" stud will work just fine. There is likely more
loss in the connection itself than in the resistance of the stud.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 light system failure |
Was it the display that failed or the DPU?
Thanks,
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:39 PM
>
>
> I had one that failed and had to send it in to Vision and get the lighting
> repaired. It still would light, but real dim. Not sure what caused it but
> it's fixed now.
> Harry Manvel
> Defiant N2HM
> PTK / Pontiac, MI
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:08 AM
>
>
>>
>>
>> Fellow listers,
>>
>> Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
>> lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying
>> to remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might
>> cause the failure mode sooooo........
>>
>> Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
>>
>> Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
>> Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
>> Pin 22 has continuity to ground
>>
>> These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
>> least getting to the DPU.
>> Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
>> display?
>>
>> I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their
>> response.........
>>
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tomcostanza(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
Doug,
That's reasonable as long as the relay doesn't go South every couple months.I don't
spend all my time replacing relays. The other concern was RFI.I also don't
want to listen to the lights flashing or have them interferewith navigation.
Thanks for the reply. If you have any further thoughts, I would be very interested.
Regards,Tom Costanza
Tom,
One way to look at this is that if landing/taxi lights (nor wig/wag) are
not required for night flight, so what does it matter if the relay
fails? One landing without the benefit of them? I would just get a
quality relay and let the longevity concern take care of itself - don't
plan to do much night flying anyway.
Do you preflight check all the lights and wig/wag function? (This is
rhetorical. If not, then how do you not know whether a light has burned
out, a more likely event that losing a relay, I think. I would check
light function only if I thought I would have the potential to use them
during a flight. Obviously, if you use wig-wag as a safety feature
during normal flights, one would check proper operation before takeoff.)
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: tomcostanza(at)comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, 16 July, 2006 6:53
Subject: Landing lights & relays
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the
issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1
taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my problems,
but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
Doug,
That's reasonable as long as the relay doesn't go
South every couple months.
I don't spend all my time replacing relays. The
other concern was RFI.
I also don't want to listen to the lights flashing
or have them interfere
with navigation.Thanks for the reply. If
you have any further thoughts, I would be very interested.Regards,
Tom
Costanza
Tom,
One way to look at this is that if landing/taxi lights (nor wig/wag) are
not required for night flight, so what does it matter if the relay
fails? One landing without the benefit of them? I would just get a
quality relay and let the longevity concern take care of itself - don't
plan to do much night flying anyway.
Do you preflight check all the lights and wig/wag function? (This is
rhetorical. If not, then how do you not know whether a light has burned
out, a more likely event that losing a relay, I think. I would check
light function only if I thought I would have the potential to use them
during a flight. Obviously, if you use wig-wag as a safety feature
during normal flights, one would check proper operation before takeoff.)
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <A href="mailto:tomcostanza(at)comcast.net?subject=Re:%20Landing%20lights%20&%20relays&replyto=004001c6a8f6$6e628790$6602a8c0@desktop">tomcostanza(at)comcast.net</A>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, 16 July, 2006 6:53
Subject: Landing lights & relays
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the
issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1
taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my problems,
but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
| From: | "Alex Balic" <alex157(at)pwhome.com> |
Anyone have any experience/ comments/ problems with the Blue Sea BatteryLink
ACR unit? www.bluesea.com Seems to be a good device to allow linking
up/charging of 2 batteries. But I am having trouble figuring out how it
could be included into the schematic utilizing the separate battery
contactors- I am thinking it might simply replace the cross feed contactor?
Anyone using one?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tomcostanza(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
Hi Ken,
That's the configuration I'll have. I started with that approach, but wanted to
keep the switch count to a minimum. I guess you pay your money and take your
choice. I ordered some spare bulbs and think I'll do an experiment and see
what happens.
Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Tom Costanza
Not sure how many lights you have Tom. I have a landing light and a taxi
light in both wingtips. Four lamps total. One toggle switch turns on
both landing lights. Another toggle switch turns on both taxi lights. A
third toggle switch selects whether the two taxi lights stay on steady
or wig wag when the taxi lights are on. No relays, diodes, or
transistors. Common cheap toggle switches and an off the shelf cheap
automotive mechancal flasher (OK I guess there is a relay inside the
flasher ;) Seemed pretty simple to me. For daytime operation all I
ever touch is the taxi light switch.
Ken
tomcostanza(at)comcast.net wrote:
> What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
> flashing of landing lights?
>
> I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
> wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
> toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
> would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse
> the issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing
> and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my
> problems, but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Costanza
>
> RV-7A Fuselage
>
Hi Ken,
That's the configuration I'll have. I started with that approach, but
wanted to keep the switch count to a minimum. I guess you pay your money
and take your choice. I ordered some spare bulbs and think I'll do an
experiment and see what happens.
Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Tom Costanza
Not sure how many lights you have Tom. I have a landing light and a taxi
light in both wingtips. Four lamps total. One toggle switch turns on
both landing lights. Another toggle switch turns on both taxi lights. A
third toggle switch selects whether the two taxi lights stay on steady
or wig wag when the taxi lights are on. No relays, diodes, or
transistors. Common cheap toggle switches and an off the shelf cheap
automotive mechancal flasher (OK I guess there is a relay inside the
flasher ;) Seemed pretty simple to me. For daytime operation all I
ever touch is the taxi light switch.
Ken
tomcostanza(at)comcast.net wrote:
> What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
> flashing of landing lights?
>
> I would like to use a rotary switch with
the f
ollowing pattern: off,
> wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise
I would need to use 3
> toggle switches and a complicated switch operation.
Using transistors
> would lower the voltage at the light by about
1.5 volts. To confuse
> the issue further, I have wingtip landing and
taxi lights (1 landing
> and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using
relays would solve my
> problems, but I don't know the longevity of the
relay.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
Tom Costanza
>
> RV-7A Fuselage
>
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BatteryLink ACR |
On Jul 16, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Alex Balic wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have any experience/ comments/ problems with the Blue Sea
> BatteryLink
> ACR unit? www.bluesea.com Seems to be a good device to allow linking
> up/charging of 2 batteries. But I am having trouble figuring out
> how it
> could be included into the schematic utilizing the separate battery
> contactors- I am thinking it might simply replace the cross feed
> contactor?
> Anyone using one?
I have installed them in boats for other people. Basically it
replaces your cross-feed contactor and parallels your batteries when
the bus voltage is above 13.5V indicating that the alternator is on-
line. Once the voltage drops to about 13V it drops out and separates
the batteries.
On a boat it is supposed to allow the charging of the engine-starting
battery and the house battery at the same time but isolating the
engine-starting battery once you are running on battery power to
prevent house loads from running the start battery down and
preventing you from starting your engine.
I prefer the AmplePower battery isolator eliminator. It is a DC/DC
converter that is designed to charge the start battery from the house
bank using a three-phase temperature-compensated charging regimen. It
keeps the start battery on a proper float charge to ensure it is
fully charged. The only problem is that it is limited to 5A draw but
that is not a limitation when just charging the start battery.
Of course, this is for a boat electrical system where it is normal to
run from battery power.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
I'll take a look at them next time I get out there and I think the mike and headphone
jacks are fitted correctly. If they weren't, wouldn't I have a problem
all the time? In fact, would they work at all? For example, even when using
the radio's internal VOX intercom system wouldn't I get a bad signal and wouldn't
there be a lot of noise from other components whey they are turned on? The
VOX works very well (except that when the strobes are on, yes, you hear them
loud and clear as well). I haven't noticed any other electrical component causing
a problem that's audible and the radio itself hasn't seemed to bother any
other electrical system.
Today I temporarily installed my ELTs antenna on my radio and it didn't help or
seem to hurt from what I could tell on the ground experimenting.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2006, at 9:54 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> >
> > I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to
> > completion yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made
> > harness.
> >
> > 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are
> > grounded with the radio ground and even when I put power noise
> > filters on. However, the Radio Shack noise filters reference on
> > Bob's web site were reported to me to be no longer carried by
> > them. So I used the only ones I could find locally which were sold
> > by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead of 2200 uF like
> > Radio Shack apparently was.
>
> Make sure your mic and headphone jacks are insulated from the
> airframe. Use fiber insulating washers between the jack and the panel.
>
> The 4700 uF cap is fine as it will have about twice the filtering of
> a 2200 uF cap. OTOH, if all your filter is is a capacitor, it will
> have almost no effect. You also need a choke in series with the power
> lead like this:
>
> fuseblock ---------[choke]----+-------->[radio]
> |
> [capacitor]
> |
> v
> ground
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'll take a look at them next time I get out there and I think the mike
and headphone jacks are fitted correctly. If they weren't, wouldn't
I have a problem all the time? In fact, would they work at all? For
example, even when using the radio's internal VOX intercom system wouldn't
I get a bad signal and wouldn't there be a lot of noise from other components
whey they are turned on? The VOX works very well (except that when the
strobes are on, yes, you hear them loud and clear as well). I haven't noticed
any other electrical component causing a problem that's audible and the
radio itself hasn't seemed to bother any other electrical system.
Today I temporarily installed my ELTs antenna on my radio and it didn't help
or seem to hurt from what I could tell on the ground experimenting.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Brian Lloyd
>
>
> On Jul 15,
2006, at 9:54 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> >
I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to
> > completion
yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made
> > harness.
> >
> > 1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even
when they are
> > grounded with the radio ground and even when I
put power noise
> > filters on. However, the Radio Shack noise filters
reference on
> > Bob's web site were reported to me to be no longer
carried by
> > them. So I used the only
ones I
could find locally which were sold
> > by Pep Boys and the capacitor
was 4700 uF instead of 2200 uF like
> > Radio Shack apparently was.
>
> Make sure your mic and headphone jacks are insulated from the
> airframe. Use fiber insulating washers between the jack and the panel.
>
> The 4700 uF cap is fine as it will have about twice the
filtering of
> a 2200 uF cap. OTOH, if all your filter is is a capacitor,
it will
> have almost no effect. You also need a choke in series with
the power
> lead like this:
>
> fuseblock ---------[choke]----+-------->[radio]
> |
> [capacitor]
> |
>
v
> ground
>
> 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 Sa
http:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
Lucky,
Did you check to see if the antenna ground is grounded to the skin?
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | braided bonding straps |
I know I can order these to a pre-set length, but I've removed probably 2.5'
of braid shield from some RG-58 and wondering what all I can do with it. I
know I can use attach a connector and use it as a circuit ground,
but I'm wondering if it will also work for some of these static charge
installations: aileron to wing, flap to wing, elevator to HS; and some of
the heftier installations: engine to firewall stud, battery negative post to
airframe, etc.
Rob Wright
RV-10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: microphone noise |
Thank you Charlie and Barry for your thoughts.
It seems that it is cockpit noise that the mic is picking up.
Interestingly I have a flighttech intercom which uses a hot mic and
processes the mic audio to remove the cockpit noise from the intercom.
That works well and there is no noise in the intercom. However when
transmitting, the mic signal (and noise) goes directly to the radio and
is transmitted regardless of whether the intercom is on or off..
Speaking loudly helps for the time being ;)
Ken
Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> Ken wrote:
>
>>
>> Good day.
>>
>> I've tried a couple of headsets but I have a lot of static whenever I
>> key the transmit button with the headset microphone plugged in. I can
>> hear it on my headset and it is being transmitted. No static if I key
>> it with the mic unplugged. So it would seem that the mic is picking
>> up cockpit noise. However clasping my hand over the boom mic or
>> changing its orientation does not change the static which seems to
>> suggest it is not cockpit noise. Any suggestions?
>>
>> This is an Icomm A-200 radio and an intercom but bypassing the
>> intercom with its "pilot/all" switch doesn't change anything. The
>> headset jacks are mounted in a plastic box. Separate shielded wires
>> are used for the mic and the earphones with the shields carrying the
>> grounds.
>>
>> thanks
>> Ken
>
>
> If you have a noisy cockpit, covering the mic with your hand probably
> won't make much difference.
>
> Is it electronic static or cockpit noise?
>
> Does it change in pitch with engine rpm? (ignition or alternator)
> Is it quiet it you key the mic with the master & all accessories on
> but without the engine running? (cockpit noise)
>
> If it's there with the engine & all other accessories off, you might
> have radio problems.
>
> If it's there but quieter & no pitch change with the engine idling,
> it's probably cockpit noise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: microphone noise |
Ken wrote:
>
> Thank you Charlie and Barry for your thoughts.
>
> It seems that it is cockpit noise that the mic is picking up.
> Interestingly I have a flighttech intercom which uses a hot mic and
> processes the mic audio to remove the cockpit noise from the intercom.
> That works well and there is no noise in the intercom. However when
> transmitting, the mic signal (and noise) goes directly to the radio
> and is transmitted regardless of whether the intercom is on or off..
> Speaking loudly helps for the time being ;)
>
> Ken
Check with the headset maker on whether the mic has a gain control
(usually a screwdriver-adjust miniature potentiometer in the mic
itself). Also ask the comm radio mfgr the same question; there may be a
mic amplifier gain control in the radio (also a screwdriver adjustment)
as well.
You can achieve better *system* signal to noise ratio by lowering the
mic gain & keeping it as close to your lips as possible. Lowering the
gain lowers the noise volume & keeping the mic close raises the signal
volume. Result: better system signal to noise ratio.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
This sounds like two separate problems. I wouldnt discount the fact that the strobe
noise heard in audio is coming from the 14V power supply to the comm.
The hint is in more noise heard when you xmit, but youre listening to sidetone,
not regular receive audio. That circuit (potentially part of what modulates
the RF signal when you talk) may be fed by a power-supply circuit within the XCOM
which is inadequately filtered. Nor is the power supply for receive all that
great either, as described.
So, add what XCOM forgot. A external filter needs an inductor (choke), in addition
to a capacitor, as explained by Brian. If the Pep Boys item has a choke,
it may not be adequate. A big capacitor alone cannot filter high-frequency or
sharp-spike noise too well, nor will value matter that much. I fixed a noisy
(via alternator) audio panel with a choke from a bunch of wound toroid cores
from a surplus electronic junk store. I used the one which worked best, probably
one with a lot of turns. Added a cap of arbitrary value (the one in the audio
panel wasnt very big), and all was well. Its possible a toroid donut is
superior to a big transformer-like choke, which I think Radio Shacks version was
like.
Antennas are reciprocal, and you dont say how well you receive. If you can receive
within spec, you can xmit. At around 3500 AGL, with reasonably flat terrain
in between, you should hear airliners gettin vectored down low at a big airport
about 100 miles away. Even 75 is passable, so then the problem is not in
coax or antenna. Leaving the XCOM as culprit on weak xmit.
RG-400 is 50-ohm, and will work fine. Though not superior enough (except longevity
in service) for fixing VHF problems.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47745#47745
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve James" <stevesrv7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Main bus wire feed |
I was reviewing the Z diagrams in Bob's book and am curious about the
circuit protection coming into the cockpit from the battery contactor. There
is an ANL fuse shown between the alternator and the batt contactor, but
there is no fuse on the (typically) 6 or 8 ga wire coming from the batt
contactor into the cockpit. What is the reason to not protect such a large
wire as it goes through the firewall? I'm sure Bob has thought this through,
I just don't know the reasoning behind it and am hoping someone here might
know. Thanks. Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
>
> NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
>
Why do you say that? You mean a soldered, and hex-nut BNC connector fashioned
by a homebuilder wil be better? On avg, don't think so.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47747#47747
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
luckymacy(at)comcast.net wrote:
> BTW, after I originally bought and installed the Xcom radio, they revised their
drawing and FAQ section to REQUIRE owners install a 22,000 uF cap betwee the
xcom and it's power source near the radio.
If Microair said that's a fix, they're admitting to bad design of the XCOM box.
At high freq, diminishing returns, that big, I propose. Simpler ways to fix.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47748#47748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak |
radio
Lucky,
It would be interesting to power the strobes from a separate battery with no
shared ground to isolate the path of noise source.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of europa
flugzeug fabrik
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:00 PM
radio
-->
luckymacy(at)comcast.net wrote:
> BTW, after I originally bought and installed the Xcom radio, they revised
their drawing and FAQ section to REQUIRE owners install a 22,000 uF cap
betwee the xcom and it's power source near the radio.
If Microair said that's a fix, they're admitting to bad design of the XCOM
box. At high freq, diminishing returns, that big, I propose. Simpler ways
to fix.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47748#47748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
In a message dated 7/16/06 8:11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
> Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the wiring
to
> the strobes was shielded or not.
=====================================
Lucky:
I think you found the problem. I say that because of the above statement
about the pre-made harness. If they are running the strobe's wires right along
side the wires for your other lights AND if they are not shielded then it would
be very easy for the other wires to pick up the noise from the strobes.
Try running a separate SHIELDED pair of wires and ground the shield ONLY at
the strobe. The shielded pair should have three wires ... B+. Neg and SHIELD.
The Neg is grounded at both ends, while the shield is only at the strobe. I
would still use the filter, just for S&Gs. Run the strobe wires away from the
other wires.
I have a similar strobe system as you with the power supplies. The strobes
mounted at the wing tips and tail; three power supplies. I found that there is
a small amount of noise from the tail strobe. I know I can get rid of it
with an RS type filter, but it is on a GA aircraft so I'm not allowed to use RS
or Lowe's aviation components ;-)
You did say you tried mounting the filter at each location, Strobe and Radio.
Another thing to check and I have not seen it mentioned is LEAD LENGTH. You
must keep the leads as short as possible between the filter and the strobe.
Still another trick you may want to try is to install a ferrite bead
(tolroid) on the B+ lead, close to the strobe.
Me still being a bit redundant, make sure you have extra clean ground
connections; aluminum is not a good material for electrical connections.
Well, beyond all the techniques and trick I mentioned in this post and my
other. My other offer would be ... Where are you located, maybe we could meet
up? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts I can solve your problem. I'd be glad to help.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: OFF TOPIC |
Hey Group:
Being a bit off topic I am in need of some Web Site information.
I am having problems with an engine driven ground bound device - 1999 Hyundai
Elantra and I'm looking for a Web Site half as good as this one that can
offer some help.
Would anyone have a site recordation?
Thanks for the assistance,
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak |
radio
In a message dated 7/17/06 12:00:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
n3eu(at)comcast.net writes:
> FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> > CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
> >
> > NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
> >
>
> Why do you say that? You mean a soldered, and hex-nut BNC connector
> fashioned by a homebuilder wil be better? On avg, don't think so.
>
> Fred F.
================================
Yup! Fred ... Soldered, Hex Nut BNC connector. As far as who fashions it
... Why not the homebuilder? After all the homebuilder was not born knowing
how to rivet, why not just learn how to do a proper BNC connection. They are
SOOooooo much better, water proof (or at least highly resistant), vibration
proof, dust proof and of course a damn good RF electrical connection. AND you
can
do a field repair on them. Can't do that on crimp crap.
The BNC was born out of the SO & PL fittings. It is better for maintaining
the impedance of the cable especially at low power VHF frequencies. The higher
power, higher frequency version is the Type N.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect amp meter telling the truth? |
Duane:
I have the same setup and it is dead on.
You reading does sound low but depending on the setting
of your EIS
How do you have the S.F. and offset set up? Write me and
I can help you double check the settings. You also need
to have sense and decimal setting correct. I assume you
are trying to read +/- current and have software version
45 or greater?
Some settings (+/- 50 or 100 amps) are designed for no
decimal, meaning resolution is 1 amp and there is no
decimal 1/10th in the display. I am curious to know
why you have 0.6 displayed? May be it is 6 amps?
The sensor is somewhere between 0.5% to 2%. which
should not cause that much difference.
You may need to adjust the Aux offset. You change it
2 at a time and must remain a odd number. I assume
it reads zero other wise with all devices off. (except the
master relay will draw about 0.60 amps alone)
I guess it is a setting issue and not a sensor issue.
I am wondering why you choose to route the battery
cable through the sensor and not the alternator b-lead?
Cheers George
>posted by: Duane Wilson
>
> I have a Hall effect current sensor hooked up to my GRT EIS-4000.
> I have set the parameters in the EIS as stated on the instillation
>sheet for the Hall effect sensor.
>
> When I turn on my 2 GRT Horizon 1 displays, my Val avionics VOR,
> Garmin 300XL, transponder (standby) and panel lights I get a reading
> of about .6 on the EIS.
>
> This seems low to me. How can I verify the current draw. I don't
> have an amp meter.
>
> Duane Wilson
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 16, 2006, at 9:25 PM, lucky wrote:
> I'll take a look at them next time I get out there and I think the
> mike and headphone jacks are fitted correctly. If they weren't,
> wouldn't I have a problem all the time? In fact, would they work at
> all?
Yes, but the problem of the grounded mic jacks is that noise from
other audio sources gets impressed on the mic audio.
> For example, even when using the radio's internal VOX intercom
> system wouldn't I get a bad signal and wouldn't there be a lot of
> noise from other components whey they are turned on? The VOX works
> very well (except that when the strobes are on, yes, you hear them
> loud and clear as well).
This is why I think you have a problem with your mic jacks being
grounded.
> I haven't noticed any other electrical component causing a problem
> that's audible and the radio itself hasn't seemed to bother any
> other electrical system.
Most other devices don't generate AC at audio frequencies in the
grounding system.
Solve the problem of the bad audio first. After you deal with that
and set the modulation levels correctly you can go from there.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
In a message dated 7/16/06 9:58:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tomcostanza(at)comcast.net writes:
> What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing
> of landing lights?
> I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag,
> landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3 toggle
switches
> and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors would lower the
voltage
> at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the issue further, I have
wingtip
> landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights total.
> Using relays would solve my problems, but I don't know the longevity of the
> relay.
> What are your thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Tom Costanza
> RV-7A Fuselage
===============================
Tom:
My thoughts:
1 - NO Rotary switch.
a> Cost
b> Why the cost? Because it would have to be a heavy duty silver plated
rotary switch.
c> Size probably would be large due to the current handling problem.
2 - Not easy to repair.
3 - If you have a failure on one contact you would have to replace the entire
rotary switch.
4 - You can do it with two toggle switches:
a> A three position switch ... OFF - LANDING LIGHTS - TAXI LIGHTS
When the Taxi lights come on the Landing Lights CAN go off. This would be up
to you and the current handling capability of the alternator.
b> Wig - Wag Switch.
4 - A relay type Wig - Wag system would work, BUT! ! ! You are introducing
a strong point for:
a> Failure - Lots of Opening and Closing of the relay
b> Lots of NOISE - Static, Lots of Opening and Closing of the relay points
causing small arcs.
c> You will need additional filtering and spark suppression for the relay
contacts.
d> You will need to install the relay using plug in sockets.
5 - I would go with a solid state system.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Electrical Systems For Vintage Aircraft |
Is it possible to add a full electrical system (alternator/generator, starter,
battery, lights, etc) to a vintage aircraft such as a Piper Cub, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
etc?
I am looking for a light sport aircraft, but I don't relish the idea of hand-propping
one by myself.
What is required for the FAA? If an STC, does it have to be for the engine, the
aircraft, or both?
Does anyone know of a shop that does this type of work that I could contact?
Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47786#47786
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:37 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/16/06 8:11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
>
>> Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the
>> wiring
> to
>> the strobes was shielded or not.
> =====================================
> Lucky:
>
> I think you found the problem. I say that because of the above
> statement
> about the pre-made harness. If they are running the strobe's wires
> right along
> side the wires for your other lights AND if they are not shielded
> then it would
> be very easy for the other wires to pick up the noise from the
> strobes.
> Try running a separate SHIELDED pair of wires and ground the shield
> ONLY at
> the strobe. The shielded pair should have three wires ... B+. Neg
> and SHIELD.
> The Neg is grounded at both ends, while the shield is only at the
> strobe. I
> would still use the filter, just for S&Gs. Run the strobe wires
> away from the
> other wires.
Barry, you keep making statements like this but I am not sure you
have really thought through what you are saying.
When you run two wires in parallel there are two coupling modes:
capacitive and inductive. When impedances are very high (it is
difficult to get current to flow) then capacitive coupling dominates.
When impedances are very low, as in power circuits, coupling is
inductive, with the current in one wire inducing a current in the
other wire by magnetic (inductive) coupling.
The problem with non-magnetic braid-type shielding is that it does
almost nothing for inductive coupling. The magnetic lines of force go
right through the shielding and induce currents in the shielded
conductor just as if the shield wasn't there. That is why shielding
on the alternator 'B' lead is useless to reduce noise. So you aren't
going to fix noise from your strobe power supply getting into your
other power wiring with a nonmagnetic shielding braid.
BTW, a shielding braid grounded at only one end is an electrostatic
shield and only works to reduce capacitive coupling.
If the problem is inductive coupling between wires there are only two
solutions:
1. separation;
2. the use of a magnetic shielding material like mu-metal.
If you have a severe inductive coupling problem and you can't get
separation you can get magnetic shielding braid and sheets to help
fix the problem. I used that to solve a problem with the motor in my
T&B affecting my compass in my RV-4.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak |
radio
On Jul 16, 2006, at 11:55 PM, europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
>
>
>
> FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>> CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
>>
>> NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
Crimped connectors on cables tend to be better than hand-constructed
and soldered cables. They last longer. A crimped connector with
adhesive heat-shrink over is just about the best, most long-lived
cable connection you can make. You learn stuff like this very quickly
on a boat.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Landing lights & relays |
I have used a three-position switch for: ON, wig-wag, OFF. This controlled a
$19 relay-type wig-wag from Gall's to drive two 100W bulbs. I have used this
for 4.5 yrs, 700 hrs. If it's hazy I leave the wig-wag on for the whole
flight, hours at a time. I have never had any noise, extra filters, and have
never replaced anything.
Kevin
RV-6A
RV-10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com [mailto:FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Landing lights & relays
>
>
> In a message dated 7/16/06 9:58:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tomcostanza(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> > What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
> flashing
> > of landing lights?
> > I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
> wig-wag,
> > landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3 toggle
> switches
> > and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors would lower the
> voltage
> > at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the issue further, I have
> wingtip
> > landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1 taxi on each wing) 4 lights
total.
> > Using relays would solve my problems, but I don't know the longevity of
the
> > relay.
> > What are your thoughts?
> > Thanks,
> > Tom Costanza
> > RV-7A Fuselage
> ===============================
> Tom:
>
> My thoughts:
> 1 - NO Rotary switch.
> a> Cost
> b> Why the cost? Because it would have to be a heavy duty silver plated
> rotary switch.
> c> Size probably would be large due to the current handling problem.
>
> 2 - Not easy to repair.
>
> 3 - If you have a failure on one contact you would have to replace the
entire
> rotary switch.
>
> 4 - You can do it with two toggle switches:
> a> A three position switch ... OFF - LANDING LIGHTS - TAXI LIGHTS
> When the Taxi lights come on the Landing Lights CAN go off. This would be
up
> to you and the current handling capability of the alternator.
> b> Wig - Wag Switch.
>
> 4 - A relay type Wig - Wag system would work, BUT! ! ! You are
introducing
> a strong point for:
> a> Failure - Lots of Opening and Closing of the relay
> b> Lots of NOISE - Static, Lots of Opening and Closing of the relay points
> causing small arcs.
> c> You will need additional filtering and spark suppression for the relay
> contacts.
> d> You will need to install the relay using plug in sockets.
>
> 5 - I would go with a solid state system.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Systems For Vintage Aircraft |
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible to add a full electrical system (alternator/
> generator, starter, battery, lights, etc) to a vintage aircraft
> such as a Piper Cub, Aeronca, Taylorcraft, etc?
Yes. The main cost will be weight.
>
> I am looking for a light sport aircraft, but I don't relish the
> idea of hand-propping one by myself.
>
> What is required for the FAA? If an STC, does it have to be for the
> engine, the aircraft, or both?
If the aircraft was certified with an electrical system at one time,
reference that. That should eliminate the need for an STC and will
probably make it with just a logbook entry by your A&P.
>
> Does anyone know of a shop that does this type of work that I could
> contact?
Why not do it yourself? Copy one that exists, get the blessing of the
FSDO, and then get an A&P to look over your shoulder.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise |
>
>
>
>luckymacy(at)comcast.net wrote:
> > BTW, after I originally bought and installed the Xcom radio, they
> revised their drawing and FAQ section to REQUIRE owners install a 22,000
> uF cap betwee the xcom and it's power source near the radio.
>
>If Microair said that's a fix, they're admitting to bad design of the XCOM
>box. At high freq, diminishing returns, that big, I propose. Simpler
>ways to fix.
I have written Xcom to inquire into the science behind the
external capacitor's benefits but received no reply. I'm
mystified as to the value or need. This is the first
time I've seen the manufacturer of any appliance require
power conditioning hardware be installed in addition to and
external of their product.
It does not speak well of the product's capabilities.
I'll drop them another note and see if I can get their
attention.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Main bus wire feed |
>I was reviewing the Z diagrams in Bob's book and am curious about the
>circuit protection coming into the cockpit from the battery contactor.
>There is an ANL fuse shown between the alternator and the batt contactor,
>but there is no fuse on the (typically) 6 or 8 ga wire coming from the
>batt contactor into the cockpit. What is the reason to not protect such a
>large wire as it goes through the firewall? I'm sure Bob has thought this
>through, I just don't know the reasoning behind it and am hoping someone
>here might know. Thanks. Steve
What risk is to be mitigated by adding such
protection?
There are numerous instances of "exposed" or seemingly
risky situations in configuring hardware. For example,
there's an invisible, fast moving, deadly body basher
on the nose of your airplane that will turn you into
hamburger in a heartbeat. Why don't we put a wire cage
around it to protect against such events?
The cost-benefit ratio study says that operationally
we can conduct due-diligence in making sure fragile
things don't get into the prop and therefore, the
weight and performance losses for protecting it are
of no practical value.
Okay, apply the same thinking to the piece of "un
protected" wire you've identified. Get out your hammer,
crowbar or any other favored instrument of force and
then look over the wire and it's terminating bus installation.
See if you can identify any piece of the airplane that
even MIGHT come against it such that there is risk
of a fault.
I believe you will find (as have many who have studied
this problem before us) that there are no risks associated
with leaving this wire unprotected beyond observing
due diligence in supporting the pieces so that vibration
or other motion does not compromise insulation.
Study the wiring diagrams for any production aircraft
and see if builders of those airplanes deduced any
risks that warranted the protection you've cited.
It's a good question. The answer is, "Risks associated
with this practice have been deduced by analysis and
proven by field experience to be insignificant."
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: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
I am considering adding LEDs to indicate which source signal is used by the
autopilot (S-Tec System 50). A rotary switch will select between 3 sources
(NAV/GS, NAV2, GPS). It might be a good idea to also use the same LEDs as
flags for the source in use (not just which source was selected but also if
the source is on/working). Sure, the indicators already have flags but it
is logical to have flags where the source selector is located.
I am using 2 KX-155s and KI 208/KI 209 indicators.
Has anyone done this? What signal are you using to make the LEDs act like
flags?
Thanks
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | VM1000 light system failure |
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Ralph E.
Capen"
7/17/2006
Hello Ralph, I went through a struggle with my VM 1000 instrument lighting.
I have VM instruments in addition to the main display. I won't bore you with
all the details but here are some of the essential elements.
1) The instrument lights require alternating current that is generated by a
small inverter inside the DPU. VM says to determine if this inverter is
running or not by listening for the hum. This never worked for me.
2) You can do a check on the electrical output of the inverter to the
lights. Disconnect the ribbon cable connector farthest from the DPU and
probe the last two sockets on the ribbon cable (opposite the Red striped
pin). You should have at least 89V AC (rms) across them with the unit
operating and the lights turned on.
3) Do this check very carefully. Use a couple pieces of the the smallest
size safety wire (0.020 diameter) to probe the sockets on the ribbon cable
so that you don't destroy the sockets. Probe only those two sockets which
are ground and the AC supply. If you happen to send the AC supply back to
the DPU on one of the other sockets you can damage the DPU. Don't ask how I
know this.
4) If it turns out that you are not getting the desired AC voltage across
these two sockets then you probably have one of three problems. Either the
inverter is not working, or the AC supply wire is broken, or the AC supply
wire is grounded out somewhere along the ribbon cable.
5) Before you pack up your DPU and send it off to VM for inverter repair you
can check out the ribbon cable. Remove the cable completely from the
aircraft and probe the sockets in the end connectors for the ground wire,
the AC supply wire, and the wire next to the AC supply wire separately to
ensure continuity and no cross connection. If all three wires check out OK
you probably have a failed inverter.
6) If the ribbon cable checks out bad you can get a replacement cable from
VM or you can buy the parts and make up a cable yourself. (Contact me for
parts identification.) In either case you will be required to fasten the
connectors onto the ribbon cable. Be careful about how you orient those
connectors so that they align properly with your DPU and instruments.
7) After ribbon cable assembly I would check out every single socket on
every connector for continuity and no cross talk before installing in
airplane.
8) VM, and particularly David McCluskey, are great people to do business
with. Please keep us informed on your progress.
OC
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
> lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying
> to
> remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might cause
> the
> failure mode sooooo........
>
> Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
>
> Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
> Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
> Pin 22 has continuity to ground
>
> These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
> least getting to the DPU.
> Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
> display?
>
> I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their
> response.........
>
> Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he can
talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other planes
on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach frequency and he
can hear and talk just fine to control. This has happened to him twice. I
his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 light system failure |
7/17/2006
Hello Ralph, Obtaining the right replacement ribbon cable and the proper
connecters was a little tricky because parts from the supplier to VM were
not available. Went out of business or was bought out. I did some research
and came up with equivalent parts from Mouser.
1) The 26 wire IDC (Insulation Displacement Connector) flat ribbon cable
made by 3M that could be bought by the foot was Mouser part number
517-3365/26FT. It was $1.65 per foot.
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=3365%2f26-CUT-LENGTHvirtualkey51750000
2) The socket type connectors were Mouser part number 571-7462856. They were
$1.18 each.
http://www.mouser.com/search/refine.aspx?Ntt=571-7462856
3) If you buy a replacement display cable from VM (cost $54) the connector
that goes onto the DPU is already installed and the wire folds back over
itself and that fold is held in place for strain relief by a little plastic
clip that slides onto the connectors in 2 above. That strain relief is
Mouser part number 571-499252-3. Costs about $0.20 each.
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=499252-3virtualkey57100000
Please keep us informed of your progress.
OC
PS: My problem started when one of the connectors on the original display
cable from VM had a hidden slight bend in one of the insulation displacement
prongs. When I squashed that connector into place on the cable at the proper
location for one of my VM instruments the prong went slightly sideways and
cross connected the AC supply wire for the lights and the ground wire.
Finding that problem and correcting it was difficult and expensive. (Could
have been even more expensive if not for the gracious help of VM). That is
why I recommend that after assembly every wire on every socket of that IDC
cable be checked on the bench for continuity and no cross connection before
the cable is installed in the airplane.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:16 PM
> OC,
>
> I'll take the part numbers for the ribbon cable and connectors , please.
>
> I'm guessing that they can be procured through digi-key/mouser/etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Coax connector technologies |
>
>In a message dated 7/17/06 12:00:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>n3eu(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> > FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> > > CRIMPS! You do not want a crimped coax.
> > >
> > > NO self-respecting RF Man will accept a CRIMPED coax.
> > >
> >
> > Why do you say that? You mean a soldered, and hex-nut BNC connector
> > fashioned by a homebuilder wil be better? On avg, don't think so.
> >
> > Fred F.
>================================
>Yup! Fred ... Soldered, Hex Nut BNC connector. As far as who fashions it
>... Why not the homebuilder? After all the homebuilder was not born knowing
>how to rivet, why not just learn how to do a proper BNC connection. They are
>SOOooooo much better, water proof (or at least highly resistant), vibration
>proof, dust proof and of course a damn good RF electrical connection. AND
>you can
>do a field repair on them. Can't do that on crimp crap.
>
>The BNC was born out of the SO & PL fittings. It is better for maintaining
>the impedance of the cable especially at low power VHF frequencies. The
>higher
>power, higher frequency version is the Type N.
We haven't use a solder-n-clampnut connector on a production
airplane in probably 25 years. I'll bet nobody on the production
line was sorry to see them go either. Ease of installation and
consistency of the electrical joints made it a no-brainer.
I keep some UG-88 clampnut connectors around to build adapters
and test tools. The wide open, threaded rear barrel is skunk-werks
friendly. But when putting a connector on a coax, wouldn't consider
anything other than crimped connectors.
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: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
>
>In a message dated 7/16/06 8:11:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>luckymacy(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> > Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the wiring
>to
> > the strobes was shielded or not.
>=====================================
>Lucky:
>
>I think you found the problem. I say that because of the above statement
>about the pre-made harness. If they are running the strobe's wires right
>along
>side the wires for your other lights AND if they are not shielded then it
>would
>be very easy for the other wires to pick up the noise from the strobes.
>Try running a separate SHIELDED pair of wires and ground the shield ONLY at
>the strobe. The shielded pair should have three wires ... B+. Neg and
>SHIELD.
>The Neg is grounded at both ends, while the shield is only at the strobe. I
>would still use the filter, just for S&Gs. Run the strobe wires away from
>the
>other wires.
>
>I have a similar strobe system as you with the power supplies. The strobes
>mounted at the wing tips and tail; three power supplies. I found that
>there is
>a small amount of noise from the tail strobe. I know I can get rid of it
>with an RS type filter, but it is on a GA aircraft so I'm not allowed to
>use RS
>or Lowe's aviation components ;-)
>
>You did say you tried mounting the filter at each location, Strobe and Radio.
> Another thing to check and I have not seen it mentioned is LEAD
> LENGTH. You
>must keep the leads as short as possible between the filter and the strobe.
>Still another trick you may want to try is to install a ferrite bead
>(tolroid) on the B+ lead, close to the strobe.
>Me still being a bit redundant, make sure you have extra clean ground
>connections; aluminum is not a good material for electrical connections.
>
>Well, beyond all the techniques and trick I mentioned in this post and my
>other. My other offer would be ... Where are you located, maybe we could
>meet
>up? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts I can solve your problem. I'd be glad
>to help.
>
>Barry
What is the nature of the noise? Whine from the power supply or
"popping" when the tubes fire? Have any noise isolation experiments
described in chapter 16 been conducted?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:16 AM, rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> I am considering adding LEDs to indicate which source signal is
> used by the
> autopilot (S-Tec System 50). A rotary switch will select between 3
> sources
> (NAV/GS, NAV2, GPS). It might be a good idea to also use the same
> LEDs as
> flags for the source in use (not just which source was selected but
> also if
> the source is on/working). Sure, the indicators already have flags
> but it
> is logical to have flags where the source selector is located.
> I am using 2 KX-155s and KI 208/KI 209 indicators.
>
> Has anyone done this? What signal are you using to make the LEDs
> act like
> flags?
A standard ARINC "flag" signal is a low-current bipolar (+/-) current
designed to drive a standard "flag" which is actually a meter
movement. The meter movement has a specific DC resistance (about 300
ohms as I recall) and the radio is supposed to source about 2mA to
flip the flag. (I am probably wrong about the exact number as I am
working from memory but I am in the ballpark.) The current is either
positive or negative depending on the sense of the flag. (BTW, the
flag resistances and currents are the same as for the CDI if I recall
correctly.)
Your GPS probably has a Nav Super Flag output. Basically this is a
generic good/bad signal and is probably what you want for this case.
Check your GPS's manual for the behavior of the Nav super flag for
your GPS. You can probably drive a LED directly with this signal.
The KX-155 is a bit more difficult. The VOR/LOC nav converter is in
the KI-208 or KI-209, not in the radio. You will have to steal the
signal from the indicator. I know the KI-208 or KI-209 have CDI
outputs but do they have flag outputs? (I don't recall -- it has been
a really long time since I have messed with those indicators.)
My guess is that you are going to have to cook up an amplifier
circuit to drive the LED without loading the flag driver circuit too
much.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brinker wrote:
> internet.com>
>
> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he
> can talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to
> other planes on that frequency. He can change over to the other
> approach frequency and he can hear and talk just fine to control.
> This has happened to him twice. I his radio possesed ? Can it be
> excersied ?
My guess would be a null in the antenna pattern in one direction.
Obviously the radio is receiving and transmitting. It could also be a
null off of ATC's transmitting antenna. I have had this happen to me
before too. Turning the airplane and/or getting to a different place
usually fixes the problem.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
I suggested to him that his altitude and placement from the
atc antenna might be the problem, but he explained to me that he did try it
from several radials and also when he was within sight of the airport.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:42 PM
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brinker wrote:
>
>> internet.com>
>>
>> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
>> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he can
>> talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other
>> planes on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach
>> frequency and he can hear and talk just fine to control. This has
>> happened to him twice. I his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
>
> My guess would be a null in the antenna pattern in one direction.
> Obviously the radio is receiving and transmitting. It could also be a
> null off of ATC's transmitting antenna. I have had this happen to me
> before too. Turning the airplane and/or getting to a different place
> usually fixes the problem.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:38 PM, rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> Brian, thanks
>
>>
> I know the KI-208 or KI-209 have CDI outputs but do they have flag
> outputs?
>>
> Not to my knowledge. This may not be easy to solve.
No. That would involve hacking the guts of the KI-209. I wouldn't do
that if it were mine.
BTW, the KX-165 has an internal VOR/LOC converter which is why it is
usually used for driving an HSI.
Nowadays you want to look for a NAV/COM that outputs the nav info in
ARINC-429 format. That means that instead of having to have two wires
for CDI, two wires for VDI, two wires for NAV flag, two wires for GS
flag, and 5 wires for OBS, you just need a data-out wire, a data-in
wire, and ground. It sure makes wiring the avionics stack a LOT easier.
>
> The GS flag ouput comes from the KX155 (if I recall correctly). It
> could be
> spliced into a hi-impedance amp for the led.
Yes, the GS receiver in the KX-155 has the converter built in and
just outputs nav-valid, CDI, and flag.
>
> The GPS is the lesser problem to tackle.
Right.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
Tom,
Keep in mind that I am not a proponent of relays in critical circuits. Having said
that, I would not be uncomfortable with your relay circuit proposal for your
system. The other thing I would look at is the consequences of the possible
failure modes.
It is not clear to me why you would think a relay would go belly up any more frequently
than a toggle switch. Junk is junk, but a quality relay should have a
similar reliability as a quality switch. Why you would expect more RFI in the
relay than in other circuit component? How would a relay interfer with navigation
or cause noise in your audio system? A relay is a switch which is electrically
activated. Do you have the same concerns about your battery contactors
(a relay) or starter relay?
I am using manual switches in my light system and am comfortable with that approach.
But I would not exclude or be uncomfortable with the use of relays in this
system either.
Regards, Doug
-------------- Original message --------------
Doug,
That's reasonable as long as the relay doesn't go South every couple months.I don't
spend all my time replacing relays. The other concern was RFI.I also don't
want to listen to the lights flashing or have them interferewith navigation.
Thanks for the reply. If you have any further thoughts, I would be very interested.
Regards,Tom Costanza
Tom,
One way to look at this is that if landing/taxi lights (nor wig/wag) are
not required for night flight, so what does it matter if the relay
fails? One landing without the benefit of them? I would just get a
quality relay and let the longevity concern take care of itself - don't
plan to do much night flying anyway.
Do you preflight check all the lights and wig/wag function? (This is
rhetorical. If not, then how do you not know whether a light has burned
out, a more likely event that losing a relay, I think. I would check
light function only if I thought I would have the potential to use them
during a flight. Obviously, if you use wig-wag as a safety feature
during normal flights, one would check proper operation before takeoff.)
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: tomcostanza(at)comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, 16 July, 2006 6:53
Subject: Landing lights & relays
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the
issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1
taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my problems,
but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
Tom,
Keep in mind that I am not a proponent of relays in critical circuits. Having
said that, I would not be uncomfortable with your relay circuit proposal for
your system. The other thing I would look at is the consequences of the
possible failure modes.
It is not clear to me why you would think a relay would go belly up any more
frequently than a toggle switch. Junk is junk, but a quality relay should
have a similar reliability as a quality switch. Why you would expect
more RFI in the relay than in other circuit component? How would a
relay interfer with navigation or cause noise in your audio system?
A relay is a switch which is electrically activated. Do you have the same
concerns about your battery contactors (a relay) or starter relay?
I am using manual switches in my light system and am comfortable with that
approach. But I would not exclude or be uncomfortable with the use
of relays in this system either.
Regards, Doug
Doug,
That's reasonable as long as the relay doesn't go
South every couple months.
I don't spend all my time replacing relays. The
other concern was RFI.
I also don't want to listen to the lights flashing
or have them interfere
with navigation.Thanks for the reply. If
you have any further thoughts, I would be very interested.Regards,
Tom
Costanza
Tom,
One way to look at this is that if landing/taxi lights (nor wig/wag) are
not required for night flight, so what does it matter if the relay
fails? One landing without the benefit of them? I would just get a
quality relay and let the longevity concern take care of itself - don't
plan to do much night flying anyway.
Do you preflight check all the lights and wig/wag function? (This is
rhetorical. If not, then how do you not know whether a light has burned
out, a more likely event that losing a relay, I think. I would check
light function only if I thought I would have the potential to use them
during a flight. Obviously, if you use wig-wag as a safety feature
during normal flights, one would check proper operation before takeoff.)
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <A href="mailto:tomcostanza(at)comcast.net?subject=Re:%20Landing%20lights%20&%20relays&replyto=004001c6a8f6$6e628790$6602a8c0@desktop">tomcostanza(at)comcast.net</A>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, 16 July, 2006 6:53
Subject: Landing lights & relays
What is your opinion of using mechanical relays to implement wig-wag
flashing of landing lights?
I would like to use a rotary switch with the following pattern: off,
wig-wag, landing, taxi (4 positions). Otherwise I would need to use 3
toggle switches and a complicated switch operation. Using transistors
would lower the voltage at the light by about 1.5 volts. To confuse the
issue further, I have wingtip landing and taxi lights (1 landing and 1
taxi on each wing) 4 lights total. Using relays would solve my problems,
but I don't know the longevity of the relay.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring batteries in parallel? |
When I built my battery tray, I was anticipating a dual battery (Z14)
architecture. I'm now convinced that a z13 would be a better match. I'm
having trouble finding a single battery that will fit my tray footprint
(7.3"x6.2") I built the tray for 2 Odessey PC680's @ 17ah ea. Can I wire
the 2 batteries together in parallel and treat them (architecturally) as
a single battery w/ 34 ah capacity? Are there any special considerations
for the wiring (I assume #2 welders cable)?
THANKS
(all this electrical stuff is voodoo to me)
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
Deems; IN Z-14 when you crossfeed the systems that is precisly what
you are doing. Combining two 17 amp to make one 34 amp battery.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
>
>When I built my battery tray, I was anticipating a dual battery (Z14)
>architecture. I'm now convinced that a z13 would be a better match. I'm
>having trouble finding a single battery that will fit my tray footprint
>(7.3"x6.2") I built the tray for 2 Odessey PC680's @ 17ah ea. Can I wire
>the 2 batteries together in parallel and treat them (architecturally) as a
>single battery w/ 34 ah capacity?
Yes, but why so much battery? You could stick a block of styrofoam
in to take up the space and use the recovered 13# for baggage or
passengers.
> Are there any special considerations for the wiring (I assume #2
> welders cable)?
#4 is fine for battery jumpers. #2 is considered for bringing
widely separated battery and engine together . . . but if both
are up-front, #4 suffices for all fat wires.
>THANKS
>(all this electrical stuff is voodoo to me)
Hang around here and we'll attempt to make it less
mystifying.
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: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Electric failure |
Hi all,
I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I
was reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive
article about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I
read this part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation
that is worth the effort.
" In our TAA Aircraft course completion ride, I use a four airport
scenario. The first airport is a VFR arrival at a class D airport with
touch and go and a VFR departure. The second airport is an ILS to a
published missed approach to a holding pattern. This is where I dim the
MFD simulating an alternator failure and watch the pilot try to figure
out how to do an intersection hold with no on screen map and just the
CDI and DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots
get lost interpreting the DI and figuring out how to set up the "To"
and "From" of the two defining VOR radials. A loss of Electronic
Situational Awareness and inadequate working memory of the IFR basics
leads to a potentially dangerous situation. I know they were taught it
when hey got their IFR ticket, but they obviously are not current using
it."
I find this a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational
testing is not really trying to figure out how to truly give a situation
that is realistic. With batteries and the proper setup, most glass will
give 30 min plus to get on the ground. One could argue that 60 is
better, but if you did things correctly, according to training, an
alternator failure in IMC is an "Emergency" and such should be declared.
With that, if you are in the air more than 30, there are bigger problems
than finding an intersection with VOR.
I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and
not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we
have batteries, but just trying to determine the validity of this and
wonder if we as pilots shouldn't ask more pressing questions about
training and standards that are more likely to mirror the reality of
flight that we are likely to encounter.
The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an
Alternator failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably
less likely, especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to
be the focus for so many folks in training. I have read over and over
that the best training is one that parallels what one will encounter in
real life, so is it me, or is this type of thinking not realistic? I
open the bashing gates to the discussion, but think this is something
that we should help shape so that it is realistic. If my design ideas
are wrong, then I would like to hear that. I understand that part of the
design is determining acceptable risk, and just starting the plane bring
some.
Thanks
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
>Deems; IN Z-14 when you crossfeed the systems that is precisly what
>you are doing. Combining two 17 amp to make one 34 amp battery.
That, and some other things.
One may close the cross-feed contactor during cranking to achieve
the effect of a "stronger" battery irrespective of what size
batteries are used. The only caveat is that the batteries should
individually be capable of delivering engine cranking currents.
E.g., you wouldn't want to cross-feed a 17 ah battery with a 7 ah
battery for starting.
Otherwise, the cross-feed contactor is left open for all normal
ops and closed only when it makes sense to share the capabilities
of a working system to offset the failed capability in the other
system.
One can run dual or triple or even quad batteries in any
of the z-figures if design goals show that the capability
is useful and offsets some potentially catastrophic hazard.
It's very rare that more than two batteries will be needed.
Z-30 shows how additional batteries may be added over and
above existing batteries to provide another always-hot bus
for some task.
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: | "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Electric failure |
Jeff,
I thik I kind of agree with you.
There are two DIFFERENT failures here that might be mixed in the training.
If the alternator goes then so does all the OTHER electrical stuff as you
say. The more realistic training MIGHT be how to use the Garmin handheld to
get to safety (along with the handheld radio). This all assumes a quick
failure with no time to communicate with and get assistance from ATC.
Furthermore some of the EFIS systems (at least the experimental ones) allow
multiple voltage inputs ... SO the EFIS could in fact run off a little
dedicated battery and last LONGER than the VOR radio and CDI.
Finally the EFIS itself could fail for reasons having little or nothing to
do with power. No **THAT** failure is one where you would need to be able to
revert to the "old stuff". I hope I never have theproblem, but I must say
that I always have my Garmin 396 running in parallel for situational
awareness, so if I have "other" failures", I am still "aware" at some level
and can point the nose towards home or some other safe haven.
James
On 7/18/06, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
> this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I was
> reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive article
> about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I read this
> part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation that is worth
> the effort.
>
> " In our TAA Aircraft course completion ride, I use a four airport
> scenario. The first airport is a VFR arrival at a class D airport with
> touch and go and a VFR departure. The second airport is an ILS to a
> published missed approach to a holding pattern. This is where I dim the
> MFD simulating an alternator failure and watch the pilot try to figure out
> how to do an intersection hold with no on screen map and just the CDI and
> DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots get lost
> interpreting the DI and figuring out how to set up the "To" and "From" of
> the two defining VOR radials. A loss of Electronic Situational Awareness
> and inadequate working memory of the IFR basics leads to a potentially
> dangerous situation. I know they were taught it when hey got their IFR
> ticket, but they obviously are not current using it."
>
>
> I find this a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational testing
> is not really trying to figure out how to truly give a situation that is
> realistic. With batteries and the proper setup, most glass will give 30
> min plus to get on the ground. One could argue that 60 is better, but if
> you did things correctly, according to training, an alternator failure in
> IMC is an "Emergency" and such should be declared. With that, if you are in
> the air more than 30, there are bigger problems than finding an intersection
> with VOR.
>
>
> I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and
> not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we
> have batteries, but just trying to determine the validity of this and wonder
> if we as pilots shouldn't ask more pressing questions about training and
> standards that are more likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are
> likely to encounter.
>
>
> The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator
> failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably less likely,
> especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus for
> so many folks in training. I have read over and over that the best training
> is one that parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is it me, or
> is this type of thinking not realistic? I open the bashing gates to the
> discussion, but think this is something that we should help shape so that
> it is realistic. If my design ideas are wrong, then I would like to hear
> that. I understand that part of the design is determining acceptable risk,
> and just starting the plane bring some.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Electric failure |
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
> I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on,
> and not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids
> because we have batteries, but just trying to determine the
> validity of this and wonder if we as pilots shouldn't ask more
> pressing questions about training and standards that are more
> likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are likely to
> encounter.
I have been thinking about this from the point of view how cockpit
automation (what we are really talking about when we talk about smart
glass displays) affects things when the scenario suddenly changes.
The effect isn't only when you have a systems failure but when you
have a sudden change in routing or weather that involves
reprogramming the automation on-the-fly. There is an excellent
article about this here:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/
glass_0206.xml
I remember hearing a 737 crew grousing to ATC about a rerouting that
was so massive that they had to throw out the flight plan in their
FMS and start from scratch. They even asked ATC to give them a
rerouting that was not so onerous. The funny thing was that the new
routing started with turning direct to a different VOR. How hard
would it have been for them to tune in the new VOR, look at the RMI,
and turn until the needle was on the nose and THEN start messing with
the flight plan in the FMS? The captain could have flow the plane to
the VOR while the FO was working on the next leg of the flight plan
in the FMS. It didn't even occur to them to do that. (And all of this
was on the radio for everyone to hear. Scary.)
I have experienced the problem myself when I was trying to run my
older IFR LORAN while IFR and received three new clearances in the
space of ten minutes. I went head down twice before falling back to
thinking about what needed to be done and just flying the airplane.
We are tending more and more to lean on our "smarter" automation. I
bet everyone here who flies has a GPS and uses that GPS for primary
navigation. It is just so bloody easy to type in "direct to kabc"
than it is to haul out a map and a plotter. The problem is what to do
when that goes away. I have an EHSI and GPS with moving map in my
currently-flying aircraft. It is so seductive to program that, turn
on the autopilot, and just watch.
But I have had too many GPS failures to be comfortable relying on
GPS. I spend as much time seeing to it that my ancient KNS-80 RNAV is
set up as I do my GPS. When I am in the Caribbean I back up my GPS
with ADF. The hard part is making the transition from GPS to my
backup nav system when GPS fails. (Notice my use of the word "when"
instead of "if"? That was intentional.)
I have found that when new routing comes in or I have to make a rapid
change, it is often easier to switch to using raw VOR or ADF as my
primary nav and then go back to reprogram the GPS (or FMS) *AFTER* I
am reestablished and comfortable. There have even been times when I
never did have time to go back to reprogram the GPS so at that point
the GPS was useless for navigation. The only thing it was doing at
that point was feeding position information to the moving map which I
was using as a backup to help me maintain situational awareness.
So, yes, becoming dependent on the automation *is* a two-edged sword.
It can make you a lot more precise when it is working and it can
really mess you up when it is no longer delivering service (for
whatever reason).
So when all else fails, do you know how to fly to a VOR radial
defined intersection and hold?
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> One may close the cross-feed contactor during cranking to achieve
> the effect of a "stronger" battery irrespective of what size
> batteries are used. The only caveat is that the batteries should
> individually be capable of delivering engine cranking currents.
> E.g., you wouldn't want to cross-feed a 17 ah battery with a 7 ah
> battery for starting.
Uh, why not? If the two batteries are of the same type they will
deliver current proportional to their capacity. Even tying an almost
depleted battery with an almost full battery will increase the
available starting current. The only thing I don't think you would
want to do is tie a gel-cell together with an AGM but for starting
even that would probably be OK. (It would definitely not be OK for
charging tho'.)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
>Hi all,
>
>I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
>this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I was
>reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive article
>about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I read this
>part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation that is worth
>the effort.
>
>
>
>
>The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator
>failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably less likely,
>especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus
>for so many folks in training. I have read over and over that the best
>training is one that parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is
>it me, or is this type of thinking not realistic? I open the bashing
>gates to the discussion, but think this is something that we should help
>shape so that it is realistic. If my design ideas are wrong, then I would
>like to hear that. I understand that part of the design is determining
>acceptable risk, and just starting the plane bring some.
This is typical of the mind-set of most pilots, the folks
who write rules governing the behavior of pilots and still
more folks who write rules on how airplanes should be configured.
Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
We worry about alternator failures because (1) they've got
a poor track record in certified aviation when compared with
automobiles over the past 60 years, (2) we've read too many
dark-n-stormy-night stories involving rare but tense electrical
system failures that have (3) distracted us into unwarranted
concentration on the alternator. This happens at the expense
of crafting a plan-b: Well-maintained battery(ies) and/or
second engine driven power sources.
These narrowly focused, single-minded worries are the byproduct
of designers and particularly legislators that do not take
the system-wide view of reliability. We spec and test the
crap out of items assigned to very important tasks without
considering that design and qualification have only a
small part to play in the product's service life. Then
there are $kilo$ meetings with lots of deer-in-the-headlights
expressions when the "golden" device won't perform in the field
well enough to stay off the top-ten problems list. I can
show you very complex systems and components with design
and qualification numbers that run in the thousands of
hours but in fact don't run 30 hours without lighting a
"fail" light.
The simple idea here is to have at least TWO independent
ways to accomplish any critical task such that no single
piece of equipment becomes critical to the outcome of that
task. One begins by accepting the notion that we can craft
systems wherein NO single item of equipment is critical
such that failure of that item is never cause to break
a sweat. This includes alternators. Architecture, understanding
and reasonable preventative maintenance goes a VERY long
way to avoiding a bad day in the cockpit without spending
the Crown Jewels on super-spec components that can fall
victim to inattention or accident at any time.
So when you read any article that opens with an experienced
or hypothesized single failure that caused a bad day in the
cockpit, the remainder of that article is essentially
useless to consider . . . not because the experiences or
hypothesis are not real but because they're writing about
a collection of hardware that was poorly assembled and/or
maintained. The better article to publish is now one achieves
failure tolerance at reasonable costs. Once achieved,
probability of needing to write (or read) all the other
articles goes very close to zero. This includes the article
you cited no doubt written by well intentioned people
who's salaries and retirements are paid out of our pockets.
In chapter 17 of the 'Connection I offered:
Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design
sez: "Things break"
The second: "Systems shall be designed so that
when things break, no immediate hazard is created."
The third: "Things needed for comfortable termination
of flight require backup or special consideration
to insure operation and availability"
The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability,
longevity, or capability of a part shall be because
you're tired of replacing it or want some new feature,
not because it damned near got you killed."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
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: | "Jan Sundin" <jan.sundin(at)ljusdal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
I defenetly think the radio is possesed or it is a bad conection in the
headset wiering. If he frequently shaking his head while keeping watch on
the mysterious frequensy you will see the approach will break through. If he
shakes to much there will be a RFI (radio frequency interference) which can
be like the ANR systems in the special ANR head sets. However I think he
will feel pain before that happens. I would just defenetly avoid that
frequency.
Hope I was to some help // Jan SM3EXN
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:27 AM
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> I suggested to him that his altitude and placement from the
> atc antenna might be the problem, but he explained to me that he did try
it
> from several radials and also when he was within sight of the airport.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:42 PM
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brinker wrote:
> >
> >> internet.com>
> >>
> >> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
> >> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he
can
> >> talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other
> >> planes on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach
> >> frequency and he can hear and talk just fine to control. This has
> >> happened to him twice. I his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
> >
> > My guess would be a null in the antenna pattern in one direction.
> > Obviously the radio is receiving and transmitting. It could also be a
> > null off of ATC's transmitting antenna. I have had this happen to me
> > before too. Turning the airplane and/or getting to a different place
> > usually fixes the problem.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
> >
> > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> > Antoine de Saint-Exupry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
> black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
> going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
> form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
> considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
> but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving
beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.
When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could
address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and
redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my
AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.
Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new
firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at
inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent
darkness from falling.
So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
at a higher level.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
Check out the product(s) at this web page. It might just be what you
are looking for.
http://www.ppavionics.com/XFR.htm
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:36 AM
I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Here it is...:)
Frank
http://www.ppavionics.com/XFR.htm
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:26 AM
-->
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
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: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
A while back there was a device that did light a warning light when the
current flow dropped, indicating a dry pump...Can't remember where it
came from though.
Typically it is a bad idea to run a pump dry but the facets apparently
are completely unphased by running dry.
The light could be used to switch a relay instead to drop the pump off
line.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:26 AM
-->
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
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: Electric failure |
>
>On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
>> black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
>> going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
>> form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
>> considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
>> but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
>
>But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving
>beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.
>When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could
>address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and
>redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my
>AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.
>
>Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new
>firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at
>inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent
>darkness from falling.
>
>So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
>more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
>and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
>soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
>that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
>
>Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
>at a higher level.
How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
No matter what things on the panel do, the airplane stays
right side up, the pilot has time and low pressure environment
to dig out the hand-helds, or simply compass steer to known
VMC, . . . . whatever.
If I were going to poke long tunnels in clouds, this is
the kind of plan-b that smoothly backs up anything that
glass or gages on the panel decide to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Thomas" <craig_california(at)hotmail.com> |
HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I HAVE
LIKE 150 A DAY!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Michael <jm(at)10squaredcorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Tip: When you subscribe to a mail list save the subscription info that
you are sent. I have a folder called Misc Signup Info that I save
mine to. Then when I want to unsubscribe I have the info I need.
Here's the info I received for this group:
****************************************
*** How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe ***
****************************************
Simply go to the Web Page shown below and enter your email address
and
select the List(s) that you wish to subscribe or unsubscribed from.
You
may also use the handy "Find" function to determine the exact
syntax of
your email address as it is subscribed to the List. Please see the
complete instructions at the top of the Web Page for more
information.
The Subscribe/Unsubscribe web page is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Cheers,
Jim
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 00:17, Craig Thomas wrote:
>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY
> INBOX. I HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
To Craig Thomas
go to
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
and follow the instructions to unsubscribe to one or all the list.
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:17 PM
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I
HAVE
> LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 18, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
>> more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
>> and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
>> soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
>> that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
>>
>> Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
>> at a higher level.
>
> How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
> all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all
this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
>> How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
>> all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
>
>Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all
>this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.
As long as any operating mode requires a human to observe,
and interpret displays, and react in the appropriate controls
inputs to aviate, then there is nothing anyone can do with either
brass or glass to "reduce cockpit workload". Who ever is promising
lower workloads while leaving the pilot in the loop is blowing
lots of smoke you-know-where.
We used to EXPECT a pilot to belly up to that bar with
the aplomb of Lindbergh and the daring-do of a WWI flying
ace and show us how a "real pilot" does it.
But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
(that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
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: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
Craig,
1. Your foul language is uncalled for and shows your lack of character.
2. I can never figure out how people are smart enough to subscribe to these
lists but are always too stupid or ignorant to figure out how to unsubscribe
from them. Very frustrating.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:17 PM
>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I
> HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:
> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so,
who does it?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
In a message dated 7/17/2006 7:59:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes:
>> Lucky: I used Van's pre-made wiring kit but I don't recall if the
>> wiring
> to
>> the strobes was shielded or not.
> =====================================
> Lucky:
>
> I think you found the problem. I say that because of the above
> statement about the pre-made harness. If they are running the strobe's
wires
> right along side the wires for your other lights AND if they are not
shielded
> then it would be very easy for the other wires to pick up the noise from
the
> strobes.
> Try running a separate SHIELDED pair of wires and ground the shield
> ONLY at the strobe. The shielded pair should have three wires ... B+. Neg
> and SHIELD.
> The Neg is grounded at both ends, while the shield is only at the
> strobe. I would still use the filter, just for S&Gs. Run the strobe
wires
> away from the other wires.
Barry, you keep making statements like this but I am not sure you
have really thought through what you are saying.
When you run two wires in parallel there are two coupling modes:
capacitive and inductive. When impedances are very high (it is
difficult to get current to flow) then capacitive coupling dominates.
When impedances are very low, as in power circuits, coupling is
inductive, with the current in one wire inducing a current in the
other wire by magnetic (inductive) coupling.
Brian:
I make these statements because I know they work.
As for Inductive / capacitive coupling. We are talking DC circuits with
Noise in the AUDIO frequency range.
As the saying goes: K.I.S.S. M.E. All this stuff about capacitive and
inductive coupling is not an issue in a simple noise problem as we are discussing
here. AND what the heck is "NON-MAGNETIC BRAID-TYPE SHIELDING"? Do you really
expect people to go out looking for "mu-metal"? ALL the braid used on any
electrical circuit on our planes is NONMAGNETIC ... It is made of COPPER WIRE.
Copper is non magnetic the last time I checked. Again K.I.S.S. M.E. is the word
of the day.
Electronics is simple, it is really! All these boog-a-boo statements only
confuses the non-electrical types amongst us. The only thing they need to know
is how to remove the noise. Again that goes back to the basics of noise, and
breaking it down into DC and AC ... AC goes one step further (Audio
Frequencies [AF] and Radio Frequencies [RF]).
Basics:
AF Noise - Shield and Ground at the source [This is why the Mic & Phone lines
use insulating washers at the jacks and ground at the audio panel or radios.]
RF Noise - Shield and Ground at both ends. [Here is where exceptions come
into play - Some times the grounding is done through a capacitor. BUT we are
dealing with AF Noise not RF so I'm not going to try to confuse people out
there.]
Let the manufacture of the wire worry about resistance of 1000 Ft and the
capacitive coupling / inductive coupling at AF & RF. The ONLY thing that would
be of interest to our noise plagued brevien is the Percentage of Braid. You
did not say anything about that! Yet again as long as you use Mil-Spec wire the
percentage of braid is acceptable and again our brevien does not have to be
concerned.
As for the Separation of wires .... I did address that with my very first
statement to Lucky; read above.
I would suggest that all the AF noise (strobe noise) we are discussing be
approached as I described AND then if the noise still exists just add another
ground t=at the other end of the shield. It is MUCH easier to ADD a ground than
to remove a ground.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
=============================================================================
===
The problem with non-magnetic braid-type shielding is that it does
almost nothing for inductive coupling. The magnetic lines of force go
right through the shielding and induce currents in the shielded
conductor just as if the shield wasn't there. That is why shielding
on the alternator 'B' lead is useless to reduce noise. So you aren't
going to fix noise from your strobe power supply getting into your
other power wiring with a nonmagnetic shielding braid.
BTW, a shielding braid grounded at only one end is an electrostatic
shield and only works to reduce capacitive coupling.
If the problem is inductive coupling between wires there are only two
solutions:
1. separation;
2. the use of a magnetic shielding material like mu-metal.
If you have a severe inductive coupling problem and you can't get
separation you can get magnetic shielding braid and sheets to help
fix the problem. I used that to solve a problem with the motor in my
T&B affecting my compass in my RV-4.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 18, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>> How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
>>> all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
>>
>> Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all
>> this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit
>> workload.
>
> As long as any operating mode requires a human to observe,
> and interpret displays, and react in the appropriate controls
> inputs to aviate, then there is nothing anyone can do with either
> brass or glass to "reduce cockpit workload". Who ever is promising
> lower workloads while leaving the pilot in the loop is blowing
> lots of smoke you-know-where.
Oh, it is quite possible for automation to lower cockpit workload. As
you point out, automation does a great job of tirelessly watching
things and making mindless corrections. Your wing-leveler is a good
point. Engine instrumentation is good too. How annoying is it to
realize that you got distracted and only just looked up to see that
the oil pressure is approaching zero and oil temp is well up past red
line. Much better to have that mindless servant bring it to your
attention than to depend on you remembering to scan the engine gauges.
Part of the problem is the user interface. Most GPS and FMS have
confusing, inflexible interfaces with the human that don't permit
easy changes. The point I was making is that it is a LOT easier to
dial a new frequency into a VOR receiver and then reach up to turn an
OBS to center the CDI, look at the new bearing/radial, and turn the
airplane to a new heading than it is to reprogram even a simple
flight plan in a GPS.
I was just musing aloud on my recent flying (I have racked up 50
hours of international cross-country flight in the last month). I am
finding myself back on the victor airways and using my VORs almost as
much as my GPS. (The GPS gives me ground track information which
helps me do a much better job of adhering to to my desired track than
does the trial-and-error approach of VOR.) I use my charts to decide
where I am going to go so the GPS is no longer absolutely dominant in
my navigation. Navigation automation is not necessarily better under
all conditions.
> We used to EXPECT a pilot to belly up to that bar with
> the aplomb of Lindbergh and the daring-do of a WWI flying
> ace and show us how a "real pilot" does it.
Don't forget panache. :-)
> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
No argument there.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
In a message dated 7/19/2006 1:24:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bnn(at)nethere.com writes:
At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:
> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so,
who does it?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com> |
| Subject: | XM Radio with Garmin 530/430? |
I have installed a GDL-69A Satellite Weather/XM Radio unit in my
aircraft and I have the Garmin 530/430 setup.
The current software of the 530/430 does not allow for the display of XM
Radio information on the units' screens. There is no way to know what
channel you're on or any of the other information XM usually sends out
over the signal such as song name etc. Apparently, this issue will be
addressed in Garmin's long delayed WAAS Upgrade where the units have to
be factory upgraded.
My local avionics tech who helped me with the install says the GDL unit
requires discreet switch "toggles" to switch channels, so we put a
rocker switch in the panel and for each click up or down, the channel
goes up or down. My first question is, is there a ROTARY switch that
can accomplish this discreet single point signal? If I am being unclear
please let me know as I am not sure of the precise terminology.
My second question is, has anyone figured out a way to use a commercial
Roadie or other XM Radio display unit as a display for their GDL
installation? I would love to be able to use the Roadie channel knob
and be able to view channel info on a display.
Thanks in advance.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | XM Radio with Garmin 530/430? |
Couple of things...
Where did you get the information that the 430/530 will eventually control
GDL-69A XM Radio?
And whatever might happen in the future, wouldn't the simplest short-term
solution be to simply tie the XM Roadie into your audio panel?
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Weismann
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:59 AM
I have installed a GDL-69A Satellite Weather/XM Radio unit in my aircraft
and I have the Garmin 530/430 setup.
The current software of the 530/430 does not allow for the display of XM
Radio information on the units' screens. There is no way to know what
channel you're on or any of the other information XM usually sends out over
the signal such as song name etc. Apparently, this issue will be addressed
in Garmin's long delayed WAAS Upgrade where the units have to be factory
upgraded.
My local avionics tech who helped me with the install says the GDL unit
requires discreet switch "toggles" to switch channels, so we put a rocker
switch in the panel and for each click up or down, the channel goes up or
down. My first question is, is there a ROTARY switch that can accomplish
this discreet single point signal? If I am being unclear please let me know
as I am not sure of the precise terminology.
My second question is, has anyone figured out a way to use a commercial
Roadie or other XM Radio display unit as a display for their GDL
installation? I would love to be able to use the Roadie channel knob and be
able to view channel info on a display.
Thanks in advance.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
>
>At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:
>> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
>> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
>> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
>> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
>> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
>> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
>> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
>> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
>> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
>> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
>
>Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so,
>who does it?
If anyone is close right now, it's Jim Younkin at
TruTrak. I've had the core components of a design
on the back burner for years and things really took
a turn toward realization when Analog Devices finally
slew the dragons for manufacturing an inexpensive, solid
state rotation rate sensor. See:
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0%2C2877%2CADXRS401%2C00.html
GPS engines are becomming jelly bean parts too. See:
http://www.rfsolutions.co.uk/acatalog/Embedded_GPS_Module.html
The hardware is a no-brainer. Development of a manufacturable
product takes $time$ and ultimately an airplane . . . both
of which are in my "pretty-hard" pile. But I'm still watching
for opportunities to consider an entry into this market.
Jim would be a most worthy competitor.
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: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:49 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> Barry, you keep making statements like this but I am not sure you
> have really thought through what you are saying.
>
> When you run two wires in parallel there are two coupling modes:
> capacitive and inductive. When impedances are very high (it is
> difficult to get current to flow) then capacitive coupling dominates.
> When impedances are very low, as in power circuits, coupling is
> inductive, with the current in one wire inducing a current in the
> other wire by magnetic (inductive) coupling.
>
> Brian:
>
> I make these statements because I know they work.
Copper braid or foil shield does not work to reduce inductive
coupling between wires in low-impedance circuits at audio frequencies.
> As for Inductive / capacitive coupling. We are talking DC circuits
> with Noise in the AUDIO frequency range.
Right.
> As the saying goes: K.I.S.S. M.E. All this stuff about capacitive
> and inductive coupling is not an issue in a simple noise problem as
> we are discussing here.
Actually, it is.
> AND what the heck is "NON-MAGNETIC BRAID-TYPE SHIELDING"? Do you
> really expect people to go out looking for "mu-metal"?
Yes, if that is the problem they are trying to solve.
> ALL the braid used on any electrical circuit on our planes is
> NONMAGNETIC ... It is made of COPPER WIRE. Copper is non magnetic
> the last time I checked. Again K.I.S.S. M.E. is the word of the day.
But Barry, it isn't going to work in this application. There are
magnetic shielding braids that are available. They look a bit like
stainless steel braid and they work WONDERS for eliminating DC and
audio effects on conductors carrying significant currents.
> Electronics is simple, it is really!
Well, like most things, it is simple if you understand it and have
worked with it. It is not simple if you are ignorant of the
principles. (And ignorance is not a bad thing as it can be remedied
by education. It is only a bad thing if one chooses to remain ignorant.)
> All these boog-a-boo statements only confuses the non-electrical
> types amongst us.
Confusion is eliminated through education. I happen to believe that
anyone smart enough to successfully build an airplane is smart enough
to learn and understand some basic electrical principles.
> The only thing they need to know is how to remove the noise. Again
> that goes back to the basics of noise, and breaking it down into DC
> and AC ... AC goes one step further (Audio Frequencies [AF] and
> Radio Frequencies [RF]).
> Basics:
> AF Noise - Shield and Ground at the source [This is why the Mic &
> Phone lines use insulating washers at the jacks and ground at the
> audio panel or radios.]
> RF Noise - Shield and Ground at both ends. [Here is where
> exceptions come into play - Some times the grounding is done
> through a capacitor. BUT we are dealing with AF Noise not RF so I'm
> not going to try to confuse people out there.]
Einstein once made a very profound statement. He said, "Everything
should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The point I
was making is trying to explain *WHY* we use different kinds of
shielding and why some shielding won't work at all. If you understand
WHY you can make educated guesses about what will work and what won't.
And your "Basics" above are not 100% correct. So let's get down to a
real analysis.
Let's go back to the problem. The problem is that noise from the
strobe power supply is getting into the mic audio circuit. (I made a
mistake assuming that it was the strobe's inverter, i.e. audio whine
that changes pitch, as opposed to the "pop pop pop" noise of the
strobe ignition coil or the discharge of the cap through the
discharge tube but I digress.) The question then becomes, "how can
the signal get from the strobe power supply to the mic audio circuit
and this is where I started from.
First, how can the noise get out of the strobe power supply? It is
probably not RF as the rise times of the signals do not fall into the
RF spectrum. (Actually the "pop pop" noise could be RF borne but that
is not what we are talking about.) So it is either conducted or
radiated magnetically.
Now, how can the noise get into the audio panel or radio? As I see
it, there are two paths:
1. it can get in through the power lead;
2. it can get in through the mic input.
Let us treat #1. How can it get into the power lead? There are two ways:
1. it can be conducted by the bus in the form of voltage variations;
2. it can be induced inductively by the changing current in the power
or ground leads of the strobe power supply.
If the problem is #1 we will be able to see it with a scope on the
bus. Also, our battery should filter that out. I am betting that is
not the problem if the builder has been following Bob's
recommendations for wiring his airplane. (This is, after all, the
Aeroelectric list and you are here because Bob has been doing a good
job teaching you how to do a good job of wiring.)
If it is #2 we can attack the problem by minimizing inductive
coupling. There are four ways to reduce the inductive coupling:
1. Increase separation between the power wires going to the audio
panel/radio and the strobe power supply.
2. Reduce radiated magnetic field by binding the strobes power and
ground leads together or, better still, twisting them together. This
works because the current the the hot and ground leads are equal and
opposite so their magnetic fields will be equal and opposite. This
causes them to cancel out. This is one of the big reasons for running
a separate ground to a device rather than using the airframe as the
ground.
3. Reduce susceptance to magnetic fields in the audio panel by
running its power and ground leads together. (Again, twisting them is
even better.) Any varying magnetic field would induce equal and
opposite currents in the conductors and again they would cancel out.
4. You can use a magnetic shielding material like mu-metal around the
offending conductors to "trap" the lines of magnetic flux and keep
them from reaching (and influencing) other conductors.
(See: http://www.magnetic-shield.com/ for information on these kinds
of products.)
But if you haven't run your power and ground leads together you can
still "break the loop" and minimize the effect of inductive coupling
by putting a brute-force audio filter at or near the audio panel. (It
must be near the audio panel to eliminate the problem of inductive
coupling between the filter and the audio panel.) How does this work?
Well, the inductor acts as a high resistance to the AC part of the
signal (noise) while acting as a low resistance to the DC (power). It
therefore resists the transmission of the audio noise. The capacitor
acts as a low resistance to the AC part of the signal (noise),
shunting it to ground while not impeding the flow of power to the radio.
Shielding the power leads with some kind of copper braid or foil is
not going to do anything. The impedances of the circuits are just too
low.
OK, we have done the things I have mentioned above because they are
just good practice. But the noise is still present. This means it is
most likely getting in through the mic input.
Mic inputs in civil aircraft are low impedance, on the order of 200
ohms. Again, the noise is getting in either by conduction or
inductive coupling. It isn't getting in by capacitive coupling so a
braid/foil shield isn't going to do much. (Braid and foil shielding
work well at RF frequencies but that is not what we are dealing with
here.)
What we want to do is break any possibility for noise to get in as
conducted in either the mic signal lead or the mic ground lead.
If you ground the mic jack to the airframe there is a chance that the
strobe power supply will have its noise impressed on the ground of
the mic circuit. The airframe is like a big wire with all these
different currents flowing through it. But the airframe is like other
conductors and has some amount of voltage drop across it. If the
current in the strobe power supply is varying (it is) that same
variation appears in its ground wire. If that ground is the airframe
we have a varying current flowing through the airframe. That means
there will be different ground voltages at different points on the
airframe. If we also use the airframe as part of our ground circuit
for the mic by grounding the mic jack to the airframe (remember that
your audio panel is already grounded to the airframe through its
power ground), that voltage variation caused by the strobe ground
current now appears as part of the signal for the mic. Poof! Noise!
We get rid of this by insulating the mic jack from the airframe thus
eliminating the airframe as a possible source of noise in the mic
circuit.
Once we do that there is only one other way for noise to get into the
mic circuit. You got it right -- magnetic induction. How do we deal
with that? The same way we did with the power leads. We run the
signal and ground wires together, preferably twisting them. You don't
need a shield.
Now some of the people out there are asking, "But we were told to use
shielded wire for the mic jack. What gives?" Well, the shielding is
not doing anything for our audio noise pick up but it does have a
good effect to reduce RF noise pickup. So while the shielded wire
won't help to reduce our strobe noise problem it may help eliminate
any problem stemming from RF from our comm radio transmitter getting
into our mic audio circuit and causing a problem there. So we shield
our mic audio wiring using shielded wire just in case. Belt and
suspenders.
> Let the manufacture of the wire worry about resistance of 1000 Ft
> and the capacitive coupling / inductive coupling at AF & RF. The
> ONLY thing that would be of interest to our noise plagued brevien
> is the Percentage of Braid. You did not say anything about that!
Of course not. This is not an RF problem where braid effectiveness is
an issue. This is an AF problem and we just don't have high enough
impedances for electrostatic shielding to be of any consequence.
> Yet again as long as you use Mil-Spec wire the percentage of braid
> is acceptable and again our brevien does not have to be concerned.
Well, they have to be concerned in that you are trying to solve a
different problem from the one presented and your efforts are not
likely to be effective.
> As for the Separation of wires .... I did address that with my very
> first statement to Lucky; read above.
>
> I would suggest that all the AF noise (strobe noise) we are
> discussing be approached as I described AND then if the noise still
> exists just add another ground t=at the other end of the shield.
> It is MUCH easier to ADD a ground than to remove a ground.
As soon as you ground your shield in two places you have created a
loop of wire consisting of the braid and the airframe. Poof! Instant
ground loop. If I have a varying magnetic field near one conductor,
maybe your shield wire because you have routed it near the power lead
for some device, but that magnetic field isn't near my airframe
return so it doesn't get an equal and opposite current induced in it,
I am going to have a noise current conducted in that loop. You will
be able to tap off that noise from the airframe just about
anywhere ... such as with a mic jack that someone forgot to insulate.
There are a lot of things we just do because we were told we should.
But I think it makes a lot more sense to understand *WHY* we do it so
that we can guess at what might work and what might not. There are
many paths for unwanted signal (noise) to get from one device to
another. Understanding them and treating them separately will be much
more likely to rid us of a problem than will blindly shotgunning a
problem using rules-of-thumb that may or may not apply.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not?
> If so,
> who does it?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
> This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.
Well, not quite. I see Bob's idea of a device that will hold an
aircraft on its current ground track using input from GPS as soon as
it is turned on. You don't need to enter a flight plan and you don't
need to tell the autopilot what heading to fly. Flip the 'on' switch
and the airplane unerringly locks onto its current ground track.
Pretty simple. Pretty elegant.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | magnetic shielding |
I mentioned magnetic shielding in my discussion about strobe noise
but it was buried in there pretty deeply and someone may have missed
it. I have used the magnetic shielding kit from Magnetic Shield Corp.
(http://www.magnetic-shield.com/) to solve DC and audio shielding
problems in aircraft before. They make a really cool magnetic braid/
sleeve you can slip over a conductor to attenuate any magnetic field
from that conductor that might cause a problem. I have used it to
solve problems with DC and low AC current causing a problem with a
panel-mounted CRT moving-map display. It "saved" my panel design.
They have a full-on kit of various sample materials with a meter that
will measure magnetic fields for about $200 but you can get the
materials alone for about $100. I bought the latter and found it very
useful.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
Thanks all for your suggestions.
At the moment, I have no means of determining "dryness".
I'm open to the simplest solution that's cost effective. The XFR fuel
controller switch would fit the job, if a little pricey. I like the idea
of a fuel pressure switch controlling a pump relay, but when there's no
pressure (switch open) how does the pump start? How much pressure is
req'd to close the switch? There's not much pressure developed in the
transfer line.
I'm using one of the Facet cube-shaped pumps.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
Hello Brian,
I switch my digitrack on and then it does track along the current track
which is supplied from the GPS, i have a left and a right button to
alter the course by a degree on each click, or keep it 3 sec pressed and
it will fly some sort of a standard rate turn (4min on my Glastar)
however I can also decide to use a flightplan from the GPS or without
GPS it does use the current flown magnetic course.
So quite close I would say ;)
Werner (Glastar with digitrack and altrak)
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not?
>> If so,
>> who does it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Guy Buchanan
>> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>>
>>
>>
>> This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.
>
>
> Well, not quite. I see Bob's idea of a device that will hold an
> aircraft on its current ground track using input from GPS as soon as
> it is turned on. You don't need to enter a flight plan and you don't
> need to tell the autopilot what heading to fly. Flip the 'on' switch
> and the airplane unerringly locks onto its current ground track.
> Pretty simple. Pretty elegant.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:34 AM, John Burnaby wrote:
> Thanks all for your suggestions.
> At the moment, I have no means of determining "dryness".
> I'm open to the simplest solution that's cost effective. The XFR
> fuel controller switch would fit the job, if a little pricey. I
> like the idea of a fuel pressure switch controlling a pump relay,
> but when there's no pressure (switch open) how does the pump start?
> How much pressure is req'd to close the switch? There's not much
> pressure developed in the transfer line.
The pressure switch must be the normally open type, i.e. the pressure
switch contacts are open when there is no pressure. Put a momentary
contact switch in parallel with the pressure switch. When you press
the momentary contact switch and hold it for long enough that the
pump starts running, the pressure will activate the pressure switch
which will then keep the pump running until the tank runs dry. You
will need to hold the momentary switch on every time you want to
start the pump.
Make sure that the contacts in the pressure switch are rated to
handle the running current of the pump. The momentary contact switch
will handle the starting current for the pump.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
I guess I'm kind of confused here.....why re-invent the wheel at all?!?
There is Navaid, Trio and TruTrak. They all literally do exactly what
everyone is debating here....turn them on and they work - Plain and simple.
What's wrong with the panel mounted displays in the low end AP's right now?
I mean, it takes a total of ONE button push to engage them and one to
disengage them....can it get much simpler?
It's easy to think that for a few bucks you can 'roll your own' which is
entirely true from a hardware perspective. But....anyone who think's
they'll create something to market, sell, support, install, warranty, etc..
is in for a really rude awakening. Bob knows the expense, time, effort and
engergy it takes and mark my words it's not a simple, cheap or quick
undertaking. I'll guarantee you that nobody can produce a servo cheaper
than TruTrak right now, seeing as they make around 50-100 of them per week,
every week. There is a reason they cost what they do...not because they are
getting particularly rich either.
Anyway, I'm just sort of scratching my head wondering why anyone would even
bother trying to recreate something that can readily be had for less that
$1500 today anyway (and from more than one source)? Heck, just the time
debating it, researching components, time to fabricate, etc.. and you've
already blown more than that in time alone.
No flames or insults intended, just trying to be realistic.
Cheers,
Stein
RV6's, Minneapolis
>-----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, July 19, 2006 8:36 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:
>>> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
>>> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
>>> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
>>> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
>>> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
>>> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
>>> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
>>> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
>>> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
>>> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
>>
>>Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so,
>>who does it?
>
> If anyone is close right now, it's Jim Younkin at
> TruTrak. I've had the core components of a design
> on the back burner for years and things really took
> a turn toward realization when Analog Devices finally
> slew the dragons for manufacturing an inexpensive, solid
> state rotation rate sensor. See:
>
>http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0%2C2877%2CADXRS401%2C00.html
>
> GPS engines are becomming jelly bean parts too. See:
>
>http://www.rfsolutions.co.uk/acatalog/Embedded_GPS_Module.html
>
> The hardware is a no-brainer. Development of a manufacturable
> product takes $time$ and ultimately an airplane . . . both
> of which are in my "pretty-hard" pile. But I'm still watching
> for opportunities to consider an entry into this market.
> Jim would be a most worthy competitor.
>
> 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: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
Have you considered using a GEMS sensor connected into the line coming
from the pump? The ELS-900 is smaller than the ELS-1100, and might be a
better choice for your application. Seems simple enough to implement
using a tee fitting. The GEMS sensor is solid state and uses a prism to
detect the presence/absence of liquid. That could control a relay which
would control the pump. You can pick up these sensors off ebay for
under $10/ea.
Mark S.
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:35 AM
Thanks all for your suggestions.
At the moment, I have no means of determining "dryness".
I'm open to the simplest solution that's cost effective. The XFR fuel
controller switch would fit the job, if a little pricey. I like the idea
of a fuel pressure switch controlling a pump relay, but when there's no
pressure (switch open) how does the pump start? How much pressure is
req'd to close the switch? There's not much pressure developed in the
transfer line.
I'm using one of the Facet cube-shaped pumps.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> I switch my digitrack on and then it does track along the current
> track which is supplied from the GPS, i have a left and a right
> button to alter the course by a degree on each click, or keep it 3
> sec pressed and it will fly some sort of a standard rate turn (4min
> on my Glastar) however I can also decide to use a flightplan from
> the GPS or without GPS it does use the current flown magnetic course.
>
> So quite close I would say ;)
Sounds like it. I should know better than to open my mouth when I
haven't researched something. ;-)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
| Subject: | re: electric failure |
This has been an informative discussion for me guys - thanks.
I have a GRT EFIS and the Tru-Trak digiflight II (two axis), but no
experience operating or flying with them yet. The EFIS has a built-in GPS
and I additionally have second Garmin 296 that can pop in and out of the
panel. The thought was to have a backup for navigation in the event of
EFIS failure, and also so that I can punch in a flight plan at home and
then be able to hop in the plane whenever and instantly dump the flight
plan into the EFIS to control the autopilot.
Im a VFR kind of guy, but would like to understand what to expect regarding
the autopilot capabilities in the event of EFIS failure. Its my
understanding that the TruTrak has an internal magnetometer that comes into
play if the GPS or other input fails. Does this mean it will hold the
heading that was in use at the time of failure, or just that I could input
a new heading (assuming I remembered what the desired heading was).
Further, I assume that after EFIS failure I would be on my own with respect
to holding altitude, correct?
regards
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
In a message dated 7/19/06 10:08:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
jonlaury(at)impulse.net writes:
> I like the idea of a fuel pressure switch controlling a pump relay, but
> when there's no pressure (switch open) how does the pump start?
>>>>
You could wire your start button in parallel with the NC pressure switch
contacts- make the "Pump On" button a momentary button and hold it in until the
pressure builds enough to close the contacts, then release the button. The
pressure switch contacts will hold the pump on until the fuel is gone and the
pressure drops, turning the pump off. An indicator light connected to the input
side of the pump motor would be useful here to tell you the pressure switch is
closed and the pump is operating. It will turn off once the pressure drops
and the pump stops.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
Another excellent piece of education from Brian Lloyd !
It's crystal clear and simple to understand and learn.
I don't know how you can find the time for this, but please keep up the good
work. I just love to read your postings, even the longest, because that's
the way why electric and electronic stuff is no longer voodoo to me!!
Thanks
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:16 PM
radio
>
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:49 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Barry, you keep making statements like this but I am not sure you
>> have really thought through what you are saying.
>>
>> When you run two wires in parallel there are two coupling modes:
>> capacitive and inductive. When impedances are very high (it is
>> difficult to get current to flow) then capacitive coupling dominates.
>> When impedances are very low, as in power circuits, coupling is
>> inductive, with the current in one wire inducing a current in the
>> other wire by magnetic (inductive) coupling.
>>
>> Brian:
>>
>> I make these statements because I know they work.
>
> Copper braid or foil shield does not work to reduce inductive coupling
> between wires in low-impedance circuits at audio frequencies.
>
>> As for Inductive / capacitive coupling. We are talking DC circuits with
>> Noise in the AUDIO frequency range.
>
> Right.
>
>> As the saying goes: K.I.S.S. M.E. All this stuff about capacitive and
>> inductive coupling is not an issue in a simple noise problem as we are
>> discussing here.
>
> Actually, it is.
>
>> AND what the heck is "NON-MAGNETIC BRAID-TYPE SHIELDING"? Do you really
>> expect people to go out looking for "mu-metal"?
>
> Yes, if that is the problem they are trying to solve.
>
>> ALL the braid used on any electrical circuit on our planes is
>> NONMAGNETIC ... It is made of COPPER WIRE. Copper is non magnetic the
>> last time I checked. Again K.I.S.S. M.E. is the word of the day.
>
> But Barry, it isn't going to work in this application. There are magnetic
> shielding braids that are available. They look a bit like stainless steel
> braid and they work WONDERS for eliminating DC and audio effects on
> conductors carrying significant currents.
>
>> Electronics is simple, it is really!
>
> Well, like most things, it is simple if you understand it and have worked
> with it. It is not simple if you are ignorant of the principles. (And
> ignorance is not a bad thing as it can be remedied by education. It is
> only a bad thing if one chooses to remain ignorant.)
>
>> All these boog-a-boo statements only confuses the non-electrical types
>> amongst us.
>
> Confusion is eliminated through education. I happen to believe that
> anyone smart enough to successfully build an airplane is smart enough to
> learn and understand some basic electrical principles.
>
>> The only thing they need to know is how to remove the noise. Again that
>> goes back to the basics of noise, and breaking it down into DC and AC
>> ... AC goes one step further (Audio Frequencies [AF] and Radio
>> Frequencies [RF]).
>> Basics:
>> AF Noise - Shield and Ground at the source [This is why the Mic & Phone
>> lines use insulating washers at the jacks and ground at the audio panel
>> or radios.]
>> RF Noise - Shield and Ground at both ends. [Here is where exceptions
>> come into play - Some times the grounding is done through a capacitor.
>> BUT we are dealing with AF Noise not RF so I'm not going to try to
>> confuse people out there.]
>
> Einstein once made a very profound statement. He said, "Everything should
> be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The point I was making
> is trying to explain *WHY* we use different kinds of shielding and why
> some shielding won't work at all. If you understand WHY you can make
> educated guesses about what will work and what won't.
>
> And your "Basics" above are not 100% correct. So let's get down to a real
> analysis.
>
> Let's go back to the problem. The problem is that noise from the strobe
> power supply is getting into the mic audio circuit. (I made a mistake
> assuming that it was the strobe's inverter, i.e. audio whine that changes
> pitch, as opposed to the "pop pop pop" noise of the strobe ignition coil
> or the discharge of the cap through the discharge tube but I digress.)
> The question then becomes, "how can the signal get from the strobe power
> supply to the mic audio circuit and this is where I started from.
>
> First, how can the noise get out of the strobe power supply? It is
> probably not RF as the rise times of the signals do not fall into the RF
> spectrum. (Actually the "pop pop" noise could be RF borne but that is not
> what we are talking about.) So it is either conducted or radiated
> magnetically.
>
> Now, how can the noise get into the audio panel or radio? As I see it,
> there are two paths:
>
> 1. it can get in through the power lead;
>
> 2. it can get in through the mic input.
>
> Let us treat #1. How can it get into the power lead? There are two ways:
>
> 1. it can be conducted by the bus in the form of voltage variations;
>
> 2. it can be induced inductively by the changing current in the power or
> ground leads of the strobe power supply.
>
> If the problem is #1 we will be able to see it with a scope on the bus.
> Also, our battery should filter that out. I am betting that is not the
> problem if the builder has been following Bob's recommendations for
> wiring his airplane. (This is, after all, the Aeroelectric list and you
> are here because Bob has been doing a good job teaching you how to do a
> good job of wiring.)
>
> If it is #2 we can attack the problem by minimizing inductive coupling.
> There are four ways to reduce the inductive coupling:
>
> 1. Increase separation between the power wires going to the audio
> panel/radio and the strobe power supply.
>
> 2. Reduce radiated magnetic field by binding the strobes power and ground
> leads together or, better still, twisting them together. This works
> because the current the the hot and ground leads are equal and opposite
> so their magnetic fields will be equal and opposite. This causes them to
> cancel out. This is one of the big reasons for running a separate ground
> to a device rather than using the airframe as the ground.
>
> 3. Reduce susceptance to magnetic fields in the audio panel by running
> its power and ground leads together. (Again, twisting them is even
> better.) Any varying magnetic field would induce equal and opposite
> currents in the conductors and again they would cancel out.
>
> 4. You can use a magnetic shielding material like mu-metal around the
> offending conductors to "trap" the lines of magnetic flux and keep them
> from reaching (and influencing) other conductors.
>
> (See: http://www.magnetic-shield.com/ for information on these kinds of
> products.)
>
> But if you haven't run your power and ground leads together you can still
> "break the loop" and minimize the effect of inductive coupling by putting
> a brute-force audio filter at or near the audio panel. (It must be near
> the audio panel to eliminate the problem of inductive coupling between
> the filter and the audio panel.) How does this work? Well, the inductor
> acts as a high resistance to the AC part of the signal (noise) while
> acting as a low resistance to the DC (power). It therefore resists the
> transmission of the audio noise. The capacitor acts as a low resistance
> to the AC part of the signal (noise), shunting it to ground while not
> impeding the flow of power to the radio.
>
> Shielding the power leads with some kind of copper braid or foil is not
> going to do anything. The impedances of the circuits are just too low.
>
> OK, we have done the things I have mentioned above because they are just
> good practice. But the noise is still present. This means it is most
> likely getting in through the mic input.
>
> Mic inputs in civil aircraft are low impedance, on the order of 200 ohms.
> Again, the noise is getting in either by conduction or inductive
> coupling. It isn't getting in by capacitive coupling so a braid/foil
> shield isn't going to do much. (Braid and foil shielding work well at RF
> frequencies but that is not what we are dealing with here.)
>
> What we want to do is break any possibility for noise to get in as
> conducted in either the mic signal lead or the mic ground lead.
>
> If you ground the mic jack to the airframe there is a chance that the
> strobe power supply will have its noise impressed on the ground of the
> mic circuit. The airframe is like a big wire with all these different
> currents flowing through it. But the airframe is like other conductors
> and has some amount of voltage drop across it. If the current in the
> strobe power supply is varying (it is) that same variation appears in its
> ground wire. If that ground is the airframe we have a varying current
> flowing through the airframe. That means there will be different ground
> voltages at different points on the airframe. If we also use the airframe
> as part of our ground circuit for the mic by grounding the mic jack to
> the airframe (remember that your audio panel is already grounded to the
> airframe through its power ground), that voltage variation caused by the
> strobe ground current now appears as part of the signal for the mic.
> Poof! Noise! We get rid of this by insulating the mic jack from the
> airframe thus eliminating the airframe as a possible source of noise in
> the mic circuit.
>
> Once we do that there is only one other way for noise to get into the mic
> circuit. You got it right -- magnetic induction. How do we deal with
> that? The same way we did with the power leads. We run the signal and
> ground wires together, preferably twisting them. You don't need a shield.
>
> Now some of the people out there are asking, "But we were told to use
> shielded wire for the mic jack. What gives?" Well, the shielding is not
> doing anything for our audio noise pick up but it does have a good effect
> to reduce RF noise pickup. So while the shielded wire won't help to
> reduce our strobe noise problem it may help eliminate any problem
> stemming from RF from our comm radio transmitter getting into our mic
> audio circuit and causing a problem there. So we shield our mic audio
> wiring using shielded wire just in case. Belt and suspenders.
>
>> Let the manufacture of the wire worry about resistance of 1000 Ft and
>> the capacitive coupling / inductive coupling at AF & RF. The ONLY thing
>> that would be of interest to our noise plagued brevien is the Percentage
>> of Braid. You did not say anything about that!
>
> Of course not. This is not an RF problem where braid effectiveness is an
> issue. This is an AF problem and we just don't have high enough
> impedances for electrostatic shielding to be of any consequence.
>
>> Yet again as long as you use Mil-Spec wire the percentage of braid is
>> acceptable and again our brevien does not have to be concerned.
>
> Well, they have to be concerned in that you are trying to solve a
> different problem from the one presented and your efforts are not likely
> to be effective.
>
>> As for the Separation of wires .... I did address that with my very
>> first statement to Lucky; read above.
>>
>> I would suggest that all the AF noise (strobe noise) we are discussing
>> be approached as I described AND then if the noise still exists just add
>> another ground t=at the other end of the shield. It is MUCH easier to
>> ADD a ground than to remove a ground.
>
> As soon as you ground your shield in two places you have created a loop
> of wire consisting of the braid and the airframe. Poof! Instant ground
> loop. If I have a varying magnetic field near one conductor, maybe your
> shield wire because you have routed it near the power lead for some
> device, but that magnetic field isn't near my airframe return so it
> doesn't get an equal and opposite current induced in it, I am going to
> have a noise current conducted in that loop. You will be able to tap off
> that noise from the airframe just about anywhere ... such as with a mic
> jack that someone forgot to insulate.
>
> There are a lot of things we just do because we were told we should. But
> I think it makes a lot more sense to understand *WHY* we do it so that we
> can guess at what might work and what might not. There are many paths for
> unwanted signal (noise) to get from one device to another. Understanding
> them and treating them separately will be much more likely to rid us of a
> problem than will blindly shotgunning a problem using rules-of-thumb that
> may or may not apply.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
Brian ...
Your work on this subject has produced excellent information and
understanding. Your knowledge and genius are all telling. Is it now
possible you could boil all this down, into one simple, short, document?
Something we could post on our shop wall for quick reference. A single
piece of paper as to what's twisted, what's grounded and where, what's
grounded on one end and where and the other do's and don'ts? I've seen this
stuff scattered all over the electric list but I think it would help
everyone to have a consolidated list. Would you please consider doing this
for the list?
Many thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV4 Flying
RV8A Wire
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:49 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
Copper braid or foil shield does not work to reduce inductive
coupling between wires in low-impedance circuits at audio frequencies.
Well, like most things, it is simple if you understand it and have
worked with it. It is not simple if you are ignorant of the
principles. (And ignorance is not a bad thing as it can be remedied
by education. It is only a bad thing if one chooses to remain ignorant.)
Confusion is eliminated through education. I happen to believe that
anyone smart enough to successfully build an airplane is smart enough
to learn and understand some basic electrical principles.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
>
> Another excellent piece of education from Brian Lloyd !
> It's crystal clear and simple to understand and learn.
> I don't know how you can find the time for this, but please keep up
> the good work. I just love to read your postings, even the longest,
> because that's the way why electric and electronic stuff is no
> longer voodoo to me!!
Thank you! I make these postings in the hope that it will help others
solve problems and understand how this stuff works. I am glad to hear
that I am successful.
They also give me the opportunity to exercise my grey matter on
problem solving. Use it or lose it! :-)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak radio |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
>
>
> Brian ...
> Your work on this subject has produced excellent information and
> understanding. Your knowledge and genius are all telling. Is it
> now possible you could boil all this down, into one simple, short,
> document? Something we could post on our shop wall for quick
> reference. A single piece of paper as to what's twisted, what's
> grounded and where, what's grounded on one end and where and the
> other do's and don'ts? I've seen this stuff scattered all over the
> electric list but I think it would help everyone to have a
> consolidated list. Would you please consider doing this for the list?
> Many thanks ...
Huh. Interesting idea. Isn't there a chapter in the Aeroelectric
Connection that covers this? It has been a long time since I read
Bob's book but it struck me as a pretty good primer on this stuff.
Regardless, if it seems like a one-pager would be good to have around
I will try to generate one. Bob's book is clearly the seminal work on
the power wiring for an airplane. My experience is a bit more toward
audio and RF.
But right now I have to fix two bilge pumps. The only place
nastier than the bilge on a boat is perhaps a septic tank.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & weak |
I too would use a 'one page' summary of the 'ground' information. Bob's
book is good but like Jerry said, "this stuff scattered'. Thanks, Earl
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brian ...
>> Your work on this subject has produced excellent information and
>> understanding. Your knowledge and genius are all telling. Is it now
>> possible you could boil all this down, into one simple, short,
>> document? Something we could post on our shop wall for quick
>> reference. A single piece of paper as to what's twisted, what's
>> grounded and where, what's grounded on one end and where and the
>> other do's and don'ts? I've seen this stuff scattered all over the
>> electric list but I think it would help everyone to have a
>> consolidated list. Would you please consider doing this for the list?
>> Many thanks ...
>
> Huh. Interesting idea. Isn't there a chapter in the Aeroelectric
> Connection that covers this? It has been a long time since I read
> Bob's book but it struck me as a pretty good primer on this stuff.
>
> Regardless, if it seems like a one-pager would be good to have around
> I will try to generate one. Bob's book is clearly the seminal work on
> the power wiring for an airplane. My experience is a bit more toward
> audio and RF.
>
> But right now I have to fix two bilge pumps. The only place
> nastier than the bilge on a boat is perhaps a septic tank.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Electric failure |
Hi Jeff-
You raise a good question. Predictably, and no offense to any of the many
esteemed folks that have replied so far, the conversation has gone down the
path of system design. The questions you raise are different. As to what
would actually fail when the alt quits, on my plane nothing will. I can't
speak for the plane in question.
I think the issues raised by your article scenario are twofold. First, the
new, complex equipment tends to have a tremendous amount of functionality.
Typically, and unless beaten with a stick, pilots only use a small portion
of the power that is available to them. They then promptly forget how to
use the other 90% of the tools that are still available to them. I suspect
that is the point the storied instructor was trying to make. In other
words, stay proficient, and with your avionics as well.
The other issue is that given the loss of presented data, trying to macho
one's way out of the scenario is the wrong response. A more correct one
would be to inform ATC that they'd lost generation and were partial panel.
Holds are no longer acceptable, and intersection holds are ludicrous. Take
vectors, get out of IMC and onto the ground. It's just that simple. Do
not relinquish your fate to someone else's expectations.
We now return you to your normally scheduled systems engineering.
Feel free to flame away; I leave for OSH tomorrow and won't get scorched
for another 10 days or so!
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
| Subject: | Electric failure |
Glen and others,
Actually I was asking more about the training and how closely it would
match a likely failure of a system. I was asking if the types of drills
that seem to be coming up for the Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA)
seem to be built from the ideas of failures of years ago. I think it is
critical to recognize the past and learn from it, without getting to
arrogant to think that things couldn't fail totally. True that at any
time, anything can fail. I didn't say in my previous post, which I am
learning for the future, I was of the mindset that folks are building
systems where a single point of failure isn't really possible.
So try to my main question again, I think I would word like this. Given
that the article is focused on the least likely event (MFD failure) and
requesting an alternate form of navigation be used, does that seem like
it would be a good use of testing/training of pilots? Wouldn't it be
more prudent to drill more likely scenarios that are more likely then
1-5% likely? That is not to say that I disagree with the idea that you
need to keep your skills updates, regardless of what you are using as I
think you should. We do a disservice to other pilots and the public
when we fly into areas that we shouldn't because we lost GPS signal.
As for some of the points I have read over the past few days, I think
that there is merit in many of them. I think we could discuss all of
them at length. The interfaces on the systems are very different, each
with strong points and weak points. I think that I have often thought is
that the radio should have the closest frequencies in a list off the
tuning button as I fly along. I think it would be great to punch a
button and have a list of the closest ATIS or AWOS stations from my
position with a distance and bearing. Same for VORs. On the Garmin's
you can go to the nearest page and select, but it is a lot of dialing to
get there. With VOR's it isn't like I am going to dial much else in the
NAV radio. If I were 5000' or less, a list of airport CTAF or ATC
controlling facilities on the standby list would be helpful too.
Imagine hitting a button on the radio, and scroll though a list with the
frequency, definition, and direction right on the screen, with the
closest ones first... There is a feature that would lighten pilot loads
in difficult times. But all that said, maybe Brian would want it
differently than that. Never would claim that I am normal by any means.
I am building an airplane after all. :)
I think that part of the fundamental problem is that the folks writing
the rules, doing the check rides, and to a fair extent, doing the
training or still trying to catch up as well. I had that experience in
my flight training where the CFI didn't like to use certain pieces of
equipment, nor talk to ATC, so as a result when I got done, that stuff
was something I had to work on my own to acquire. TAA is flashy, but it
is a lot of work to learn. Maybe the need to demonstrate a VOR when
MFD failure happens is a reflection of that school of thought.
Personally, I would find things like engine failure, fire, gear
problems, control problems, IMC incursions, strong crosswinds, and even
busy airspace to be much more likely issues that people would run into
prior to failure of most of the systems on the plane, yet very few of
these are even discussed about training suddenly.
I would stress again that I strongly believe in training and preparing
for the worst, but think that the worst should be prioritized by most
likely to least likely and trained and tested in a similar order.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
The Autocad version is at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z24-25L.dwg
It's also been added to Appendix Z which steps the chapter up
to Revison J at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
See Note 25 and Figure Z-25
When I get time, I'll update all the other z-figures that use
an SD-8 to include the self-excitation feature.
Thanks again Jim!
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: Electric failure |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I was wondering if you could clarify your thinking on this. Are you
>proposing that you would install a pair of these simple devices for a fully
>redundant system. Would this extend to having dual servos as well?
>
>Just curious,
>
>Paul
Absolutely. A few months ago I related the demise of a good friend of
mine and his golfing buddies in a fatal event over New Mexico. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/N79NL.pdf
This airplane had everything . . . including the kitchen sink. The
pilot was highly regarded, took all the Flight Safety refreshers,
keep the airplane up well. He was an engineer and manager of a business
that delivered LOTS of hardware to GA. He was about as far removed
from the Sunday afternoon fair weather, occasional instrument pilot
as you could find.
Nonetheless, he found himself faced with multiple failures of
expensive, certified but sadly INTERDEPENDENT systems that wrote
the script for an upset. After recovery, his abilities as a brass-or-glass
instrument pilot were severely degraded. In spite of having what
everyone considers "more than adequate" backup, he lost the airplane
a second time.
Sitting amongst attendees at his funeral, I recall thinking that
for lack of a redundant, totally independent killobuck wing leveler,
this didn't need to happen. If such a device had been available for
his airplane, I'm sure he would have installed one. At that time,
NavAid was the only game in town. Nowadays, theres a old-kid on the
block with a new game to play. It's called, "How about we never
need to touch the stick when in the clouds?"
The bill of materials for an airworthy device is peanuts. Having
TWO such systems totally independent of each other offers a HUGE
order of SYSTEM reliability over anything flying today, certified
or otherwise. The old-kid's product is a tad more expensive than
I think it needs to be . . . but who am I to bash the business
model of a very successful designer and honorable supplier to
the OBAM community? So, rather than bash, it seems more fitting
that I COMPETE . . .
But in the mean time, my participation doesn't prevent the
OBAM community from taking advantage of the opportunities
in place to help avoid becoming another NTSB statistic.
The neat thing is that hardware considered "unsuitable" for
use in N79NL is entirely suited to the task in OBAM aviation
and available off the shelf right now.
It just seems the logical way to go. I truly believe my friend Terry
would agree.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Thanks Bob (and Jim) - - - BUT - - - according to this modified version of
Z-25 the battery still needs to be in "good functioning condition" in order
to energize the S704-1 relay thus connecting the now self excited SD-8 to
the rest of the electrical system to utilize its output. If the battery is
of sufficient capacity to do this why couldn't we have used this same
capacity to excite the SD-8. What did we gain by its self excitation?? What
am I missing?? I would think an additional modification to Z-25 would be
required to actually make use of this self excitation. No ??
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:55 PM
>
>
> Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
> modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
> appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
> to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Good eye! I was so focused on the SD-8 I dropped the ball
on the system integration. The drawings have been corrected
to add steering didoes so that the disconnect relay will pull in
from either battery or alternator voltage -AND- (in most cases)
still have benefit of the battery to trip the OV crowbar.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Thanks Bob (and Jim) - - - BUT - - - according to this modified version of
>Z-25 the battery still needs to be in "good functioning condition" in order
>to energize the S704-1 relay thus connecting the now self excited SD-8 to
>the rest of the electrical system to utilize its output. If the battery is
>of sufficient capacity to do this why couldn't we have used this same
>capacity to excite the SD-8. What did we gain by its self excitation?? What
>am I missing?? I would think an additional modification to Z-25 would be
>required to actually make use of this self excitation. No ??
>
>Bob McC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:55 PM
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
> > modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
> > appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
> > to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 7/18/06 8:22:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
craig_california(at)hotmail.com writes:
> hotmail.com>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE ___________ ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX.
I HAVE
>
> LIKE 150 A DAY!!
=============================
Very easy:
Throw your computer out of a second floor window.
Then jump out after it!
It will kill the computer but won't kill you.
With luck you will only break your fingers ... That's our luck, not yours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
We get this kind of message periodically.. I suspect it may be someone
fishing for responses from people in order to find active email addresses.
If you are clever, you can find out whether the email address that sent
the message is actually a subscriber. I won't describe how to do this as
Mr Dralle might not like people using his system this way... In any case,
I can tell you that "Craig Thomas" is not
currently a subscriber to any matronics message list.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> In a message dated 7/18/06 8:22:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> craig_california(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
>> > hotmail.com>
>>
>> HOW DO I STOP THESE ___________ ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY
>> INBOX.
> I HAVE
>>
>> LIKE 150 A DAY!!
> =============================
> Very easy:
>
> Throw your computer out of a second floor window.
> Then jump out after it!
> It will kill the computer but won't kill you.
> With luck you will only break your fingers ... That's our luck, not yours.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_MS?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system isolation |
Thanks Harley and Barry - shall have to do more thinking and make the system
simpler - your input definitely helps.
Michele
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: samedi 15 juillet 2006 11:29
isolation
In a message dated 7/13/06 3:59:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes:
> What do you guys suggest isolate my electrical system when external
power
> is hot or just hook it up onto the battery via a relay?
>
> Thanks,
> Michele Delsol
> RV8 Fuselage
==========================
Michele:
The first question you have to ask yourself is: "What do I want the external
power for?"
If your answer is STARTING then all that is required is a connection - relay
to act as a MASTER RELAY and supply power to the Starter Relay and
conversely
to the STARTER. Isolating the rest of the panel and electronics. You can
get
that circuit from any GA manual Cessna, Piper or Grumman. That to me is the
K.I.S.S. M.E. principal. Now if you want a THREE function power hookup
source
for:
1 - Running a handheld or GPS
2 - Running your electronics for testing, or
3 - Doing a LOW LEVEL charge, such as charging the battery using a solar
panel ... The just hook up a cigarette lighter directly to the battery.
This is the system I have hooked up in the RV-6A.
It is GREAT when you have an electrical problem and have to shut down the
MASTER. It gives you power for the GPS [Navigation] and a handheld
[Communication]. Oh, did you remember to install a quick disconnect for the
antenna so you
can hook up the handheld?
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_MS?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
Thanks Bob - as usual it is back to basics. This is what I want to
accomplish :
1 - Jump start the engine because the battery does not have enough juice
left. Would it be OK to just hook in onto the existing battery, turn the
master on, and push on the starter or should all electrics be isolated
except for PMags, fuel pump and starter solenoid?
2 - Charge the battery - cockpit shut, baggage door shut. Here I can leave
the main contactor off to isolate all circuits.
3 - Run electrical equipment in the airplane for testing as I assemble the
electrical circuit - for this one I guess I could just as well hook up an
external source onto the battery terminals or onto the main bus over the
rails. I don't really need an external power source to accomplish this.
Thanks,
Michele
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: vendredi 14 juillet 2006 15:00
>
>
>Listers,
>
>I have been planning on adding external power to my system (one alternator,
>one battery, PMag IO360). My original design was pretty simple, hook it
>straight onto the battery such as one does when jump starting a car.
That works.
> Then I
>added a relay so that the external power terminals would not be hot when
not
>connected to external power.
What is the added value? What risks are mitigated by this?
Is your external power INTENDED to crank an engine with a
compromised battery . . . or just to run electro-whizzies on
the ground, or just charge a battery, or just maintain a battery?
Settling on one of these design goals drives the size of your
hardware ranging from a tiny wall-wart charger and 24AWG connecting
leads up to 2AWG welding cable plugged in through a very fat connecto.
>Then some knowledgeable fellow builders told me
>that I should only use external power for starting the engine nothing
>else.
If that was their design goal, that's correct. What's your design
goal?
> Then some other knowledgeable builders told me that I could install a
>cigar lighter jack in parallel as an external power connector for
recharging
>the battery.
Yup, that's another achievable design goal . . .
> Then there was the issue as to external power not being clean
>DC current and consequently liable to play havoc with some of my sensitive
>equipment.
If you have a battery on the bus any time ground power is
applied, then externally conducted noises are not an issue.
The battery is the airplane's best firewall against any and
all perturbations of bus voltage.
>Based on this I proceeded to design a circuit which would
>automatically disconnect all electricals except for the starter solenoid,
>current to the PMags and current to my fuel pump. Whereupon another
>knowledgeable person suggested that I should remember the KISS principle
I
>may be over designing my system.
Again, depends on your design goals. What do YOU want this
ground power system to do for you?
>What do you guys suggest isolate my electrical system when external power
>is hot or just hook it up onto the battery via a relay?
Start with the article at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
This is typical of ground power jacks installed on
type certificated aircraft with a few AEC enhancements
added as described in the text.
This installation may be used for just about every purpose
other than battery maintenance because you need to close
a contactor to get connection between external power and
the battery.
Let's start with what you want the connection to do and
then tailor it to that task. Most of what you were told
is inaccurate and/or incomplete.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_MS?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
I've been debating whether to put the battery up front in the forward
baggage area or in the rear. The roar in favor of the rear has been so
strong that I finally capitulated and shall indeed be putting it in the
rear, but I shall prepare the front baggage well to receive the battery and
contactors if my CG permits it after all.
As for external power, Ill wait 'till the battery issue gets finalized.
Thanks,
Michele
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Sent: samedi 15 juillet 2006 15:08
> >
> >
> >Listers,
> >
> >I have been planning on adding external power to my system (one
alternator,
> >one battery, PMag IO360). My original design was pretty simple, hook it
> >straight onto the battery such as one does when jump starting a car.
>> Then I added a relay so that the external power terminals would not be
hot when not connected to external power.
Michele,
Earlier you said that you intended to place your battery on the right side
behind the firewall. It seems to me, that in this location, you can access
the battery on your RV8 by simply opening the front baggage door and
reaching down. With this location, why add weight and complexity when there
is such a simple and obvious solution? What am I missing?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Bob,
I just down loaded the drawing I found the dual diodes at the
coil of the relay. Is this the way to energize the coil with the SD8 on
line only?
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: XM Radio with Garmin 530/430? |
Garmin gave me that information.
That might be the best, simplest solution, and I am considering it. However, before
I went through that, I thought I would ask the forum to see if anyone had
any ideas.
Thanks.
PW
--------
Rotorway JetExec
Baron B58
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=48847#48847
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
Hello Michele,
Though it is common to 'jump start' airplanes (and cars, etc.), doing so
may likely cause the battery to have a significantly shortened life. As
soon as the engine is running at a speed (RPM) which allows the alternator
to put out it's rated current, the battery will be charged at that rate
(minus whatever operating load is on the system). Lots of people talk of
using a 60Amp (or greater) alternator. Dumping 50Amps+ into the battery
may heat it significantly (not to mention putting a heavy load on the
alternator)...
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Thanks Bob - as usual it is back to basics. This is what I want to
> accomplish :
>
> 1 - Jump start the engine because the battery does not have enough juice
> left. Would it be OK to just hook in onto the existing battery, turn the
> master on, and push on the starter or should all electrics be isolated
> except for PMags, fuel pump and starter solenoid?
>
> 2 - Charge the battery - cockpit shut, baggage door shut. Here I can leave
> the main contactor off to isolate all circuits.
>
> 3 - Run electrical equipment in the airplane for testing as I assemble the
> electrical circuit - for this one I guess I could just as well hook up an
> external source onto the battery terminals or onto the main bus over the
> rails. I don't really need an external power source to accomplish this.
>
> Thanks,
> Michele
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: vendredi 14 juillet 2006 15:00
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Listers,
>>
>>I have been planning on adding external power to my system (one
>> alternator,
>>one battery, PMag IO360). My original design was pretty simple, hook it
>>straight onto the battery such as one does when jump starting a car.
>
> That works.
>
>> Then I
>>added a relay so that the external power terminals would not be hot when
> not
>>connected to external power.
>
> What is the added value? What risks are mitigated by this?
> Is your external power INTENDED to crank an engine with a
> compromised battery . . . or just to run electro-whizzies on
> the ground, or just charge a battery, or just maintain a battery?
>
> Settling on one of these design goals drives the size of your
> hardware ranging from a tiny wall-wart charger and 24AWG connecting
> leads up to 2AWG welding cable plugged in through a very fat connecto.
>
>>Then some knowledgeable fellow builders told me
>>that I should only use external power for starting the engine nothing
>>else.
>
> If that was their design goal, that's correct. What's your design
> goal?
>
>
>> Then some other knowledgeable builders told me that I could install a
>>cigar lighter jack in parallel as an external power connector for
> recharging
>>the battery.
>
>
> Yup, that's another achievable design goal . . .
>
>> Then there was the issue as to external power not being clean
>>DC current and consequently liable to play havoc with some of my
>> sensitive
>>equipment.
>
> If you have a battery on the bus any time ground power is
> applied, then externally conducted noises are not an issue.
> The battery is the airplane's best firewall against any and
> all perturbations of bus voltage.
>
>
>>Based on this I proceeded to design a circuit which would
>>automatically disconnect all electricals except for the starter solenoid,
>>current to the PMags and current to my fuel pump. Whereupon another
>>knowledgeable person suggested that I should remember the KISS principle
>>
> I
>>may be over designing my system.
>
> Again, depends on your design goals. What do YOU want this
> ground power system to do for you?
>
>
>>What do you guys suggest isolate my electrical system when external
>> power
>>is hot or just hook it up onto the battery via a relay?
>
> Start with the article at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
>
> This is typical of ground power jacks installed on
> type certificated aircraft with a few AEC enhancements
> added as described in the text.
>
> This installation may be used for just about every purpose
> other than battery maintenance because you need to close
> a contactor to get connection between external power and
> the battery.
>
> Let's start with what you want the connection to do and
> then tailor it to that task. Most of what you were told
> is inaccurate and/or incomplete.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Batteries and dynon update |
Anyone have a dynon product, I have a D10A in my 701.For those interested.
There is a new firmware update just out July 10th that enables the AOA tone to
headset and has a full screen DG that keeps all the numbers right side
up.Many other improvements also.
I just powered up the completed Aerolectric Connection designed electrical
system and its
looking good!! I'm using a power supply on the battery terminals. Looking
at batteries at
B&C and wondering about Amp hours. Whats reasonable for VFR only. Id like to
keep the weight and size of the battery on the low end. Maybe a local night
flight not very often, mostly daytime. Any battery install pics in the back
seat of a 701 helpful.
I have a rotax 912 with the 20 Amp alternator.
I've attached a pic of panel, hopefully seen at
_http://www.matronics.com/forums_ (http://www.matronics.com/forums)
Lettering has been done with rub on letters and numbers from tower hobbies.
Base paint is grey rustoleum glossy, letters applied and then applied a
rustoleum flat clear coat. Used blue painters tape to line up letters and numbers
to keep straight. It took alot of time but looks like a military style panel.
This is posted to Aeroelectric List and Zenith list.
Brian
Zenith CH-701
Long Island, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: microphone noise |
In a message dated 7/16/06 11:02:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
> Thank you Charlie and Barry for your thoughts.
>
> It seems that it is cockpit noise that the mic is picking up.
> Interestingly I have a flighttech intercom which uses a hot mic and
> processes the mic audio to remove the cockpit noise from the intercom.
> That works well and there is no noise in the intercom. However when
> transmitting, the mic signal (and noise) goes directly to the radio and
> is transmitted regardless of whether the intercom is on or off..
> Speaking loudly helps for the time being ;)
>
> Ken
====================================
Ken:
Thank you for the follow up to your problem. I would have never thought of a
HOT MIC as being the problem.
Is it possible to increase the Squelch by external knob or maybe internal
adjustment to shut off the continually on Hot Mic?
I would give a call to the manufacture and see what they say about the
problem. If you have this problem with their product. I'm sure there are others.
There might be a solution from the manufacture.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: braided bonding straps |
In a message dated 7/16/06 10:34:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
armywrights(at)adelphia.net writes:
> I know I can order these to a pre-set length, but I've removed probably 2.5'
> of braid shield from some RG-58 and wondering what all I can do with it. I
> know I can use attach a connector and use it as a circuit ground,
>
> but I'm wondering if it will also work for some of these static charge
> installations: aileron to wing, flap to wing, elevator to HS; and some of
> the heftier installations: engine to firewall stud, battery negative post
to
> airframe, etc.
>
>
>
> Rob Wright
>
> RV-10
=============================
Rob:
Coax shield would work but it is not as heavy a gage as you should obtain
from a place like ACS. I would Guess the gage of shielding is about equivalent
to un-insulated 16 or 14 AWG. It would sure work as a static dissipater.
When picking the proper coax make sure you use the silver color braid type.
This is the one that has the copper braid nickel coated and that will work
well in a moisture environment. The coax you wish to use is RG-58A/U.
If you wish to go to a larger gage wire by going the coax route try RG-8A or
RG-214.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
>
>
>Thanks Bob - as usual it is back to basics. This is what I want to
>accomplish :
>
>1 - Jump start the engine because the battery does not have enough juice
>left. Would it be OK to just hook in onto the existing battery, turn the
>master on, and push on the starter or should all electrics be isolated
>except for PMags, fuel pump and starter solenoid?
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
With the battery on line, you can have any equipment running
that you wish. I'd wait a minute or two after plugging
in ground power and charging the battery before you power
up the airplane for cranking.
>2 - Charge the battery - cockpit shut, baggage door shut. Here I can leave
>the main contactor off to isolate all circuits.
The above circuit allows this also but won't work well
with battery maintainers because of the ground power contactor's
0.8A draw. If you want to run a battery maintainer, add
a small connector directly to the battery bus to connect a
battery maintainer. See:
http://batterytender.com/product_info.php?products_id=4&osCsid=98b86a9d022882459cf6e26026c0edf6
Street price on these is 25-30 dollars.
>3 - Run electrical equipment in the airplane for testing as I assemble the
>electrical circuit - for this one I guess I could just as well hook up an
>external source onto the battery terminals or onto the main bus over the
>rails. I don't really need an external power source to accomplish this.
Use the ground power jack and plug an AC supply into it.
Here's a nice one that will run just about everything but pitot heat
and fat landing lights:
http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=5386+PS
If it were my airplane I'd have a high current external
power jack like that described above and a low current
tap to the battery bus for a battery maintainer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
>
>Hello Michele,
>
>Though it is common to 'jump start' airplanes (and cars, etc.), doing so
>may likely cause the battery to have a significantly shortened life. As
>soon as the engine is running at a speed (RPM) which allows the alternator
>to put out it's rated current, the battery will be charged at that rate
>(minus whatever operating load is on the system). Lots of people talk of
>using a 60Amp (or greater) alternator. Dumping 50Amps+ into the battery
>may heat it significantly (not to mention putting a heavy load on the
>alternator)...
While the "loads" cited are real, they're transient
and not even a minor hazard to an RG battery or an
alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: braided bonding straps |
Coaxial cable shield is a reasonable material for fabricating
your own braided jumpers. What most folks don't know about the
jumpers we used to sell is that they were THREE concentric
conductors. You can take lengths of braid salvaged off a piece
of coax, bunch it up, slip another length inside. Smooth the outside
over the inside, bunch it again and add another length. This is
how you get enough copper in the conductor to reasonably fill
a 2AWG terminal. The fatter coaxes work for this. RG-8 is single
layer shield. You can use RG-214 or similar (double braid) and
put a second chunk inside the first for total of FOUR concentric
layers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
>
>Bob,
> I just down loaded the drawing I found the dual diodes at the
>coil of the relay. Is this the way to energize the coil with the SD8 on
>line only?
It provides coil excitation for when ONLY the SD-8 is running
but also provides a path from the battery when it's on line
for providing the high current, short duration source necessary
for crowbar ov protection.
I've got a new LV/OV monitoring system coming onto the 'Connections
pages in the next few weeks that will provide an alternative to the
schematic published. In the mean time, the drawing provided works
too.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | External Power and electrical system |
At 04:31 PM 7/20/2006, you wrote:
>
>Hello Michele,
>
>Though it is common to 'jump start' airplanes (and cars, etc.), doing so
>may likely cause the battery to have a significantly shortened life. As
>soon as the engine is running at a speed (RPM) which allows the alternator
>to put out it's rated current, the battery will be charged at that rate
>(minus whatever operating load is on the system). Lots of people talk of
>using a 60Amp (or greater) alternator. Dumping 50Amps+ into the battery
>may heat it significantly (not to mention putting a heavy load on the
>alternator)...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
snipped
Matt,
Providing that your voltage regulator functions properly, you will
never damage a battery as mentioned above. As the heavy charge
quickly refills the battery, system voltage will rise. The voltage
regulator will limit system voltage (and thereby amperage into the
battery). This will prevent damage to the battery.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: microphone noise |
Barry
No the hot mic works fine for the intercom. This particular intercom
processes the hot mic signal such that it eliminates the background
cockpit noise from my mic on the intercom. A different concept than the
more common voice actuated intercom and so far it seems to work as
advertised although I'm mostly flying solo right now.
When I transmit, the mic is connected directly to the radio (bypasses
the intercom) and that was when the objectionable noise was being picked
up and transmitted. As per Charlie's suggestion, I reduced the mic gain
adjustment on the radio and that seems to have helped quite a bit.
Ken
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/16/06 11:02:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
>
>
>
>>Thank you Charlie and Barry for your thoughts.
>>
>> It seems that it is cockpit noise that the mic is picking up.
>> Interestingly I have a flighttech intercom which uses a hot mic and
>> processes the mic audio to remove the cockpit noise from the intercom.
>> That works well and there is no noise in the intercom. However when
>> transmitting, the mic signal (and noise) goes directly to the radio and
>> is transmitted regardless of whether the intercom is on or off..
>> Speaking loudly helps for the time being ;)
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>====================================
>Ken:
>
>Thank you for the follow up to your problem. I would have never thought of a
>HOT MIC as being the problem.
>
>Is it possible to increase the Squelch by external knob or maybe internal
>adjustment to shut off the continually on Hot Mic?
>I would give a call to the manufacture and see what they say about the
>problem. If you have this problem with their product. I'm sure there are others.
>There might be a solution from the manufacture.
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: External Power and electrical system |
Hello Matt,
during winter I had to do jump starts 2-3 times on a now 3 year old
Panasonic, so for the first 2 to 5 minutes I did see on my amp meter a
load of 11-13 Amps coming, however as load is around 4-5 amps from the
cockpit an inrush current less then 10 Amps at the beginning has been
see, a lot more then the std. 1.8 you should charge with. So far I've
not seen a negative effect but I should do that winter a capacity test
to see more.
br Werner
Matt Prather wrote:
>
>Hello Michele,
>
>Though it is common to 'jump start' airplanes (and cars, etc.), doing so
>may likely cause the battery to have a significantly shortened life. As
>soon as the engine is running at a speed (RPM) which allows the alternator
>to put out it's rated current, the battery will be charged at that rate
>(minus whatever operating load is on the system). Lots of people talk of
>using a 60Amp (or greater) alternator. Dumping 50Amps+ into the battery
>may heat it significantly (not to mention putting a heavy load on the
>alternator)...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Thanks Bob - as usual it is back to basics. This is what I want to
>>accomplish :
>>
>>1 - Jump start the engine because the battery does not have enough juice
>>left. Would it be OK to just hook in onto the existing battery, turn the
>>master on, and push on the starter or should all electrics be isolated
>>except for PMags, fuel pump and starter solenoid?
>>
>>2 - Charge the battery - cockpit shut, baggage door shut. Here I can leave
>>the main contactor off to isolate all circuits.
>>
>>3 - Run electrical equipment in the airplane for testing as I assemble the
>>electrical circuit - for this one I guess I could just as well hook up an
>>external source onto the battery terminals or onto the main bus over the
>>rails. I don't really need an external power source to accomplish this.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Michele
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
>>L.
>>Nuckolls, III
>>Sent: vendredi 14 juillet 2006 15:00
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Listers,
>>>
>>>I have been planning on adding external power to my system (one
>>>alternator,
>>>one battery, PMag IO360). My original design was pretty simple, hook it
>>>straight onto the battery such as one does when jump starting a car.
>>>
>>>
>> That works.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then I
>>>added a relay so that the external power terminals would not be hot when
>>>
>>>
>>not
>>
>>
>>>connected to external power.
>>>
>>>
>> What is the added value? What risks are mitigated by this?
>> Is your external power INTENDED to crank an engine with a
>> compromised battery . . . or just to run electro-whizzies on
>> the ground, or just charge a battery, or just maintain a battery?
>>
>> Settling on one of these design goals drives the size of your
>> hardware ranging from a tiny wall-wart charger and 24AWG connecting
>> leads up to 2AWG welding cable plugged in through a very fat connecto.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Then some knowledgeable fellow builders told me
>>>that I should only use external power for starting the engine nothing
>>>else.
>>>
>>>
>> If that was their design goal, that's correct. What's your design
>> goal?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then some other knowledgeable builders told me that I could install a
>>>cigar lighter jack in parallel as an external power connector for
>>>
>>>
>>recharging
>>
>>
>>>the battery.
>>>
>>>
>> Yup, that's another achievable design goal . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then there was the issue as to external power not being clean
>>>DC current and consequently liable to play havoc with some of my
>>>sensitive
>>>equipment.
>>>
>>>
>> If you have a battery on the bus any time ground power is
>> applied, then externally conducted noises are not an issue.
>> The battery is the airplane's best firewall against any and
>> all perturbations of bus voltage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Based on this I proceeded to design a circuit which would
>>>automatically disconnect all electricals except for the starter solenoid,
>>>current to the PMags and current to my fuel pump. Whereupon another
>>>knowledgeable person suggested that I should remember the KISS principle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I
>>
>>
>>>may be over designing my system.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, depends on your design goals. What do YOU want this
>> ground power system to do for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What do you guys suggest isolate my electrical system when external
>>>power
>>>is hot or just hook it up onto the battery via a relay?
>>>
>>>
>> Start with the article at:
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
>>
>> This is typical of ground power jacks installed on
>> type certificated aircraft with a few AEC enhancements
>> added as described in the text.
>>
>> This installation may be used for just about every purpose
>> other than battery maintenance because you need to close
>> a contactor to get connection between external power and
>> the battery.
>>
>> Let's start with what you want the connection to do and
>> then tailor it to that task. Most of what you were told
>> is inaccurate and/or incomplete.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:32 PM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
>
>
> Glen and others,
>
> Actually I was asking more about the training and how closely it would
> match a likely failure of a system.
Well, since you mention me by name I guess I get to respond, right? :-)
I would probably approach it from the systems failure point of view
first and then train to that. Let's start with the difference between
flying in visual and instrument meteorological conditions. If you are
VFR, the engine is running and you can make power changes, and the
primary flight controls are working, you don't have an immediate
problem. Fly someplace and land. Sort it out on the ground. If you
think about it, you don't need anything in your instrument panel to
work in order to safely fly to a good landing spot and land. You
don't need radios, gyros, or pitot-static instruments. So if you are
a VFR-only pilot, a lot of the redundancy and no-single-point-of-
failure stuff we talk about here is superfluous. The only exception I
see is if you need electrical power to keep your engine running.
If you are getting ready to yell at me about how you need your
airspeed and altimeter instruments, I have an example that suggests
otherwise. I have a student who had an annoying habit of getting head-
down in the cockpit worrying about being on altitude and on airspeed.
He got to where he was chasing the airspeed instead of flying by
reference to the external horizon. I solved his problem by covering
the ASI and altimeter and making him fly the whole lesson with them
covered. He quickly discovered that he could use trim and power
presets (known settings) to get the airplane to perform the way he
wanted. He discovered the he could hear and feel the short-term
airspeed variations. In short, he didn't need those instruments. The
result is that he felt more comfortable leaving his head out and just
flying the airplane.
So, if you are a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane, you just don't need to
worry about things that much.
Now the pilot with the advanced IFR aircraft who plans to fly in IMC
is a different story. Now you become dependent on those things in the
panel in order to safely complete a flight and get on the ground.
I thought Bob's story was rather telling. Here was a guy who had the
training and had redundant systems but still managed to kill himself
and his passengers. What went wrong? My guess is that, when presented
with conflicting information from both working and failed
instruments, he found it impossible to determine what the airplane
was doing so he proceeded to make things worse. That he managed to
get the airplane into a loop and/or a roll just boggles my mind. I
have to think that, had he pulled the throttle to idle, dropped the
gear, let go of the yoke, and used the rudder pedals to stop the
aircraft's rotation, he probably would have survived.
Now we have to assume that, unless he had a trim runaway, the
airplane was trimmed for level flight. If he didn't put in any pitch
commands the airplane would continue to seek its trim airspeed.
Dropping the gear and pulling the throttle to idle was just a way to
get the airplane to descend without gaining a lot of extra speed and
to control speed after he lost it. (Besides, part of standard spin
recovery is "power to idle".) Now if he was spinning using the
rudders to stop the rotation would have stopped the spin. At that
point the airplane would have righted itself and sought its trim
airspeed again.
But this thread started out with what fails and what to do about it.
The increased capability of advanced avionics tends to turn us into
systems managers, not pilots. If you think about someone depending on
their primary flight display (PFD), i.e. the thing that displays your
whole six-pack in one display (as opposed to the multi-function
display that displays moving map, wether, traffic, etc.) and then how
they react when it goes blank on them, you can see why the FAA might
be concerned.
We are putting more and more emphasis on fewer devices, more complex
devices. All our eggs are in one basket so to speak. When the basket
falls we have quite a mess. What do you do?
You know, one of the things I would do is work with a CFI to develop
a scenario-based education program for MY airplane. Jeff, you made an
interesting point about a CFI who won't use the devices in the panel
and won't talk to ATC. You don't want that CFI to help you in this
case. You want one who will sit in your cockpit, learn its
capabilities, and then do the, "what if this thing here failed,"
scenario. He might not even know the answer but will work with you to
find the answer and then work with you to train up on it until you
can deal with that scenario. Then you write it down and it becomes
part of your system failure checklist. It is a lot easier to think
about that stuff on the ground than when you are in IMC conditions
with moderate turbulence.
As for your nearest facility/frequency function, I have that in my
Apollo GX-60. Pretty spiffy. I hit the "nearest" button; select
airport, VOR, or NDB; then scroll through the facilities starting
with the nearest. If I press the "info" button all the information is
there -- frequencies, runway heading and length, etc. It is even fed
into my SL-30 so the VOR frequencies are right there. Select, dial,
enter. (Those are the actual keystrokes.) Pretty neat.
Even though I know how, I almost never use it.
I don't use it because it doesn't help my situational awareness.
Looking at a chart helps my situational awareness because it is a
much better integration of information. Faster access too. I
immediately see where I am and my relationship to all the facilities
around me. Freqs are there too. Selection is easy.
Now if they somehow managed to combine a touch-screen with the VOR
receiver maybe that would work for me. Touch the VOR receiver and
then touch the station on the moving map. POOF! VOR receiver
channelized and the OBS spins to center the needle. That might work.
Same with comm. (But how do you tell it you want tower, ATIS,
approach, or ground?)
Getting on to redundancy. I think my Aztec panel is a good study in
this. I got a bunch of new Apollo gear to put in my CJ6A project.
(GX-60 GPS/comm, SL-30 Nav-Com, SL-70 xpdr, SL-15 audio panel, Sandel
EHSI) Then I got to thinking about how often I planned to fly hard
IFR in my CJ6A. How about "never". It seemed like all that wonderful
gear would go to waste there. So I put it in my Aztec. Quite a nice
panel.
But I did one other thing too. I kept the old KNS-80 RNAV (VOR/ILS/
DME/RNAV). I gave it its own dedicated indicator. These were isolated
from everything else in the panel. I know that if my super-whizzy
stuff goes TU, the KNS-80 and its antiquated cross-needle VOR/LOC/GS
indicator will let me navigate to my destination and then shoot an
approach, including an ILS.
I also kept the old vacuum-driven heading indicator (DG). (Old Bob --
it has a needle-ball, not a TC.) When I am feeling a bit less poor I
will try to talk the FSDO into letting me put a Dynon D10. I don't
plan to replace anything, just have the Dynon there. If the Dynon
fails I will fly the old six-pack.
Going back and reading this (it is already after midnight and my
brain quit an hour ago) I see I rambled all over. Oh well. Hopefully
it will spark some thinking about this. I know I spend entirely too
much time thinking about this.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
In a message dated 7/17/06 3:22:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brinker@cox-internet.com writes:
> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he can
> talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other planes
> on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach frequency and
he
>
> can hear and talk just fine to control. This has happened to him twice. I
> his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
>
> Randy
==================================================
Randy:
This sound more like an ATC problem than his problem.
I fly through PHY airspace a lot and there are areas where they can hear me
well, but I cannot hear them. I request a different frequency or they do a
dual transmission on two frequencies at the same time and problem solved.
Not My Problem!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
| Subject: | Electric failure |
Maybe...But it is good food for thought, I appreciate the feedback/suggestions!
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:28 AM
-->
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:32 PM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
>
>
> Glen and others,
>
> Actually I was asking more about the training and how closely it would
> match a likely failure of a system.
Well, since you mention me by name I guess I get to respond, right? :-)
I would probably approach it from the systems failure point of view first and then
train to that. Let's start with the difference between flying in visual and
instrument meteorological conditions. If you are VFR, the engine is running
and you can make power changes, and the primary flight controls are working, you
don't have an immediate problem. Fly someplace and land. Sort it out on the
ground. If you think about it, you don't need anything in your instrument panel
to work in order to safely fly to a good landing spot and land. You don't need
radios, gyros, or pitot-static instruments. So if you are a VFR-only pilot,
a lot of the redundancy and no-single-point-of- failure stuff we talk about
here is superfluous. The only exception I see is if you need electrical power
to keep your engine running.
If you are getting ready to yell at me about how you need your airspeed and altimeter
instruments, I have an example that suggests otherwise. I have a student
who had an annoying habit of getting head- down in the cockpit worrying about
being on altitude and on airspeed.
He got to where he was chasing the airspeed instead of flying by reference to the
external horizon. I solved his problem by covering the ASI and altimeter and
making him fly the whole lesson with them covered. He quickly discovered that
he could use trim and power presets (known settings) to get the airplane to
perform the way he wanted. He discovered the he could hear and feel the short-term
airspeed variations. In short, he didn't need those instruments. The result
is that he felt more comfortable leaving his head out and just flying the airplane.
So, if you are a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane, you just don't need to worry about
things that much.
Now the pilot with the advanced IFR aircraft who plans to fly in IMC is a different
story. Now you become dependent on those things in the panel in order to
safely complete a flight and get on the ground.
I thought Bob's story was rather telling. Here was a guy who had the training and
had redundant systems but still managed to kill himself and his passengers.
What went wrong? My guess is that, when presented with conflicting information
from both working and failed instruments, he found it impossible to determine
what the airplane was doing so he proceeded to make things worse. That he managed
to get the airplane into a loop and/or a roll just boggles my mind. I have
to think that, had he pulled the throttle to idle, dropped the gear, let go
of the yoke, and used the rudder pedals to stop the aircraft's rotation, he probably
would have survived.
Now we have to assume that, unless he had a trim runaway, the airplane was trimmed
for level flight. If he didn't put in any pitch commands the airplane would
continue to seek its trim airspeed.
Dropping the gear and pulling the throttle to idle was just a way to get the airplane
to descend without gaining a lot of extra speed and to control speed after
he lost it. (Besides, part of standard spin recovery is "power to idle".)
Now if he was spinning using the rudders to stop the rotation would have stopped
the spin. At that point the airplane would have righted itself and sought its
trim airspeed again.
But this thread started out with what fails and what to do about it.
The increased capability of advanced avionics tends to turn us into systems managers,
not pilots. If you think about someone depending on their primary flight
display (PFD), i.e. the thing that displays your whole six-pack in one display
(as opposed to the multi-function display that displays moving map, wether,
traffic, etc.) and then how they react when it goes blank on them, you can see
why the FAA might be concerned.
We are putting more and more emphasis on fewer devices, more complex devices. All
our eggs are in one basket so to speak. When the basket falls we have quite
a mess. What do you do?
You know, one of the things I would do is work with a CFI to develop a scenario-based
education program for MY airplane. Jeff, you made an interesting point
about a CFI who won't use the devices in the panel and won't talk to ATC. You
don't want that CFI to help you in this case. You want one who will sit in your
cockpit, learn its capabilities, and then do the, "what if this thing here failed,"
scenario. He might not even know the answer but will work with you to find the
answer and then work with you to train up on it until you can deal with that scenario.
Then you write it down and it becomes part of your system failure checklist.
It is a lot easier to think about that stuff on the ground than when you
are in IMC conditions with moderate turbulence.
As for your nearest facility/frequency function, I have that in my Apollo GX-60.
Pretty spiffy. I hit the "nearest" button; select airport, VOR, or NDB; then
scroll through the facilities starting with the nearest. If I press the "info"
button all the information is there -- frequencies, runway heading and length,
etc. It is even fed into my SL-30 so the VOR frequencies are right there. Select,
dial, enter. (Those are the actual keystrokes.) Pretty neat.
Even though I know how, I almost never use it.
I don't use it because it doesn't help my situational awareness.
Looking at a chart helps my situational awareness because it is a much better integration
of information. Faster access too. I immediately see where I am and
my relationship to all the facilities around me. Freqs are there too. Selection
is easy.
Now if they somehow managed to combine a touch-screen with the VOR receiver maybe
that would work for me. Touch the VOR receiver and then touch the station on
the moving map. POOF! VOR receiver channelized and the OBS spins to center the
needle. That might work.
Same with comm. (But how do you tell it you want tower, ATIS, approach, or ground?)
Getting on to redundancy. I think my Aztec panel is a good study in this. I got
a bunch of new Apollo gear to put in my CJ6A project.
(GX-60 GPS/comm, SL-30 Nav-Com, SL-70 xpdr, SL-15 audio panel, Sandel
EHSI) Then I got to thinking about how often I planned to fly hard IFR in my CJ6A.
How about "never". It seemed like all that wonderful gear would go to waste
there. So I put it in my Aztec. Quite a nice panel.
But I did one other thing too. I kept the old KNS-80 RNAV (VOR/ILS/ DME/RNAV).
I gave it its own dedicated indicator. These were isolated from everything else
in the panel. I know that if my super-whizzy stuff goes TU, the KNS-80 and its
antiquated cross-needle VOR/LOC/GS indicator will let me navigate to my destination
and then shoot an approach, including an ILS.
I also kept the old vacuum-driven heading indicator (DG). (Old Bob -- it has a
needle-ball, not a TC.) When I am feeling a bit less poor I will try to talk the
FSDO into letting me put a Dynon D10. I don't plan to replace anything, just
have the Dynon there. If the Dynon fails I will fly the old six-pack.
Going back and reading this (it is already after midnight and my brain quit an
hour ago) I see I rambled all over. Oh well. Hopefully it will spark some thinking
about this. I know I spend entirely too much time thinking about this.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com> |
| Subject: | Battery location |
Hi All,
I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
put their batteries?
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location |
Fred,
My 6A with AFP injected O360 & MT CS prop has an Odyssey (I think that's the same
battery) mounted on the aft side of the firewall right below the cutout pan.
My LASAR box sits firewall foreward approximately where the firewall foreward
kit would place the battery.
I know that some other things go there if you're building your 7A strictly according
to plans but I did mine before the firewall foreward kit came out and I'm
not unhappy about it. I'm putting my heater vents (two) on the outboard edges
of the firewall as I have two heater/mufflers on my vetterman crossover.
I've got more photos of it in it's place at home if you're interested.....I changed
the top restraining bar to a fore/aft from the port/starboard arrangement
as I wasn't sure about the clearance with the inboards of the rudder pedals.
The way mine is set up there are two nutplates at the lower corners of the attachment
angle that allow the battery box to 'hinge' aft for maintenance after loosening
them one turn and removing the two top bolts from their attaching nutplates.
The assembly is mounted just low enough to get the allen wrench in to
remove the battery cable attachment screws.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com>
>Sent: Jul 21, 2006 8:30 AM
>To: "'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'"
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery location
>
>
>Hi All,
>
> I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
>prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
>of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
>put their batteries?
>
>Fred Stucklen
>RV-7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
>As for Inductive / capacitive coupling. We are talking DC circuits with
>Noise in the AUDIO frequency range.
>As the saying goes: K.I.S.S. M.E. All this stuff about capacitive and
>inductive coupling is not an issue in a simple noise problem as we are
>discussing here. AND what the heck is "NON-MAGNETIC BRAID-TYPE
>SHIELDING"? Do you really expect people to go out looking for
>"mu-metal"? ALL the braid used on any electrical circuit on our planes is
>NONMAGNETIC ... It is made of COPPER WIRE. Copper is non magnetic the
>last time I checked. Again K.I.S.S. M.E. is the word of the day.
>
>Electronics is simple, it is really! All these boog-a-boo statements only
>confuses the non-electrical types amongst us. The only thing they need to
>know is how to remove the noise. Again that goes back to the basics of
>noise, and breaking it down into DC and AC ... AC goes one step further
>(Audio Frequencies [AF] and Radio Frequencies [RF]).
>Basics:
>AF Noise - Shield and Ground at the source [This is why the Mic & Phone
>lines use insulating washers at the jacks and ground at the audio panel or
>radios.]
>RF Noise - Shield and Ground at both ends. [Here is where exceptions come
>into play - Some times the grounding is done through a capacitor. BUT we
>are dealing with AF Noise not RF so I'm not going to try to confuse people
>out there.]
>Let the manufacture of the wire worry about resistance of 1000 Ft and the
>capacitive coupling / inductive coupling at AF & RF. The ONLY thing that
>would be of interest to our noise plagued brevien is the Percentage of
>Braid. You did not say anything about that! Yet again as long as you use
>Mil-Spec wire the percentage of braid is acceptable and again our brevien
>does not have to be concerned.
>
>As for the Separation of wires .... I did address that with my very first
>statement to Lucky; read above.
>
>I would suggest that all the AF noise (strobe noise) we are discussing be
>approached as I described AND then if the noise still exists just add
>another ground t=at the other end of the shield. It is MUCH easier to ADD
>a ground than to remove a ground.
The usefulness of shielding for wires is limited
and there are no fixed rules for grounding this end
or grounding that end. Further, shielding is a poor
substitute for internal filtering when radio frequencies
are involved.
Percentage of braid is an exceedingly tiny concern
and the use of "mil spec" wire is not a golden recipe
for success. If one has a noise problem the first
task is to properly identify the noise source and the
nature of the noise. The the game of Clue is played
to deduce the propagation mode. Fortunately with
strobe systems, millions have been installed in as
many vehicles with no noise issues. Similarly, thousands
of system with noise issues have been successfully
solved by application of very simple techniques . . .
techniques that almost never involve departure from the installation
instructions. If a noise problem is EVER mitigated by the
repositioning of wires, this is prima facie evidence of
a core problem wherein repositioning of wires only makes
the symptoms go away and does nothing to fix the real
issue. Similarly, if a system that has worked successfully
in many other installations suddenly seems to benefit from the
addition of wire shields, that too is only an aspirin on
the hurt that does not cure the infection.
In my whole career, I've never found it useful to add
shielding or to reposition equipment or its wiring as
a means for improving performance. If the original
poster of the problem can describe the results of any
experiments described in the 'Connection (or elsewhere)
to identify the propagation mode, then remedies are
readily at-hand to break that mode.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
>
>I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
>yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
>
>1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are grounded with
>the radio ground and even when I put power noise filters on. However, the
>Radio Shack noise filters reference on Bob's web site were reported to me
>to be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find
>locally which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead
>of 2200 uF like Radio Shack apparently was.
Okay, I found the data I was looking for in my post of
a few minutes ago.
>More specifically, the strobe noise is relatively faint until I select the
>Push to Talk button. Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
>there. Looking for ideas from this list.
Have you tried operating strobes from a separate
battery? What is the nature of the noise you are hearing?
"POP" or "whine"?
>Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference on the effectiveness
>overall of the noise filter? It made no measurable difference regardless
>of whether I installed it just before the radio or out at the strobe's
>power supply just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even
>reversed direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really
>bummed out about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have
>made some observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
Your shooting in the dark. The task is to identify
the propagation mode and THEN go after the fix.
>2) The second overall problem is that the radio still is reported to me
>by other pilots as weak when I get much beyond a couple of miles and
>breaks up in the pattern a lot. I'm guessing it's because I can't put out
>enough consistent power to break their squelch consistently. When on the
>actual ground taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and
>another airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
>
>When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground I seem to be just fine
>for the relatively close distances I've tried even when the plane is
>inside an open hangar and come in just as loud on the hand held as anyone
>else is. It also doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on
>or not as far as whether or not the range/strength improves. ie, even
>with them off the lack of range doesn't improve.
>
>I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
>difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of
>post install test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand
>held and it seemed fine at the time...
>
>Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should
>the center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My
>actual reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in
>trying to read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short
>between the center conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a
>multimeter so I'm guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
>
>Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from
>radio shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a
>spare comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner
>antenna with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just
>to see if makes any difference at all.
>
>Any ideas from the list?
What you're suffering from is a huge lack of data. A wise
fellow once noted . . .
"I often say that when you can measure what
you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know
something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when
you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state
of Science, whatever the matter may be. - Lord Kelvin"
Your cited symptoms suggest low output power output. Get a
wattmeter from a local two-way or avionics shop and MEASURE
your radio's power output as-installed in the airplane.
Measure it first with a dummy load . . . see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Bird_43.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/DummyLoad.jpg
then measure power output and MEASURE SWR with the antenna
connected.
Once you have the data from this exercise, we're then
in a position give you good advice.
I fully understand the difficulties of the task. One of
the hardest things to do is get somebody to load/rent
their tools. However, failing to apply the optimum tool
oft leads to hours of experiments that gather no
measurements that demonstrate movements toward or away
from success. Lord Kelvin had it down pat.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location |
Fred,
I went through this same dilemma a couple of years ago. I ended up putting
the Odyssey battery on the firewall in the standard location. Its not worth
the extra weight and hassle of running the cables to aft mount it. This
battery is very light and amazingly powerful.
My CG is somewhat forward, but that means that baggage cannot cause it to go
too far aft. The plane flies great. There is no problem in the flare. I
debated adding 10 pounds to the tail to center up the CG, but it has not been
necessary.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
IO-360-A1D6
In a message dated 7/21/2006 8:42:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com writes:
Hi All,
I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
put their batteries?
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
offer the following:
The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
attachment completes its download.
Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
community that *does* have DSL.
I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
each picture. :-)
Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
suggestion rather that just another complaint.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Afternoon, Charlie, and everyone...
>>I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness<<
Not at all, Charlie! And I HAVE a DSL line! Files that large also
cause problems for those of us with broadband. They eat up precious
hard drive space, and when viewing them in the email, the entire picture
doesn't fit on the screen, so we have to scroll to see it all, or reduce
it ourselves.
A friend of mine won't even wait for a file to download if it takes more
than 30 seconds...she just deletes them...and good for her!
When sending email photos (or any photo intended to view only on a
monitor...and that includes a television set which has a lower
resolution than most computer monitors these days), everyone should
remember that your computer monitor is only 96 dots per inch (dpi)
regardless of how many pixels high and wide they advertise, and can show
a picture only about 5 inches by 6 inches at that resolution ...and that
will fill the window! I try to keep any photos I send to about 4 inches
on any one side, at 96 dpi. Remember, the picture can only use your
monitor's resolution of 96 dpi, so it throws away any pixels that it
can't use to make the image fit your monitor...so why not do the same
thing BEFORE you send it, and save everyone a lot of grief.
The cameras that you can buy today produce photos that are tremendously
larger, but that is so they can PRINT poster sized photos. To display
properly on a monitor (and not make enemies) they MUST be reduced both
in resolution and physical size and then compressed with jpeg when saved.
After reducing the picture's resolution and physical size, save it as a
jpeg file about 40% compression...you won't see much of a difference, if
any. The software you use will explain how to do this. Personally, I
recommend the freeware, Irfanview ( www.irfanview.com). Does more than
many of the professional programs can, and also allows viewing some
audio and video files. And did I mention...it's FREE!
If any photo I send is bigger than about 40kb, I feel I haven't done my
job right.
For example:
This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB (saving as a JPEG compressed
the file size a lot, but the photo was still so big that less than a
third of it fit on my screen.)
I changed the resolution to 96 DPI (the resolution of most monitors)
then looked at the actual picture size. It was 21 inches by 16 inches!
WAY to big for any email program. So, I reduced it 75% (to 25% of the
original) and saved it as a jpeg with 40% compression...sounds like a
lot of work, but only took about four mouse clicks, and typing in the
"25" to reduce it...a couple more to save it. This is what it looks like
now...and only 40.2 kb!
That's Joe Person EZE, BTW...Thanks for the demo photo, Joe.
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so
> I offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes
> each. Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow
> dialup connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for
> almost an hour to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received
> until the huge attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your
> desktop). When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first
> locate the photo file using whatever file search program you are
> comfortable with. Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The
> popup menu will offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on
> that option & it will offer several size options. (The smallest is
> plenty good enough for email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you
> desire & the program will automagically create a reduced-size copy of
> the image with the word 'small' added to the file name. It will
> typically be about 1/10 the file size of the original but will still
> be high enough resolution to view on a monitor (& it will all fit on
> the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the
> effort; I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional
> clients & make the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like
> to see the photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an
> hour to see each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Oops....typo!
>> This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB<<
925 KB...
Sorry...
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley wrote:
> Afternoon, Charlie, and everyone...
>
> >>I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness<<
>
> Not at all, Charlie! And I HAVE a DSL line! Files that large also
> cause problems for those of us with broadband. They eat up precious
> hard drive space, and when viewing them in the email, the entire
> picture doesn't fit on the screen, so we have to scroll to see it all,
> or reduce it ourselves.
>
> A friend of mine won't even wait for a file to download if it takes
> more than 30 seconds...she just deletes them...and good for her!
>
> When sending email photos (or any photo intended to view only on a
> monitor...and that includes a television set which has a lower
> resolution than most computer monitors these days), everyone should
> remember that your computer monitor is only 96 dots per inch (dpi)
> regardless of how many pixels high and wide they advertise, and can
> show a picture only about 5 inches by 6 inches at that resolution
> ...and that will fill the window! I try to keep any photos I send to
> about 4 inches on any one side, at 96 dpi. Remember, the picture can
> only use your monitor's resolution of 96 dpi, so it throws away any
> pixels that it can't use to make the image fit your monitor...so why
> not do the same thing BEFORE you send it, and save everyone a lot of
> grief.
>
> The cameras that you can buy today produce photos that are
> tremendously larger, but that is so they can PRINT poster sized
> photos. To display properly on a monitor (and not make enemies) they
> MUST be reduced both in resolution and physical size and then
> compressed with jpeg when saved.
>
> After reducing the picture's resolution and physical size, save it as
> a jpeg file about 40% compression...you won't see much of a
> difference, if any. The software you use will explain how to do this.
> Personally, I recommend the freeware, Irfanview ( www.irfanview.com).
> Does more than many of the professional programs can, and also allows
> viewing some audio and video files. And did I mention...it's FREE!
>
> If any photo I send is bigger than about 40kb, I feel I haven't done
> my job right.
>
> For example:
>
> This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB (saving as a JPEG compressed
> the file size a lot, but the photo was still so big that less than a
> third of it fit on my screen.)
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
In a message dated 7/21/06 10:42:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> The usefulness of shielding for wires is limited
> and there are no fixed rules for grounding this end
> or grounding that end. Further, shielding is a poor
> substitute for internal filtering when radio frequencies
> are involved.
>
> Percentage of braid is an exceedingly tiny concern
> and the use of "mil spec" wire is not a golden recipe
> for success. If one has a noise problem the first
> task is to properly identify the noise source and the
> nature of the noise. The the game of Clue is played
> to deduce the propagation mode. Fortunately with
> strobe systems, millions have been installed in as
> many vehicles with no noise issues. Similarly, thousands
> of system with noise issues have been successfully
> solved by application of very simple techniques . . .
> techniques that almost never involve departure from the installation
> instructions. If a noise problem is EVER mitigated by the
> repositioning of wires, this is prima facie evidence of
> a core problem wherein repositioning of wires only makes
> the symptoms go away and does nothing to fix the real
> issue. Similarly, if a system that has worked successfully
> in many other installations suddenly seems to benefit from the
> addition of wire shields, that too is only an aspirin on
> the hurt that does not cure the infection.
>
> In my whole career, I've never found it useful to add
> shielding or to reposition equipment or its wiring as
> a means for improving performance. If the original
> poster of the problem can describe the results of any
> experiments described in the 'Connection (or elsewhere)
> to identify the propagation mode, then remedies are
> readily at-hand to break that mode.
>
> Bob . . .
>
===============================
Thank you Bob!
That is exactly what I said. As the saying goes you do not have to reinvent
the wheel.
Start with the basics and work from there. The original post by this fellow
contained information that he tried to obtain the Radio Shack noise filter ...
And I must say they surely do work. He did not have success getting it but
did obtain a second brand. He did not have any luck with that filter. What
should he do? Start with the basics and work from there.
I have found just the opposite from you ... I have done at least 4 planes
where repositioning the wires and/or running shielded wire have made a great
improvement, or totally eliminated the problem. Other things I do after the
basics are Filters, Tolroid Cores, Feed Through Capacitors, Capacitors to Ground
and Shorten wire leads. Sometimes one arrow does not kill the Sphinx. And I
still have not used all my arrows. One step at a time, starting with the basics
as you said... Good installation practices.
I have always said ... YELLED about improving GROUNDS and connections. Ya
gots ta start somewhere ... Starts wit da basics.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I thought this issue was dead ... Well, at least the horse did not
move.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
B&C has them.
> Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and mic
> jacks to the panel?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Washers for phone and mic jacks |
Try B&C Specialty Products. These are good people and will help you .
Altho, I think they are on the road at "O" dark thirty tomorrow. (on
the way to the big "O")
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Hi Charley,
I had the same complaint as I live in a big city with DSL and did
not think(?) about the problem. If we just use the lowest resolution on
our digital cameras, the problem goes away. Since I use my camera
almost exclusively on my project, its a no brainer.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
Go to bandc.biz, products, and search for S892. Fifty cents a set (one hole)
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
There are other alternatives. You can get satellite broadband and
there are many communities that are too small for the "big guns" like
cable and DSL where you can get high-speed wireless service.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
SteveT.Net
805-569-0336 Office
________________________________________________________________________
On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Charlie England wrote:
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the
> wilderness, consider that around 1/2 the people who use the
> internet here in the grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable
> internet. I'd gladly pay for broadband (I've begged the phone
> company to supply it for years) but I cannot get it here, 10 miles
> from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller community that *does* have DSL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with DishNetworks.
Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a month and no more size
reduction to fit 1990 technology. The download speed is amazing.
Uploading large files is a different story.
John Cox
________________________________
England
Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
offer the following:
The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
attachment completes its download.
Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
community that *does* have DSL.
I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
each picture. :-)
Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
suggestion rather that just another complaint.
Charlie
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Bob,
Thanks to you for putting together this final product. I am happy that
you were pleased with my help in conducting the experiment.
I'm puzzled, however, by the values of the resistors you listed on the
updated Z-25 drawing. In my message of 5/6/2006, I reported that I found
it necessary to use 15k ohm resistance in series with the added diodes
to avoid the voltage across the capacitor rising above 16 volts while
the SD-8 was not switched onto the buss during maximum RPM.
Also, in my 6/19/2006 message the operating data was acquired while
using 15k resistance in series with the diodes and 3k resistance across
the capacitor. The overall performance and reliability of coming on-line
under all realistic RPM conditions seemed ideal--or did I miss something?
Did you find the lower resistance values of 3k and 1k, respectively,
necessary for overall better functioning? Just curious.
Jim McCulley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
> modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
> appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
> to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
>
> The Autocad version is at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z24-25L.dwg
>
> It's also been added to Appendix Z which steps the chapter up
> to Revison J at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
> See Note 25 and Figure Z-25
>
> When I get time, I'll update all the other z-figures that use
> an SD-8 to include the self-excitation feature.
>
> Thanks again Jim!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
I am currently with Starband and HATE them, but I have no other choice
where i live. I sent WildBlue an email asking about switching from
Starband to Wild Blue, and it took them weeks to reply. Their product is
no better than Starband's, and neither is their customer service.
Also, dont be fooled by the "download speeds". As someone who has lived
with Starband for many years, I can tell you it is not what it sems to be.
Yes, technically it is a high speed download, but after you figure in the
latency for the signal to travel tens of thousands of miles, the "seat of
the pants" browsing is SLOWER than dialup.
You click and wait. Then you get a partial burst, then you wait. Then
another partial burst, then wait. Sometimes the page never finishes
loading. If you dont get the page in about 15 seconds, you aren't going
to tget it, and you need to hit refresh. Some sites, ebay in particular
for some unknown reason, require you to hit refresh over and over to get
the page ot load. Sometimes they NEVER finish loading, sometimes it takes
MANY refreshes to get it to come in.
Want peer-to-peer sharing? Forget it. Want VPN? Forget it. Want to
use a router to share the connection? Forget it. Download a lot?
You'll be throttled back if you hit their quotas.
> Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with DishNetworks.
> Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a month and no more size
> reduction to fit 1990 technology. The download speed is amazing.
> Uploading large files is a different story.
>
> John Cox
>
> ________________________________
>
> England
> Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
>
>
>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
> offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
> Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
> connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
> to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
> attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
> When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
> photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
> Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
> offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
> offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
> email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
> automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
> 'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
> size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
> a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
> I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
> the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
> photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
> each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ================================================================================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | apologies one last time |
Sorry, that last message was for the Zenith list. I do apologise to you guys
anyway.
I need a vacation!!
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
Guys,
Sorry about the Images sent last night, nothing malicious was intended, the
13MB was a zip file of pictures only meant for Keith off list, some how I got
my write mail windows mixed up
and it went to the list and Keith. I have taken the advice of Rich Hartwig
and installed the
microsoft program to quickly shrink and resave the pics. No excuses, I
screwed up and it won't happen again. Of all places I found the link for the
program in the guidelines set up by Matt for the list.
I have to say thanks to all who are understanding and forgiving of a screwup
like this.
I've been posting to the list since 2002 and received help from just about
all of you from all
over the world for my project, even obtaining custom parts to make it that
much better. I went from asking lots of questions to trying to give help to who
needs it, as I got into the later building stages. I do feel like I know
many of you but have never met any of you. I always
look forward to checking posts on this list. Anyway, if you are lurking on
this list and have
some good advice or a great pic don't hesitate to share it. The ability to
attach pics of your
work instead of posting them on a photoshare is a leap forward for this
list. I'll make sure
it will get done right from now on.
Brian
Long Island, NY 701 90%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Tony Babb wrote:
>
>Most users now have broadband (high speed) internet access. There comes a
>point when you have to stop supporting older technology (as Microsoft
>announced recently for Win 98). I have a lot of sympathy for those still on
>dial-up and strongly endorse the suggestion below for those unable to use
>broadband. In fact that's what I did when I used dial-up working from home
>about 9 years ago - I also had a dedicated phone line permanently connected
>to my office servers that just downloaded mail and database updates all at
>22kbps 24 hours a day. It was painful but worked until broadband became
>available.
>
I hope you didn't mean for your post to read as condescending as it
does. As I said, I'd gladly pay for broadband if I could get it. I think
that if you do a little research, you will find that significantly less
than 1/2 of the USA can get broadband. Read some of the other posts.
Wild Blue (the only thing I'd even consider right now) is only slightly
better than dialup, & that's only 'sometimes'. For web browsing & email,
it's not much if any better than dialup. Upload speeds are about the
same as dialup. And their service is getting worse as they add
subscribers. Hughesnet is even worse. Both have traffic limits &
throttle you to slower than dialup if you exceed them.
Even if you don't care about the majority of users who cannot get
broadband, consider that the Matronics archives will have 1-2 Megabytes
stored for every picture instead of 100k or less, and there is no
advantage whatsoever to these huge files when you are viewing them on a
computer monitor.
Matt has indicated on another of his lists that he is working on
software to automatically reduce image size, but why not do what's right
& clean up your own act?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks to you for putting together this final product. I am happy that you
>were pleased with my help in conducting the experiment.
>
>I'm puzzled, however, by the values of the resistors you listed on the
>updated Z-25 drawing. In my message of 5/6/2006, I reported that I found
>it necessary to use 15k ohm resistance in series with the added diodes to
>avoid the voltage across the capacitor rising above 16 volts while the
>SD-8 was not switched onto the buss during maximum RPM.
The two resistors form a voltage divider. The voltage across
the capacitor in a totally uncontrolled condition will be a function
of the alternator's pk=pk output at the time. Totally unloaded and
at cruise RPM, I seep to recall that the alternator's output was
on the order of
Also, you mentioned using a 1KuF capacitor. The rule of thumb for
capacitors in this application is 1Kuf per ampere of system
capacity. so 10KuF is the recommended minimum and larger doesn't
hurt anything. I maintained the same ratio (3:1) for the resistor
values in an effort to bring the source impedance of the voltage
divider down to speed things up with the larger capacitor size.
>Also, in my 6/19/2006 message the operating data was acquired while using
>15k resistance in series with the diodes and 3k resistance across the
>capacitor. The overall performance and reliability of coming on-line under
>all realistic RPM conditions seemed ideal--or did I miss something?
Nope, your experiments were entirely valid. We're just
fine tuning the recipe . . .
>Did you find the lower resistance values of 3k and 1k, respectively,
>necessary for overall better functioning? Just curious.
. . . 99.9% sure the lower values are a good move based on common
sense and understanding of how the "fix" works. I'd like
to send you a set of components to install permanently both
to photograph for some installation instructions and to validate
the final design.
I've also forwarded the data on our effort to Tim @ B&C. He'll
be working with their supplier of the regulator. All of the
components we've added could probably go INSIDE the regulator.
I think we've got a working configuration but we're not yet
arrived at the elegant solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Dynon D-10A AOA? |
I have a Dynon D10A I will be using on my Europa. I descided I will use
the supplied Europa Pitot/Static probes.
I am also installing a Europa Stall warning horn.
Think it is possable to hook up the stall warner port to the Dynon D10A
and get AOA information?
See page #3 and #7 for Europa stall warner port location:
http://www.europa-aircraft.biz/pdfs/modifications/Mod%2061a.pdf
See Dynon AOA blurb
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_Feature_AOA.html
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location |
Same subject, different topic: what is the preferred battery charger,
the Battery Tender, or the Battery Minder?
Thanks
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
Bob,
I've noted a few questions within your following response below:
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Thanks to you for putting together this final product. I am happy that
>> you were pleased with my help in conducting the experiment.
>>
>> I'm puzzled, however, by the values of the resistors you listed on the
>> updated Z-25 drawing. In my message of 5/6/2006, I reported that I
>> found it necessary to use 15k ohm resistance in series with the added
>> diodes to avoid the voltage across the capacitor rising above 16 volts
>> while the SD-8 was not switched onto the buss during maximum RPM.
>
>
> The two resistors form a voltage divider. The voltage across
> the capacitor in a totally uncontrolled condition will be a function
> of the alternator's pk=pk output at the time. Totally unloaded and
> at cruise RPM, I seep to recall that the alternator's output was
> on the order of
What is missing in the above sentence after the word "of"?
>
> Also, you mentioned using a 1KuF capacitor. The rule of thumb for
> capacitors in this application is 1Kuf per ampere of system
> capacity. so 10KuF is the recommended minimum and larger doesn't
> hurt anything. I maintained the same ratio (3:1) for the resistor
> values in an effort to bring the source impedance of the voltage
> divider down to speed things up with the larger capacitor size.
Yes, I tested the extremes of capacitance as well as resistance values
by using cockpit adjustable pots, as you had suggested in an earlier
comment. It was from these tests that I concluded the values of 15k and
3k resistors were good at all operating conditions. The capacitance
value is quite acceptable over a large range, but 1kmf is definitely
below the lowest acceptable value.
>
>
>> Also, in my 6/19/2006 message the operating data was acquired while
>> using 15k resistance in series with the diodes and 3k resistance
>> across the capacitor. The overall performance and reliability of
>> coming on-line under all realistic RPM conditions seemed ideal--or did
>> I miss something?
>
>
> Nope, your experiments were entirely valid. We're just
> fine tuning the recipe . . .
>
>
>> Did you find the lower resistance values of 3k and 1k, respectively,
>> necessary for overall better functioning? Just curious.
>
>
> . . . 99.9% sure the lower values are a good move based on common
> sense and understanding of how the "fix" works. I'd like
> to send you a set of components to install permanently both
> to photograph for some installation instructions and to validate
> the final design.
>
> I've also forwarded the data on our effort to Tim @ B&C. He'll
> be working with their supplier of the regulator. All of the
> components we've added could probably go INSIDE the regulator.
Is it possible that B&C would be interested and better equipped to
verify the optimum component values and physical layout via motorized
bench testing wherein the conditions can be better stabilized and
controlled than is the case during either engine ground runs or
in-flight testing as I did? For instance, I noted an apparent variable
in results that I suspect was related to changing component temperatures
over time. This may not be a significant variable but did make
repeatability of data somewhat less than ideal.
>
> I think we've got a working configuration but we're not yet
> arrived at the elegant solution.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery location |
>Same subject, different topic: what is the preferred battery charger, the
>Battery Tender, or the Battery Minder?
>Thanks
Both products work as advertised. Ebay has
offered the least expensive purchases.
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: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
I say ditto to Bob N's posting on this.
I would like to add that a recent EDN article says some relevant stuff (but mostly
PCB related..but electrons don't know the difference). Worth a look:
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6335295.html
Hidden schematic---Ground is a good place to grow potatoes and carrots.
It is often asked "If my 1972 Cessna didn't need all this EMI stuff...why do I
need it now?" We live in a world where voltages are going down, frequencies are
going up and the average airplane has 100,000,000 X as many transistors as your
Cessna did. Otis Elevator tests to make sure that passengers' cellphones don't
plunge their computer-controlled elevators into the netherworld. Good design
practices can help and ultimately great simplifications will make this design
process smoother.
"philosopher" --n. A lunatic who can analyze his delusions.
- Ambrose Bierce
--------
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=49275#49275
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights & relays |
I sell these by the bushels to RV builders and owners on my website. Please take
a look. You can spend less on a Wig-wag, but you can't buy one that is smaller
or easier to use.
"No one travelling on a business trip would be missed if he failed to arrive."
- Thorstein Veblen
--------
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=49276#49276
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-10A AOA? |
>posted by:
>
>Think it is possible to hook up the stall warner
>port to the Dynon D10Aand get AOA information?
May be. The trick would be to put the port in the
leading edge to produce the same differential
pressure as the Dyon probe, but that might be
near inpossible. However you may get it to work
as say just a stall indication?
The way I read it is they put the STALL PORT in
the leading edge so that at high angles of attacks
it will produce a suction. I don't think the the Dynon
AOA probe with two ports (pitot and offset or differential
AOA port) is designed so the AOA port has more
or less pressure but no vacuum.
I have doubt that it will give GOOD AOA info thru
the entire range of angle of attack. It may be
OK for say just one angle, say near stall.
The reason I think there may be a problem is the
Europa method is in the leading edge. There is a
lot of effect from the airfoil. It is quite different to
be on the end of a AOA probe with flat or
faceted faces.
If you could (and doubt this option is available)
you could change the software of they Dynon.
However I think the Dynon does allow you to
make some adjustments or calibration thru
the a flight test process.
If it does not work you will not be out much. You
just will not have a AOA. It's possible that if you
put another port in a different location on the
Wing L.E. than Europa specifies you may have
better luck? You don't want to punch a bunch
of holes in the L.E.
Cheers George M
---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo!
Groups.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe noise |
>
>In a message dated 7/21/06 10:42:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > In my whole career, I've never found it useful to add
> > shielding or to reposition equipment or its wiring as
> > a means for improving performance. If the original
> > poster of the problem can describe the results of any
> > experiments described in the 'Connection (or elsewhere)
> > to identify the propagation mode, then remedies are
> > readily at-hand to break that mode.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>===============================
>Thank you Bob!
>
>That is exactly what I said. As the saying goes you do not have to reinvent
>the wheel.
>
>Start with the basics and work from there. The original post by this fellow
>contained information that he tried to obtain the Radio Shack noise filter
>...
>And I must say they surely do work. He did not have success getting it but
>did obtain a second brand. He did not have any luck with that filter. What
>should he do? Start with the basics and work from there.
>
>I have found just the opposite from you ... I have done at least 4 planes
>where repositioning the wires and/or running shielded wire have made a great
>improvement, or totally eliminated the problem.
If the addition of shielding over-and-above that called
out by the instruction manual -OR- or repositioning of wires
mitigated the symptoms then I'll suggest there's a fundamental
flaw in either the devices involved or the manner in which they
are installed.
> Other things I do after the
>basics are Filters, Tolroid Cores, Feed Through Capacitors, Capacitors to
>Ground
>and Shorten wire leads. Sometimes one arrow does not kill the Sphinx. And I
>still have not used all my arrows. One step at a time, starting with the
>basics
>as you said... Good installation practices.
>I have always said ... YELLED about improving GROUNDS and connections. Ya
>gots ta start somewhere ... Starts wit da basics.
Agreed. So let us DO start with the simple-ideas which guide
design and fabrication of products for aircraft (or any
other market). They are illustrated by a piece I published on
the website at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Whats_all_this_DO160_Stuff_Anyhow.pdf
This piece speaks to a design philosophy that is well respected in
the aviation community and elsewhere. It suggests ways that we
can assure the neighborly function of any electro-whizzie in
a community of other electro-whizzies aboard aircraft. The goal
make the individual black box stand-alone-compatible when
installed per the designer's instructions.
When successfully applied, the installer is never required
to amplify the installation instructions with the
additions of shields, filters, repositioning of wires, or
agonizing over which end of which shield gets attached to what
locations.
If the devices involved were crafted with DO-160 philosophy
in mind, then problems with the installation are invariably caused
by some failure/deficiency of hardware or mistake in installation.
It's never expected that the customer should fine-tune
an installation with extra-ordinary noise mitigation studies
or techniques.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>Actually I thought this issue was dead ... Well, at least the horse did not
>move.
The "issue" is that a participant here on the List has
a problem. It's in the best interest of the List to guide
that individual through the identification and sifting
of the simple-ideas upon which the problem rests. To
accomplish this we need data:
What does the noise sound like, how does the interference
manifest itself? What positioning of controls or opening of
power/signal paths has an effect on the interference? Does
the problem go away or is it affected by operating the victim
or antagonist from a separate battery supply?
Assuming the hardware involved in this case has been successfully
installed in the past (Meaning that the manufacturer probably DOES
embraced and achieve DO-160 style neighborliness) then the
first task is to see where instructions were (1) not followed
or (2) unclear.
As this data becomes available, we should begin to zero
in more detailed tests that help us deduce root cause,
propagation mode. Ultimately we'll be able to suggest
techniques for eliminating the interference at the source
or at least breaking the propagation mode.
Until we do the science, dumping lots of suggestions
for remedy on the table are not particularly helpful
especially when remedies that do improve the situation
may only be masking the real cause.
I've never (well, almost never) found after-installation
application of shields, filters, etc. to be the ultimate
solution because the world I work in is supplied with
product that is expected and generally does work as-expected
when installed into environment considered during the design
of that product.
There have been a few instances of design-lag . . .
For example, I spent some time last winter ADDING filters
to the harness of starter-generator controllers on some VERY
expensive airplanes when moving wires and fiddling with shields
didn't help. Root cause was that the controllers were
designed in 1970 for a more benign environment and
not suited to the present day application. Folks in
production flight had pushed a few problem airplanes out
the door for years by tinkering with the installation. But
they finally encountered a set of conditions where the
alchemy didn't work. It was necessary and beneficial to
deduce root cause and enhance the design . . . even if
external to the victim. The fix is now a standard recipe
for success and I don't expect to get a call on that
problem ever again.
To go after a problem with the sprinkling of alchemy
is a tacit confession that we don't believe the products
involved were skillfully crafted to the task in the
first place. That MIGHT be true but I'll suggest that
it's better to deduce it based on understanding of
the simple-ideas than to sprinkle fixes until the problem
goes away or simply becomes tolerable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
| Subject: | stereo music to mono intercom |
Greetings
I would like to make use of my iPod using the single music input for my PS
Engineering PM1000 (mono) intercom. I can power the iPod easily enough
using the cigarette lighter adapters, but not sure about how to wire from
the headphone jack to the intercom and the implications of going from
stereo to mono. Can anyone provide some instructions or a reference
suitable for this electrically challenged soul? Searched the archives but
didnt find anything specific on this - it does sound as though I may have
an issue with the iPod output not providing sufficient volume, correct? If
thats the case, is there any easy fix available?
thanks for any help you can provide.
Erich Weaver
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stereo music to mono intercom |
On Jul 22, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
> stereo to mono. Can anyone provide some instructions or a reference
> suitable for this electrically challenged soul? Searched the
> archives but
> didnt find anything specific on this - it does sound as though I
> may have
> an issue with the iPod output not providing sufficient volume,
> correct? If
> thats the case, is there any easy fix available?
The simplest answer is to take the right and left channels and
combine them into a single channel using a pair of 100 ohm resistors.
You can do this in the jack to the PS-1000 intercom so that you can
plug in any stereo source.
Here:
Stereo Jack
.---------R1--+----> to audio input on PS1000
| / |
| v |
| ^ |
| \--------R2--+
+----+
|
ground
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
So, is the "L" version, dated 7-18-06, accessible via the first link in your
7-20-06 post, the right one for now? If not, please direct me to the
corrected drawing. Thanks Bob.
John
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:34 AM
Good eye! I was so focused on the SD-8 I dropped the ball
on the system integration. The drawings have been corrected
to add steering didoes so that the disconnect relay will pull in
from either battery or alternator voltage -AND- (in most cases)
still have benefit of the battery to trip the OV crowbar.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Thanks Bob (and Jim) - - - BUT - - - according to this modified version
of
>Z-25 the battery still needs to be in "good functioning condition" in order
>to energize the S704-1 relay thus connecting the now self excited SD-8 to
>the rest of the electrical system to utilize its output. If the battery is
>of sufficient capacity to do this why couldn't we have used this same
>capacity to excite the SD-8. What did we gain by its self excitation?? What
>am I missing?? I would think an additional modification to Z-25 would be
>required to actually make use of this self excitation. No ??
>
>Bob McC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:55 PM
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
> > modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
> > appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
> > to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Illuminated DPST Toggle Switches for Audio sources |
Anybody know where I can find ON/NONE/OFF switches with independent lighting?
I bought several from B and C (and they were special order) that don't seperate
the 12 volt light on the toggle from the on/off circuits I wish to activate.
If I were to put a hot wire to the radio equipment, it would fry the unit I
wish to activate. All I want to do is get a lighted toggle that tells me the other
circuit in the switch is closed (ON) without also giving that circuit any
charge. Thanks in advance.
Ron
N8ZD - flying in two weeks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
>
>
>So, is the "L" version, dated 7-18-06, accessible via the first link in your
>7-20-06 post, the right one for now? If not, please direct me to the
>corrected drawing. Thanks Bob.
Yes. I updated the "L" version and left the link alone.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
I'm wondering about connecting the P leads at the magneto. Looking at the
top of the (Slick) magneto I removed the nut and star washer and found an
insulating fiber washer. Looking under the washer, there is the threaded
stud which projects from a piece of white plastic that is in turn surrounded
by a shiny piece of metal that looks like a large nut. My question has to
do with grounding the P lead out on magneto which is what lectric Bob
recommends for lowest system noise. I assume that the fiber washer is there
to keep the P lead terminal from grounding the threaded stud to the "shiny
metal nut" that surrounds the plastic that the stud projects out of. If so,
can I use two ring terminals on the coax, one with a much larger ring placed
under the fiber washer which will serve as the return grounding path and
then place a smaller ring terminal (connected to the other wire in the
coax)on top of the fiber washer (which is on top of the larger ring terminal
contacting the shiny metal nut) under the nut that goes on the stud and not
have to worry about magneto grounding somewhere else on the engine? I'm
just trying to not have to strip a whole bunch of shield off the P lead for
grounding at a separate location and this looks like it should work but I
know nothing about magnetos so I'm not sure if my hypothesis is correct. I
hope you can decipher what I trying to say. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Stringing wire (still)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto P leads |
In a message dated 7/24/06 1:55:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net writes:
[sniped]
> My question has to
> do with grounding the P lead out on magneto which is what lectric Bob
> recommends for lowest system noise. I assume that the fiber washer is
there
> to keep the P lead terminal from grounding the threaded stud to the "shiny
> metal nut" that surrounds the plastic that the stud projects out of. If
so,
> can I use two ring terminals on the coax, one with a much larger ring
placed
> under the fiber washer which will serve as the return grounding path and
> then place a smaller ring terminal (connected to the other wire in the
> coax)on top of the fiber washer (which is on top of the larger ring
terminal
> contacting the shiny metal nut) under the nut that goes on the stud and not
> have to worry about magneto grounding somewhere else on the engine? I'm
> just trying to not have to strip a whole bunch of shield off the P lead for
> grounding at a separate location and this looks like it should work but I
> know nothing about magnetos so I'm not sure if my hypothesis is correct. I
> hope you can decipher what I trying to say. Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Stringing wire (still)
===========================================
Dean:
Simple answer is NO!
DO NOT TOUCH THE FIBER WASHER OF THE MAG.
You will be sorry ... Very sorry.
There is a Ground screw not very far from the Fiber washer - Use that. That
ground screw is for the Shield.
I don't know how you can ground the 'P' Lead anywhere else than at the Mag
Switch.
Sure you could install a relay or solid-state device under the cowl right
next to the Mag to keep your leads short but the simple and what I feel is the
proper solution is just to use basic mil-spec shielded wire ... Connect the
center lead to the center screw of the Mag and the shielded lead to the case
ground. YES, you are correct, keep the exposed/stripped wires as short as
possible. BUT! Don't stress the wires.
The other end of the shielded wire is connected to the Mag Switch(s). The
Switch(s) in the RUN position OPENS the Ground between the center lead and the
Ground side of the Mag Switch(s). The shielded wire is there for noise
suppression. It is grounded at BOTH ends, Mag and Switch(s).
Maybe I'm getting word picky but you do not STRIP the shielding from the wire.
You separate the shield and center conductor. And there is a trick in doing
that so that 'not a single shield wire strand becomes broken'.
Trick - It is called the BEAST trick.
1 - Determine how much conductor and shield you will need so there is NO
strain. Of course short wires are better, but not so short that you have a broken
wire and a Hot Mag.
2 - This is the hard part. Remove the jacket from the wire - This is done by
bending the wire back 90 to 180 Deg and NICKING the wire using a razor. You
do NOT need to cut down to the shield. Nick the wire, bend it and the wire
will do the rest of the job. Now remove the jacket.
3 - Get a sharp thin ~1/8" Dia. scribe - At the base of the exposed shield
use the scribe to separate the shielding exposing the center conductor. Work
the shield back and away to so you can see 4x (times) the diameter of the center
conductor.
4 - Bend the wire at the exposed area 180 Deg.
5 - Use the scribe to hook under the center conductor and pull the free end
UP and OUT of the shield.
6 - You are done ... No Nick, No stray strands - No errors. Finish the ends
which ever way you wish. Crimp on lugs are usually my choice.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Illuminated DPST Toggle Switches for Audio sources |
In a message dated 7/22/06 9:01:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
scc_ron(at)yahoo.com writes:
> Anybody know where I can find ON/NONE/OFF switches with independent
lighting?
> I bought several from B and C (and they were special order) that don't
> seperate the 12 volt light on the toggle from the on/off circuits I wish to
> activate. If I were to put a hot wire to the radio equipment, it would fry
> the unit I wish to activate. All I want to do is get a lighted toggle that
> tells me the other circuit in the switch is closed (ON) without also giving
> that circuit any charge. Thanks in advance.
> Ron
> N8ZD - flying in two weeks!
=========================
Ron:
An ON/NONE/OFF is the same thing as an ON/OFF (SPST).
As for the Lighted part ... That is simple ... That is part of the switch,
just a separate lug where you split the power IN to the Light and the control IN
of the switch.
They do it that way so IF you wanted the light to come ON ... ONLY when the
switch is on you simply put the jumper to the output side of the switch. Want
the light ON all the time then the jumper goes to the input side of the switch.
For me, it is more important to be able to find the switch at night than to
know if it is on or off. Switch position which I can feel tells me if it is ON
or Off.
BASIC RULE: Down or Out is OFF. If the switch is Down or pulled Out it is
Off. Not always true but most of the time.
There are some switches that change in color from ON to Off, if you want a
light indicator.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Illuminated DPST Toggle Switches for Audio |
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/Categories.aspx?Category=38940ec0-b260-4e9f-a23c-b80ff8e89c67
Good luck,
Sam Marlow
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/22/06 9:01:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>scc_ron(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>
>>Anybody know where I can find ON/NONE/OFF switches with independent
>>
>>
>lighting?
>
>
>> I bought several from B and C (and they were special order) that don't
>>seperate the 12 volt light on the toggle from the on/off circuits I wish to
>>activate. If I were to put a hot wire to the radio equipment, it would fry
>>the unit I wish to activate. All I want to do is get a lighted toggle that
>>tells me the other circuit in the switch is closed (ON) without also giving
>>that circuit any charge. Thanks in advance.
>> Ron
>> N8ZD - flying in two weeks!
>>
>>
>=========================
>Ron:
>
>An ON/NONE/OFF is the same thing as an ON/OFF (SPST).
>As for the Lighted part ... That is simple ... That is part of the switch,
>just a separate lug where you split the power IN to the Light and the control
IN
>of the switch.
>
>They do it that way so IF you wanted the light to come ON ... ONLY when the
>switch is on you simply put the jumper to the output side of the switch. Want
>the light ON all the time then the jumper goes to the input side of the switch.
>
>For me, it is more important to be able to find the switch at night than to
>know if it is on or off. Switch position which I can feel tells me if it is ON
>or Off.
>
>BASIC RULE: Down or Out is OFF. If the switch is Down or pulled Out it is
>Off. Not always true but most of the time.
>
>There are some switches that change in color from ON to Off, if you want a
>light indicator.
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
>time."
>Yamashiada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Illuminated DPST Toggle Switches for Audio |
> >>Anybody know where I can find ON/NONE/OFF switches with independent
> >>
> >>
> >lighting?
Ron,
Check with your local Carling Technologies distributer. Carling makes the LT series
of toggle switches. You can get them with a single color or two different
colors to decern between ON and OFF. See
http://toggle-switches.carlingtech.com/illuminated-toggle-switch__48.asp
http://www.carlingtech.com/pdf/CarlingSW_LT.pdf
They also make several series of lighted rocker switches. See
http://rocker-switches.carlingtech.com/index.asp
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Illuminated DPST Toggle Switch- Whoops |
In a message dated 7/22/06 9:01:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
scc_ron(at)yahoo.com writes:
> Anybody know where I can find ON/NONE/OFF switches with independent
lighting?
> I bought several from B and C (and they were special order) that don't
> seperate the 12 volt light on the toggle from the on/off circuits I wish to
> activate. If I were to put a hot wire to the radio equipment, it would fry
> the unit I wish to activate. All I want to do is get a lighted toggle that
> tells me the other circuit in the switch is closed (ON) without also giving
> that circuit any charge. Thanks in advance.
> Ron
> N8ZD - flying in two weeks!
=========================
Ron:
An ON/NONE/OFF is the same thing as an ON/OFF (SPST).
Ron:
I used the term SPST ... It should have been DPST.
The procedure and everything else is still the same.
Why do you need a DPST?
I am guessing ... Current handling capabilities?
If not, then you can tie two or more devices to the same switch (SPST).
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto P leads |
>
>
>I'm wondering about connecting the P leads at the magneto. Looking at the
>top of the (Slick) magneto I removed the nut and star washer and found an
>insulating fiber washer. Looking under the washer, there is the threaded
>stud which projects from a piece of white plastic that is in turn surrounded
>by a shiny piece of metal that looks like a large nut. My question has to
>do with grounding the P lead out on magneto which is what lectric Bob
>recommends for lowest system noise. I assume that the fiber washer is there
>to keep the P lead terminal from grounding the threaded stud to the "shiny
>metal nut" that surrounds the plastic that the stud projects out of. If so,
>can I use two ring terminals on the coax, one with a much larger ring placed
>under the fiber washer which will serve as the return grounding path and
>then place a smaller ring terminal (connected to the other wire in the
>coax)on top of the fiber washer (which is on top of the larger ring terminal
>contacting the shiny metal nut) under the nut that goes on the stud and not
>have to worry about magneto grounding somewhere else on the engine? I'm
>just trying to not have to strip a whole bunch of shield off the P lead for
>grounding at a separate location and this looks like it should work but I
>know nothing about magnetos so I'm not sure if my hypothesis is correct. I
>hope you can decipher what I trying to say. Thanks.
I'm not familiar with all the variations on the magneto
connection schemes . . . the safe thing to recommend is
that you not disassemble the terminal assembly beyond
the removal of a nut or screw intended to accept the p-lead
connection.
Most of my readers have reported reasonably handy screws
either on the mag house (or they've gone all the way
down to the magneto mounting studs) to find a handy
ground for the p-lead shields.
Getting long leads out from under a shield is pretty
easy. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Crook <will(at)willcrook.com> |
| Subject: | Heated pitot tube connections |
I have a standard heated pitot tube. The instructions call for an AN-3115 connector
to terminate the power and ground leads. Alas (I love using that word...),
I don't have this little gem. Looking on the B&C site, I don't see anything
resembling what I need. AS&S has the phenolic connector, but it is really
pricey at $88.50. The terminals are sinply two straight rods extending from the
pitot tube chassis, and I think I could craft some female spade fittings to
slip on, and securing it with some RTV. Obviously, it would be a sad day if
these two leads were to short, but all of these $88.50's keep adding up. Sometimes,
when the widget looks very straightfoward, I tend to try and get cheap
;-)
Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
In a message dated 7/24/06 5:55:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
will(at)willcrook.com writes:
> The terminals are sinply two straight rods extending from the pitot tube
> chassis, and I think I could craft some female spade fittings to slip on,
and
> securing it with some RTV. Obviously, it would be a sad day if these two
> leads were to short, but all of these $88.50's keep adding up. Sometimes,
> when the widget looks very straightfoward, I tend to try and get cheap ;-)
>
> Thoughts?
==================================
Will:
I like the way you think. You will have to do a little hunting but there are
round slip on connectors just like the spade design but only one half and
larger in size to handle the current. The ceramic type is exactly that but with
a ceramic case.
As for them shorting or causing a problem ... Distance is always a great
insulator and you could also make one from a small piece of Teflon ... If you go
this way you will need something that can handle the heat.
Will, you said something that caught my eye ... Ground leads ... Do not use
the planes ground as your return line. Run a separate wire so that you have B+
and Neg wires going out there. THEN if you wish ground the Negative out at
the wing tip. This will greatly help with other wiring such as your Strobe and
Nav Lights. Most problems over time are related to a poor ground.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/24/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "DEAN
PSIROPOULOS"
Hello Dean, I was pleased to see your question on the list. It shows that
you have an inquisitive mind and are thinking, and it shows that you are
willing to seek out additional information. Your question creates an
opportunity for a bit of information to be exchanged that may benefit others
as well.
On the case of your Slick magneto very near the P (primary coil) lead stud
is a threaded hole. Beside this threaded hole are the raised letters GND.
This is an abbreviation for the word GROUND.
When the magneto comes new from Slick there is a Phillips head machine screw
July 15, 2006 - July 24, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fw