AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-go

January 22, 2007 - January 29, 2007



From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: bump
Forgive my impatience, Bob; I'd like to bump to the top of the pile two recent inquiries I submitted over the weekend. I am ready to pull wire on these systems tonight, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the inrush current limiter idea and the wiring gauge/protection for the SD-8 battery lead. Waiting to hear something before I head to the shop :-) -Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Subject: jabiru coil grounds
Date: Jan 22, 2007
hi bob, i asked this question a week ago but got no response so i will try again. this refers to the z-20 wiring diagram for a jab engine and ''note #3'' i understand a shielded wire connects the coil to the ignition switch and when the switch is turned ''off'' the coil is grounded . i am using a keyed switch like is used in a piper. i see that the shielding is grounded at the engine. here comes the question.......... it seems that the opposite end of the shielding is attached to the ''ground'' terminal of my switch. so the switch receives it's ground thru the shielding . am i correct? the switch does not need a wire from the ''forest of tabs'' ground because it is using the shielding for ground. correct? if i am correct in these observations my last question is ''why is this done like this? why not use another wire to ground the switch and leave the ''switch end'' of the shielding unattached? i appreciate your patience. this elect. stuff is hard enough for me when i DO understand the reasons. bob noffs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: jabiru coil grounds
>hi bob, > i asked this question a week ago but got no response so i will try > again. this refers to the z-20 wiring diagram for a jab engine and ''note #3'' > i understand a shielded wire connects the coil to the ignition switch > and when the switch is turned ''off'' the coil is grounded . i am using a > keyed switch like is used in a piper. > i see that the shielding is grounded at the engine. > here comes the question.......... it seems that the opposite end of the > shielding is attached to the ''ground'' terminal of my switch. so the > switch receives it's ground thru the shielding . am i correct? the > switch does not need a wire from the ''forest of tabs'' ground because it > is using the shielding for ground. correct? Yes > > if i am correct in these observations my last question is ''why is > this done like this? why not use another wire to ground the switch and > leave the ''switch end'' of the shielding unattached? > i appreciate your patience. this elect. stuff is hard enough for me > when i DO understand the reasons. You don't want MULTIPLE ground conductors bringing the crankcase to the airframe. Grounding the shielding of p-leads at both ends does just that. Multiple ground paths are the root cause of ground-loop induced noises and in this case offers the potential for damaging a p-lead conductor and other wires bundled with it should (1) the bond strap between crankcase and firewall stud become disconnected and (2) an attempt is made to start the engine. Had a mechanic do it twice on me . . . didn't offer him a third opportunity. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: OT Question for Bob
> > >I noticed that you mention you taught at Great Lakes. I took "Beep" and FT >"A" there in '79. Any chance we crossed paths? Were you civie or service? >I remember the "Nukes Clock" in the "Beep" admin office that ran backwards >real fast, any chance you had somethng to do with that? Always gave me a >chuckle. [Laughing] > >Craig Smith I taught in the last 8-weeks of a 26 week course which I believe was "ET-C" school. I was a contract instructor for H.L. Yoh Company through the spring and summer of '64 so I guess that was a tad before your tenure there. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: a couple of specific wiring questions
First, I want to make sure I'm okay using a D-sub connector to carry flap motor loads in an RV. I think 16 AWG is recommended for the motor wiring; will a single D-sub pin carry the current, or should I double-up on pins? Second, there is a wide range of recommendations and practice regarding the B-lead wiring for the SD-8 alternator. The Z 13/8 diagram shows 12 AWG for this run; the documents from B&C show 14 AWG, yet the wire they supply (potted into the regulator) is 16 AWG. Given that these critters can only do about 10A flat-out, are we sizing for voltage drop concerns here? It's not just academic: I can fuselink-protect a 16 AWG wire, maybe even a 14 AAWG one, but above that it means buying ANL's. Besides, there's the 2-gram weight difference to obsess over ;-) -Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: inrush limiters for landing lights
> >Bob- > >what's you latset thinking about using inline inrush current limiters >for those of us with halogen 100w landing lights? I'll be using mine >in wig-wag mode most of the time, and read your archived comments >about filament cooling in half-second time frames. Will limiters help >the life of my toggle switch enough to matter? I'm not using a relay >for that load when in the constant-on mode. The whole idea behind inrush limiters grew from our experiences with basically automotive incandescent lamps adapted for use on airplanes. The 4509 sealed beam bulb popular on many early landing light installations was listed in the industrial lamp supply catalogs as a "tractor headlamp". The technology of 1930 was hard pressed to perform well on tractors, much less airplanes. These bulbs were not stellar performers in some aircraft installations . . . especially those where the lamps were in the cowl right under the propeller shaft. We began considering in-rush limiters at LearJet in the early 80's on the GP-180 program. We did figure out a way to incorporate a limiter into the taxi lamp fixture mounted on the nose gear. Unfortunately, I was unable to stay connected with that program so I have no first-hand knowledge of the value of adding that feature . . . and for a single installation on only one airplane, I'm not sure the value would have be obvious. In years hence, the generic incandescent got some boosts in performance when the halogen lamps hit the market. These lamps had inrush levels that were higher still but they were also MUCH more rugged mechanically in both automotive and aircraft applications. The notion of adding inrush limiting for the purpose of increasing lamp life sort of lost its glow. However, there were control switches to consider along with a mild desire not to put funky noises onto the bus. Here, incorporation of an inrush limiter would bring the first-current at turn-on down from perhaps 70 amps to around 20 amps. Not a bad thing to do . . . but really worth it? Consider that switch ratings are based on tens of thousands of operations. How long will it take you to put even 1000 operations on your landing light switch. Consider also that most switches die in small aircraft not from electrical and usage stress but from effects of age. I'll suggest that if we did a controlled study of the benefits of adding inrush limiters to all the landing light circuits on all GA aircraft and carefully tracked lamp and switch life . . . we would find that many other stronger factors affecting service life are so strong as to hide the benefits of inrush limiters. Noises on the bus? Yes, we can reduce the noise from that source by incorporation of an inrush limiter scheme be it a thermistor or keep-warm system. But as it turns out, the amplitude and duration of an incandescent lamp turn-on transient is less than that of a starter motor . . . for accessories designed to live in the real world of vehicular DC power generation and distribution have no operational problems dealing with it. The question was raised here on the list a few years ago about incandescent lamps in wig-wag systems. It seems logical that if each turn-on event generates a transient, that a succession of transients would result from the alternate flashing of two lamps in wig-wag fashion. Lost a trace I did on this issue some years ago so I went to the bench and collected this image: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg Note that the lamp DOES produce a cold-start inrush transient for first closure event but that the filament does not cool sufficiently to generate a significant transient on subsequent events. Keep in mind also that inrush limiters are thermal devices with long time constants too. They BENEFIT only while cold. If you had one in your wig-wag circuit, it's very low warm- resistance would not vary significantly between lamp flashes. I.e, and inrush limiter needs to cool for perhaps a minute before it's benefits can be realized for the next switch closure. Bottom line is that inrush limiters are of marginal benefit in modern lighting circuits. Rev 12 of the 'Connection will remove recommendations for keep-warm and/or inrush limiters. It's an idea that has gone the way of spats and buggy-whips. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com>
Subject: LED Runway Lights too!
I stumbled across a website that caught me by surprise. http://www.solarairportlights.com/ Maybe some of you know a runway that needs lights? It's amazing what they can do with the LED lights these days. I've never seen them in use, but the video sure looked neat. I wonder how much they are? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Bundling wires
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
I am in figuring process how to physical get wires from the back of our Europa (fiberglass) to the front. The 2 easiest paths are mid fuse under the door frame on both starboard and port. Any input would be appreciated on this dart throw bundle: PORT side: ACK ELT antenna wire ACK ELT instrument panel controller wire Transponder antenna wire Com antenna wire Advanced Aircraft Electronics 5T nav com antenna wire (have antenna bent 90 degrees to work equal bad on both Nav and com for Vertex hand held Nav-Com) Kunzleman LED Position lights for port wing Ray Allen T4-5 roll servo power wires, this servo has no indicator STARBOARD side: Both battery #4 wires Wires for 2 vane style fuel pumps (Rotax 914 with capacitors installed as per Rotax) Ray Allen pitch servo and indicator wires (read of folks complaining when radio is keyed, indicator goes bonkers) 12 volt power wires for Kunzleman strobe power supply Kunzleman LED Position lights for starboard wing Opinions needed which side these go: 1 high voltage wire from a UMA transformer up front to run a EL strip in starboard headrest Headset wires that need only run a few feet with one of the bundled sides, which side? Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: a couple of specific wiring questions
> >First, I want to make sure I'm okay using a D-sub connector to carry >flap motor loads in an RV. I think 16 AWG is recommended for the >motor wiring; will a single D-sub pin carry the current, or should I >double-up on pins? How much current does the motor draw worst case? D-sub pins are RATED at 5A in low density loads. For longevity in aircraft environments I de-rate the pins to 3A. You CAN parallel pins for higher current conductors if you pay careful attention to the physics. The problem to be solved is making paralleled pins in a connector SHARE the total load. When mated resistance of the pin is say 5 +/- 2 milliohms, then there is a small but non-zero statistical probability for direct paralleling pins as low as 3 milliohms and as high as 7 milliohms. Here's a technique I developed for adding "ballasting resistance" to each pin . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Paralleled_DSub_Pins.pdf This was designed into and qualified on the following product: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_Power_Dist.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_1st_Ops_Flight.jpg Now, I've discussed a way to make your system live long and prosper using a d-sub connector . . . but why a d-sub? I needed the d-sub in the design cited above for compactness, convenience of dropping a connector right onto an ECB combined with a need to run lots of wires on and off the board with currents ranging from 22A down to microamps. Are you sure something like a http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ccop5 Isn't more appropriate to your task? Just a suggestion. The d-sub will perform just fine within the limits driven by the physics described above. >Second, there is a wide range of recommendations and practice >regarding the B-lead wiring for the SD-8 alternator. The Z 13/8 >diagram shows 12 AWG for this run; the documents from B&C show 14 AWG, >yet the wire they supply (potted into the regulator) is 16 AWG. >Given that these critters can only do about 10A flat-out, are we >sizing for voltage drop concerns here? It's not just academic: I can >fuselink-protect a 16 AWG wire, maybe even a 14 AAWG one, but above >that it means buying ANL's. Besides, there's the 2-gram weight >difference to obsess over ;-) The Z-Figures are architecture drawings and not intended to be the final word on sizes for anything. Some SD-8's were installed on the ass-end of a LongEz and drove electronics and batteries at the head-end. Fatter than usual wires were used to improve on regulator performance. As you've noted, the alternator's output is rated at 10A max so as long as logistics and special performance issues are not a consideration 16AWG wire and 15A fusing would be most adequate. Don't get bogged down in ANY variabilities between the various Z-figures. EACH system needs to be evaluated for wire and fuse sizing based on the physics of YOUR proposed installation. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wing root connector sources.
>Bob, >Your article at . . . > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wingwire/wingwire.html > >shows a very useful connector for my demountable wings, but I'm having a >deuce of a time finding the very one you display. >Can you tell me where you got it, as all my attempts to find are thwarted. >I get across to USA fairly frequently and will search the standard >hardware/auto shops. Good afternoon my friend. The connector illustrated is a trailer-wiring device that would be found in stores that offer RV and trailer parts. I think I purchased the connector shown in a blister pack at Pep Boys, Oriley's, or AutoZone. They're pretty common in a variety of pin-counts. Here are some 'net leads . . . http://tinyurl.com/34k7ug http://tinyurl.com/32d9nu http://preview.tinyurl.com/3325t6 Consider lap-splicing the wires as suggested in http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html This should reduce the splicing bulk in adjacent cabling. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights too!
>I stumbled across a website that caught me by surprise. ><http://www.solarairportlights.com/>http://www.solarairportlights.com/ > >Maybe some of you know a runway that needs lights? >It's amazing what they can do with the LED lights these days. > >I've never seen them in use, but the video sure looked neat. >I wonder how much they are? I wasn't aware until Dee and I bought an airport that the standard low-intensity runway light is a 10w lamp. Our lowest cost source for these lamps was a sewing machine dealership that would order them for us by the 24 count case . . . he had them in stock for illuminators on sewing machines too. LED's are a natural for this application. Don't need much light but you DO want long life . . . our system had just over 30 lamps spread over 1/2 mile of terrain. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Antenna placement
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Have a few questions about antenna placement for our Europa (fiberglass). The Advanced Aircraft Electronics L2 Transponder antenna came with a piece of balsa to mount it on. What is idea here? Bond the antenna to balsa, then balsa to fiberglass? As far as the fore and aft position of Transponder antenna, 2 available positions are ~ 5 feet behind pilot, or ~ 8 feet behind pilot. 5 feet will allow a slight lower position in flight, but is closer to the motor. Which choice is preferable of the 2? As far as the left and right position of the transponder antenna, there is an ~ 2" thin wall aluminium pitch tube running fore and aft. I could mount the antenna direct under this tube by ~ 2" that would make for a friendlier movement about. Or I can displace it to one side 6 (8 feet) or 12 inches (5 feet). What would preference be? I will have Advanced Aircraft Electronics 5T antenna mounted just behind the baggage bay bulkhead. It will be powering a Vertex 700 panel mounted hand held. I will mount it bent 90 degrees where approx 1/2 is vertical, and half will be on the roof horizontal(to work equal bad on both nav and Com). Talking to Advanced they said it will provide approx 70% of the performance on both Nav and Com compared to proper straight orientation, and be far better than rubber ducky antenna with 90 degree bend. Any comments from those who have done this 90 degree bend? I want to place my ELT whip antenna (ACK EO1)vertical inside fuse, where it will be diagonal from the center of 90 degree bend of Advanced 5T antenna by about 18 inches. Will this close proximity potentially cause any receive or transmit problems for Vertex? If I were to test the ACK and had the vertex on, could this close proximity cause harm the the Vertex? Other info: Transponder antenna will be either 2 or 5 feet aft of ELT antenna Primary Com antenna is a Bob Archer in top of rudder Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Bundling wires
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Ron, Do you have a tri gear or a mono-wheel. If a tri gear, the tunnel is the easiest. I built a mono-wheel so the stbd door channel ws the best for small wires. I ran the com and txpdr thru the port door channel ( big wires). My battery was in front. You can make the door channels as big as you need. I also ran some wires up the windshield channel to switching in the overhead. then some went back and down into the area where the pumps were located. Definitly put supports under the door frames to keep them from flexing. Also reverse the door strut mounting from the factor design. That way you won't push up the rear of the door frame. (looks bad) Jim Nelson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: Bundling wires
Date: Jan 23, 2007
You have proposed essentially what I did. I have installed the Europa factory wiring harness which runs all power along the starboard side just below the door, and to keep from getting too fat a bundle there, installed all antenna cabling along the port side. From monitoring this list I realize that there is no technical reason to separate any wires from any others. Although many builders seem to prefer mounting the headset jacks in the overhead panel I mounted mine at shoulder level between the headrests thus keeping dangling wires from interfering with access to the baggage compartment. Best regards, Rob Housman Europa XS A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:16 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bundling wires I am in figuring process how to physical get wires from the back of our Europa (fiberglass) to the front. The 2 easiest paths are mid fuse under the door frame on both starboard and port. Any input would be appreciated on this dart throw bundle: PORT side: ACK ELT antenna wire ACK ELT instrument panel controller wire Transponder antenna wire Com antenna wire Advanced Aircraft Electronics 5T nav com antenna wire (have antenna bent 90 degrees to work equal bad on both Nav and com for Vertex hand held Nav-Com) Kunzleman LED Position lights for port wing Ray Allen T4-5 roll servo power wires, this servo has no indicator STARBOARD side: Both battery #4 wires Wires for 2 vane style fuel pumps (Rotax 914 with capacitors installed as per Rotax) Ray Allen pitch servo and indicator wires (read of folks complaining when radio is keyed, indicator goes bonkers) 12 volt power wires for Kunzleman strobe power supply Kunzleman LED Position lights for starboard wing Opinions needed which side these go: 1 high voltage wire from a UMA transformer up front to run a EL strip in starboard headrest Headset wires that need only run a few feet with one of the bundled sides, which side? Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights too!
Date: Jan 23, 2007
But did you check the price for "one" Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Campbell To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Runway Lights too! I stumbled across a website that caught me by surprise. http://www.solarairportlights.com/ Maybe some of you know a runway that needs lights? It's amazing what they can do with the LED lights these days. I've never seen them in use, but the video sure looked neat. I wonder how much they are? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DBerelsman(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
I am sure one of the smart folks on the list will discover a way to convert these into high intensity runway lights. _The Home Depot: HomeBrite Solar 30817 Plastic Solar Path Light_ (http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@053825710 3.1169579961@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddjmihhggmcgelceffdfgidglm.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_ME TA&CNTKEY=misc/searchResults.jsp&MID=9876&N=2984+4233&pos=n12) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna placement
I'm only going to comment on a small part of this. As a ham operator with a few decades of experimentation with antennas (primarily HF, but also some VHF), I've seen most everything you can do right and wrong with antennas. First of all, almost nothing you have described here is going to have a *huge* impact. The bad effects you might achieve will be minor. When you are 50 miles from an ATC comm station trying desperately to raise someone, the minor impacts could become more significant, but for 99% of your flying, it won't matter too much. So, here are a few thoughts: Try to keep all antennas a quarter wavelength away from other metal that is in the same plane (not airplane, geometric plane). In feet, that's about 234 / Frequency in Megahertz. Run coax feeders 90 degrees away from the antenna as far as possible to prevent interference. Receivers will work with any piece of wire and you'll be able to hear *something*, but when you get the wire length exactly right and you have no interference with surrounding metal, you'll be rewarded with a really nice strong signal and low noise. Putting a 90 degree bend in the antenna will screw up its SWR. That may only affect your reception by 3db, but it could potentially cause your solid state, computer controlled transmitter to automatically reduce its output power. I'm not sure. You'll have to try it out. When you're flying in New Mexico over an area where you can't raise ATC even at 8500 feet and the terrain is fiercely hostile (for instance here: http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X%20Shiprock%20NM/IMG_2098.jpg) , you'll want as good a transmitter as you can get. So, the question becomes, are you going to need NAV out in the boonies more than COM, or vice versa. My guess is you're going to have a darn nice GPS on board, and you may never use your handheld NAV function on the radio. So, optimize it for COM if that applies to you. If the ELT antenna is 18 inches minimum from the COM antenna, that's not the ultimate in separation, but it will be adequate. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference if you moved it a full quarter wavelength away. It may affect the radiation lobes, causing them to be oriented more forward and aft, and giving you less effectiveness off the wingtips, but it will be so miniscule you probably won't notice the difference unless you are way far from the ground station. When you test the ELT, turn down the volume in the Vertex, or just unplug it. It won't harm it, but you won't like the noise. Aircraft that have a non-metal tail cone about 31 inches in diameter can take advantage of my Morris Com Loop antenna, which is a full wavelength loop mounted on the fuselage wall. It provides slight gain, greater immunity to noise, and requires no ground plane. http://www.davemorris.com/MorrisComLoop.cfm Dave Morris www.N5UP.com www.N6030X.com At 11:54 AM 1/23/2007, you wrote: >I will have Advanced Aircraft Electronics 5T antenna mounted just behind >the baggage bay bulkhead. It will be powering a Vertex 700 panel mounted >hand held. I will mount it bent 90 degrees where approx 1/2 is vertical, >and half will be on the roof horizontal(to work equal bad on both nav and >Com). Talking to Advanced they said it will provide approx 70% of the >performance on both Nav and Com compared to proper straight orientation, >and be far better than rubber ducky antenna with 90 degree bend. > >Any comments from those who have done this 90 degree bend? > >I want to place my ELT whip antenna (ACK EO1)vertical inside fuse, where >it will be diagonal from the center of 90 degree bend of Advanced 5T >antenna by about 18 inches. > >Will this close proximity potentially cause any receive or transmit >problems for Vertex? > >If I were to test the ACK and had the vertex on, could this close >proximity cause harm the the Vertex? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
>I am sure one of the smart folks on the list will discover a way to >convert these into high intensity runway lights. > ><http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0538257103.1169579961@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddjmihhggmcgelceffdfgidglm.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY=misc/searchResults.jsp&MID=9876&N=2984+4233&pos=n12>The >Home Depot: HomeBrite Solar 30817 Plastic Solar Path Light An experiment I've always wanted to try is based on the glue-down reflectors you often see on highways. Their light acceptance angles and reflection efficiencies are quite high. I've often wondered if one couldn't paste these things down to a runway edge and generate a most adequate runway positional awareness based completely upon the ship's landing light. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: LED Runway Lights too!
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Price is on the site. Looks like over $1000 per fixture. I'm fairly sure I can run wired low voltage for considerably less than $1000 a fixture. J Michael Sausen RV-10 #352 Fuselage From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Campbell Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Runway Lights too! I stumbled across a website that caught me by surprise. http://www.solarairportlights.com/ Maybe some of you know a runway that needs lights? It's amazing what they can do with the LED lights these days. I've never seen them in use, but the video sure looked neat. I wonder how much they are? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: a couple of specific wiring questions
Thanks most kindly. Since I have a short run from the dynamo to the bus, I won't bother with the 12 AWG concept. Even 14 AWG seems a tad heavy for the proposed 8 amp service, and the wiring will never see much use unless the main alternator fails or goes OV (IR). As for the flap harness connector, I had already leaned towards the Molex and that is clearly the way to go, without always wondering if I should have derated those pins and ballasted the wires. -Bill On 1/23/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > >First, I want to make sure I'm okay using a D-sub connector to carry > >flap motor loads in an RV. I think 16 AWG is recommended for the > >motor wiring; will a single D-sub pin carry the current, or should I > >double-up on pins? > > How much current does the motor draw worst case? D-sub pins > are RATED at 5A in low density loads. For longevity in aircraft > environments I de-rate the pins to 3A. > > You CAN parallel pins for higher current conductors if you > pay careful attention to the physics. The problem to be > solved is making paralleled pins in a connector SHARE > the total load. When mated resistance of the pin is say > 5 +/- 2 milliohms, then there is a small but non-zero > statistical probability for direct paralleling pins as > low as 3 milliohms and as high as 7 milliohms. > > Here's a technique I developed for adding "ballasting > resistance" to each pin . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Paralleled_DSub_Pins.pdf > > This was designed into and qualified on the following > product: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_Power_Dist.jpg > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_1st_Ops_Flight.jpg > > Now, I've discussed a way to make your system live > long and prosper using a d-sub connector . . . but why > a d-sub? I needed the d-sub in the design cited above > for compactness, convenience of dropping a connector > right onto an ECB combined with a need to run lots > of wires on and off the board with currents ranging > from 22A down to microamps. > > Are you sure something like a > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ccop5 > > Isn't more appropriate to your task? Just a suggestion. > The d-sub will perform just fine within the limits > driven by the physics described above. > > >Second, there is a wide range of recommendations and practice > >regarding the B-lead wiring for the SD-8 alternator. The Z 13/8 > >diagram shows 12 AWG for this run; the documents from B&C show 14 AWG, > >yet the wire they supply (potted into the regulator) is 16 AWG. > >Given that these critters can only do about 10A flat-out, are we > >sizing for voltage drop concerns here? It's not just academic: I can > >fuselink-protect a 16 AWG wire, maybe even a 14 AAWG one, but above > >that it means buying ANL's. Besides, there's the 2-gram weight > >difference to obsess over ;-) > > The Z-Figures are architecture drawings and not intended > to be the final word on sizes for anything. Some SD-8's were > installed on the ass-end of a LongEz and drove electronics > and batteries at the head-end. Fatter than usual wires > were used to improve on regulator performance. As you've > noted, the alternator's output is rated at 10A max so as > long as logistics and special performance issues are not > a consideration 16AWG wire and 15A fusing would be most > adequate. Don't get bogged down in ANY variabilities between > the various Z-figures. EACH system needs to be evaluated > for wire and fuse sizing based on the physics of YOUR > proposed installation. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
I'll bet this would work very well with one caveat: Every now and then some yahoo (like me) is tooling around in a 40 year old rented citabria with a flaky electrical system (or a nice, shinny new lancair with a broken landing light). No landing light + no runway light could make for an exciting flare :) -john www.ballofshame.com > > > > An experiment I've always wanted to try is based on the > glue-down reflectors you often see on highways. Their > light acceptance angles and reflection efficiencies > are quite high. I've often wondered if one couldn't > paste these things down to a runway edge and generate > a most adequate runway positional awareness based > completely upon the ship's landing light. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
DBerelsman(at)aol.com wrote: > I am sure one of the smart folks on the list will discover a way > to convert these into high intensity runway lights. > > The Home Depot: HomeBrite Solar 30817 Plastic Solar Path Light > <http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0538257103.1169579961@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddjmihhggmcgelceffdfgidglm.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY=misc/searchResults.jsp&MID=9876&N=2984+4233&pos=n12> > > > > I've got a pile of these solar powered path lights under the house. Were'nt good for much other than mood lighting. Less than what you'd get from a candle, and that's only if they had full sunlight all day. The problem is that they run from NiCads, and not only do they need to be periodically replaced, they have practically nothing left in the wee hours of the morning. Unless they're using a newer battery technology, I'd say you'd get the same problem from the runway light setup: the need to replace a lot of expensive batteries every year, and no lights in the early morning hours. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
Like these? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300072913438&ih=020&category=26197&ssPageName=WDVW&rd=1 -Bill B On 1/23/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >I am sure one of the smart folks on the list will discover a way to > >convert these into high intensity runway lights. > > > ><http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0538257103.1169579961@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddjmihhggmcgelceffdfgidglm.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY=misc/searchResults.jsp&MID=9876&N=2984+4233&pos=n12>The > >Home Depot: HomeBrite Solar 30817 Plastic Solar Path Light > > An experiment I've always wanted to try is based on the > glue-down reflectors you often see on highways. Their > light acceptance angles and reflection efficiencies > are quite high. I've often wondered if one couldn't > paste these things down to a runway edge and generate > a most adequate runway positional awareness based > completely upon the ship's landing light. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
> >Like these? > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300072913438&ih=020&category=26197&ssPageName=WDVW&rd=1 > >-Bill B That's the ones. A "discussion over tacos" several years ago considered the use of high efficiency reflectors for both runway edge marking and approach path measurement and display. Between our ability to routinely find a final approach point to an unlighted airport with $100 GPS receivers, it seems that creative use of reflectors might add demonstrable convenience and safety to a facility that would otherwise go unused after dark. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
> >I'll bet this would work very well with one caveat: Every now and then >some yahoo (like me) is tooling around in a 40 year old rented citabria >with a flaky electrical system (or a nice, shinny new lancair with a >broken landing light). No landing light + no runway light could make for >an exciting flare :) Which is why we should avoid putting blanket solutions on our design recommendations without considering the big picture for the builder's mission. For example, it's easily demonstrated that you can land an airplane on a lighted field using a 6v, 0.5A, 3W fisherman's lantern. Or perhaps a couple of 25w store-floods in the wingtips to illuminate the surface during the flare. I've encouraged folks to look into low-energy alternatives to dual 100W plus klieg lights. If one's home turf has limited utility after dark for lack of light bulbs and a mile or so of wire, perhaps dual 100W bulbs (independently powered and controlled) combined with hunks of strategically placed plastic offers a new opportunity. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com>
Subject: Re: Wing root connector sources.
FWIW, I'll second the recommendation of the Switchcraft EN3 weathertight connectors, which someone mentioned awhile back (see http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T071/0321.pdf). They're feather weight, rated 7.5A, and very high quality. I'm going to use them for both trim and wing root connections. Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I agree with the idea of wishing to downsize the power requirements of landing lights.. From my limited night experience the most challenging runway environment is when the airport is located in a densely populated urban/suburban area. There is so much other light in the pilot's eyes while in the pattern that a dim landing light isn't much better than burned out bulb at these airports. Combine that with a bug covered windscreen, and seeing out is tough. Even the runway edge lights can be sort of hard to see in these cases, though they are visible enough to provide reference. Landing on a runway out in the boonies is much easier, though the chances of sharing the runway with a big four legged critter are much higher... For these reasons, if I have an airplane that I intend to fly at night very often, I'd strongly consider including HID landing and taxi lights. I understand that the color of these lights and their long warmup time might make them less useful for daytime recognition (less visible against sky, and not easy to wig wag). I think their robustness and low power consumption make them attractive even so. I would consider including lower wattage dedicated wig-wag lights as well. http://www.brightheadlights-hid.com/5-7in%20Round-Projectors.htm This kit is still kind of a lot of money, but with proper installation, it could last the life of the airplane.. Regards, Matt- > > > >> >>I'll bet this would work very well with one caveat: Every now and then >>some yahoo (like me) is tooling around in a 40 year old rented citabria >>with a flaky electrical system (or a nice, shinny new lancair with a >>broken landing light). No landing light + no runway light could make for >>an exciting flare :) > > Which is why we should avoid putting blanket solutions > on our design recommendations without considering the > big picture for the builder's mission. For example, > it's easily demonstrated that you can land an airplane > on a lighted field using a 6v, 0.5A, 3W fisherman's > lantern. Or perhaps a couple of 25w store-floods in > the wingtips to illuminate the surface during the flare. > > I've encouraged folks to look into low-energy alternatives > to dual 100W plus klieg lights. If one's home turf has > limited utility after dark for lack of light bulbs and > a mile or so of wire, perhaps dual 100W bulbs (independently > powered and controlled) combined with hunks of strategically > placed plastic offers a new opportunity. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: LED Runway - HID landing lights
For a review of HID landing lights, see http://www.preciseflight.com/ufiles/06March_Aviation_Consumer_HID_Article_Main.pdf Dave Morris At 03:21 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote: > > >For these reasons, if I have an airplane that I intend to fly at night >very often, I'd strongly consider including HID landing and taxi lights. >I understand that the color of these lights and their long warmup time >might make them less useful for daytime recognition (less visible against >sky, and not easy to wig wag). I think their robustness and low power >consumption make them attractive even so. I would consider including >lower wattage dedicated wig-wag lights as well. > >http://www.brightheadlights-hid.com/5-7in%20Round-Projectors.htm > >This kit is still kind of a lot of money, but with proper installation, it >could last the life of the airplane.. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject: more direct method for designing electrical system
Thank all for the replies on and off list. Two good points were made that have me beginning slow progress: 1) paper, pencil, and a big eraser; and 2) separate circuits onto separate sheets of paper. I saw this on Randy Pflanzler's web site and it made bite-size pieces. I suppose I can render these pencil drawings to CAD later if I wish. Larry E. James Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Subject: Timer module
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Dave, Here's another way to skin this cat. Check out : http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights / solar
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > An experiment I've always wanted to try is based on the > glue-down reflectors you often see on highways. Don't know about the glue-down types but the tape-type seen on the sides of semi trailers do work well. They are available from http://tinyurl.com/ysq2g7, ebay and many other sources. Just Google 'semi trailer reflective tape'. I just cut the off the white half and wrapped it around a 3/4" plastic pipe and pushed it into the ground every 200' along the runway edge. I put the red half on a pipe at each end and one at the 1/2 way point. Using an auto to test at night, one could clearly see the reflections all the way down to the end of a 2000' turf strip. One thing good about the tape-type is they reflect back at the angle of illumination so they can be seen from the air with a functioning landing light. I considered installing a 110VAC stationary 'spot' light at the end near an AC source at ground level to cover the 'in case landing light failure during flare' issue but did not. I've since moved the runway and have not reinstalled the edge lights or I would publish a night picture.. it was quite impressive. Earl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: LED Runway Lights too!
Date: Jan 23, 2007
We have a set of the solar powered taxiway lights installed at 17J (Donalsonville, GA) and they have worked great for over two years. There have only been two problems that I am aware of. First, if it is cloudy for several days, the batteries will not charge enough for the lights to run all night (this has been an infrequent occurrence). Second is birds. They like to perch on top of the light assemblies where the solar cells are. If left alone they would leave enough deposits on top of the lamps to block out the solar cells to the point the batteries will not charge. We had to install wire spikes on the light assemblies to prevent them from landing on the lights. As far as performance, they are as bright as a hard wired light assembly. If you did not know they were solar powered you would not know the difference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Campbell To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Runway Lights too! I stumbled across a website that caught me by surprise. http://www.solarairportlights.com/ Maybe some of you know a runway that needs lights? It's amazing what they can do with the LED lights these days. I've never seen them in use, but the video sure looked neat. I wonder how much they are? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Subject: jab coilrounds
Date: Jan 23, 2007
hi bob, thanks for the explanation of the proper wiring of the coil ground wire. bob noffs when things are going smoothly i tell myself i have obviously overlooked something so i look around and usually the truth finally comes out! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: more direct method for designing electrical system
>Thank all for the replies on and off list. Two good points were made that >have me beginning slow progress: 1) paper, pencil, and a big eraser; and >2) separate circuits onto separate sheets of paper. I saw this on Randy >Pflanzler's web site and it made bite-size pieces. I suppose I can render >these pencil drawings to CAD later if I wish. Absolutely! The most important document for your project is the shop notebook. Develop all the wiring in this book with the #2 pencil and Pink Pearl eraser. Some day when it's too wet or snowy to fly, sit down at the CAD system and pretty-up your drawings. I've used this technique for decades on all manner of skunk-werks projects. This eliminates a lot of lost motion when one runs back and forth between computer and shop in some attempt to keep a computer based drawing up to date. This is exactly the kind of lost motion that drives up the costs of our type certificated ships when EVERY change to a design has to be in the computer and approved by a dozen folks before that change can go onto the airplane. It's killing us. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wing root connector sources.
> >FWIW, I'll second the recommendation of the Switchcraft EN3 weathertight >connectors, which someone mentioned awhile back (see >http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T071/0321.pdf. They're feather weight, >rated 7.5A, and very high quality. I'm going to use them for both trim >and wing root connections. Cute little fellers . . . thanks for the heads-up on these. They look really good. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: IR alternators in aircraft
Over the past week or so I've become aware of two more incidents of uncontrolled OV conditions arising from the failure of internally regulated alternators. I've sent both folks copies of the original Z-24 along with advance data on the proposed AEC9004 IR Alternator Controller - easily incorporated into an installed OV protection system at a later date. For those interested, the document has been indexed on our What's New? page and posted at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf The hardware is in hand to adapt our 3-phase alternator drive stand . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternator_Test_Stand to 240 VAC, single phase. All I need is a spare weekend and a bit warmer weather out in the garage. If I can get this big dog up on his feet, I'll rip out all the existing instrumentation wiring and install a Z-11 mock-up. Development of the AEC9004 controller will be the first project to run across the drive stand. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Jack plug question
>Thanks Bob. > >The KX155 is 6 months old. This problem has been there from the beginning. >It came with harness pre-wired and i installed it. Sometimes i use a >handheld (ICOM A20) wired into the a/c power supply and aerial and there's >some ignition noise but not a serious problem. Its just the panel mounted >KX155. The microphone jack interferes with the volume (even with the >squelch turned off) and introduces interference >Two possibles i thought of were >1. The microphone socket may need an earth? The panel is fibreglass and >the socket has 2 wires running into it but is not earthed to the airframe >2. Could the wires in the microphone socket be transposed? > >As the ICOM works OK that seems to exclude power supply or aerial issues? > >Very grateful for your advice. > >Frank If the push to talk circuit is active in your microphone wiring, then the mic jack would need two wires plus a ground. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html If your mic jack is intended to handle ONLY microphone audio and PTT is handled with other wiring, then only two wires would be required. Do you have a schematic of the pre-wired harness? Have you checked your harness against the diagram? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Weber" <djweberlaw(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: IR alternators in aircraft
Date: Jan 23, 2007
I have a IR ALT from Plane Power (14v) and am wiring per your book. Can I use the LR3C from B&C to prevent OV problems? Or, does someone else sell such a device? Thanks David Weber > [Original Message] > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > To: > Date: 1/23/2007 11:22:02 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IR alternators in aircraft > > > Over the past week or so I've become aware of two more > incidents of uncontrolled OV conditions arising from the > failure of internally regulated alternators. I've > sent both folks copies of the original Z-24 along with > advance data on the proposed AEC9004 IR Alternator > Controller - easily incorporated into an installed OV > protection system at a later date. > > For those interested, the document has been indexed > on our What's New? page and posted at: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf > > The hardware is in hand to adapt our 3-phase > alternator drive stand . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternator_Test_Stand > > to 240 VAC, single phase. All I need is a spare weekend > and a bit warmer weather out in the garage. If I can > get this big dog up on his feet, I'll rip out all the existing > instrumentation wiring and install a Z-11 mock-up. Development > of the AEC9004 controller will be the first project to > run across the drive stand. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna placement
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote: > > Have a few questions about antenna placement for our Europa (fiberglass). > > The Advanced Aircraft Electronics L2 Transponder antenna came with a piece > of balsa to mount it on. What is idea here? Bond the antenna to balsa, > then balsa to fiberglass? Ron, shape the Balsa so it conforms to the shape of your fuselage, epoxy it to the fuselage, glue the antenna on the balsa (blades are straight) cover blades and balsa with a layer of glass going also on the fuselage shell. That's what we did on several Glastar's and it worked out great. br Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Verwey" <bonanza(at)vodamail.co.za>
Subject: Century 2000 autopilot harness
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Fellow listers I am looking for a 28v harness for a century 2000 autopilot. Any pointers as to where I should look? This is for a non-certified application, so paperwork is not necessary. Thanks Bob Verwey A35 Bonanza ZU-DLW ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Century 2000 autopilot harness
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Bob, You may want to try the guys that make harnesses. Stark makes them for non-certified (and possibly certified too). See http://www.starkavionics.com/index.htm Some others that also come to mind are: http://www.steinair.com/orderinfo.htm http://www.approachfaststack.com/ (but maybe only for their own hubs) Bevan RV7A finish kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Century 2000 autopilot harness --> Fellow listers I am looking for a 28v harness for a century 2000 autopilot. Any pointers as to where I should look? This is for a non-certified application, so paperwork is not necessary. Thanks Bob Verwey A35 Bonanza ZU-DLW ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Subject: attaching shielded wires
Date: Jan 24, 2007
hi bob, do you have any illustrated ''how to's'' on attaching shielded wire? i want the shielding to attach also. this is for wiring two p.t.t. switches to the radio. thanks in advance, bob noffs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: attaching shielded wires
Have a look at this one <http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html> if you mean about bundling them to one attach point you can use above technique and a ring crimped on the end or as on some equipment (GTX-330) you have a separate bus to end all the shields. hope it helps Werner bob noffs wrote: > hi bob, do you have any illustrated ''how to's'' on attaching > shielded wire? i want the shielding to attach also. this is for wiring > two p.t.t. switches to the radio. > thanks in advance, bob noffs > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: IR alternators in aircraft
> > > >I have a IR ALT from Plane Power (14v) and am wiring per your book. When you say "wired per your book", I'm a bit lost. None of my drawings speak to or even recommend the use of an internally regulated alternator because I've yet to identify any products that meet my design goals. Figure Z-24 was an early attempt to cover two issues: (1) control - offering the pilot the same or similar level of control over the alternator as pilots have enjoyed over generators and alternators since day-one and (2) ov protection. However, we discovered that some alternators would fatally kick themselves in the where-it-hurts if disconnected from the rest of the system while under load. Hence, Z-24 was removed from the book and is referenced only in the side-article cited here . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf The article cautions prospective users that Z-24 as published has some risks . . . BUT ONLY TO THE ALTERNATOR's REGULATOR and only if the alternator is turned off under some conditions that can be easily avoided. Z-24 as published DOES offer OV protection which is a demonstrably good thing to do. Z-24a speaks to hardware under development that will slip into a Z-24 system with little additional work. The new hardware is intended to meet ALL of the design goals >Can I use the LR3C from B&C to prevent OV problems? Or, >does someone else sell such a device? > >Thanks > > >David Weber Internally regulated alternators are a what-you-see- is-what-you-get. If it is your desire to have these marvelous-but-not-perfect devices operated within the design goals we've been using for externally regulated alternators then some form of external adaptation is necessary necessary. All of the parts shown in Z-24 are available from B&C today. All of the parts shown in Z-24a will be available this year. The LR3 from B&C is and EXTERNAL regulator/ov-protection/lv-warning crafted to meet historical design goals. It cannot be used to overcome the deficiencies identified in the present crop of IR alternators without modifying the alternator to run with an external regulator. B&C's products start out life as IR alternators and are modified to become ER alternators compatible with the LR3 and similar external regulators. So the short answer to your question is "no" the LR3C is not useful for OV protection on any IR alternator. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IR alternators in aircraft
Bob- do you hae any voltage magnitude details or damage reports from the field with these failures of IR alternators, or any part numbers? How high wre the excursions and did they fry anything (else)? This seems like an alarmingly high failure rate, given the small # of IR alternators likely to be flying in OBAM craft, and the almost nil failure rate I always thought attended these regualtors in automotive use. I wonder if there is anything specific to the aircraft environment or application that is behind this. Heat? RPM? Vibration? Pilot load mismanagement? Any common threads showing up yet? -Bill B currently flying IR w/o OVP, pending your latest developments later this year. On 1/24/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > > > > > >I have a IR ALT from Plane Power (14v) and am wiring per your book. > > When you say "wired per your book", I'm a bit lost. None > of my drawings speak to or even recommend the use of > an internally regulated alternator because I've yet > to identify any products that meet my design goals. > > Figure Z-24 was an early attempt to cover two issues: > (1) control - offering the pilot the same or similar > level of control over the alternator as pilots have > enjoyed over generators and alternators since day-one > and (2) ov protection. However, we discovered that some > alternators would fatally kick themselves in the > where-it-hurts if disconnected from the rest of > the system while under load. > > Hence, Z-24 was removed from the book and is > referenced only in the side-article cited here . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf > > The article cautions prospective users that Z-24 as > published has some risks . . . BUT ONLY TO THE ALTERNATOR's > REGULATOR and only if the alternator is turned off > under some conditions that can be easily avoided. > Z-24 as published DOES offer OV protection which is > a demonstrably good thing to do. > > Z-24a speaks to hardware under development that > will slip into a Z-24 system with little additional > work. The new hardware is intended to meet ALL of > the design goals > > > >Can I use the LR3C from B&C to prevent OV problems? Or, > >does someone else sell such a device? > > > >Thanks > > > > > >David Weber > > Internally regulated alternators are a what-you-see- > is-what-you-get. If it is your desire to have these > marvelous-but-not-perfect devices operated within the > design goals we've been using for externally regulated > alternators then some form of external adaptation > is necessary necessary. > > All of the parts shown in Z-24 are available from > B&C today. All of the parts shown in Z-24a will > be available this year. The LR3 from B&C is and > EXTERNAL regulator/ov-protection/lv-warning > crafted to meet historical design goals. It > cannot be used to overcome the deficiencies > identified in the present crop of IR alternators > without modifying the alternator to run with > an external regulator. B&C's products start out > life as IR alternators and are modified to become > ER alternators compatible with the LR3 and similar > external regulators. > > So the short answer to your question is "no" the > LR3C is not useful for OV protection on any IR > alternator. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: SD-8 Alternator Wiring
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
Bob, I plan to use your Z-12 diagram as the basis of a 2-alternator, single forward-mounted battery system in my RV-8A. I will have an endurance bus with the AFS 3500, Garmin 496, SL30, Auto Pilot Mstr (TruTrak ADI Pilot for back up attitude), Pitot Heat, Boost Pump, Pitch and Roll trim, and one Cockpit Flood Light running on the SD-8, realizing that use of pitot heat will eventually drain the battery. I am trying to understand the differences in operating principles of the B&C L-60 and the SD-8, particularly in the need for the 5 amp field circuit breaker. Does the SD-8 need one? Paul Valovich N192NM Reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Jack plug question
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 05:40 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question >Thanks Bob. > >The KX155 is 6 months old. This problem has been there from the beginning. >It came with harness pre-wired and i installed it. Sometimes i use a >handheld (ICOM A20) wired into the a/c power supply and aerial and there's >some ignition noise but not a serious problem. Its just the panel mounted >KX155. The microphone jack interferes with the volume (even with the >squelch turned off) and introduces interference >Two possibles i thought of were >1. The microphone socket may need an earth? The panel is fibreglass and >the socket has 2 wires running into it but is not earthed to the airframe >2. Could the wires in the microphone socket be transposed? > >As the ICOM works OK that seems to exclude power supply or aerial issues? > >Very grateful for your advice. > >Frank If the push to talk circuit is active in your microphone wiring, then the mic jack would need two wires plus a ground. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html If your mic jack is intended to handle ONLY microphone audio and PTT is handled with other wiring, then only two wires would be required. Do you have a schematic of the pre-wired harness? Have you checked your harness against the diagram? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Timer module
Date: Jan 24, 2007
In the circuit design shown in > > http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html > the power source is indicated at 9 V. Please forgive an electronics ignorant question, but what should be done to connect this circuit to 12/14 V ? Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Jack plug question
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
Many thanks Bob. The schematic in your link shows the harness linking the radio to the microphone jack is shielded. Not sure if mine is but will check. I'm afraid i don't have a wiring diagram - they wouldn't give me one. Contacted the technician who did the wiring harness several times and he was vague about the need for a ground. Maybe he thought i had a metal panel or maybe he didn't understand the wiring and was just doing as he was told? Think i'll install an earth on the microphone jack anyway. I presume it won't do any harm and may solve the problem. Also check the shielding Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 05:40 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question >Thanks Bob. > >The KX155 is 6 months old. This problem has been there from the beginning. >It came with harness pre-wired and i installed it. Sometimes i use a >handheld (ICOM A20) wired into the a/c power supply and aerial and there's >some ignition noise but not a serious problem. Its just the panel mounted >KX155. The microphone jack interferes with the volume (even with the >squelch turned off) and introduces interference >Two possibles i thought of were >1. The microphone socket may need an earth? The panel is fibreglass and >the socket has 2 wires running into it but is not earthed to the airframe >2. Could the wires in the microphone socket be transposed? > >As the ICOM works OK that seems to exclude power supply or aerial issues? > >Very grateful for your advice. > >Frank If the push to talk circuit is active in your microphone wiring, then the mic jack would need two wires plus a ground. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html If your mic jack is intended to handle ONLY microphone audio and PTT is handled with other wiring, then only two wires would be required. Do you have a schematic of the pre-wired harness? Have you checked your harness against the diagram? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: alternators in aircraft (yes) OV module (no?)
>From: "David Weber" <djweberlaw(at)mindspring.com> >I have a IR ALT from Plane Power (14v) and am >wiring per your book. Can I use the LR3C from >B&C to prevent OV problems? Or, does >someone else sell such a device? >Thanks, David Weber Dave: You don't need anything. You DO not need the LR3C (which is a voltage regulator for and externally regulated alternator), nor do you need Bob's OV protection add-on for internally regulated alternators. Unlike Bob's OV protection the Plane Power protection is included in and incorporated inside the alternator. The little module on the back monitors the voltage and will CUT OFF POWER to the voltage regulator (which removes power to the FIELD, rotor). That will smoothly and safely shut down the alternator with out any load dump. Bob's set up is external to the alternator and requires you to put a large relay to break or cut the output, ie B-lead. It does not shut the alternator down it just disconnects it. You have the best of the best, relax. > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > >Over the past week or so I've become aware of >two more incidents of uncontrolled OV >conditions arising from the failure of internally >regulated alternators. Bob could you give any details? Since 14.3 volts to 14.5 volts is normal any thing over that is Over Voltage. Are we talking 14.6 volts. I respect that you demand repeatable test, facts, proof and data. What happened? How severe was this OV? If it a typical OV anomaly or failure it was may be 16 volts, max. What say you Bob? When you throw out little info like that you feed fear from ignorance from lack of info. It severs no one except if you want to support the contention that I-VR are infior or not suitable for planes, which is not true of course. I-VR have and outstanding reliability rate and OV is not an issue. Unfortunately Van was selling a crop of units from a dubious supplier which created a reliability issue but no major OV event. Again 1000's are sold every year for aircraft use and Van's gets only a small % back that they sell, and they sell a lot. What are the details. I understand "I've become aware", but if the OV was mild as most are. DO WE NEED TO HAVE OV MODULES ON TOP OF I-VR? Especially for VFR planes. As has been point out before most modern electronics, avionics, even experimental "Glass" and hand held GPS operate on 10-32 volts all day and have 60 volt surge or spike protection. >I've sent both folks copies of the original Z-24 >along with advance data on >the proposed >AEC9004 IR Alternator Controller - >easily >incorporated into an installed OV >protection >system at a later date. > >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf > > The hardware is in hand to adapt our 3-phase > alternator drive stand . . . > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternator_Test_Stand Bob, looks good, but there is a product out already. Not to steal you thunder but there is already an existing OV module that will operate a BIG Relay/Contactor for OV protection. It is by perihelion-designs: http://www.periheliondesign.com/lovm.htm It looks like it does the same thing, open power to the OV relay (contactor) if an OV is detected. I appreciate Bob's effort to improve the "crow bar" method. The new method is no longer a crow bar and does not require a short to trip a circuit breaker. That is good. The end result is still the same, OPEN a big relay to cut the B-lead. I also appreciate the disclaimer that disconnecting the alternator while operating normally could damage it. Glad you agree with Van and you owe him an appology for calling him ignorant when he said the same thing. My suggestion for all of those who fear OV, which I think is way overblown, more than it should be, consider the Plane Power Alternator. Van's aircraft sells them or you can buy them direct from Plane Power. http://www.plane-power.com/ By the time you buy and alternator and add on OV modules you will be better off, money, weight and complexity with the Plane Power's unit. This company takes the BEST possible NEW aftermarket parts available (Nippon Denso) and modifies the fan for proper CCW rotation, puts "aerospace" brushes on it for low humidity operations. Of course it re-wires the internal voltage regulators (power source) so it can be OPENED or cut-off power with the miniature OV module on the back. This was not easy but PP did it. The plane-pwr OV module does a similar function as Bob's and perihelion-designs, it cuts power at a set voltage, but instead of a big relay is elegantly cuts power INTO the alternator not out. It does not need a big external relay and is all self contained. You don't want another mechanical BIG RELAY in your system. The module is a miniature of what Bob is proposing and what perihelion-design is. The BIG difference is Bob is trying to switch OFF, up to 60 amps and at least 14.5 volts. The Plane power is dealing with the FIELD which only draws at most 5 amps. Once the field is cut off the alternator will produce no power. Example: It's like stopping a car by letting off the gas on a slight up-slope Vs. running full speed into a wall. The cutting off the B-lead under full gallop is the wall scenario. They both stop you but one is going to leave a mark, ouch and may result in sparks and flames. Again OV with ND's has been shown to be rare and mild. Van's aircraft has sold 100's a month and there are 1000's out there on planes (not to mention Millions of cars) and the problems are rare and mild. So before you get excited and ADD stuff onto your ND, consider the COST vs. GAIN. The relay, wires, connectors add weight, cost and maintenance issues. A nuisance trip will destroy your alternator and Van's does not guarantee it. Cheers George --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com>
Subject: Chronically low voltage
Date: Jan 24, 2007
I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end of my electron understanding, so... I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. With Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 volts which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery very well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing / testing the avionics. What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be happening? Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Subject: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose?
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
I am working on final plumbing of Europa / Rotax 914 fuel system. The system is a plastic rotomolded fuel tank, mostly rubber automotive 5/16" fuel injector hose, 2 vane style electric fuel pumps. I have plumbing completed to 2 Flowscan 201B fuel flow sensors (add flow in, and subtract return to tank). I want to use Aeroquip 666 to run from the 201B through firewall to the fuel pressure regulator, and then from the fuel pressure regulator return, through the firewall to the return 201B. I read somewhere that the 666 hose has stainless braid on the outside, Teflon hose on the inside and it is electrical conductive. Didn't think much about it, I just assumed that they were talking about the braid. After getting a sample of the hose, I see that they have the internal wall of the hose coated with a black substance that is probably;y electrical conductive. 2 Questions: 1) Why would you want the internal wall of a hose electrical conductive? I read 43.13 and they really don't tell much as to why. If it is static discharge, is that really important? There are plenty of cars on the road with rubber fuel lines? Perhaps for lightening strike?? If I use this hose in my system (approx 4 feet in and 4 feet out) am I creating any problems? Aeroquip makes very close to the same hose for Auto racing guys without the black conductive coating. You see this as a more appropriate hose for my system/plane? 2) More of a concern I think is there is this thin black coating inside a Teflon tube. If it begins to flake off, it could cause much problems. Has anyone had any flaking problems?? I can easily see causing an upset to this coating when installing hose ends. Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Subject: Re: Chronically low voltage
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Hello Randy, When you observe the problem, is the engine running and if so, at what RPM? If it's at idle, this might be normal behavior. If the engine is turned off, what you describe is normal. If the battery has enough energy to start the engine fairly well, I'd guess the battery isn't dragging the buss down - the battery is essentially healthy though maybe having reduced capacity. How did you deduce that the alternator is putting out "28 +/- amps"? It seems theoretically possible that the internal regulator has a problem - regulated voltage too low. Or maybe a diode in the rectifier has gone bad. Matt- > > > > I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end > of > my electron understanding, so... > > I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. With > Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine > montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 > volts > which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy > after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get > steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- > amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery very > well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing / > testing the avionics. > > What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be > happening? > > Randy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Chronically low voltage
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Randy, You left out a lot of info. Is your voltage reading with the engine (alternator) running or not. IF the alternator is not running, why are you concerned? Do you normally run those lights with the alternator off? While running, your alternator should provide around 14v, so the battery does not come into question until you approach/exceed the alternator output. With the alternator running, do you have the same problem. If this is with alternator off, why are your concerned about it? If you were flying at night and lost the alternator, you would want to switch off the lights anyway to preserve battery until you can make a field to land as Bob has suggested many times. But to your question. E=IR, or voltage = current times resistance. Look at your circuits - they form a loop from the minus side of the battery to the plus side. Lights, switches, connectors, connections, wire size, and the battery itself are all possible points of resistance around the loop. Check the battery first, with no load, by measuring the voltage at the battery terminals; then turn on all your loads and repeat the reading - what do you get? You can calculate the resistance of the battery by R=E/I. This should be quite small, and should be available from battery performance charts. Now you know the equivalent resistance of the battery. (Do you know the load current, or just estimating?) To calculate other resistances, measure from BAT ground to various points along the circuit. The resistance can be determined by the delta-V between the points. Compare the resistance in the wire to theoretical charts to see if there is something going on there. There will be some resistance across connectors/connections, but this should be almost none existent, but you can check one side to the other. If you really have a problem, this process should be able to identify where it is at. Regards, and good hunting, Doug Windhorn ----- Original Message ----- From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com> Sent: Wednesday, 24 January, 2007 10:52 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Chronically low voltage > > > > I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end > of > my electron understanding, so... > > I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. With > Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine > montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 > volts > which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy > after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get > steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- > amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery very > well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing / > testing the avionics. > > What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be > happening? > > Randy > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com>
Subject: Chronically low voltage
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Sorry, the Lo V status occurs at cruise power and rpm. The battery seems to start the engine ok, but I think with electronic ignition it seems to start much easier than with only the Mag. I have a Grand Rapids Engine Monitor that shows the current output of the alternator. This is the 60amp Nippon Denso alternator that has gotten so much discussion recently. My original 60a alternator failed witnin 20 hours of operation, so this is a replacement alternator. Randy -----Original Message----- From: Matt Prather [mailto:mprather(at)spro.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:18 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Chronically low voltage Hello Randy, When you observe the problem, is the engine running and if so, at what RPM? If it's at idle, this might be normal behavior. If the engine is turned off, what you describe is normal. If the battery has enough energy to start the engine fairly well, I'd guess the battery isn't dragging the buss down - the battery is essentially healthy though maybe having reduced capacity. How did you deduce that the alternator is putting out "28 +/- amps"? It seems theoretically possible that the internal regulator has a problem - regulated voltage too low. Or maybe a diode in the rectifier has gone bad. Matt- > > > > I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end > of > my electron understanding, so... > > I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. With > Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine > montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 > volts > which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy > after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get > steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- > amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery very > well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing / > testing the avionics. > > What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be > happening? > > Randy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Subject: Chronically low voltage
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the 12.4 to 12.6 volts isn't a real reading. Your battery would practically never charge. Personally, first thing I would do is whip out a VOM and sanity check the readings. Maybe they're correct but it seems weird. At least rule that out first. -John www.ballofshame.com > > > Sorry, the Lo V status occurs at cruise power and rpm. > The battery seems to start the engine ok, but I think with electronic > ignition it seems to start much easier than with only the Mag. > I have a Grand Rapids Engine Monitor that shows the current output of the > alternator. This is the 60amp Nippon Denso alternator that has gotten so > much discussion recently. My original 60a alternator failed witnin 20 > hours > of operation, so this is a replacement alternator. > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Prather [mailto:mprather(at)spro.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:18 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Chronically low voltage > > > > > Hello Randy, > > When you observe the problem, is the engine running and if so, at what > RPM? If it's at idle, this might be normal behavior. If the engine is > turned off, what you describe is normal. > > If the battery has enough energy to start the engine fairly well, I'd > guess the battery isn't dragging the buss down - the battery is > essentially healthy though maybe having reduced capacity. > > How did you deduce that the alternator is putting out "28 +/- amps"? It > seems theoretically possible that the internal regulator has a problem - > regulated voltage too low. Or maybe a diode in the rectifier has gone > bad. > > > Matt- > >> >> >> >> I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end >> of >> my electron understanding, so... >> >> I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. >> With >> Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine >> montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 >> volts >> which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy >> after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get >> steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- >> amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery >> very >> well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing >> / >> testing the avionics. >> >> What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be >> happening? >> >> Randy >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Chronically low voltage
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Randy: I note that you refer to both a low/over voltage module and a GRT Engine Monitor in your previous posts. These seem somewhat redundant since the EIS indicates voltage and warns you if you are under/over your designated limits - no separate module is necessary. If the EIS is NOT warning of any limit exceedance, perhaps something is screwy with the voltage module? Perhaps Im not understanding this completely. regards Erich Weaver ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "eBay member: rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net" <member(at)ebay.com>
Subject: Richard Dudley sent you this eBay item: Relays 3PDT,
12Volt, new lot of 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Dudley sent you this eBay item. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Listers, I saw this item on eBay and thought you might be interested. RHDudley Item Name: Relays 3PDT, 12Volt, new lot of 6 Current bid: US $5.00 (0 bids) Shipping: View Item to Calculate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Find out more - View this Item http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290074979868&ssPageNam e=ADME:B:EF:US:11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- To add to your watch list, click: http://cgi1.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Mak eTrack&item=290074979868&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:3 See similar items at: http://search.ebay.com/Relays-3PDT-12Volt-new-lot-of- 6_W0QQsacatZ78205QQssPageNameZADME-B-EF-US-4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Details for item number: 290074979868 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Item URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290074979868 &ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:11 Description: 3PDT, 12 Volt, new relays, lot of 6 (six). Your bid is for the whole lot of six. Ships to: N. and S. America Seller: flor331(13) 100% Positive Feedback Member since May-05-06 in United States ----------------------------------------------------------------- Learn how you can protect yourself from spoof (fake) emails at: http://pages.ebay.com/education/spooftutorial This email was generated by the sender through the eBay platform because the sender thinks you are likely to be interested in this item. eBay takes no liability for the sending of this email and its content. If you did not authorize the sender to send you this email, you can report this message as unsolicited (spam) email so that eBay can take appropriate action against the sender. For more information, go to: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/rfe-spam-ov.html. Please note that it may take up to 10 days to process your request. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have questions about eBay's communication policies. Privacy Policy: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/privacy-policy.html User Agreement: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html Copyright =A9 2006 eBay, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owner s. eBay and the eBay logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of eBay, Inc . eBay is located at 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: IR alternators in aircraft
> >Bob- do you hae any voltage magnitude details or damage reports from >the field with these failures of IR alternators, or any part numbers? >How high wre the excursions and did they fry anything (else)? I think the detailed examinations as to part numbers and sources for the alternators is unlikely to be productive. >This seems like an alarmingly high failure rate, given the small # of >IR alternators likely to be flying in OBAM craft, and the almost nil >failure rate I always thought attended these regualtors in automotive >use. I wonder if there is anything specific to the aircraft >environment or application that is behind this. Heat? RPM? >Vibration? Pilot load mismanagement? Any common threads showing up >yet? Typical of nearly ALL such events, we'll never have the kind of data we need to deduce root cause or even support or refute your suggestion as to whether the failure rate is alarmingly high. It's been perhaps 6-8 months since we heard of one here on the List. Two in a few weeks is not necessarily 'alarming' unless we get two more next week. But even then, I'll bet there are thousands of IR alternators flying but with totally unknown pedigrees. Further, I have to recognize that I occupy a position much the same as physicians who have been accused of having a jaundiced view of the human condition because they only see and work with sick people all day. In the same vein of thought, I hear very few folks talk about how well their systems have worked for years . . . but if a system has a problem of any kind, I'm likely to hear much more about that. Therefore, I suggest we forego any investigations, discussions AND worries in and attempt to put analog calibrations on essentially digital data. We KNOW there are examples of failures of these alternators. We KNOW there are examples of failures in externally regulated alternators too. The prudent approach is to ASSUME that the risk of failure for either technology is not zero and design to tolerate it. I prefer this over to hoping that beliefs we hold about reliability are not well founded and being doubly disappointed when someone gets $high$ smoke in the cockpit. I've already identified a goal to have absolute, anytime, any conditions, zero risks control of the IR alternator. Achieving this design goal is 95% of the cost of the hardware. To add OV protection on top is only a few lines of code in a micro- controller that already exists to manage the control task. Further, adding the OV protection feature goes directly to the idea of failure tolerant design. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Subject: Timer module
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Carlos, Here is one way of regulating the 9 volts. See: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/ps-lm317.html Peter In the circuit design shown in > > http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html > the power source is indicated at 9 V. Please forgive an electronics ignorant question, but what should be done to connect this circuit to 12/14 V ? Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Chronically low voltage
> > > >I was really hoping not to have to ask this question, but I'm at the end of >my electron understanding, so... > >I have a 2 year old PC680 Battery and a 60amp IR alternator on my 7A. With >Avionics on my Buss voltage is 12.6 or greater as shown on my Engine >montitor. When I add Nav and Strobes I get a fluctuating 12.4 to 12.6 volts >which is just enought to trigger the Lo/Ov module light. Drives me crazy >after awhile. When I add either Landing or Taxi light to the load I get >steady Lo voltage light. Alternator seems to be putting out up to 28 +/- >amps as needed so my guess is that I have not maintained the battery very >well during the 18 months or so it sat in the airplane while installing / >testing the avionics. > >What sequence of tests would help me narrow the reasons this may be >happening? What architecture are you using? How do you measure alternator output amps? With voltage readings like that, it sounds like the alternator is not even coming on line. It the alternator is working, 14.2 to 14.6 is more normal. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Chronically low voltage
> > >Sorry, the Lo V status occurs at cruise power and rpm. >The battery seems to start the engine ok, but I think with electronic >ignition it seems to start much easier than with only the Mag. >I have a Grand Rapids Engine Monitor that shows the current output of the >alternator. This is the 60amp Nippon Denso alternator that has gotten so >much discussion recently. My original 60a alternator failed witnin 20 hours >of operation, so this is a replacement alternator. >Randy Put a battery maintainer or other smart charger on the battery and wait until its green light comes on stating that the battery is fully charged. Start the engine but leave EVERYTHING electrical turned off except battery and alternator. The engine monitor should IMMEDIATELY show 14.2 or more volts and alternator output current should peak up but come down pretty quickly . . . probably under 10 amps in a minute or so. If you don't have 14 volts but do have some measurable output current, the alternator is bad. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Timer module
Probably nothing. The LMC555 is rated to 15V. The characteristic of the 555 series is that the timing is relatively insensitive to the supply voltage. If you run it from 12-14V you will have to choose a relay that is rated at more than the 6V the schematic shows and has a resistance of 1000 ohms or more. Depending on what you want to control with the relay, you could also use an NPN transistor or FET to control the load in place of the relay. The only weakness in the circuit shown is that if you get transients on your aircraft voltage you might destroy the LMC555 - depends on the length and voltage of the transient. You could mitigate this problem with a small series resistor and filter capacitor to ground. If you want it to be bulletproof a zener in parallel with the capacitor would do it. I know this might be too much for you to absorb :-) . If you have other questions, please feel free to ask. Dick Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the circuit design shown in > >> >> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html >> > > the power source is indicated at 9 V. > Please forgive an electronics ignorant question, but what should be > done to connect this circuit to 12/14 V ? > > Carlos > > -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Chronically low voltage
Date: Jan 25, 2007
On 24 Jan 2007, at 22:48, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > Start the engine but leave EVERYTHING electrical > turned off except battery and alternator. The engine > monitor should IMMEDIATELY show 14.2 or more volts > and alternator output current should peak up but > come down pretty quickly . . . probably under 10 > amps in a minute or so. > > If you don't have 14 volts but do have some measurable > output current, the alternator is bad. This appears to assume that the engine monitor is on a bus that sees the full alternator voltage. If the engine monitor is on a bus that gets its power via a conventional diode, then you can subtract about 0.6 volts from the above values. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose?
Dunno . . . I'll ask around the power-plant and fuel systems guys today. Bob . . . > >I am working on final plumbing of Europa / Rotax 914 fuel system. > >The system is a plastic rotomolded fuel tank, mostly rubber automotive >5/16" fuel injector hose, 2 vane style electric fuel pumps. > >I have plumbing completed to 2 Flowscan 201B fuel flow sensors (add flow >in, and subtract return to tank). > >I want to use Aeroquip 666 to run from the 201B through firewall to the >fuel pressure regulator, and then from the fuel pressure regulator return, >through the firewall to the return 201B. > >I read somewhere that the 666 hose has stainless braid on the outside, >Teflon hose on the inside and it is electrical conductive. Didn't think >much about it, I just assumed that they were talking about the braid. > >After getting a sample of the hose, I see that they have the internal wall >of the hose coated with a black substance that is probably;y electrical >conductive. > >2 Questions: > >1) Why would you want the internal wall of a hose electrical conductive? > >I read 43.13 and they really don't tell much as to why. If it is static >discharge, is that really important? There are plenty of cars on the road >with rubber fuel lines? > >Perhaps for lightening strike?? > >If I use this hose in my system (approx 4 feet in and 4 feet out) am I >creating any problems? Aeroquip makes very close to the same hose for Auto >racing guys without the black conductive coating. You see this as a more >appropriate hose for my system/plane? > >2) More of a concern I think is there is this thin black coating inside a >Teflon tube. If it begins to flake off, it could cause much problems. > >Has anyone had any flaking problems?? I can easily see causing an upset to >this coating when installing hose ends. > >Thx. >Ron Parigoris > > >-- >10:31 PM > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Chronically low voltage
> >On 24 Jan 2007, at 22:48, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> >> >> Start the engine but leave EVERYTHING electrical >> turned off except battery and alternator. The engine >> monitor should IMMEDIATELY show 14.2 or more volts >> and alternator output current should peak up but >> come down pretty quickly . . . probably under 10 >> amps in a minute or so. >> >> If you don't have 14 volts but do have some measurable >> output current, the alternator is bad. > >This appears to assume that the engine monitor is on a bus that sees >the full alternator voltage. If the engine monitor is on a bus that >gets its power via a conventional diode, then you can subtract about >0.6 volts from the above values. Good put sir! Thanks. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Timer module
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Peter, and all electronic experts Could it be easier (and enough) to replace the Relay (6-9V) of the Timer circuit by a 12/14V Relay, and then you already can use it with 12/14V power source ? Carlos From: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net> > > Carlos, > > Here is one way of regulating the 9 volts. See: > http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/ps-lm317.html > > > Peter > >> In the circuit design shown in >> >> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html >> >> the power source is indicated at 9 V. >> Please forgive an electronics ignorant question, but what should be done >> to >> connect this circuit to 12/14 V ? >> >> Carlos >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Timer module
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Dick Thank you very much for your elaborate and knowledgeable answer. I hadnt read it when I put my today's previous post, asking about the substitution of the relay. Youre right that, at this moment, all you explained is "too much for me to absorb", at least right away, but since I'm in this group to learn, I will try to do exactly that by studying the circuit and your answer, and then come back with additional rookie questions. After all, this is nothing but the normal process of learning .... Thanks Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:32 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Timer module > > > Probably nothing. The LMC555 is rated to 15V. The characteristic of the > 555 series is that the timing is relatively insensitive to the supply > voltage. If you run it from 12-14V you will have to choose a relay that > is rated at more than the 6V the schematic shows and has a resistance of > 1000 ohms or more. Depending on what you want to control with the relay, > you could also use an NPN transistor or FET to control the load in place > of the relay. > > The only weakness in the circuit shown is that if you get transients on > your aircraft voltage you might destroy the LMC555 - depends on the length > and voltage of the transient. You could mitigate this problem with a > small series resistor and filter capacitor to ground. If you want it to > be bulletproof a zener in parallel with the capacitor would do it. > > I know this might be too much for you to absorb :-) . If you have other > questions, please feel free to ask. > > Dick > Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >> In the circuit design shown in >> >>> >>> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/relay1h.html >>> >> >> the power source is indicated at 9 V. >> Please forgive an electronics ignorant question, but what should be done >> to connect this circuit to 12/14 V ? >> >> Carlos >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 Alternator Wiring
>Bob, > >I plan to use your Z-12 diagram as the basis of a 2-alternator, single >forward-mounted battery system in my RV-8A. I will have an endurance bus >with the AFS 3500, Garmin 496, SL30, Auto Pilot Mstr (TruTrak ADI Pilot >for back up attitude), Pitot Heat, Boost Pump, Pitch and Roll trim, and >one Cockpit Flood Light running on the SD-8, realizing that use of pitot >heat will eventually drain the battery. I am trying to understand the >differences in operating principles of the B&C L-60 and the SD-8, >particularly in the need for the 5 amp field circuit breaker. Does the >SD-8 need one? You lost me. Z-12 is specifically for the SD-20 on the vacuum pump pad and some larger alternator on the front of the engine. Are you sure you're not referring to Z-13? If Z-13, the SD-8 "field" breaker obviously does not control a real field . . . however, functionality of this breaker is the same as for an externally regulated machine where opening this breaker shuts off the associated alternator. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com>
Subject: Chronically low voltage
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Thanks all. Off to the hangar to measure / test as suggested. Will report back the results. R -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:35 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Chronically low voltage > >On 24 Jan 2007, at 22:48, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> >> >> Start the engine but leave EVERYTHING electrical >> turned off except battery and alternator. The engine >> monitor should IMMEDIATELY show 14.2 or more volts >> and alternator output current should peak up but >> come down pretty quickly . . . probably under 10 >> amps in a minute or so. >> >> If you don't have 14 volts but do have some measurable >> output current, the alternator is bad. > >This appears to assume that the engine monitor is on a bus that sees >the full alternator voltage. If the engine monitor is on a bus that >gets its power via a conventional diode, then you can subtract about >0.6 volts from the above values. Good put sir! Thanks. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose?
From: "Bill McMullen" <CircleM(at)telusplanet.net>
Date: Jan 25, 2007
I think this article gives a good start for answering this question ... basically the conductive liner is preventing static sparks between the inside of the hose and the braid. http://www.sacskyranch.com/statichose.htm Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90398#90398 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IR alternators in airplanes (JUST say NO to OV
relays) >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >>Can I use the LR3C from B&C to prevent OV >>problems? Or, does someone else sell such a >>device? >> >>Thanks David Weber >Internally regulated alternators are a what-you- >see-is-what-you-get. If it is your desire to have >these marvelous-but-not-perfect devices operated >within the design goals we've been using for >externally regulated alternators then some form of >external adaptation is necessary necessary. What does that mean? Yea see-is-what-you-get inside of an internal regulator: http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide2jo1.jpg Here is a typical external or LR3C regulator http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide7bj9.jpg or http://img269.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide6it5.jpg OV protection is for externally regulated alternators, NOT internally regulated. WHY? Because internally regulated alternators are not designed for external protection. External regulators are old fashioned, even the LR3C needs over voltage protection because they have no protection at all (unless you use a modern external voltage regulator, like a V120 below). If you want OV protection for an Externally regulated alternator use this regulator, http://195.125.241.148/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200 OR if you are worried about your I-VR alternator, buy a plane power alternator from Plane power, which Vans Aircraft sells. http://www.plane-power.com/ or http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1169746824-338-558&browse=engines&product=alternator-kit The level of fear of OV is not justified by the facts and its based on ignorance, urban legend and folklore. Very few I-VR's have OV events and when they do they are mild and easily controlled with RPM or adding extra electrical load (say landing lights) or its just not an issue. If you want to add an OV monster relay on your plane's I-VR ND alternator, please consider NOT and doing the above. The choice is about 10% technical, 40% preference and 50% emotional, but OV relays are old time news. The emotional part is what some vendors like B&C use as a sales pitch with dark and stormy night stories. If you are VFR and have modern avionics that can handle 10-32 volts and 60 volts surge, as most can, than considered NOT using an OV relay. When you hear another OV happened with an I-VR, ask really, what happened? The reality is not as bad as the imagination might lead. (*Call your manufacture to confirm. If operational voltage is listed as 10-32 volts in the owners manual, chance is the electronics has filtered protected power supply.) Just say NO to BIG, FAT, Heavy over voltage relays. This is antiquated technology based on the old days of externally regulated alternators that had OV events and BAD ones at that. Modern OV alternators are less likely to have over voltage with their ON BOARD sophisticated regulators that monitor things like temperature, which external regulators could not ever dream of. JUST SAY NO TO OV RELAYS, WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTRY, I-VR ALTERNATORS OR SOLID STATE OV PROTECTED EXTERNAL VOLTAGE REGULATORS. No offense to Bob, but OV relays are a step backwards. Cheers, George --------------------------------- Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Subject: Re: IR alternators in airplanes (JUST say
NO to OV relays)
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
External OV protection with an external regulator is solid state. When the crowbar trips, the field is grounded, thus driving the alternator output to 0. The fact that the field circuit breaker pops some time later is beside the point. If you wanted to you could wire the the field with a massive bus bar and leave the circuit breaker out completely. The field wire will be at 0 potential going into the regulator because it's grounded. Of course, doing this would destroy your battery in short order. Putting OV protection on internal regulators requires the relay to work and is much kludgier. Though the module might be the same, they function COMPLETELY differently and shouldn't be confused. -John www.ballofshame.com >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >>>Can I use the LR3C from B&C to prevent OV >>>problems? Or, does someone else sell such a >>>device? >>> >>>Thanks David Weber > > >Internally regulated alternators are a what-you- >>see-is-what-you-get. If it is your desire to have >>these marvelous-but-not-perfect devices operated >>within the design goals we've been using for >>externally regulated alternators then some form of >>external adaptation is necessary necessary. > > What does that mean? > > Yea see-is-what-you-get inside of an internal > regulator: > > http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide2jo1.jpg > > Here is a typical external or LR3C regulator > > http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide7bj9.jpg > or > http://img269.imageshack.us/my.php?image=slide6it5.jpg > > > OV protection is for externally regulated > alternators, NOT internally regulated. WHY? > Because internally regulated alternators are not > designed for external protection. External > regulators are old fashioned, even the LR3C needs > over voltage protection because they have > no protection at all (unless you use a modern > external voltage regulator, like a V120 below). > > > If you want OV protection for an Externally > regulated alternator use this regulator, > > http://195.125.241.148/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200 > > OR if you are worried about your I-VR alternator, > buy a plane power alternator from Plane power, > which Vans Aircraft sells. > > http://www.plane-power.com/ > or > http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1169746824-338-558&browse=engines&product=alternator-kit > > > The level of fear of OV is not justified by the facts > and its based on ignorance, urban legend and folklore. > Very few I-VR's have OV events and when they do > they are mild and easily controlled with RPM or > adding extra electrical load (say landing lights) or > its just not an issue. > > If you want to add an OV monster relay on your > plane's I-VR ND alternator, please consider NOT > and doing the above. > > > The choice is about 10% technical, 40% preference > and 50% emotional, but OV relays are old time news. > > The emotional part is what some vendors like B&C > use as a sales pitch with dark and stormy night > stories. If you are VFR and have modern avionics > that can handle 10-32 volts and 60 volts surge, as > most can, than considered NOT using an OV relay. > > When you hear another OV happened with an I-VR, > ask really, what happened? The reality is not as > bad as the imagination might lead. > > (*Call your manufacture to confirm. If operational > voltage is listed as 10-32 volts in the owners manual, > chance is the electronics has filtered protected power > supply.) > > Just say NO to BIG, FAT, Heavy over voltage > relays. This is antiquated technology based on the > old days of externally regulated alternators that had > OV events and BAD ones at that. Modern OV > alternators are less likely to have over voltage > with their ON BOARD sophisticated regulators > that monitor things like temperature, which > external regulators could not ever dream of. > > JUST SAY NO TO OV RELAYS, WELCOME > TO THE 21st CENTRY, I-VR ALTERNATORS > OR SOLID STATE OV PROTECTED EXTERNAL > VOLTAGE REGULATORS. > > No offense to Bob, but OV relays are a step backwards. > > > Cheers, George > > > --------------------------------- > Never miss an email again! > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: tacaruth(at)dybb.com
Subject: Homemade Audio Panel
Hi All, I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm radio. I am interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, adf, etc. Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? The closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom and 2 nav inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio selection. The 3 circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand this system, I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the radio that is not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Subject: Re: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose?
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Hello Bob Will appreciate what you find. "> Dunno . . . I'll ask around the power-plant and fuel systems > guys today." I uncovered an article: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/newsletters/tp3658/PDF/4_2004.pdf That talks about a few helicopter fuel systems "expanding very rapid". Ultimate question, on our plastic Europa, would it be a worthwhile exercise to run anything that conducts to the negative side of the battery that would in essence connect all of them together? If the answer is yes, would it be advisable to run all of these pieces to a single point ground (make a separate single point ground and run it direct to battery that is always connected)? Bits and pieces that could be connected: aluminium fuel cap receptacle aluminium fuel elbow between filler and tank (~1 foot long) 2 aluminium fuel outlets from plastic tank that have 1 foot copper tubes for water draining Brass barb fittings 2 flowscan 201B fuel flow senders 2 lengths of Aeroquip 666 hose 2 aluminium water drain connectors The things that can not be grounded Plastic Rotomolded fuel filler Rotomolded fuel tank 5/16" fuel injector hose, and plenty of it (don't think it conducts very well?) Very sketchy tale I heard about a Europa lost in a fire when refueling?? >From a hands on Europa Guru, said just wipe fuel filler area with a water damp cloth rag before refueling and don't worry bout it, been refueling plastic aeroplanes and boats for years without a problem. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Homemade Audio Panel
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Tom, I don't know of one with only switches for 2 radios (although there probably is one), but there's lots of basic audio panels on ebay. The basic ones go pretty cheap. The following example is one that a do-it-youselfer could start with and repaint/label the front panel for a low cost audio panel. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BENDIX-KING-KMA-24-Audio-Panel_W0QQitemZ11008 4059554QQihZ001QQcategoryZ90973QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Bevan RV7A just bought a used PS engineering audio panel -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tacaruth(at)dybb.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:57 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homemade Audio Panel Hi All, I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm radio. I am interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, adf, etc. Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? The closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom and 2 nav inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio selection. The 3 circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand this system, I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the radio that is not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Homemade Audio Panel
Tom, on my 1960 Mooney they didn't have audio panels back then, so they just wired the outputs of the 2 COM radios together and installed a switch with a relay to control the mic/PTT inputs. I then have an intercom with VOX and a music input to allow me to talk to the copilot and listen to the iPod. When I want to listen to a radio, I turn up its volume. If I want to listen to both radios, I turn up both, realizing them with both switched on, the output volume suffers somewhat. When I transmit on one, I turn the volume down on the other so as not to hear the squeal. It's not the best way, but it's definitely the cheapest way. The next cheapest is probably the RST Engineering audio panel kit http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/catalog/audio_panel.html Dave Morris www.N6030X.com At 11:57 AM 1/25/2007, you wrote: > >Hi All, > >I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm >radio. I am >interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to >switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio >panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these >solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, >dme, adf, etc. > Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? The >closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom and 2 nav >inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was >thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio selection. The 3 >circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand this system, >I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the >radio that is >not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. > >Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. > >Thanks, Tom > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Subject: Homemade Audio Panel
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
If all you want to do is physically switch between radios, a switch should work fine. If you want to be able to mix and match (talk on one, transmit on the other....talk/listen on one and just listen on the other) this is easily doable with a few bucks worth of parts from Radio Shack. All you need to do is send the audio out from the radios into isolation amplifiers (nothing special about the amps....it's all in how you use them). I'm sure you can find a schematic on the web somewhere and it shouldn't take more than a weekend to assemble, test and package. The isolation amps allow you to have multiple inputs without screwing up the impedence of the load the radios see. If you try and just wire everything together, you'll get funny sounding audio (low power, distorsion etc). Depending on the radio and your tolerance it may or may not be OK. >From there, you can get fancier and add switches to select which audio to listen to (instead of turning them up and down from the volume knob). If I did this, I would setup each input with a 2 position switch - On or Auto. Then a switch for mic/ptt (com1, com2). In "On", the channel is always on. In Auto, it's on if the mic has selected that channel, else it's off. 99% of the time, everthing will be auto. Every now and then, you'll transmit on one channel and recieve on another so you'll have to force the recieve channel to "On". This really would make a nice weekend project. Maybe 2 weekends and a couple of weeknights (and some help from a EE buddy) if it's your first circuit project. -John > > Tom, I don't know of one with only switches for 2 radios (although there > probably is one), but there's lots of basic audio panels on ebay. The > basic > ones go pretty cheap. The following example is one that a do-it-youselfer > could start with and repaint/label the front panel for a low cost audio > panel. See > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BENDIX-KING-KMA-24-Audio-Panel_W0QQitemZ11008 > 4059554QQihZ001QQcategoryZ90973QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > Bevan > RV7A just bought a used PS engineering audio panel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > tacaruth(at)dybb.com > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:57 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homemade Audio Panel > > > Hi All, > > I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm radio. > I am interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be > able > to switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in > audio panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem > with these solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav > radios, > dme, adf, etc. > Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? The > closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom and 2 > nav > inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was > thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio selection. > The > 3 circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand this > system, I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the > radio that is not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. > > Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. > > Thanks, Tom > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose?
Date: Jan 25, 2007
I believe non-conductive fuel hose lining builds up static electricity as the fluid flows through it. Then, the static electricity eventually discharges (sparks) out to the exterior braid and thus burns a small hole in the lining (bad). -----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: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:21 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: What's advantage of conductive fuel hose? Dunno . . . I'll ask around the power-plant and fuel systems guys today. Bob . . . > >I am working on final plumbing of Europa / Rotax 914 fuel system. > >The system is a plastic rotomolded fuel tank, mostly rubber automotive >5/16" fuel injector hose, 2 vane style electric fuel pumps. > >I have plumbing completed to 2 Flowscan 201B fuel flow sensors (add flow >in, and subtract return to tank). > >I want to use Aeroquip 666 to run from the 201B through firewall to the >fuel pressure regulator, and then from the fuel pressure regulator return, >through the firewall to the return 201B. > >I read somewhere that the 666 hose has stainless braid on the outside, >Teflon hose on the inside and it is electrical conductive. Didn't think >much about it, I just assumed that they were talking about the braid. > >After getting a sample of the hose, I see that they have the internal wall >of the hose coated with a black substance that is probably;y electrical >conductive. > >2 Questions: > >1) Why would you want the internal wall of a hose electrical conductive? > >I read 43.13 and they really don't tell much as to why. If it is static >discharge, is that really important? There are plenty of cars on the road >with rubber fuel lines? > >Perhaps for lightening strike?? > >If I use this hose in my system (approx 4 feet in and 4 feet out) am I >creating any problems? Aeroquip makes very close to the same hose for Auto >racing guys without the black conductive coating. You see this as a more >appropriate hose for my system/plane? > >2) More of a concern I think is there is this thin black coating inside a >Teflon tube. If it begins to flake off, it could cause much problems. > >Has anyone had any flaking problems?? I can easily see causing an upset to >this coating when installing hose ends. > >Thx. >Ron Parigoris > > >-- >10:31 PM > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Homemade Audio Panel
> >Hi All, > >I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm >radio. I am >interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to >switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio >panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these >solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, adf, >etc. > Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? The >closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom and 2 nav >inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was >thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio selection. The 3 >circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand this system, >I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the radio >that is >not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. > >Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. Suggest you review . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf and stir the concepts discussed into your deliberations and design plans. Also see . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Ohm drop for welder's cable
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Does anybody know the ohm drop per 1000 feet for welder's cable? Or failing that number....is welders cable likely to have more (or have less) line resistance than Tefzel 2awg would have? Thanks Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: The problem with George
George, you've been asked politely before to cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. If we're to interpret your latest rants as an unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, I'll have to make sure new-comers to the List are aware of your track record. I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings. Instead, I've published a small excerpt from our past conversations at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html I considered posting it at the time you were asked to leave some months ago but held off after you appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen to resume your old counter productive and disruptive habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already experienced with your unwelcome activities here on the List. Do the honorable thing sir. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ohm drop for welder's cable
> > > >Does anybody know the ohm drop per 1000 feet for welder's cable? Or failing >that number....is welders cable likely to have more (or have less) line >resistance than Tefzel 2awg would have? Assuming that the manufacturer of any kind of wire understands the various standards for specifying the makeup and performance of wire, then you're on solid ground to compare the resistance values of anyone's 2AWG, 4AWG etc wire irrespective of type or intended use. You used the phrase "welders cable" . . . know that it comes in a variety of sizes including 0, 2, 4 and 6AWG. If you purchase 2AWG welding cable, it's a fair bet that the resistance is the same as M22759 2AWG cable. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Homemade Audio Panel
Neat, Bob. Do you happen to have a design for a Marker Beacon receiver kicking around anywhere? -John Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> >> Hi All, >> >> I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm >> radio. I am >> interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be >> able to >> switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install >> in audio >> panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem >> with these >> solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, >> adf, etc. >> Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm >> radios? The >> closest I can find is the PMA-4000 which also includes an intercom >> and 2 nav >> inputs. I already have an intercom which handles my needs fine. I was >> thinking of adding a 2 position, 3 circuit switch for radio >> selection. The 3 >> circuits would be for audio, mic, and ptt. If I wanted to expand >> this system, >> I could add a pair of 2 position, 1 circuit switches to allow the >> radio that is >> not selected with the first 3 circuit switch. >> >> Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. > > Suggest you review . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf > > and stir the concepts discussed into your deliberations > and design plans. Also see . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com>
Subject: Re: Homemade Audio Panel
For a marker beacon receiver kit, see http://rstengineering.com Ron John Coloccia wrote: > > > Neat, Bob. Do you happen to have a design for a Marker Beacon receiver > kicking around anywhere? > > -John ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SD-8 Alternator Wiring
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
Life is indeed harder when you're stupid. I submitted the above from memory while on the road. What I really meant to say was Z-13 / 8. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>
Subject: Re: Homemade Audio Panel
Date: Jan 26, 2007
>>When I transmit on one, I turn the volume down on the other so as not to >>hear the squeal. It's not the best way, but it's definitely the cheapest >>way. I believe most com radios have a suppressor line output. They can be wired so that when one is transmitting the other's receiver is turned off. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in diameter. The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable knob that is labeled CAL One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. Sorry bout these Newbie questions: Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for the job? Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Solder tab connectors
Date: Jan 26, 2007
I find myself with a raft of switches that have solder tab connectors (no fastons available) and must confess to ignorance of the accepted wiring technique for them. The only picture book I could find was for a rotary switch and that showed the wire soldered flat to the tab without any mechanical connection thru the hole. Is this the norm for all solder tabs or just due to the nature of the rotary switch? If a mechanical connection before soldering is desirable I can envision several ways of doing it and have probably used them all on the occasional connector I've encountered in the past. This time I have a panel full of them and would like to make it as neat and tidy as possible. Is there a best or accepted method or does it not really matter in our applications? Thanks. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
Date: Jan 26, 2007
http://www.flycom.co.uk/antenna_swr.htm http://www.bellscb.com/cb_radio_hobby/swr.html lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that > is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > > Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > > Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > > What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > > If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for > the job? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > > > > > > > > >
 
 
lucky

> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a
> Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester
>
> On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B
>
> The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are
> 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in
> diameter.
>
> The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL
>
> Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5
>
> There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable
> knob that is labeled CAL
>
> One more t hing, AeroEl

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
That's a "CB" style meter good through perhaps 50 MHz. Not reliable (not properly calibrated) at VHF comm frequencies and certainly not at transponder ones. Connectors are UHF-style coax (SO-239) and won't fit anything on your plane, most likely. Tell us what kind of "testing" you had in mind. Transmitting into a poorly matched load might damage what you are trying to "test." -Bill B On 1/26/07, rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote: > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that > is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > > Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > > Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > > What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > > If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for > the job? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
Ron, a lot of the SWR meters are designed for HF and won't work worth crap at VHF (your Com) or UHF (your transponder). You'll need to check that particular model and find out if it is designed to work at VHF, but a quick Google search here makes me believe it is for HF only. The serrated crown connectors are called SO-239 and are designed to mate with PL-259 plugs on coax that are most common for HF antennas. Dave Morris N5UP At 10:57 AM 1/26/2007, you wrote: > >I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a >Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > >On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > >The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are >610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in >diameter. > >The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > >Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > >There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable >knob that is labeled CAL > >One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that >is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > >Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > >Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > >What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > >If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for >the job? > >Thx. >Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I believe that SWR meter was designed for CB frequency - something around 10meter band ~30MHz. Your com is VHF, around 118-136MHz. The meter won't be very accurate at giving absolute SWR readings in the VHF band, but should be able to tell you some information about relative feedline/antenna efficiency. Lower readings are better. "1" is ideal. The transponder runs closer to 1GHz frequency range. Your meter will be even less efficient in that band. Plus, the meter is designed to work with the transmitter putting out power continuously. With the comm you can force that condition just be holding down the PTT key. On a transponder that would be tougher to accomplish - probably requires a test harness. I think what you need is an antenna tester designed for the proper frequency range. Something like this would work for the comm: http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269 I believe you would need something more $ophi$ticated for testing the transponder. Probably something specifically designed for testing transponders would be the most cost effective. Your meter probably has PL-259 connectors on it... http://www.seed-solutions.com/gregordy/images/pl259n01.jpg They can be attached to RG-58 cable and that can be connected to BNC fittings.. Regards, Matt- > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that > is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > > Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > > Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > > What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > > If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for > the job? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Guess I should mention that from what I found a CB SWR was better than nothing for the VHF frequencies in aviation. You can get BNC to p259 adapters at radio shack for about $6 each. You'll probably need 2 of them. Secondly, though the absolute value read on the meter won't likely be "actual" value, the trend will still be reliable. In otherwords, if you have a real bad connector and are getting a lot of reflection, the meter isn't going to move much towards the1.0 value on the meter regardless of whether it's a CB band SWR or VHF fre SWR. If it's a really good antenna "system" the meter will move towards 1.0 anyway regardless of meter type even if it's not an "exact" correct value. lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) http://www.flycom.co.uk/antenna_swr.htm http://www.bellscb.com/cb_radio_hobby/swr.html lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more t hing, AeroEl
Guess I should mention that from what I found a CB SWR was better than nothing for the VHF frequencies in aviation.  You can get BNC to p259 adapters at radio shack for about $6 each.  You'll probably need 2 of them.  Secondly, though the absolute value read on the meter won't likely be "actual" value, the trend will still be reliable.  In otherwords, if you have a real bad connector and are getting a lot of reflection, the meter isn't going to move much towards the1.0 value on the meter regardless of whether it's a CB band SWR or VHF fre SWR.  If it's a really good antenna "system" the meter will move towards 1.0 anyway regardless of meter type even if it's not an "exact" correct value.
 
lucky
 
 
 
lucky

> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a
> Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester
>
> On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B
>
> The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are
> 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in
> diameter.
>
> The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL
>
> Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5
>
> There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable
> knob that is labeled CAL
>
> One more t hing, AeroEl

      
      
      

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Hello Bill Thx. for the reply. "Tell us what kind of "testing" you had in mind." Testing would be to find optimum antenna location and or wire routing to make radios function best. Vertex Handheld VX700 driven by a Advanced Aircraft bent in half (or not)(that is one of the tests) Becker Com driven by a Bob Archer antenna in top of tail, need to test locations and orientations and play with bending part of the top swept back a little for an easier fit Becker 250 watt mode C transponder driven by a Advanced Aircraft antenna, want to fool with location (pitch tube and cables) It would be very nice to see how all 3 antenna is propagate signal, somehow walk around and see just how much that motor and gear is blanketing?? Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IR alternators in airplanes (JUST say NO to OV
relays) >From: john(at)ballofshame.com > >External OV protection with an external regulator is solid state. >When the crowbar trips, the field is grounded, thus driving the >alternator output to 0. The fact that the field circuit breaker pops >some time later is beside the point. If you wanted to you could >wire the the field with a massive bus bar and leave the circuit >breaker out completely. The field wire will be at 0 potential going >into the regulator because it's grounded. Of course, doing this >would destroy your battery in short order. > >Putting OV protection on internal regulators requires the relay >to work and is much kludgier. Though the module might be the >same, they function COMPLETELY differently and shouldn't be >confused. > >-John >www.ballofshame.com John I'm aware how the OV relay / crow bar combo works on an I-VR, and I know how a crow bar works on an E-VR. Yes, they are different. With the E-VR you kill the FIELD. Great! I understand you think the crow bar will short the field to ground. Well from what I've seen it removes power to the VR that collapses the FIELD. It depends how you wire the crow bar, and according to Bob's schematics the crow bar goes right on the CB not the field terminal of the VR. Whether it shorts the field or shorts the CB removing power to the FIELD, it's no matter; the real key is the alternator FIELD collapses and power is not produced by the alternator. On the "Kludgier" OV relay for a I-VR, I agree it works different and is a "Kludgier". That is my point. You make a point I've made many times, I-VR and E-VR are completely different and should not be confused. Trying to use OLD technology originally made for E-VR, like the OV relay, is not the way to go today. Bob's new module will open an OV relay by removing power to the relay. It may be an improvement to the original crow bar, which was kind of unstable, but the concept is the same, a BIG OLD OV RELAY. My point is LEAVE the I-VR alternator alone and don't mess with it. Wire it properly and operate it properly. If you can't stand it and are in fear of OV do something else. The best on the market for I-VR are the Plane Power units, where the I-VR has an integrated OV module that does turn the power off to the VR and FIELD, verses an OV relay which just cuts the out put with the FIELD still energized. It should give peace of mind to those who are afraid of OV. It does it elegantly with out a BIG OV RELAY. John I basically agree with everything you said, but a typical E-VR is stuck in the 70's. The $10 Ford alternator people use has about 3 transistors and a diode voltage reference. Yes it is solid state but OLD solid state. Even the B&C LR3C that sells for $230 is really a three transistor old design. It does have a crow bar in it, but that crow bar is an old idea. The new stuff has solid state power switching. Short circuiting CB's to trip/short them internally to remove power to the FIELD (or shorting the field as you like) is really NOT the way to go in the year 2000's. I-VR's have more technology and have been the focus of technological improvement, since most small alternators made since the early 80's are all internally regulated. If you are tempted to add a OV relay for peace of mind consider NOT doing it, and if you really are worried, get a Plane Power unit. If you do have an E-VR alternator the $70 Transpo V1200 is a modern E-VR that uses technology that I-VR's have, as well as OV protection. With the Transpo V1200, an OV condition is shut down by removing power to the FIELD. It does not short anything to ground like a crow bar. Cheers George --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solder tab connectors
>I find myself with a raft of switches that have solder tab connectors (no >fastons available) and must confess to ignorance of the accepted wiring >technique for them. The only picture book I could find was for a rotary >switch and that showed the wire soldered flat to the tab without any >mechanical connection thru the hole. Is this the norm for all solder tabs >or just due to the nature of the rotary switch? Depends on who is defining "norm" . . . There are many a folk who would roll their eyes and pronounce the speaker short on sanity for suggesting that wires be "tacked" into place with solder. But skillfully lapped joints are done every day and produce conductors that run the lifetime of the vehicle. See: Go to my homepage and do a search on "solder sleeve". You'll get 7 hits on articles that discuss the joining of wires with nothing more than lapped, tack-soldered joints covered with heat shrink. See also . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html > If a mechanical connection before soldering is desirable I can envision > several ways of doing it and have probably used them all on the > occasional connector I've encountered in the past. This time I have a > panel full of them and would like to make it as neat and tidy as > possible. Is there a best or accepted method or does it not really matter > in our applications? Thanks. I would stick the stripped wire through the hole and solder it without "hooking" the wire onto the terminal. This is done for one good reason only . . . ease of repair. When it comes time to replace a switch, heat the joint and the wire comes right out . . . stripped, tinned and ready for installation on the new switch. Of course the finished joints will enjoy the benefits of one to two layers of heat shrink . . . and this is true whether you make joints that are easy to open later . . . or difficult. Find some 63/37 solder. Just about anyone who bothers to even offer such a finely tuned ratio will be a good source. http://www.action-electronics.com/kester.htm Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Solder tab connectors
> > >Greg, > >Try this link... > >www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Jack_Tab_Soldering/Jack_Tab_Soldering.html > >Rod Yeah, this one works too . . . just harder to replace. Leave some service loop wire at the end . . . say 2" extra or so such that a damaged or worn jack can be simply cut off and there's enough slack to install a new jack. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Ohm drop for welder's cable
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Thank you, Bob. I have #2. I have a Velocity I am wiring and decided to follow your suggestion in Chapter 7 on using my long run of #2awg starter (+) wire as my charge wire too. Thanks for that. I am figuring a 1.5 v drop for 300 amps in a 2awg wire running about 30 feet. I am using a Skytec LS starter. They told me to have 10v at the starter and I am using their figures for the 300amps. Regards, Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:16 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ohm drop for welder's cable > > > >Does anybody know the ohm drop per 1000 feet for welder's cable? Or failing >that number....is welders cable likely to have more (or have less) line >resistance than Tefzel 2awg would have? Assuming that the manufacturer of any kind of wire understands the various standards for specifying the makeup and performance of wire, then you're on solid ground to compare the resistance values of anyone's 2AWG, 4AWG etc wire irrespective of type or intended use. You used the phrase "welders cable" . . . know that it comes in a variety of sizes including 0, 2, 4 and 6AWG. If you purchase 2AWG welding cable, it's a fair bet that the resistance is the same as M22759 2AWG cable. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >George, you've been asked politely before to >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List >are aware of your track record. Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding >and substance in your last postings. Instead, >I've published a small excerpt from our past >conversations at: Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob you are not going to respond because you don't have a good argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. >I considered posting it at the time you were asked >to leave some months ago but held off after you >appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen >to resume your old counter productive and disruptive >habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what >you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already >experienced with your unwelcome activities here on >the List. > >Do the honorable thing sir. > >Bob . . . Bob I am not going to play your game and address your Ad hominem attacks. It is childish. If you have some facts or useful info than fine. I think my contribution is useful and I have been told so by many off line thanking me for not being afraid of you. You have a very sharp tongue and criticize and dismissing many ideas and opinions of others, but when you are criticized you don't back your position up and just go ballistic wacky? I just disagree with you. I really do think the OV relay on an ND (I-VR) is NOT great. I do think there are better alternatives: -Do nothing (no OV relay, risk of damaging OV is very low) -Plane Power (excellent product w/ good extra OV protection) -External VR alternator (Plane Power, B&C, Homemade modified ND w/ a V1200 regulator) Bob, as a designer, if you have not seen or used the V1200 VR so don't comment. It is far superior than the B&C unit and cost 1/3rd to 1/4th less. I AM SORRY. We can also do better than a 1970's $10 Ford VR, you recommend. Bob I could make an archive and publish all your inconsistencies, hypocrisy and personal attacks, not only on me but many others, who are very knowledgeable, but I'm not. I'm not out to hurt you like you want to hurt me. I just want to add an alternative opinion, one that is well thought out and based on experience, education and research, not fear and ignorance. How many planes have you built and flown Bob? You turn everything into an argument. Just stop it. I'll not be suckered into another mud sling fest. As expected you have nothing, so you go to personal attacks & accusations. I forgive you. Now lets be civil Bob, please. People are bored with this petty behavior. Just say you disagree and think the OV relay is great and needed. I don't think so. BOB, YOU LEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING THEY MUST HAVE ADD-ON OV PROTECTION ON NIPPON-DENSO INTERNALLY REGULATED ALTERNATOR. YOU MAKE UNSPACIFIC CLAIMS AND GIVE A SENSE OF URGENCY THAT IS NOT NEEDED IN MY OPINION. THAT IS ALL. FACTS PLEASE? Disagree but stop trying to slander and defame me. Cheers George What is Bob talking about now? The problem with George. The problem with George is Bob has a personal animosity against him. (George has engineering degrees and Bob hates engineers. He thinks engineers are stupid). George, disagrees with Bob and calls him on his unsupported claims and opinions from time time, mostly about I-VR alternators and OV relays. Bob hates that. Instead of supplying facts, to support his position, Bob personally attacks George, OR he'll talk a bunch flowery words with analogy's & parables till your head explodes & you don't care any more. George is not the only one. There's long list of really good people that Bob has bullied off the list. Even people not on the list, like Van of Van's Aircraft, who Bob called ignorant. Ironically Bob now agrees with Van, trip an OV relay on a good ND alternator, it will damage it. When Van said it, Van was ignorant according to Bob. Van is educated engineer by the way. Bob has expressed frustration that Van's Aircraft had not embrace Bob's offer to teach them the aeroelectric method of wiring. Fact is DC aircraft wiring is basically the same as it has been for +50 years. This is not rocket science. Bob's method incorporates many automotive techniques like hidden fuses, which is not standard for aircraft. Still Van's Aircraft felt after 42 years building planes and 27 years in the kit plane business, they could wire planes and Bob's feeling where hurt. Therefore Van is ignorant. Don't think so. http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-van.htm George thinks there have been many untruths and misunderstandings about I-VR NipponDenso alternators and the dreaded OV condition. Bob is the purveyor of some unsubstantiated folklore. George is the only one that dares defend internally regulated alternators on the list and at least present facts on the subject or tries to get facts. Bob, has admitted he does not know much about I-VR's, but he's suggesting devices to hang onto their wiring which can damage it. You decide. Its you choice. George does not need you to agree of follow his suggestions, just likes giving food for thought. You are the final authority on your project. Typically people new to plane building can be led by system *experts* to add-on all kind of things. At some point you have to say NO to the extras and go fly. Weight, cost, build time, risk v. benefited and type of plane and type of flying you do determines the choice. Listen to Bob and that guy George and others and than make a decision, but don't follow one Pied Piper. Bob blows a good Pipe and the melody sounds convincing, but in fact it is one OPINION not God's law. Usually Bob is right or has great ideas, just not on the OV relay in George's opinion. So does George deserve to be attacked for speaking his mind? I think not. Bob has a personal problem and should write George off line so he can call Bob and talk to him man the man and not bother everyone with this petty feud. If Bob just wants to try to embarrass and aggravate George, than he will keep making stupid post that start with, the problem with George. Sadly Bob probably likes to fight and will keep wasting time. --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Subject: shielded wires
Date: Jan 27, 2007
have used bobs illustrations and have done a good job making pigtails and daisy chaining the shielded wires for my ptt switch. now i notice the 2 wire shielded cable a little stiff to easily slip into my control stick. wouldnt it work to attach the shield to my alum. control stick and then use plain 22ga wire inside the stick? wont the stick act as the shield? appreciate any input, bob noffs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > ><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > > >are aware of your track record. > > > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I > >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated > >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators > >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save > >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > No, my response was published long before your statement > about "Kludgier". > > > > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > > >conversations at: > > > > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob > >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good > >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy > >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed > >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there > >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save > >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, > >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > amongst honorable individuals. > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > it is: > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > rationale for this departure from conventions > practiced in aviation since the first generator > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . > > Bob . . . > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to hear anything in argument. Europa912 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: nuckollsr(at)cox.net> ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Walter Fellows On 1/27/07, Gaye and Vaughn wrote: > > Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all > that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was > discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home > in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a > balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I > quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down > before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators > aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited > experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I > don't want to hear anything in argument. > > Europa912 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Richard Girard > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George > > I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. > GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your > website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else > but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? > > Thanks, > Rick > > On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: > > > > nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > > > ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > ><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > > > > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > > > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > > > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > > > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > > > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > > > >are aware of your track record. > > > > > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I > > >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated > > >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators > > >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save > > >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > > > No, my response was published long before your statement > > about "Kludgier". > > > > > > > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > > > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > > > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > > > >conversations at: > > > > > > > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob > > >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good > > >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy > > >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed > > >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there > > >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save > > >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, > > >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > > amongst honorable individuals. > > > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > > it is: > > > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > > rationale for this departure from conventions > > practiced in aviation since the first generator > > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > > "Ya'll drop on in" > > takes on a whole new meaning > > when you live at the airport. > > > > * > > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > > * > > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Solder tab connectors
Rodney Dunham wrote: > > > Greg, > > Try this link... > > www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Jack_Tab_Soldering/Jack_Tab_Soldering.html > > Rod > For the totally anal out there, the joint shown in that link would have failed the soldering class I took at Community College oh-so-many years ago. The prescribed practice we were taught was to tin the wire, and then bend the end to make a hook. Hook the hole, then clamp the wire so that it squeezes the tab. Now flow in just enough solder so that there is a good fillet flowing into the tab, but the individual wire strands are still visible. The wire strands should retain the original twist. The idea is that: 1) joint can be inspected to verify that there is good wet out of the wire and the connector 2) the joint has the mechanical strength of the hook 3) the joint is easily disassembled later by reflowing the solder. In practice, if I'm forced to solder instead of using a crimped Fast-On connector, I make a hook without tinning the wire first, and flow in enough solder to get a good fillet. I may or may not put in to much solder, depending on if I have a good Kester or .050 Radio Shack stuff on hand. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain. The solid state crowbar is a very elegant design. Voltage goes up, trips, field to ground (or open on the other side of the regulator....whatever), circuit breaker eventually trips to save the wiring. Very simple, very straightforward. The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge. There's no reason to crowbar in this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts. In the first case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the wires. In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, then the relay opens and actually fixes it. There are a dozens of different ways to accomplish the same thing. On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better? Oh well. If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator and are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution so you go with it. The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to remove coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go through a relay. Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load instead of disconnecting it completely. Weight, complexity, cost.... BLECH. Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust your engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when talking about controlling an I-VR runaway. Apparently, some people fly over farms all day long. Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and I'll take you on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the ground is 5000FT+ to begin with. Then we'll try to hop on over the mountains. You'll find that power reduction is not an option. Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power reduction. The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, why on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR alternator? You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean. Bob: don't get upset for me calling it a kludge. It really is but until someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best solution to the given problem. Bottom line, though, is that is works so you use it until something better comes along. There's no law that says things need to be perfect and that you can't use something today because new technology might make a better one tommorow. -John Coloccia www.ballofshame.com Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >> >> >George, you've been asked politely before to >> >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. >> >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an >> >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, >> >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List >> >are aware of your track record. >> >> Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >> assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >> my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >> and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >> it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > No, my response was published long before your statement > about "Kludgier". >> >> >> >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding >> >and substance in your last postings. Instead, >> >I've published a small excerpt from our past >> >conversations at: >> >> >> Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >> you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >> argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >> relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >> for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >> pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >> the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >> every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > amongst honorable individuals. > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > it is: > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > rationale for this departure from conventions > practiced in aviation since the first generator > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
This is a Spock and Bones situation. I just re-read the entire exchange that Bob posted, and it becomes quite clear after reading it that George is reacting emotionally to Bob's cold, calm, and purely logical arguments. Bob presents facts, and if George can't refute them, he goes off in another direction trying to pull Bob into a different argument. You seem to be a feeler, and Bob is obviously a thinker. Nothing wrong with that as long as both people understand the conflict that naturally imposes on their interactions. Look, George, having a mechanical engineering degree and flying 767s does not make you qualified as an expert on the design of electrical systems. You have been a "user" of electrical systems. Bob has been designing them for a very long time, according to specifications and design goals, and has real-world experience creating fault tolerant systems. You seem to want to use anecdotal evidence from the automotive world to refute his designs and wave away the need for fault tolerance. I just don't see you presenting any factual rebuttals to Bob's concerns about internal regulation. So, please, be less emotional and more factual and you'll get the same respect that Bob gets. Until then, it just sounds like another re-run of StarTrek, except that we've already seen all the re-runs and it's getting boring. Give us some new data. Dave Morris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
I'm confused.... I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. Tell me what you think.... Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Walter, Whoa, big fella. Banning sucks. Are you next? Or me? If you don't want to read this junk, just hit the delete button. Mike Ice RV-9 main electrical done PS, I elected to not do an over voltage protection system. I did get the Plane Power alternator which has one built right in. ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Fellows To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Walter Fellows On 1/27/07, Gaye and Vaughn wrote: Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to hear anything in argument. Europa912 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >< nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com"> http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: Homemade Audio Panel
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Tom wrote: "I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm radio. I am interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, adf, etc. Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? <...> Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated." Tom, My solution was simply a 4 pole, double throw toggle switch. The 'phones out' from the not-selected radio is switched into an auxiliary audio input of the selected com. This allows monitoring of a 2nd frequency regardless of whether com 1 or 2 is selected. Works fine for me. Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: > Richard, > > George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web > site. > He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't > like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. > > Mike Ice ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Spike catcher diodes
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Bob, I want to refer you to p 43 in your FAQ where you suggest the use of spike suppression diodes in high draws contactors/solenoids.and to articles/s704inst.jpg where there is a pic of the 1N4005 wired into a relay. Here's my question. I have a robust 30a starter switch in a line of switches on an overhead switch panel. The starter button is going out directly to a Skytec starter contactor that is looking for 5 amps say Skytec. In their suggested wiring they show an optional 1N4002 in the 14awg line between my starter button and their contactor. I will do this. I understand to help limit the inductance kick when I release the button. This will be a long circuit run from the cockpit to the starter on a canard. Does it matter where I physically install the diode? 2nd question: Is the starter button location going to be a problem for me? I have placed the starter button between my LH Mag on/off and my Electronic Ign on/off. (maybe .3 of an inch spacing) Is there a concern that this spike could jump over and hit it's neighbor's s700 1-2 lug or is the only risk across the starter button terminals? Thanks. Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Then let's get George off this list. I'm all for using the delete button and I do every time I see his name on an email, but someone always has to respond to him and that brings his crap in under some other s name and I have to wade through that until I realize it's just more George. He has other places to massage his ego in public. I wish Matt would block him from this one. Terry _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael T. Ice Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard <mailto:jindoguy(at)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: nuckollsr(at)cox.net> ><?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >< >nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <peter.sokolowski(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Fuel Press Xducer Vision Microsystems
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Hello group, I got the a.m. Xducer by chance and want to use it in my Lancair 360 carburated project. Unfortunately I have no schematic how to wire the latter - so my question is whether someone can help me out how to wire it, i.e. which of the 4 pins is representing what. The exact description is 15 PSI TSO -C113 30. In addition there are some numbers on the probe itself saying 3010016. The manufacturer seems to be Honeywell. Thanks in advance, Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Subject: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Ron, doesn't your XCOM and transponder have their own on-off power switch? Is the technician saying that simply having power direct to the unit during start-up is capable of damaging the unit? Bret Smith RV-9A (91314) Mineral Bluff, GA www.FlightInnovations.com _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Patterson Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? I'm confused.... I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. Tell me what you think.... Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
Ron Patterson a crit : > > He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get > damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. He's not seem a Becker ATC 4401 transponder : voltage supply is 9.0-32.2 volts ;-) Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
I'm not even going to go into the the whole avionics master yes/no argument. XCOM claims that they test to DO-160D. We can mince words and say that they didn't claim they met the specification, only that they tested to it....but let's assume they meet spec (there is a LOT of stuff in this document, btw. If you know someone who's a member of RTCA, have a read through it). It should simply shrug off a 20V "spike". This is trivial to test. Find a buddy with a scope (portable fluke would be sweet) and put it on the bus as you crank. Set it to trigger at 16 volts and see what you get. Tell your EE friend you're looking for transients above 16 volts. He'll know just what to do. Your Dynon is most likely getting confused because of because of low voltage, not high. Once again, easy to show with a scope (or even just a VOM if it's not too noisy while you're cranking). You'll probably see the bus drop below 10V. Notice, though, that it's brains don't get "scrambled", whatever that means. The tech you talked is just confused. My guess is that the most likely killer of solid state electronics during engine start is poor design somewhere in the electronic itself that would allow a low voltage situation (such as you expect to get on engine starts at least SOME of the time) to take switching transistors out of saturation. When it's saturated, the resistance, and therefore the heat generated, is next to nothing. Same when the "switch" is off. When the transistor is partially on, as might happen in a low voltage situation, the transitor essentially behaves as a resistor and both restricts current and dissapates enourmous amounts of heat. Enormous in this case means "WAY more than the designer intended". He intended 0". This is how I typically used to blow stuff up, anyway. :) Maybe Bob can weigh in here since he had more experience with avionics before I was born than I'll ever have in a lifetime. It's just a guess. Avionics master won't hurt things, and will keep you from having to reboot your Dynon (and maybe protects whatever it is the XCOM can't deal with, although it was probably just flaky to begin with) but really, things just shouldn't be blowing up regardless. Should and do are two different things, I guess. Sorry for rambling. My fingers have a life of their own sometimes. -John www.ballofshame.com Ron Patterson wrote: > I'm confused.... > I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is > unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, > I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't > receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting > the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I > messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on > the bench. > > He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get > damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes > have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and > unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure > don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. > > Tell me what you think.... > Ron > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Ron I agree with the replies youve had and that if the radio was anywhere close to DO-160 spec there would be no issue. A friend has just got his Xcom back for the 3rd time and it seems to be fixed now. The dealer also loaned him a replacement which had the same fault and had to be sent away. The problem we experienced was identified by the company as a software issue and repaired under warranty though there has been no announcment about it yet on their website. Maybe it will go away. he problem we had was a condition that could occur where although the receiver was getting a signal (witnessed by the RX indication) there would be no audio delivered to the headsets. There would be no noise even if the squelch control was adjusted to make noise. Usually the audio would start working if the transmitter was operated. But the receiver could go to sleep at any time, and repowering the radio didnt help. sometimes you cannot power these down without pulling a fuse. Then you will end up with a glitched radio as described. You will be told you need an avionics master. And reminded about the requirement for a capacitor. My friends installation, being a Rotax 912, already has the capacitor, installed across the regulator. Xcom wiring for the capacitor suggests installation after the avionics master, IMHO this is incorrect practice as it will exceeed the ratings for the switch, with excessive inrush currents. In my aircraft, I have no avionics master and routinely leave the radios / transponder on during startup. Yes, in the 60's the new transistorised radios were susceptible and flying schools taught to start up with everything turned off then go thru and set all the units on. Most of the radios failed because the volume controls wore out. In summary, if you become aware of sleepy rx on the Xcom the factory should know about it, you just have to get past the 'must be a faulty installation" barrier - oh, and dont forget to clean the headset connections. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90887#90887 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com>
Subject: 430 to 330 config changes?
Date: Jan 27, 2007
All, I have a 430 that I *believe* is connected correctly to a 330 on ARINC #1. I just configured the 430 to use highspeed ARINC and told it that it was connected to a 330. Is there any other software configuration changes that are needed? I'll be flying it soon to confirm, but just wanted to check with those doing similar? Thanks, Alan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Bob Nuckolls posted a summary of some of the DO-160 requirements in a message titled "DO-160 in a nutshell", back in May 2001. A device that has passed the DO-160 tests for power should function normally with bus voltages from 13 to 15v, and should still function acceptably down to 10.5v. It should not be damaged by power drop outs to 0v. It should be able to handle 20v for 1 second, and 40v for 0.1 second. So, if the XCOM has passed the DO-160 tests, as they claim, then it should survive just fine being on during engine start and shut down. Kevin Horton On 27 Jan 2007, at 14:57, John Coloccia wrote: > > > I'm not even going to go into the the whole avionics master yes/no > argument. XCOM claims that they test to DO-160D. We can mince > words and say that they didn't claim they met the specification, > only that they tested to it....but let's assume they meet spec > (there is a LOT of stuff in this document, btw. If you know > someone who's a member of RTCA, have a read through it). It should > simply shrug off a 20V "spike". > This is trivial to test. Find a buddy with a scope (portable fluke > would be sweet) and put it on the bus as you crank. Set it to > trigger at 16 volts and see what you get. Tell your EE friend > you're looking for transients above 16 volts. He'll know just what > to do. > > Your Dynon is most likely getting confused because of because of > low voltage, not high. Once again, easy to show with a scope (or > even just a VOM if it's not too noisy while you're cranking). > You'll probably see the bus drop below 10V. Notice, though, that > it's brains don't get "scrambled", whatever that means. > > The tech you talked is just confused. My guess is that the most > likely killer of solid state electronics during engine start is > poor design somewhere in the electronic itself that would allow a > low voltage situation (such as you expect to get on engine starts > at least SOME of the time) to take switching transistors out of > saturation. When it's saturated, the resistance, and therefore the > heat generated, is next to nothing. Same when the "switch" is > off. When the transistor is partially on, as might happen in a low > voltage situation, the transitor essentially behaves as a resistor > and both restricts current and dissapates enourmous amounts of > heat. Enormous in this case means "WAY more than the designer > intended". He intended 0". This is how I typically used to blow > stuff up, anyway. :) Maybe Bob can weigh in here since he had > more experience with avionics before I was born than I'll ever have > in a lifetime. It's just a guess. > > Avionics master won't hurt things, and will keep you from having to > reboot your Dynon (and maybe protects whatever it is the XCOM can't > deal with, although it was probably just flaky to begin with) but > really, things just shouldn't be blowing up regardless. Should and > do are two different things, I guess. > > Sorry for rambling. My fingers have a life of their own sometimes. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > > Ron Patterson wrote: >> I'm confused.... >> I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is >> unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. >> However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but >> won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that >> starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and >> (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now >> needed to be reset on the bench. >> He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get >> damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do >> sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets >> all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master >> back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. >> Tell me what you think.... >> Ron >> * >> >> >> * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Date: Jan 27, 2007
I don't enjoy it either - but it's a free country and Bob seems to do all right defending himself. If George wants to think he has all the answers then that's OK with me - I don't have to listen to any of it. He posts a lot of idiocy on Vans Airforce too. Banning is a bad idea - the Internet should be open to all - whether or not they are jerks. Jeff -------------- Original message -------------- From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice
I don't enjoy it either - but it's a free country and Bob seems to do all right defending himself.  If George wants to think he has all the answers then that's OK with me - I don't have to listen to any of it.  He posts a lot of idiocy on Vans Airforce too. 
 
Banning is a bad idea - the Internet should be open to all - whether or not they are jerks.
 
Jeff
 
Mike,

This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions.

While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit.

I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here.

< SPAN c lass=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
Best Regards,

Steve
____________________________________________________________________


On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote:

Richard,
George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.
He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.
Mike Ice

      
      
      

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
>I'm confused.... >I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is >unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I >just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) >for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with >the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the >computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. The radio has an ON/OFF switch, no? If the radio is indeed sensitive to ANYTHING real or imagined that MIGHT happen during starting . . . it's pretty easy to have it turned off at the time > >He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged >by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. As far as I've been able to determine, the start-up "spikes" are a figment of someone's imagination . . . we helped start that rumor back in the 60's when Cessna put the avionics master in. After years of hunting the elusive "snipe spike" during startup, I've quite looking. Virtually every time I've had 'scopes or high speed data acquisition systems tied to everything from S.E. Cessnas to Bizjets, I have yet to capture the elusive start up spike. I've yet to see anyone else's trophy either. It's a phenomenon very long on discussion and promulgation but exceedingly lacking in repeatable experiment. > I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all > goofy and unreadable. This is probably due to some sensitivity to brownout, not over voltage transient. The curves below were plotted of the battery terminals of two cars sitting in my driveway. Note the short term drop to very low voltage while the battery is subject to 1000A or so of starter inrush currents. Note further the LOWER voltage taken from the terminals of the Saturn . . . which has a PM starter. Higher inrush currents, lower voltage. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_1.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_3.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif Note that none of these traces show UPWARD transients. Further, the time that the voltage stays below 9v is short. Tens of milliseconds. . . but PLENTY of time for a microprocessor to wander off into the weeds. One might properly state that an avionics master switch left off during start and turned on only after start would fix the to problems cited. So would judicious use of the radio's own power switch. I've often noted that devices confused by the startup brownout phenomenon were not designed to live in the real world of vehicular DC power systems. We don't have to fuss with things on our cars . . . At the time I was handling Microair, they were unwilling to upgrade their products to take the 20V, 1-second surge. I don't know about brown-out tolerance. Was unable to do tests myself and didn't get any feedback from customers. But that one reason out of several I decided not to continue my relationship with them. The short answer is that I can deduce no value for having an AMS that cannot be equally addressed by using the device's own power switch . . . and buying into the notion that startup events are potentially harmful to a device is founded on suspect science. > Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more > of this to have to deal with/pay for. If it worries you and having the switch would mitigate the worries, then why not? My father is paying $thousands$ for some treatments that I believe are pure snake oil but he believes they're helpful. In his case, he can afford it and if he's happy with the results, then I'm not going to get inside that loop. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electrical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Not a problem sir and I wouldn't spend the time if I did not see value in it at some level. Quite frankly, some of my exchanges here on the list have prepared me to deal professionally with loose cannons in other venues. Blocking him directly is possible and if it becomes useless at every level to communicate with him, I'll probably see to it. There is an underlying point to all this that has nothing to do with George or this particular conversation. For the time being, just delete what you don't want to be concerned or bothered with. I'll refer the readers to a recently updated tag on my signature. It's amazing how many citizens get bent out of shape for someone's inability to deal with certain situations even when that service is part of their name and job description. Take FEMA. They'll never live down the fact that they don't have the first clue as to management of emergency logistics while the Home Depot, Walmart and similar organizations can mount the needed tasks with ease. The difference? These are folks who do huge inventory and deployment tasks every day. FMEA does it rarely and it's never managed by someone with hands-on experience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful?
Date: Jan 27, 2007
On Friday 26 January 2007 11:57, rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote: It will work fine. I am a ham and a pilot and use my amateur SWR meters to check my airplane SWR. Has to do with the frequency characteristics of the diode in the circuit. Hook it up, turn the knob to "cal" and flip the switch to SWR - if it is less than 3:1 it is just okay. If it is 1:1 it is perfect. Anything in between is fine. Bobf 125GS (glastar) W5RF (amateur extra class) > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that > is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > > Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > > Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > > What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > > If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for > the job? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Subject: Re: The problem with George
George, Bob is right. Why do you have to be so over-the-top with your comments? I really enjoy your input to the discussions, but your grovelling in the language gutter is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you. Stan Sutterfield Tampa George, you've been asked politely before to cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. If we're to interpret your latest rants as an unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, I'll have to make sure new-comers to the List are aware of your track record. I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings. Instead, I've published a small excerpt from our past conversations at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html I considered posting it at the time you were asked to leave some months ago but held off after you appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen to resume your old counter productive and disruptive habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already experienced with your unwelcome activities here on the List. Do the honorable thing sir. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
Lee, I scratched my head in Alaska and decided to use the Plane Power route. And "horrors" I will not be using any other over voltage protection! But if and when I do have a problem I will be glad to share it with others. Done scratching and now I will continue on with building an "experimental" aircraft. Mike Ice Anchorage, Alaska RV-9 electrical almost done canopy next. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Logan To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:18 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
I'll take a crack at it. At several points in the past, Bob has referred to "dark and stormy night stories" that happened to spam cans and discussed how these could have been easily avoided with active notification of overvoltage and undervoltage and the ability to take alternators offline in the former case and shed loads in the latter. My 1960 Mooney does not come with any overvoltage or undervoltage notification. The plane has flown for 46 years and as far as I know, nobody has ever fallen out of the sky. But the first thing I did when I bought it was to install an overvoltage / undervoltage notification system so that I have options and do not appear in the next "dark and stormy night" story in Plane and Pilot or Flying magazine. I want to eventually install some nice expensive avionics, and I don't want it ruined by a runaway electrical system that I could have prevented. You guys can do what you want, nobody is twisting your arm. Dave Morris At 08:18 PM 1/27/2007, you wrote: >Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of >understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response >to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't >he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, >and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the >"electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". > >Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last >several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of >us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane >and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated >alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, >cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they >do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design >for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns >in the anti-internally regulated argument. > >The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated >alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to >their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway >voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and >in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone >considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works >for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. > >These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, >it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which >system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to >the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at >this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that >is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks >very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the >fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable >for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which >has been better justified through this debate. And, like many >others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just >want to make the right choice for my aircraft. > >If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" >to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane >Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly >and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be >taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft >they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is >the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but >I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other >way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none >with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to >figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally >regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so >fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be >beyond discussion? > >Scratching my head in South Carolina, > >Lee... > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
Lee, It will be interesting to hear what Bob's latest thinking is on this big question as you have phrased it (great job, BTW). Meanwhile, here is how I have forged ahead, while awaiting the promised protection circuit module from Bob's R&D efforts: I am putting a 55 amp I-VR alternator in the plane with a backup SD-8 alternator (basic Z-13/8 so far...) My essentials or endurance bus is actually an avionics bus; all my expensive glass-cockpit IFR goodies go there. This bus has a tiny backup battery to allow the avionics to initialize while the big Odyssey battery handles engine cranking chores, and to keep the avionics booted up in what follows below. The avionics bus has an alternate feed path from the always-hot battery bus that is normally OPEN. Primary feed of power to the avionics bus is from the main bus, where the heavy, resistive loads like lights, seat heaters, pitot heat reside, and this feed is through a small Bosch ice cube relay governed by a solid state OV module from Perihelion Design. An overvolt event of 16.2 volts immediately trips out the relay and isolates the avionics bus from the surging alternator and the main bus and big battery, which are left connected to the alternator (no big load dump so far...) Manual switching in an orderly left-to-right sequence on my switch sub-panel takes the main bus offline, then opens the battery contactor (two-stage load dump) and brings alive the SD-8, which is connected to the main battery and needs no bootstrap circuit to bring the regulator alive. One more switch flick ties the avionics bus to the battery bus, drawing power from the Odyssey and the SD-8. Such pilot switch-throwing is anathema to some designer's goals, but takes about two seconds and can be done without looking, the way mine are laid out. If a reset of the OV module seems to clear the fault, and it looks like it was a nuisance trip, reversing the switch sequence restores everything to the way it was before the event, provided the big alternator was not harmed. The part I like best is that the protection of the high-dollar and mission-critical avionics suite is automatic and instantaneous (okay, I'm not sure of the relay action times but it's darned fast). If the stuff on the main bus gets fried by a few seconds of rising voltage, gee, that's too bad. Light bulbs and seat heaters can be replaced cheaply. The battery should be able to endure a few seconds without catastrophic failure before it, too, is isolated from the overvoltage. Not the perfect system, but it was cheap and light and easy to design and implement and has what I like. I've gone out of my way to engineer the human-switch interface to make the handling of an event straightforward in my RV. That said, I hope I never have to practice that particular drill. I'll forward the Excel schematic to any interested parties. The more people who look this over before it actually flies, the happier I'll be. -Bill B On 1/27/07, Lee Logan wrote: > Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and > substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on > internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what > the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us > "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this > far apart on the "facts". > > Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several > months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want > to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says > that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally > sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and > when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power > design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns > in the anti-internally regulated argument. > > The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated > alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their > penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage > excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often > enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential > "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, > however. > > These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems > to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on > in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum > for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I > started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal > more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but > with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most > suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which > has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I > suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the > right choice for my aircraft. > > If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the > arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator > (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure > modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and > prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm > having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently > cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent > comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate > and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to > figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated > alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed > and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? > > Scratching my head in South Carolina, > > Lee... > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Subject: z-13/8
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Hello, I am helping a friend design an electrical system for his RV-7A. We are working with Z-13/8 and have come up with a few questions. 1)If the main alt and the SD-8 are both on line(should they ever be?), how does the system balance the power from the 2 alternators? Do you need to worry about power feeding back into the SD-8 from the main alternator? 2)Can you test to see that the SD-8 is working with out turning off the main alternator? If so, how? Thanks, Pete Z-11 with P-mags 65 hours and going strong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
Lee Logan wrote: > > The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated > alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their > penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway > voltage/amperage > excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often > enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A > potential > "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future > date, > however. > That doesn't represent what I've come to understand as Bob's position. He has stated repeatedly that the I-VR is reliable and at a very low risk of damaging other systems. He has added the caveat that there IS risk, just not much. His objection is that the pilot does not have the control to shut it down. It's immaterial whether the control is needed for a runaway voltage condition, or to verify the veracity of a back electron pump of some sort. The design goal that he has embraced calls for the pilot to have complete control over all systems, and the IVR takes some of that away. George, OTOH, has argued that the IVR can handle alternator control better than the pilot. The overvoltage failures that have occured with quality hardware were mild in nature and easily dealt with. I don't see Bob taking an issue with that. He contends that the pilot should have control, regardless. I believe Bob has recognized many of the benefits of I-VR (like lower cost, wide availability, and some neato whizzy electronic features), and is working on a system that will alleviate the remaining issue that he has with lack of control. I work in a technical field, and I see this sort of debate all the time. I have issues. You have issues. We bang heads and together arrive at a system that's better than what either of us would have designed alone. That's the good stuff. The rest is noise. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: The simple ideas . . .
>Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and >substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on >internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much >what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for >us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are >this far apart on the "facts". > >Scratching my head in South Carolina, > >Lee... I can see why you're confused. Please allow me to summarize about 3 or 4 years of the discussions about IR vs. ER alternators in terms of the simple-ideas. First, I have NEVER advised against the use of internally regulated alternators out of any perceptions or beliefs that they were not a really great product and an excellent value. Unlike the products our TC aircraft brethren are stuck with, the OBAM aviation community is free to take advantage of a technology that get better, lighter and less expensive everything the designs roll over. I firmly believe IR alternators are worthy of considerable attention. I'm a systems designer with no small amount of experience both in seeking customer satisfaction and getting hardware qualified onto certificated aircraft. I believe I have a unique perspective from which I have crafted the following DESIGN GOALS for incorporating this marvelous technology into OBAM aircraft. (1) Seamless integration of the IR alternator into ANY aircraft such that it is transparent to the pilot as to what kind of machine may be churning out the watt-seconds under the cowl. For my design goals this means absolute ON/OFF control under any conditions, any time without concern for the safety of other systems components or the alternator itself. This is a feature our brothers flying TC aircraft have enjoyed since day-one. Whether my detractors embrace this idea is irrelevant. If I'm going to put my name on a recommendation for any material or process, I first have to believe it's at least support if not enhancement of the best-we-know-how-to-do. (2) We've all heard numerous reports of what I'll call anomalous output voltage conditions that have caused batteries to get fat . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg . . . pegged ammeters, and various system components to be damaged. My detractors would have us believe these were not "real" runaway, OV events but "mild" aberrations in regulator performance that simply did not warrant any over-reactions that might suggest these admittedly marvelous products are not bullet-proof. My detractors suggest that folks who suffered these events were just asleep at the stick. Had they been paying attention, would would have caught the event in progress and pulled the b-lead breaker before anything bad happened. Only a couple of things wrong with this. First, there has been (under my design goals which echo the industry) to move b-lead breakers off the panel and get the b-lead protection under the cowl. This has been a solid feature in all the Z-figure drawings for over 20 years . . . it's been a practice on many aircraft for longer than that. Question: Is it consistent with anyones design goals to (1) reinstate the b-lead breaker's proud position on the panel simply to (2) afford the alert pilot a means by which he can jump on his white horse, don his white hat and ride over the hill to rescue electro-whizzies in distress from the ravages of an aberrant alternator? Consider that an alternator in a true, unrestrained OV condition has a rate-of-rise in output voltage that is nothing less than spectacular. If you think the heat and fire from an arc-welder's stick is impressive at 70 volts DC, imagine the possibilities from 100-200 volts DC. I seriously doubt that the contact clearances in the panel mounted, finger operated circuit breaker will successfully open runaway alternator's output without itself being destroyed by a tiny sun within that represents the alternator's highest energy dump just before it self destructs. None-the-less, many folks have adopted this policy including those who install Van's wiring as suggested using ANY popular alternator. There are further considerations for integrating the IR alternator into aircraft. Since day-one, we have been able to make the electrical system dead-cold from the pilot's seat by flipping a switch . . . to date I'm aware of NO IR alternator that can be turned off by any means other than stopping the engine. Further, if you have more than one alternator installed would it not be especially convenient if the pilot can turn each one on and off at will during pre-flight to check functionality of the alternators in independent operation and in concert? Finally, there has been much ballyhoo with respect to the "built in" protections afforded us by modern IR alternators. Being right next door to the "Show-Me" state, I'm reluctant to embrace these claims without benefit of what is commonly called critical design review. I.e., "tell me how it works." My most recent detractor cited this device an prima facie evidence of these features . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf So far this is the ONLY regulator schematic I've been able to dissect in detail and I would offer the following points of inspection for the casual observers: The last "bang for the buck bullet" on the first page says: "Undervoltage, Overvoltage and Phase Fault (Broken Belt) Detection" May I emphasize the word DETECTION? A study of the schematic on Page 3 confirms not only that OV detection shares the same sense pathways and control as the regulator portion, an OV event only serves to light the warning light . . . it makes no attempt to shut the alternator down. Further, if transistor Q2 in the schematic shorts, there's nothing the regulator could do about it other than light the light. My detractors may say, "Well, that's an old chip. the new ones are better." Nobody would be happier than I to see the schematic and to know which devices might be compliant with my design goals. But to date, I've not seen it. So what's a mother to do? My design goal includes being able to walk into any parts store, purchase any alternator I can make fit the engine and have it operate per the control features described above which happen to include separate, stand-alone OV protection and automatic shut-down of the offending device. If I achieve those goals, I can offer the OBAM builder a means by which any alternator can be tried with the risks being no worse and hopefully better than those suffered by our spam-can flying brethren. I would have hoped those who so stridently support the IR alternator's future in aviation would have championed my cause and been pleased that I was "joining their side". But alas, just as we have observed in other arenas of the human condition, detractors of ideas are not really about the ideas, they're about counting coup. If I submitted totally to their demands, they'd find some new mission to launch. So, while my detractors make much smoke and brush aside other pilot's experience with smoke, I'm spending a lot of time and cash to acquire testing facilities that will allow me to duplicate the conditions under which my vision of the future needs to operate. Yes, it's slow. This is my night-time, fun-job. I still need to pay bills. But it's moving along much faster than I had hoped. My detractors have pounded me soundly about the head and shoulders when I related first-hand knowledge and experience about B&C's products yet one of them now champions products by Plane Power. I knew the internal workings of B&C's products because I was involve in their design, fabrication and field service. Now we might ask from what perspective does he tout Plane Power? Has he done critical design review? Has he even seen information about the product that goes beyond the sales literature? In fact, one of my detractors made some rather ungentlemanly remarks about a List member who shared his alternator failure experience with us. This was noted by the last two individuals who contacted me directly about their own experiences. Seems they did not want to risk the same abuse and saw fit to keep their experiences private. Know that my goal is for the OBAM airplane builder to be able to install ANY brand, ANY part number alternator with ANY pedigree or service record with the confidence that their choice can result in nothing more serious than a service event. I.e. FAILURE TOLERANT. Now, for those of you who are bewildered by the differences of opinion in what appears to be a "battle of two learned titans" understand this. My detractors have yet to come forward with any simple-ideas that describe either (1) how what I've described can be improved upon, (2) how what I've described cannot function to the design goals or most important (3) why the design goals as stated are not worthy of the $time$ it takes to bring them to practical fruition. If I am successful, my customers will enjoy access to a product with performance claims supported by repeatable experiment and a life-time warranty. Their customers are told to "suck it up Jack . . . and learn to be quicker on that b-lead breaker". Therefore I submit to you that one of us "learned titans" is not only dead wrong but has a mean streak to exercise when his facade begins to crack. I leave to you to decide who is teacher and who are no more than net-hooligans. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Well put Lee. Thank you for a well written and thought out post. I'm working hard to get my plane flying by this summer and have purchased a IR ND, but I'm really wondering if that is the right choice. I haven't wired the alt system yet so it would be easy to change, but like you I am really wondering what the best solution is at his point so I can charge ahead with the confidence that I'm building a safe bird. Mike C. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lee Logan Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
>Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing >either. Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh? What's happening here is just as important as "the electronics." Another List member suggested that maybe we shouldn't be so hard on George . . . after all, the Internet is a public arena. I will suggest that while what we do here is transported via the amazing thing that the 'net has become, it is by no means a public arena. It's the namesake of an endeavor I began 20 years ago at OSH with the first publication of the AeroElectric Connection. It's the mission of the 'Connection (and this List) to advance the state of our art and science through the discovery and assembly of simple-ideas into new inventions. Activities that fall outside that mission may be tolerated even if unwelcome on Usenet groups. I've tried to function in that arena but gave it up after a very short effort. One cannot conduct serious business in the public arena. If we're to continue what I believe is a phenomenal success for crafting a useful and productive venture here on the List, there will have to be boundaries for behavior both technically and personally. Individuals who choose not to honor those boundaries are free to start their own List or join the folks on Usenet but there is no value in tolerating either personal attacks or dissemination of bad science. It's my mission to see that the AeroElectric Connection delivers on its promises whether by way of the book, the website or the list-server. We have a good thing going here folks, I hope you join me in guarding it vigorously. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No?
> >Bob Nuckolls posted a summary of some of the DO-160 requirements in a >message titled "DO-160 in a nutshell", back in May 2001. yes. that piece is still on the website at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/do160.html Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
> >Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain. The >solid state crowbar is a very elegant design. Voltage goes up, trips, >field to ground (or open on the other side of the regulator....whatever), >circuit breaker eventually trips to save the wiring. Very simple, very >straightforward. No problem. "Kludge" pre-dates this conversation by decades. It's an elegant word in some contexts. I use it on occasion . . . >The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge. There's no reason to crowbar in >this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're >certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts. In the first >case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the >wires. In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, >then the relay opens and actually fixes it. There are a dozens of >different ways to accomplish the same thing. Recall that to shut off a runaway IR alternator you MUST physically disconnect it from the rest of the airplane's system. I've looked at various solid state approaches too . . . >On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better? Oh >well. If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator and >are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution so >you go with it. The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to remove >coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go through >a relay. > >Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load >instead of disconnecting it completely. Weight, complexity, cost.... >BLECH. Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust your >engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when talking >about controlling an I-VR runaway. Apparently, some people fly over farms >all day long. Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and I'll take you >on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the ground is 5000FT+ to >begin with. Then we'll try to hop on over the mountains. You'll find >that power reduction is not an option. >Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power >reduction. > >The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, why >on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR >alternator? You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake >tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean. See my post earlier this evening on design goals for incorporating the IR alternator into aircraft . . . >Bob: don't get upset for me calling it a kludge. It really is but until >someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best solution to >the given problem. Bottom line, though, is that is works so you use it >until something better comes along. There's no law that says things need >to be perfect and that you can't use something today because new >technology might make a better one tommorow. In evaluating about a half dozen ways to break the link between ship's wiring and a malcontent alternator, I considered a variety of techniques in trade offs for cost of implementation, parts count, robustness of parts, size, weight, efficiency (energy lost in the switching mechanism) and cost of ownership. Yeah, I agree, that ol' fart S701-1 contactor is not very glitzy. But it won the trade-study in nearly all categories including the fact that it was but one more of perhaps several identical parts already on the airplane. Rather than drive up the number of different parts, it seems wiser to utilize more of the same parts as long as other goals in the design study were met. I'm as eager as anyone to take advantage of the latest and greatest processes an materials to advance the state of our art . . . but at the same time, I don't summarily discount what's worked for decades simply because it has been around for decades. Leaving the relay in Z-24a was no idle decision on my part. There's a sign that used to hang over my desk in the shop that read, "Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer." There's a companion product to the AED9004-1 controller illustrated in . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf It will be used to manage the e-bus alternate feed path but will offer some whippy new features that I'm not prepared to discuss yet. And shucky darn . . . the design calls for an S704-1 relay . . . yeah I know, I COULD do it all with transistors but not nearly so efficiently and with a lower parts count. There's some neat things coming over the hill. Can't wait for warmer weather and the time to hammer on the drive stand. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Alternator selection
>Well put Lee. Thank you for a well written and thought out post. > > >I m working hard to get my plane flying by this summer and have purchased >a IR ND, but I m really wondering if that is the right choice. I haven t >wired the alt system yet so it would be easy to change, but like you I am >really wondering what the best solution is at his point so I can charge >ahead with the confidence that I m building a safe bird. > > >Mike C. The IR alternator is not inherently unsafe. But depending on various design features of the thousands of mostly same but different parts available, the risk of ov conditions is not zero. I'm aware of no SE aircraft that become "unsafe" because of the inability of an IR or ER alternator to perform as desired. There have been some tense moments and some very expensive events but nobody I've heard of had any close brushes with injury or death. It's a matter of shared design goals. I believe I've adequately described mine which are based largely on what we've practiced in GA for the past 70 years or so. If you share those goals, know that they cannot be met with any IR alternators we're aware of (except perhaps for Plane Power which may offer direct control of the field windings along with compatible ov protection). But know too that the problem of integrating the stock, plain-vanilla IR alternator into the stated design goals is all but a sure bet needing only $time$ to realize . . . but will probably happen this year. You don't need to make the decision until perhaps one week before first flight . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: z-13/8
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com> > >Hello, > >I am helping a friend design an electrical system for his RV-7A. We are >working with Z-13/8 and have come up with a few questions. > >1)If the main alt and the SD-8 are both on line(should they ever be?), how >does the system balance the power from the 2 alternators? Do you need to >worry about power feeding back into the SD-8 from the main alternator? SD-8 backs up the main alternator. They are not intended to operate in concert with each other. See the rationale for Z-13/8 architecture on page 17-10 of the 'Connection. >2)Can you test to see that the SD-8 is working with out turning off the main >alternator? If so, how? No, that's the way you do it. One alternator on at a time to see that it picks up it's expected duties independently of the other. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solder tab connectors
> > >Rodney Dunham wrote: >> >> >>Greg, >> >>Try this link... >> >>www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Jack_Tab_Soldering/Jack_Tab_Soldering.html >> >>Rod > >For the totally anal out there, the joint shown in that link would have >failed the soldering class I took at Community College oh-so-many years ago. > >The prescribed practice we were taught was to tin the wire, and then bend >the end to make a hook. Hook the hole, then clamp the wire so that it >squeezes the tab. Now flow in just enough solder so that there is a good >fillet flowing into the tab, but the individual wire strands are still >visible. The wire strands should retain the original twist. The idea is that: >1) joint can be inspected to verify that there is good wet out of the wire >and the connector >2) the joint has the mechanical strength of the hook >3) the joint is easily disassembled later by reflowing the solder. >In practice, if I'm forced to solder instead of using a crimped Fast-On >connector, I make a hook without tinning the wire first, and flow in >enough solder to get a good fillet. I may or may not put in to much >solder, depending on if I have a good Kester or .050 Radio Shack stuff on hand. Yeah, I've taken those classes . . . and taught them. That was decades before solder was magically transformed from some status just above library paste to an amazing new material with real structural properties that would hold wires together and/or keep all the parts on an etched circuit board using solder alone. The real key to good solder is clean, flux, 63/37 alloy and support of stranded wires across the transition from immobilized and free-strands. All of these conditions are easy to meet and they essentially pushes aside a great deal of what we used to teach. The most important idea to fall was that "hooking" added mechanical strength while in fact, it's most useful duty was to hold the two halves of the joint immobile should you not have really good solder with which to make the joint. Use good solder, get good flow, protect the stranding transition and whatever else happens is insignificant to the extreme. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
>Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all >that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was >discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home >in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a >balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I >quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down >before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators >aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited >experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I >don't want to hear anything in argument. Thank you for sharing this. Please know that it's a very high priority with me to bring this feisty little marvel into the bag of tricks for building the best airplanes to have ever flown. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The problem with George
Except that it wastes so much of Bob's time to continually write corrections so that readers, especially the newcomers, are not mislead. This forum is Bob's baby, he should determine what is necessary to maintain the standards without seeing his time sucked away to deal with this. On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > >Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all > >that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was > >discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles > home > >in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a > >balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. > I > >quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down > >before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators > >aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited > >experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and > I > >don't want to hear anything in argument. > > Thank you for sharing this. Please know that it's > a very high priority with me to bring this feisty little > marvel into the bag of tricks for building the best > airplanes to have ever flown. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
Hi Bob My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? My questions are a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply with shielded wires? Many thanks Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 17:16 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question Many thanks Bob. The schematic in your link shows the harness linking the radio to the microphone jack is shielded. Not sure if mine is but will check. I'm afraid i don't have a wiring diagram - they wouldn't give me one. Contacted the technician who did the wiring harness several times and he was vague about the need for a ground. Maybe he thought i had a metal panel or maybe he didn't understand the wiring and was just doing as he was told? Think i'll install an earth on the microphone jack anyway. I presume it won't do any harm and may solve the problem. Also check the shielding Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 05:40 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question >Thanks Bob. > >The KX155 is 6 months old. This problem has been there from the beginning. >It came with harness pre-wired and i installed it. Sometimes i use a >handheld (ICOM A20) wired into the a/c power supply and aerial and there's >some ignition noise but not a serious problem. Its just the panel mounted >KX155. The microphone jack interferes with the volume (even with the >squelch turned off) and introduces interference >Two possibles i thought of were >1. The microphone socket may need an earth? The panel is fibreglass and >the socket has 2 wires running into it but is not earthed to the airframe >2. Could the wires in the microphone socket be transposed? > >As the ICOM works OK that seems to exclude power supply or aerial issues? > >Very grateful for your advice. > >Frank If the push to talk circuit is active in your microphone wiring, then the mic jack would need two wires plus a ground. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html If your mic jack is intended to handle ONLY microphone audio and PTT is handled with other wiring, then only two wires would be required. Do you have a schematic of the pre-wired harness? Have you checked your harness against the diagram? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
>Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes available: 1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? 2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? (I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). Thanks, -Bill B On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and > >substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on > >internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much > >what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for > >us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are > >this far apart on the "facts". > > > > > > >Scratching my head in South Carolina, > > > >Lee... > > I can see why you're confused. Please allow me to summarize > about 3 or 4 years of the discussions about IR vs. ER alternators > in terms of the simple-ideas. > > First, I have NEVER advised against the use of internally regulated > alternators out of any perceptions or beliefs that they were not > a really great product and an excellent value. Unlike the > products our TC aircraft brethren are stuck with, the OBAM > aviation community is free to take advantage of a technology > that get better, lighter and less expensive everything the > designs roll over. I firmly believe IR alternators are worthy > of considerable attention. > > I'm a systems designer with no small amount of experience both > in seeking customer satisfaction and getting hardware > qualified onto certificated aircraft. I believe I have a unique > perspective from which I have crafted the following DESIGN GOALS > for incorporating this marvelous technology into OBAM aircraft. > > (1) Seamless integration of the IR alternator into ANY aircraft > such that it is transparent to the pilot as to what kind of machine > may be churning out the watt-seconds under the cowl. For my > design goals this means absolute ON/OFF control under any conditions, > any time without concern for the safety of other systems components > or the alternator itself. This is a feature our brothers flying > TC aircraft have enjoyed since day-one. Whether my detractors > embrace this idea is irrelevant. If I'm going to put my name on > a recommendation for any material or process, I first have to > believe it's at least support if not enhancement of the > best-we-know-how-to-do. > > (2) We've all heard numerous reports of what I'll call > anomalous output voltage conditions that have caused batteries > to get fat . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg > > . . . pegged ammeters, and various system components to be damaged. > My detractors would have us believe these were not "real" runaway, OV > events but "mild" aberrations in regulator performance that > simply did not warrant any over-reactions that might suggest these > admittedly marvelous products are not bullet-proof. My detractors > suggest that folks who suffered these events were just asleep at > the stick. Had they been paying attention, would would have caught > the event in progress and pulled the b-lead breaker before anything > bad happened. > > Only a couple of things wrong with this. First, there has been > (under my design goals which echo the industry) to move b-lead > breakers off the panel and get the b-lead protection under the > cowl. This has been a solid feature in all the Z-figure drawings > for over 20 years . . . it's been a practice on many aircraft > for longer than that. Question: Is it consistent with anyones > design goals to (1) reinstate the b-lead breaker's proud position on > the panel simply to (2) afford the alert pilot a means by which > he can jump on his white horse, don his white hat and ride > over the hill to rescue electro-whizzies in distress from > the ravages of an aberrant alternator? > > Consider that an alternator in a true, unrestrained OV condition > has a rate-of-rise in output voltage that is nothing > less than spectacular. If you think the heat and fire > from an arc-welder's stick is impressive at 70 volts DC, > imagine the possibilities from 100-200 volts DC. > > I seriously doubt that the contact clearances in the panel > mounted, finger operated circuit breaker will successfully > open runaway alternator's output without itself being > destroyed by a tiny sun within that represents the alternator's > highest energy dump just before it self destructs. > > None-the-less, many folks have adopted this policy including > those who install Van's wiring as suggested using ANY popular > alternator. > > There are further considerations for integrating the IR alternator > into aircraft. Since day-one, we have been able to make the > electrical system dead-cold from the pilot's seat by flipping > a switch . . . to date I'm aware of NO IR alternator that > can be turned off by any means other than stopping the engine. > > Further, if you have more than one alternator installed would > it not be especially convenient if the pilot can turn each one > on and off at will during pre-flight to check functionality > of the alternators in independent operation and in concert? > > Finally, there has been much ballyhoo with respect to the > "built in" protections afforded us by modern IR alternators. > Being right next door to the "Show-Me" state, I'm reluctant to > embrace these claims without benefit of what is commonly called > critical design review. I.e., "tell me how it works." > > My most recent detractor cited this device an prima facie > evidence of these features . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf > > So far this is the ONLY regulator schematic I've been able > to dissect in detail and I would offer the following points > of inspection for the casual observers: > > The last "bang for the buck bullet" on the first page > says: > > "Undervoltage, Overvoltage and Phase Fault (Broken Belt) Detection" > > May I emphasize the word DETECTION? A study of the > schematic on Page 3 confirms not only that OV detection > shares the same sense pathways and control as the > regulator portion, an OV event only serves to light the > warning light . . . it makes no attempt to shut the > alternator down. Further, if transistor Q2 in the > schematic shorts, there's nothing the regulator could > do about it other than light the light. > > My detractors may say, "Well, that's an old chip. > the new ones are better." Nobody would be happier than > I to see the schematic and to know which devices might > be compliant with my design goals. But to date, I've > not seen it. > > So what's a mother to do? My design goal includes > being able to walk into any parts store, purchase > any alternator I can make fit the engine and have > it operate per the control features described above > which happen to include separate, stand-alone OV > protection and automatic shut-down of the offending > device. > > If I achieve those goals, I can offer the OBAM > builder a means by which any alternator can be tried > with the risks being no worse and hopefully better than > those suffered by our spam-can flying brethren. > > I would have hoped those who so stridently support the > IR alternator's future in aviation would have > championed my cause and been pleased that I was > "joining their side". But alas, just as we have > observed in other arenas of the human condition, > detractors of ideas are not really about the ideas, > they're about counting coup. If I submitted totally > to their demands, they'd find some new mission to > launch. > > So, while my detractors make much smoke and brush > aside other pilot's experience with smoke, I'm > spending a lot of time and cash to acquire testing > facilities that will allow me to duplicate the > conditions under which my vision of the future > needs to operate. Yes, it's slow. This is my > night-time, fun-job. I still need to pay bills. > But it's moving along much faster than I had > hoped. > > My detractors have pounded me soundly about the > head and shoulders when I related first-hand knowledge > and experience about B&C's products yet one of them > now champions products by Plane Power. I knew the > internal workings of B&C's products because I was > involve in their design, fabrication and field > service. Now we might ask from what perspective > does he tout Plane Power? Has he done critical > design review? Has he even seen information about the > product that goes beyond the sales literature? > > In fact, one of my detractors made some rather ungentlemanly > remarks about a List member who shared his alternator failure > experience with us. This was noted by the last two individuals > who contacted me directly about their own experiences. Seems > they did not want to risk the same abuse and saw fit to > keep their experiences private. > > Know that my goal is for the OBAM airplane builder > to be able to install ANY brand, ANY part number alternator > with ANY pedigree or service record with the confidence > that their choice can result in nothing more serious > than a service event. I.e. FAILURE TOLERANT. > > Now, for those of you who are bewildered by the > differences of opinion in what appears to be a > "battle of two learned titans" understand this. > My detractors have yet to come forward with any > simple-ideas that describe either (1) how what > I've described can be improved upon, (2) how > what I've described cannot function to the design > goals or most important (3) why the design goals > as stated are not worthy of the $time$ it takes > to bring them to practical fruition. > > If I am successful, my customers will enjoy access > to a product with performance claims supported by > repeatable experiment and a life-time warranty. > Their customers are told to "suck it up Jack . . . > and learn to be quicker on that b-lead breaker". > > Therefore I submit to you that one of us "learned > titans" is not only dead wrong but has a mean streak > to exercise when his facade begins to crack. I leave > to you to decide who is teacher and who are no more > than net-hooligans. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
> >Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection >Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. Thank you sir but as noted here . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/What's_the_AeroElectric-List_About.pdf . . . if I were to attempt to put everything we know into "the book" it would be too big and too expensive to attract any customers. No single feature of the AeroElectric Connection effort can be all inclusive. Each experience has the potential for solving an immediate problem . . . or opening doors for further exploration. The success of the venture has less to do with how much is written in what place . . . but upon the amazing random access capabilities of the minds of folks who enjoy total immersion in such things and are ready to offer guidance to any who seek it. I may have recently accepted the duty of maintaining an atmosphere of friendly cooperation in the development and sharing of new ideas . . . but I can only be the conductor. You folks are playing the music. By the way, here's another piece I wrote on the topic of alternator failures . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf >You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've >cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes >available: > >1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full >output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect >within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? Some years ago I did a little work on the bench to quantify rate of rise across the terminals of a battery when driven by various constant current sources. This is what an alternator does when in a runaway condition. It puts out a relatively constant current with for all practical purposes, an unlimited voltage potential. I launched into a task to explore and write about some issues in electrical system dynamics and I believe I published some work in progress that included some plots of rate-of-rise during potentially hazardous OV events. I can't put my hands on the work right now but I do intend to expand that work and publish it. Some years ago Paul M. went off to "do some studies of alternator performance" on a drive stand. I was elated. "Let's talk man. There's some things we need to know about how these critters behave under various conditions." In spite of much claims as to the work accomplished, no data was forthcoming. That's when I knew that a drive stand was in my own future. In a nutshell, an ov condition does not result in lightning fast voltage excursions. The battery will do its best to soak up the excess energy and does a really good job of keeping the bus voltage from launching for the moon. For example: suppose you had a 60A alternator and was running a 20A system load when the failure occurs. This leaves 40A + of overcharge capability that the battery will attempt to soak up. Depending on size of battery and its condition, the voltage may rise to 16 or so volts over the next second and then climb relatively slowly from there as it succumbs to the overcharge. In my earlier post I cited the alternator's ability to jack up voltage when "unrestrained" . . . a good battery is your system's most capable restrainer. Another point to ponder in your planned battery maintenance routine. It's the guard at the gate that will make everyone else's lives easier when dealing with the recalcitrant alternator. This is the phenomenon George was relying on when he suggested pulling the b-lead breaker after the warning light comes on. Not a totally unreasonable idea IF . . . (1) the breaker will do the job consistently and (2) you want to regress to the older architectures where the b-lead breaker is even on the panel. There's a third aspect to this modus operandi that goes relatively un-discussed. Effective isolation of the runaway alternator may protect the airplane's system but the runaway continues unabated and invariably destroys the alternator field windings. The propose alternator controller will not only detect and disconnect, it will SHUT down the alternator and save it from destroying itself. The loss of regulation will result in nothing more than a maintenance event to replace a regulator. >2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts >under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? >(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). ABSOLUTELY. One of the data values I needed from Paul was the energy signature of an alternator's output under various normal and abnormal operating conditions. It is my idea and intent to bring the OV event to a quiet and stress-free stable condition without concern for damage to other components. The proposed battery contactor will hardly know that it's being called upon to stand off an OV event . . . it will be no more stressful than simply shutting the alternator off during normal operations. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Electrical System Dynamics
I found the article I referenced in my earlier post. It's current form is published at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/DC_Power_System_Dynamics_C.pdf I was doing this in the format of a white paper because I intend to share it with my compatriots at RAC. I might even do a lunchtime learning presentation on the topic. This paper begins to discuss measured TIMES and DURATIONS of events in response to certain conditions. We can readily speak of ov trip points and load-dump voltages but the data is seriously deficient unless you include ALL of the dynamics which includes not only wave shape but TIME. This article will be expanded to include a lot of things we'd like to know and understand about alternators and their relationship to batteries and other components within the system. These are things I MUST know to properly craft the proposed controller for IR alternators . . . as the data become available, it will added to this article. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Alternator mistake
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Thought it might be useful to document my rather silly (bonehead stupid) error I made in installng my alt. First off I bought an "Autozone special" for an electrically dependant IFR airplane....It appeared to be functioning OK for a while but clearly IFR is serious business but I really had not put the level of care required when selecting the alt. So I decided to replace with a plane power unit ( I plmbed it into my existing B lead contctor with OV trip) About that time the GNS 430 started acting up with a bunch of unconnected errors. This usually means one thing..Bad grounding. But what could it be? I had a bullet proof "forrest of tabs" ground block and dual path grounds. Turns out as I was removing the old alt from the engine I saw it...I had painted the bracket to prevent corrosion and I believe the alt could not get a good ground connection to the engine block. The new plane power unit has CAD plated hardware and I also added a smear of "malaax" (conductive grease used on household electrical cables from Home Depot etc) to prevent corrosion and ensure a good connection. The alt must have a good connection to the engine block in order to provide a stabilised voltage. Personally I'm amazed I missed the error during install, I could have simply added a grounding strap between the alt and the engine block too. Of couse it may have been the old alt was breaking down but I am pleased to report my instruments are now behaving perfectly...:) Frank 7a, halfway thru IFR training...I hope! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mistake
> > > Thought it might be useful to document my rather silly (bonehead >stupid) error I made in installng my alt. > >First off I bought an "Autozone special" for an electrically dependant >IFR airplane....It appeared to be functioning OK for a while but clearly >IFR is serious business but I really had not put the level of care >required when selecting the alt. > >So I decided to replace with a plane power unit ( I plmbed it into my >existing B lead contctor with OV trip) > >About that time the GNS 430 started acting up with a bunch of >unconnected errors. This usually means one thing..Bad grounding. But >what could it be? I had a bullet proof "forrest of tabs" ground block >and dual path grounds. > >Turns out as I was removing the old alt from the engine I saw it...I had >painted the bracket to prevent corrosion and I believe the alt could not >get a good ground connection to the engine block. > >The new plane power unit has CAD plated hardware and I also added a >smear of "malaax" (conductive grease used on household electrical cables >from Home Depot etc) to prevent corrosion and ensure a good connection. > >The alt must have a good connection to the engine block in order to >provide a stabilised voltage. > >Personally I'm amazed I missed the error during install, I could have >simply added a grounding strap between the alt and the engine block too. >Of couse it may have been the old alt was breaking down but I am pleased >to report my instruments are now behaving perfectly...:) Good data sir! Thank you. Some of you may recall some conversations about voltage regulator stability as it relates to shared pathways for both sensing the voltage to be controlled and OTHER duties like supplying field current . . . and in this case conducting output current to the crankcase and ultimately electrical system ground. Even small resistances carrying significant currents produce voltage drops in accordance with Mr. Ohm's famous E=IR. When E is large with respect to the regulator's ability to sense and react to changes in bus voltage, the extraneous voltage signals become a form of "noise" in voltage regulator's control loop. Frank's experiences, investigation and subsequent conclusions go right to this point of system performance. I'll make a note to include some words about alternator case bonding which was only mildly important for ER alternators but exceedingly important for achieving advertised performance from IR alternators. Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Subject: OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Listers, With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on that. Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in my own work. Jeff
Listers,
 
With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often feel intimidated to ask simple ones.  You see, I'm a neophyte.  If it's woodworking, I could write the book.  If it's software, I'd go toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place.  But I'm new to this.  So please bear with me as I continue to ask simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my experience.  By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many emails I got from people like me thanking me for it.  'nuff said on that.
 
Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read it).  The way I read about contactors, they need power to the "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass through them.  But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated.  I'm not sure I get how that works.  This is not the case for the starter contactor, which needs power to activate.  I know I could wire it up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in my own work.
 
Jeff

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question
Date: Jan 28, 2007
On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:26, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote: > Listers, > > With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often > feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If > it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go > toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But > I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask > simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the > archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my > experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 > board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many > emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on > that. > > Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read > it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the > "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large > terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass > through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the > ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a > connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not > sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter > contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it > up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in > my own work. > With the battery contactor, there is an internal connection that allows it to use the power from the battery to energize the coil on the solenoid that pulls the contactor closed. No power flows through the coil in the solenoid until you provide a ground by closing the battery master switch. As soon as you have provided a ground, now the current can flow from the battery, through the coil, which creates a magnetic field that pulls the solenoid closed. This makes the connection that allows battery power to now flow to the rest of the aircraft. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: a simple question
> >On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:26, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote: > >>Listers, >> >>With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often >>feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If >>it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go >>toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But >>I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask >>simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the >>archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my >>experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 >>board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many >>emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on >>that. >> >>Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read >>it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the >>"small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large >>terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass >>through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the >>ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a >>connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not >>sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter >>contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it >>up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in >>my own work. > > >With the battery contactor, there is an internal connection that >allows it to use the power from the battery to energize the coil on >the solenoid that pulls the contactor closed. No power flows through >the coil in the solenoid until you provide a ground by closing the >battery master switch. As soon as you have provided a ground, now >the current can flow from the battery, through the coil, which >creates a magnetic field that pulls the solenoid closed. This makes >the connection that allows battery power to now flow to the rest of >the aircraft. > >Kevin Horton Good put Kevin. I might elaborate on Kevin's explanation by linking you to this drawing: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Contactors_PU_and_PD.pdf I've traced the power paths for energizing both the battery contactor (in red) and the starter contactor (in green). I did not mark the pathways through the grounds common to both systems. Note that while the starter contactor's coil power runs through a lot more switches (and the battery contactor) we still satisfy the need to get 12 volts or so impressed across the contactor's coil terminals by means of switched power that PULLS UP from ground. The battery contactor has it's switch in the ground lead and is said to provide a PULL DOWN to ground to close the coil's power pathway. The PULL down architecture for battery contactors eliminates a need to fuse the circuit . . . there are no faults of wiring that have potential for burning a wire. On the other hand, the starter contactor supply circuit does need a fuse to protect wiring between the bus and contactor. So the key expansion of Mr. Dalton's question is to consider BOTH terminals of the contactor coil . . . and the need to impress 12v or so across the coil. I think he was getting confused by not tracing the full pathway for energizing the coil through both ends of the coil. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: RE: Alternator selection
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Bob, Thanks for your authoritative update putting the issue in perspective. We await the ultimate solution for IR control, when it becomes available. Mike C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:39 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Alternator selection >Well put Lee. Thank you for a well written and thought out post. > > >I m working hard to get my plane flying by this summer and have purchased >a IR ND, but I m really wondering if that is the right choice. I haven t >wired the alt system yet so it would be easy to change, but like you I am >really wondering what the best solution is at his point so I can charge >ahead with the confidence that I m building a safe bird. > > >Mike C. The IR alternator is not inherently unsafe. But depending on various design features of the thousands of mostly same but different parts available, the risk of ov conditions is not zero. I'm aware of no SE aircraft that become "unsafe" because of the inability of an IR or ER alternator to perform as desired. There have been some tense moments and some very expensive events but nobody I've heard of had any close brushes with injury or death. It's a matter of shared design goals. I believe I've adequately described mine which are based largely on what we've practiced in GA for the past 70 years or so. If you share those goals, know that they cannot be met with any IR alternators we're aware of (except perhaps for Plane Power which may offer direct control of the field windings along with compatible ov protection). But know too that the problem of integrating the stock, plain-vanilla IR alternator into the stated design goals is all but a sure bet needing only $time$ to realize . . . but will probably happen this year. You don't need to make the decision until perhaps one week before first flight . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gordon or marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
Subject: Alternator mistake
Date: Jan 28, 2007
-----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: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator mistake - Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . Bob: Plane Power have advised me verbally that the alternator can be shut down by way of the "field" switch but their installation drawing is quite primative and I cannot be sure from it whether or not what they say is true. It will be a while before I run the engine but my intent is to check that function when I do run it. The module on the rear is described as a crowbar OV control. I'm actually working on the -8 again. My word. Gordon Comfort N363GC ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
Date: Jan 28, 2007
What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to you. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Miskelly, Francis G [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk>
Thanks Bill. Its a KX 155 installation manual. Esp the wiring diagram. If that's possible it would be great! Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of William Gill Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 21:27 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to you. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Miskelly, Francis G [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
> >What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to >you. > >Bill Bill, if you have a KX-155 manual and can scan the wiring diagrams, I'd be pleased to add them to my website's installation data. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Sonoma CA seminar date is set . . .
Dr. Dee and I will be visiting the NoCal wine country on April 21/22 to deliver a presentation in the facilities of EAA chapter 1268. Sign-up sheet is posted at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Sonoma.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)bresnan.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Bob, I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it Mauri Morin Polson, MT RV-8 N808M (reserved) C180 N2125Z Flying SEMPER FI ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) > >What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to >you. > >Bill Bill, if you have a KX-155 manual and can scan the wiring diagrams, I'd be pleased to add them to my website's installation data. Bob . . . -- 1/27/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
>Bob, >I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to >you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it Very kind of you sir. I'd be delighted. The website is moving to new quarters pretty soon and we should have a faster, more stable connection to the 'net along with much larger file space resources. I'm looking for ways to enhance our library of downloadable materials and the wiring diagrams for this popular radio would be a great candidate. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
>Bob, >I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to >you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it > >Mauri Morin >Polson, MT >RV-8 N808M (reserved) >C180 N2125Z Flying >SEMPER FI Mauri. Hold off my friend. Another List member has just sent me a .pdf copy. Wasn't aware of it until I opened the message right after yours. I think I've got what I need. I'll get it checked over and then post what looks like would be most useful for our brother across the pond. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
>Hi Bob > >I'm afraid i don't have a wiring diagram - they wouldn't give me one. >Contacted the technician who did the wiring harness several times and he >was vague about the need for a ground. Maybe he thought i had a metal >panel or maybe he didn't understand the wiring and was just doing as he >was told? Frank. Send me your direct email and I'll forward a link for downloading a .pdf copy of the manual that has come into my possession. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Alternator mistake
> > > Bob: Plane Power have advised me verbally that the alternator can be >shut down by way of the "field" switch but their installation drawing is >quite primative and I cannot be sure from it whether or not what they say is >true. It will be a while before I run the engine but my intent is to check >that function when I do run it. The module on the rear is described as a >crowbar OV control. I'm actually working on the -8 again. My word. > >Gordon Comfort >N363GC Looking forward to getting your report. So all that 'stuff' you put in the -4 is making it too crowded? I envy you sir, I think the -8 is my personal favorite. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: push to talk switch
From: "lcottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Hi, I am normally on the Kolb list and one of the guys there suggested that I could find the answer to one of my problems here. I have a grip on my stick that has five buttons, one of which is supposed to be a push to talk button. However it only has two connections on it. The other buttons control my EIS. I had thought that a I-Com push to talk switch was merely a momentary switch. When I cut into the wire I find a red, green, white and black wire. The red and green show continuity when the button is pushed. The white and black also are a closed circuit. I really don't want to screw things up, can anybody enlighten me as to the best way to hook this up. lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com Thanks Larry, Oregon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=91173#91173 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1280008_103.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 46 Msgs - 01/27/07
Thanks for the comprehensive replies, Bob---it was certainly helpful to understand your well thought out position. You are well aware, I am sure though, that not all Aeroelectric website "clients" are as intensively fascinated by the details of aircraft electrical system design down at the molecular level that some others are. Like others here, I'm just a pilot and flying airplanes, not designing them, is the part that interests me. I know a lot about flying but not so much about "aviation" and hardly anything at all about electrical system design except that I need one. Those who fit that description may not be interested in the details but still want to make a sound decision about a mature, reliable electrical system for their airplanes in order to best take advantage of the growing technical advances in avionics and navigation equipment available today. Many are anxiously awaiting your "fix" for IR alternators but there are others who probably think they've already found one in Plane Power. That seems to be the big unanswered question. Has Plane Power put the genie back in the bottle or not?? They say they have---has anyone seen or produced independant verification of their assertions? If so, I suspect a small stampede will have just begun--- Warm regards and again, thanks for all your hard work in this arena... Lee... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Leading edge ideas and inventions
>Thanks for the comprehensive replies, Bob---it was certainly helpful to >understand your well thought out position. You are well aware, I am sure >though, that not all Aeroelectric website "clients" are as intensively >fascinated by the details of aircraft electrical system design down at the >molecular level that some others are. Like others here, I'm just a pilot >and flying airplanes, not designing them, is the part that interests >me. I know a lot about flying but not so much about "aviation" and hardly >anything at all about electrical system design except that I need one. I'll be the first to admit that the AeroElectric-List is not everyone's ideal information source. It was intended from the first to be leading edge for new ideas and inventions . . . and to stand up and denounce bad science along with an explanation as to why. There are plenty of unfiltered venues that dispense traditional data not the least of which are most of the books offered by EAA bookstores and elsewhere. Nothing wrong with those efforts. They've helped the vast majority of builders get their project airborne. > >Those who fit that description may not be interested in the details but >still want to make a sound decision about a mature, reliable electrical >system for their airplanes in order to best take advantage of the growing >technical advances in avionics and navigation equipment available >today. Many are anxiously awaiting your "fix" for IR alternators but >there are others who probably think they've already found one in Plane Power. Nobody would be happier than I to see someone offering modern alternators that work within the design goals I've established for myself. There is nothing better for the community at large than to have honorable, capable competition. >That seems to be the big unanswered question. Has Plane Power put the >genie back in the bottle or not?? They say they have---has anyone seen or >produced independant verification of their assertions? If so, I suspect a >small stampede will have just begun--- I'll contact Plane Power and see if they'll share any of the details necessary for a critical design review. Most companies are reluctant because they fear some risks to loss of proprietary information. A silly notion when you get right down to it. I have reverse engineered dozens of products but not for the purpose of cloning their work . . . the goal was to do BETTER. I've never dissected a product that I and my compatriots could not improve upon. Further, for all I know, folks who are my most vociferous detractors may have already poisoned the waters at Plane Power. I think that happened at Niagara Airparts . . . never could get those folks to discuss their products. This is also silly. I have a substantial following and it only makes sense that we should be cooperating in a win-win effort. So, my personal approach is to see how products perform in the field. If it makes sense, I'll craft an offering with a goal my competition feel compelled to emulate me instead of the other way around. Therefore, I'd be pleased if anyone can post first-hand experiences of Plane Power's products and customer service right here on the List. >Warm regards and again, thanks for all your hard work in this arena... Couldn't do it if it wasn't MOSTLY fun! Thank you for the kind words. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
> >Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection >Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. > >You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've >cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes >available: > >1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full >output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect >within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? I didn't elaborate on this very well in my first response. The battery that puffed up like a toad took perhaps 15 to 30 minutes to achieve this condition depending on how much current was driven into it. But your question as to "failure" is a bit harder. Hit the battery with say 100A for 20 seconds and you may force its terminal voltage up to 18 volts or more. While certainly abusive, I don't know that I would class that as a failure inducing event - i.e. the battery wouldn't loose much if any of its electrolyte and would probably still crank the engine and hold a charge afterward even if total service life were reduced by weeks or months. I don't have a hard notion for "failure" which is why I think it's so important to track capacity in a way that assures endurance bus operations . . . and replacing the battery long before it "fails" by contemporary standards and won't crank the engine. So, it's not the least bit unreasonable to adopt a design goal and operating philosophy that says: "I'm going to maintain an 80% plus capacity battery. I'm going to install OV warning. I'm going to have an orderly means by which I can shut the the alternator down without risk to other equipment or the alternator itself." It's reasonable to expect that one can react to annunciation and effect a shutdown in 3-4 seconds and that's plenty fast if you have a good battery to do the buffering. The only thing I have championed beyond this manually operated philosophy is to automate the shutdown. As I mentioned earlier, all the magic for controlling is done in software and once that goal is achieved, a couple more lines of code provides the automatic shutdown due to overvoltage. Therefore, I'll not be offering a manually operated version for sale. >2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts >under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? >(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). If you're talking about Z-24, yes. A real ov event will be prevented from propagating into the rest of the system. However, it's not real clear that the contactor will not be damaged enough to require replacement. But we know that the alternator will definitely require replacement too because its field winding will be toast. Z-24a will overcome all the nasty stresses in both normal and ov-event shutdown so that the only maintenance item will be to replace the regulator. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Alternator mistake
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Hello Bob, I installed the smaller 60Amp unit than the one shown in the link you provided, Not sure what form factor it is but it is considerably smaller than the 70A unit shown (which incidently looks identical to the ND Toyota Camry unit I replaced). The reason I fitted this one was that was all that Van's had in stock and should be big enough even with the dual electric fuel pump/IFR installation in my airplane. I do note the voltage regulator is set a little low at around 13.7V. The crowbar unit on the back appears to just have small single wire that presumably just collapses the field current. To be honest I was little reluctant to rely on this device so I wired it in series with my existing OV protection the basis of which is one of Eric's big contactors. Can you turn the unit off?...Hmm, well the instructions do not specifically mention this. They do say you can turn the unit ON by energising the filed but I did not see that you could turn it off...Personally I would not try to do this unless it was an emergency. I'll have a look in the hangar for the instructions, I do know they were pretty sparse electriclly speaking. Incidently different topic, the backup SD-8 alternator cranks out quite a bit more than 8amps...I can reliably run almost evrything in the airplane...i.e one FI electric fuel pump, GNS430 and an audio panel...The battery volts will dip below 12v on a transmit but apart from that it is enough to drive home if don't use any lights. I would say the unit makes nearer 12A. Frank Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 8awg line to forrest of tabs
From: "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net>
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Bob My aircraft has a tandem seating configuration. I want to have the forrest of tabs toward the back of the aircraft, the location of all the electric stuff. I would rather run the #2 from the battery to the firewall pass through bolt with out breaking the line to attach to the forrest of tab bolt. Can I run a #8 from the negative post of the battery directly to the forrest of tabs and run the #2 to the firewall without a break in the line? Also what options are there to attach the #8 to the same lug as the #2? Thanks Jonsey Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=91234#91234 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 8awg line to forrest of tabs
> > >Bob > >My aircraft has a tandem seating configuration. I want to have the forrest >of tabs toward the back of the aircraft, the location of all the electric >stuff. I would rather run the #2 from the battery to the firewall pass >through bolt with out breaking the line to attach to the forrest of tab >bolt. Can I run a #8 from the negative post of the battery directly to the >forrest of tabs and run the #2 to the firewall without a break in the >line? Also what options are there to attach the #8 to the same lug as the #2? > >Thanks >Jonsey I'm having trouble visualizing your description. What kind of airplane are we talking about? Do I understand that you want separate locations for the firewall pass-thru bolt and the forest-of-tabs? Hmmmm . . . I think I'm getting it. Is this a metal airplane with a rear mounted battery, midships ground block and a ground stud on the firewall? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: push to talk switch
> >Hi, > I am normally on the Kolb list and one of the guys there suggested > that I could find the answer to one of my problems here. I have a grip on > my stick that has five buttons, one of which is supposed to be a push to > talk button. However it only has two connections on it. The other buttons > control my EIS. I had thought that a I-Com push to talk switch was merely > a momentary switch. Correct. ALL PTT buttons are normally open, momentary


January 22, 2007 - January 29, 2007

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-go