AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ig

November 09, 2008 - December 05, 2008



      >
      > Am I missing something?
      >
      >   
      
      Not really. 
      
      The device needs a certain amount of current.  This sets the lower limit 
      of what size fuse you can use.  You can use a smaller fuse, but it's not 
      much fun swapping blown fuses.
      
      The wire can only carry a certain amount of current, determined by its 
      diameter and length.  This sets the upper size of fuse that you can 
      safely use.  You can use a larger fuse, but then you're really making 
      your wire the fuse.
      
      Between those limits is the headroom you have for making fuse rating 
      choices. 
      
      Choose to the low side if the device has a stable current draw, and you 
      think a blown fuse might actually do something to save the device.  
      Motors and lamps have high inrush currents, so aren't stable loads.  A 
      fuse might do something to save a stalled motor, but it isn't going to 
      do anything to save a lamp.
      
      Choose to the high side for loads with high momentary currents, and 
      loads that you willing to let sacrifice themselves for your safety or 
      comfort.
      
      -- 
      
      http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
Date: Nov 09, 2008
Bill I don't see your attachments? Thanks henry ----- Original Message ----- From: <Flagstone(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:52 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling > > Bill: > > Would you mind posting details of how you made your labels. > > Thanks > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:59 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling > > > > Henry, > > > > Attached are a few examples from my project. > > > > Bill > > RV-7 N151WP > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry > > Trzeciakowski > > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling > > > > Gentlemen: > > > > I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really > > didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've > > researched > > thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what > > the > > "Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white). > > > > I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards > > BLACK > > Lettering...it stands out better. > > > > I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions. > > > > > > > > Henry > > Pittsburgh, Pa. > > RV-9A - wiring started > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution
Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LINDA WALKER" <l.p(at)talk21.com>
Subject: Z-13 and SD-8
Date: Nov 10, 2008
Bob. > If the rectifier/regulator were inadequately heat-sinked, it could have caused internal damage at some point in the flight.That's about the only part of the SD-8 system that's vulnerable. My system uses the stainless steel firewall as a heat sink... is that sufficient? Do I need conductive paste(?) between it and the firewall? Any other suggestions? > Check with a voltmeter that you have AC voltage coming in while the engine is running and that the disconnect relay is closing. So far have only checked the disconnect relay is working ok, it is, and the DC output at the relay. This varied from 12.9 to 12.3 volts depending on load. Are these the figures you'd expect? I can't seem to find what the SD-8s dc output should be on any website pages! I'd have hoped/thought it would be similar to the main alternators approx 14.7v, is this correct? Would my results indicate a regulator fault, or should I still check the ac output? Any help much appreciated. Kind regards Patrick C Elliott, Reigate, Surrey, England. G-LGEZ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Vx Aviation Announces Free Shipping
Date: Nov 10, 2008
The following announcement should be of interest to the Aeroelectric list. Some of the products mentioned were inspired by Bob's early work on aircraft audio systems. Thanks, Vern Little ================== Vx Aviation Now Includes Free Shipping on Mx Products Best Selling Audio Mixer, Music Adapter, Music/Cell Phone Adapter and Tone Annunciator all ship for free. VANCOUVER, BC---November 10, 2008---Vx Aviation announced an immediate reduction in effective sales price by including free airmail shipping to the USA, Canada and the UK on its best-selling MxT Product Family devices. This saves between 9% and 23% of the total cost, depending on the product. The Mx family consists of several innovated audio products for non-certified aircraft systems, including: The AMX-2A 10-Channel Audio Mixer Amplifier (Miniature Audio Panel); The ASX-2A Stereo Headphone Music Amplifier; The ASX-2B Stereo Music and Cellphone Adapter; and The AL-1A Tone Annunciator. All devices in the MX family are extremely compact. Taking advantage of advanced microelectronics, the devices are packaged in D-subminiature connector shells and typically weigh only one ounce (30 grams). This keeps space and weight to a minimum and greatly simplifies installation. All of the devices provide the exclusive GroundTrakT bonding system for the easy connection of shielded wiring and the resulting reduction in electrical noise interference. By eliminating the requirement for externally daisy-chaining electrical shields, GroundTrak increases the quality and reliability of the connections and allows for easy future upgrades and changes. For more information, contact Vx Aviation at www.vx-aviation.com . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris Johnston <cj(at)popstudios.com>
Subject: crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing?
Date: Nov 10, 2008
Hey all - I'm sure the Connection mentions something about this, but I don't have it in front of me (i should know better than to leave it at home!) and as I was getting ready to order some shrink tubing, I ran across these crimp connectors with shrink tubing already on them. They're here: http://cableorganizer.com/heat-shrink/heat-shrink- connectors.html What's the deal with these? Are they awesome? If not, why not? Also, is there a recommended material type for shrink tubing? Sorry, I feel like I could be looking these things up in the Connection, but as I said, I'm sitting here daydreaming instead of working. :) any help would be appreciated! thanks cj ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing?
> >Hey all - > >I'm sure the Connection mentions something about this, but I don't >have it in front of me (i should know better than to leave it at >home!) and as I was getting ready to order some shrink tubing, I ran >across these crimp connectors with shrink tubing already on them. >They're >here: http://cableorganizer.com/heat-shrink/heat-shrink-connectors.html > >What's the deal with these? Are they awesome? If not, why not? >Also, is there a recommended material type for shrink tubing? Sorry, >I feel like I could be looking these things up in the Connection, but >as I said, I'm sitting here daydreaming instead of working. :) > >any help would be appreciated! You won't find them in the book . . . for several reasons. These are but one example of many that are offered in the marketplace and I have no personal experience with them or knowledge about them. I've tried similar products from various sources over the years and discarded all of them. They tended to be bulkier and/or less secure in the wire grip than the PIDG butt splices I stock and use most. These are a bit different so I'll get some, see what they look like installed and how well they work. Two packages of 50 pcs + shipping comes to $37 so they're 37-cents each at this quanity. They tend to be expensive on a joint-for-joint basis compared to simply adding heat shrink to less expensive or more compact techniques. I can't tell you that these particular products are bad or to be avoided. But you'll need very few of them to assemble your airplane. In terms of performance, they'll work no "better" than the process described here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html I'll give them a try and report back. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Z-13 and SD-8
>Bob. > > If the rectifier/regulator were inadequately heat-sinked, it could > have caused internal damage at some point in the flight.That's about the > only part of the SD-8 system that's vulnerable. >My system uses the stainless steel firewall as a heat sink... is that >sufficient? Do I need conductive paste(?) between it and the firewall? Any >other suggestions? > > > Check with a voltmeter that you have AC voltage coming in while the > engine is running and that the disconnect relay is closing. > >So far have only checked the disconnect relay is working ok, it is, and >the DC output at the relay. This varied from 12.9 to 12.3 volts depending >on load. Are these the figures you'd expect? >I can't seem to find what the SD-8s dc output should be on any website >pages! I'd have hoped/thought it would be similar to the main alternators >approx 14.7v, is this correct? > >Would my results indicate a regulator fault, or should I still check the >ac output? That's where you need to begin. If there's no power input to the rectifier/regulator, then there can be no output. Yes, the output voltage should be on the order of 14.2 to 14.8 volts. The engine RPM will have to be much higher than ground idle before the alternator comes on line. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Mechanical noise cancellation experiment
>Bob, I've been thinking of ways to overcome the noise issues we >encountered while flying the trike this summer and came to the conclusion >that some sort of mechanical cover might help. I have searched the >housewares aisle at various box stores and wandered Ace Aircraft Supply >looking for inspiration. The other night I had an Aha! moment. The picture >shows the result. I held the terminal boots in my closed hand to warm them >up before I tried to slide them over the headset mic and the boom joint. I >used a bamboo skewer with a rounded end to gently pry and stretch the >opening when it wanted to catch on the screw head at the swivel. After >they were on I cut some thin porous foam to make a muff over the mic >element and pushed it in the boot and around the mic with the skewer. >This afternoon Lou and I went out in the back yard and did a test to see >how well the idea worked. The wind was blowing at almost flight speed for >the trike and the results were very good. It took very little squelch to >knock down what little noise came through and the wind did not activate >the mic at all. I don't know how well it will work with the ambient noise >in the trike with the engine behind us, but the first pass test seems >promising. Cool idea. Let me know how it works out in practice! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Subject: Re: crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing?
Date: Nov 10, 2008
Bob, When I first saw this "comic book" I thought it looked like a lot of trouble. As with everything you suggest I tried it anyway and it was a lot of trouble-the first couple of times!! After that it became my joint of choice. (The rest of you who grew up in the 60s can stop laughing now!) I liked it so much I replaced most of the other splices in my Long-EZ while I was installing Dynon units. Sam Chambers Long-EZ N775AM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing? > > >> >> >>Hey all - >> >>I'm sure the Connection mentions something about this, but I don't >>have it in front of me (i should know better than to leave it at >>home!) and as I was getting ready to order some shrink tubing, I ran >>across these crimp connectors with shrink tubing already on them. >>They're here: >>http://cableorganizer.com/heat-shrink/heat-shrink-connectors.html >> >>What's the deal with these? Are they awesome? If not, why not? >>Also, is there a recommended material type for shrink tubing? Sorry, >>I feel like I could be looking these things up in the Connection, but >>as I said, I'm sitting here daydreaming instead of working. :) >> >>any help would be appreciated! > > You won't find them in the book . . . for several reasons. > These are but one example of many that are offered in > the marketplace and I have no personal experience with > them or knowledge about them. I've tried similar products > from various sources over the years and discarded all of > them. They tended to be bulkier and/or less secure in the > wire grip than the PIDG butt splices I stock and use most. > These are a bit different so I'll get some, see what > they look like installed and how well they work. Two > packages of 50 pcs + shipping comes to $37 so they're > 37-cents each at this quanity. > > They tend to be expensive on a joint-for-joint basis > compared to simply adding heat shrink to less expensive > or more compact techniques. I can't tell you that these > particular products are bad or to be avoided. But you'll > need very few of them to assemble your airplane. In > terms of performance, they'll work no "better" than > the process described here: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html > > I'll give them a try and report back. > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing?
><schamber@glasgow-ky.com> > >Bob, > >When I first saw this "comic book" I thought it looked like a lot of >trouble. As with everything you suggest I tried it anyway and it was a >lot of trouble-the first couple of times!! After that it became my joint >of choice. (The rest of you who grew up in the 60s can stop laughing >now!) I liked it so much I replaced most of the other splices in my >Long-EZ while I was installing Dynon units. > >Sam Chambers >Long-EZ N775AM It does have a "process" to master. That's why I liked to demonstrate it in class at the seminars. If folks see how long it takes for someone to do it for the 100th time, they're more encouraged to learn it for themselves . . . and then pleased to find that their 5th attempt went pretty well. A lot of 'conveniences' have emerged since we first learned to solder (My first personal soldering iron was a fat plumber's copper heated on the kitchen stove). But I still have about as many soldering tools as I have crimp tools. I use copper-clad fiberglas to build quick-n-dirty enclosures to custom dimensions by running a bead of solder down the inside corners of the sheared box sides. Here's a box I built for a quick-n-dirty data acquisition system I flew several times on the Beechjet. Except for the lid rails being pop riveted on, the rest of it is held together with solder. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Data_Acquisition/Weeder_Module_DAS_2.jpg The popular rationale for not using solder is mostly wrong . . . but it does take a different set of tools and mind set. I once fielded a comment in class about hazards of burning one's fingers . . . but had to remind the gentleman that getting a hunk of meat mashed in the jaws of a ratchet handled crimp tool was similarly distasteful! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: crimp connectors with built-in shrink tubing?
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2008
Hi Bob, Those are pretty slick, smooth corners on that weeder box! How any hours of sanding and filling the glass? (just kidding, I see the solder) -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=213580#213580 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551-0347 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Solder as a structural material
> >Hi Bob, > >Those are pretty slick, smooth corners on that weeder box! >How any hours of sanding and filling the glass? > >(just kidding, I see the solder) That's a really handy technique for either crafting an enclosure that you need in a hurry . . . or some odd sized enclosure that is not available as a catalog item. About 30 years ago I wanted to build two transformers for h.v. power supplies that needed to look like they came from a factory. Our wire winding folks gave me a core with a rat's nest of wires hanging off it. I built a 5 sided potting form from .032 copper clad and solder, brought the wire leads to turret terminals out the top, built a fixture to hold threaded spacers in position at the bottom opening while the potting compound set up. After a few shots of paint, the end product came out just like the boss ordered. We had an ECB shop so the copper clad was on hand in a variety of thicknesses. I sill keep sheets of it around in spite of the fact that I'll never make another ECB myself! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Choosing Z-Diagram base
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual electronic ignition and one alternator. I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition would best be served by two batteries. Thanks, Glenn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bradley Webb" <bmwebb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Choosing Z-Diagram base
Date: Nov 12, 2008
Good evening John, I will try to contribute something back to the list, as it has given me so much in the last months of my build. First question: has the engine become electrically dependent based on the electronic ignition? Second question: Do you physically have room to mount 2 batteries of decent capacity in your airframe? Will your CG support such an install? Third question: What are your general, overall goals for the electrics? I think we all come to similar conclusions here, but... What kind of loads are you expecting in your airplane? Maybe catalog a list of the installed equipment. This won't necessarily change your diagram, but it will determine the size of battery that a) will fit in the frame, and b) is available in the market. I studied Z-19RB quite a bit, and ended up not using it for various reasons. That does not nullify it's validity in any way; it just didn't work for me. I designed a simple system that provides for an acceptable safety margin, with known risks, AND a plan for that inevitable failure. This, in and of itself, was the golden nugget that AEC provided. It's made me think! Don't forget, Bob's diagrams are only examples of what can be done. You can mix and match as your needs are met. I did just that. I'm a fan of simplicity, but others like their gadgets. Each approach has its virtues, so you need to design around what you're comfortable with. Think about failure modes, and how you'll deal with them when there's no more altitude, airspeed, or ideas left. To be continued... Bradley -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:07 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Choosing Z-Diagram base I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual electronic ignition and one alternator. I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition would best be served by two batteries. Thanks, Glenn ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Squeal PTT
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
I have a Flightcom 403 intercom and an Apollo 40 transceiver in my 2 place plane. Until yesterday, I hadn't installed the co-pilot ptt and the radio and intercom has worked fine. Yesterday I hooked up the co-pilot ptt and now when I try to transmit (as pilot) and press the ptt I get a high pitch squeal in the headsets. When the co-pilot transmits, that squeal is not present. Intercom and radio reception are fine unless I press the pilot ptt. Is there something obvious that I've done wrong? Where would I start to try to trace the problem? Thank you. Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject:
David W Kingrey 2154 S Milstead St Wichita, KS 67209-3605 Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Choosing Z-Diagram base
> >I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual >electronic ignition and one alternator. > >I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. > >Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good >solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition >would best be served by two batteries. . . . that statement is pretty old . . . when folks were still installing a lot of vacuum pumps. Do you plan a vacuum system or all electric? If all electric, have you done a load analysis to see how much power you need for comfortable completion of flight with the main alternator out? You mentioned Z-12 but consider also, Z-13/8. This is an exceedingly light and inexpensive way to make sure you have electrons to keep an engine running. I suspect you can trim an e-bus load down to 8A or less. Keep in mind too that you don't need to run both electronic ignitions all the time. During alternator-out operations, you can drop to one ignition with very little loss of performance which still holds a second system in reserve. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2008
From: Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Squeal PTT
Hi Allan, Would your headsets happen to be ANR. I had a similar issue with my old LightSpeed 25XL's, but conventional headsets worked fine. Paul ________________________________ From: Allan Aaron <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:27:09 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Squeal PTT I have a Flightcom 403 intercom and an Apollo 40 transceiver in my 2 place plane. Until yesterday, I hadn't installed the co-pilot ptt and the radio and intercom has worked fine. Yesterday I hooked up the co-pilot ptt and now when I try to transmit (as pilot) and press the ptt I get a high pitch squeal in the headsets. When the co-pilot transmits, that squeal is not present. Intercom and radio reception are fine unless I press the pilot ptt. Is there something obvious that I've done wrong? Where would I start to try to trace the problem? Thank you. Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Z19RB Fat wire protection, etc.
Date: Nov 12, 2008
Okay Bob, Airplane and configuration: RV7 w/Eggenfellner Subaru H6 up front. 2 PC625 batteries in the very back of fuselage wired per Z19RB. Fat wire (#4 CCA from Eric Jones) runs from battery contactors to a firewall "pass thru stud" (West Marine). Firewall side of the stud has 2 connectors: one to an ANL on the way to a 75A IR alternator (supplied with engine package); another to the starter solenoid mounted as part of geared starter. I think this is all in accordance with Z19RB architecture. My question concerns the cockpit side of this "pass through stud". Could you please reassure me that I am correct in planning a #6 wire from that same stud (as the fat wire is connected to) to the MAIN POWER DISTRIBUTION BUS (approximately 42 inches "as the wire goes") withOUT any fuse/breaker protection? Your picture: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/A36_Firewall_B.jpg (cert. plane of course) shows a bunch of ANL's to avionics, etc., but in the OBAM world I guess we do not need to imitate that kind of installation? And could you also point me to the reference in AEC that speaks to the lack of a need for ANL protection of the fat wire at the batteries? I think I have read that ANL's are not needed by the batteries but can not remember where I read that. Thanks for all you do, Bob. Allen Fulmer RV7 Wiring/Plumbing Eggenfellner Subaru E6Ti on firewall N808AF reserved Alexander City, AL 256-329-2001 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Squeal PTT
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
Yes - my pilot headset is a Lightspeed. I didn't try a passive one - but will do that on the weekend. Did you solve the problem or are you just using conventional headsets now? Allan ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul McAllister Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2008 2:22 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Squeal PTT Hi Allan, Would your headsets happen to be ANR. I had a similar issue with my old LightSpeed 25XL's, but conventional headsets worked fine. Paul ________________________________ From: Allan Aaron <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:27:09 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Squeal PTT I have a Flightcom 403 intercom and an Apollo 40 transceiver in my 2 place plane. Until yesterday, I hadn't installed the co-pilot ptt and the radio and intercom has worked fine. Yesterday I hooked up the co-pilot ptt and now when I try to transmit (as pilot) and press the ptt I get a high pitch squeal in the headsets. When the co-pilot transmits, that squeal is not present. Intercom and radio reception are fine unless I press the pilot ptt. Is there something obvious that I've done wrong? Where would I start to try to trace the problem? Thank you. Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Z19RB Fat wire protection, etc.
> >Okay Bob, > >Airplane and configuration: >RV7 w/Eggenfellner Subaru H6 up front. >2 PC625 batteries in the very back of fuselage wired per Z19RB. >Fat wire (#4 CCA from Eric Jones) runs from battery contactors to a firewall >"pass thru stud" (West Marine). Firewall side of the stud has 2 connectors: >one to an ANL on the way to a 75A IR alternator (supplied with engine >package); another to the starter solenoid mounted as part of geared starter. >I think this is all in accordance with Z19RB architecture. > >My question concerns the cockpit side of this "pass through stud". Could >you please reassure me that I am correct in planning a #6 wire from that >same stud (as the fat wire is connected to) to the MAIN POWER DISTRIBUTION >BUS (approximately 42 inches "as the wire goes") withOUT any fuse/breaker >protection? That's correct. >Your picture: >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/A36_Firewall_B.jpg >(cert. plane of course) shows a bunch of ANL's to avionics, etc., but in the >OBAM world I guess we do not need to imitate that kind of installation? I've never paid much attention to the fuse-patch on the A36. Just pulled up the wiring diagrams. That airplane has a variety of busses on the left cabin wall (c/b panel) pilots switch panel (switch breakers), copilots switch panel (miniature push-pull breakers), two alternators, etc. This is a mechanically busy architecture that I hope will never be implemented in an RV! The designers no doubt found it necessary to worry about failure modes grown out of complexity. >And could you also point me to the reference in AEC that speaks to the lack >of a need for ANL protection of the fat wire at the batteries? I think I >have read that ANL's are not needed by the batteries but can not remember >where I read that. It's a convention that has been with us for a long time. Fat-wire feeders in small aircraft have never benefited from circuit protection due to the nature of the exceedingly rare, soft faults these wires experience. By "soft fault" I'm referring to a condition that will NOT product the hundreds of amps in current flow necessary to open an ANL or similar device. I've seen soft faults that parted elevator control cables while never causing a light to flicker, no smoke or bad smells, yet the feeder in question was protected by a 40A breaker in a 28v aircraft! These tend to be very high, total energy events delivered in small packets over long periods of time. The FAA acknowledges this in the crafting of FAR 23.1357 which I quote . . . Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices. (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be installed in all electrical circuits other than-- (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission. (b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be used to protect any other circuit. (c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be designed so that-- (1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and (2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the circuit regardless of the position of the operating control. (d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight. (e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight-- (1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each rating, whichever is greater; and (2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot. For the purposes of this discussion, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) apply. I might point out also that our implementation of fuse-blocks in a failure tolerant system design also meets the spirit and intent of the rest of 23.1357 as well. If your system is failure tolerant, then there are no single systems "critical" to safe operations and termination of flight. If your fuse panels are not accessible to the crew, then no spares need be carried aboard the aircraft. >Thanks for all you do, Bob. You're most welcome sir. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Crimp terminals with built-in shrink
> > >> >>Hey all - >> >>I'm sure the Connection mentions something about this, but I don't >>have it in front of me (i should know better than to leave it at >>home!) and as I was getting ready to order some shrink tubing, I ran >>across these crimp connectors with shrink tubing already on them. >>They're >>here: http://cableorganizer.com/heat-shrink/heat-shrink-connectors.html >> >>What's the deal with these? Are they awesome? If not, why not? >>Also, is there a recommended material type for shrink tubing? Sorry, >>I feel like I could be looking these things up in the Connection, but >>as I said, I'm sitting here daydreaming instead of working. :) >> >>any help would be appreciated! > > You won't find them in the book . . . for several reasons. > These are but one example of many that are offered in > the marketplace and I have no personal experience with > them or knowledge about them. I've tried similar products > from various sources over the years and discarded all of > them. They tended to be bulkier and/or less secure in the > wire grip than the PIDG butt splices I stock and use most. > These are a bit different so I'll get some, see what > they look like installed and how well they work. Two > packages of 50 pcs + shipping comes to $37 so they're > 37-cents each at this quanity. > > They tend to be expensive on a joint-for-joint basis > compared to simply adding heat shrink to less expensive > or more compact techniques. I can't tell you that these > particular products are bad or to be avoided. But you'll > need very few of them to assemble your airplane. In > terms of performance, they'll work no "better" than > the process described here: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html > > I'll give them a try and report back. I received my order for splices cited above. The splices for 20 to 12AWG wires can be installed with our favorite el-cheeso crimp tool. http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=97420 The shrink tubing has good shrink ratio and does feature a dual-wall sealant that manages to come down sufficiently tight on the M22759 Tefzel (smaller diameter than most automotive wires). http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/Krimpa-Seal_Butt_Splice.jpg I was unable to deliver consistent crimps on the 22-24AWG splices with any tools I have. I note that the supplier does offer a tool tailored to the product . . . http://cableorganizer.com/heat-shrink-crimping-tool/ . . . but the price is disappointing. The finished splices have about the same bulk as the legacy PIDG window splices at about 2/3 price per splice. Assuming your tool of choice produces an adequate crimp, these devices perform as advertised. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Squeal PTT
Hi Allan, I called LightSpeed and the worked on them at no charge to address the problem. I can't say that it was completely fixed, but it improved them to the point of making them usable. In a weak moment at AirVenture I bought some Bose for my airplane and they work without any issues. I had buyers remorse for some time due to the cost of them, but they sure are nice. Cheers, Paul ________________________________ From: Allan Aaron <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:15:49 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Squeal PTT Yes - my pilot headset is a Lightspeed. I didn't try a passive one - but will do that on the weekend. Did you solve the problem or are you just using conventional headsets now? Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Static in radio reception
A friend of mine is flying a Citabria. It is quite new, but suffered in a crash. I was completely rebuilt/restored and is now again a beautiful airplane. It has one snag. Perhaps folks on the list have some ideas. The symptom is that sometimes radio reception is unreadable. Scratchy static overwhelms the voice audio. It is most obvious when within 5 miles of the control tower, since it is necessary to ask the controller to repeat multiple times. Other times, aircraft from over 100 miles away are heard on common frequencies, or the controller is clear, so sometimes the receive works very well. Transmit is believed okay. The tower never complains about transmissions, but this has never really been checked over greater distances than 10 miles. The radio is a new Garmin, which was swapped for a few days with an identical model, which exhibited the same symptoms. Consultation with the factory has yielded little. Mechanics have checked phyical connections and continuity, and cut the fabric under the antenna so the ground doesn't rely entirely on the screws. He has tried different headsets. The ground plane is a piece of aluminum about 6" wide and 15" long on the back of the aircraft where the ELT antenna is typically installed. There are about 8 wires, tied together and attached to the ground plane about 4" ahead of the antenna, and these wires wrap down around the fuselage to extend the ground plane. The ground plane is also electrically connected to the steel fuselage tubing. This is all per factory instructions. There are no adjacent antennas, and this antenna is at least 4 feet ahead of the tail. Reportedly, a VSWR test at the antenna gave a poor result, but I was not involved in the test and I am not sure about the reliability of the equipment or the person doing the test. The antenna is a new Comant, with COM and GPS. Most of the things I can think of being wrong would likely affect transmit more than receive and not produce static. I am currently thinking that perhaps the radio, antenna etc. are actually fine, but are intermittently being interfered with. I have suggested to the owner that when the problem occurs, he try powering off the new PS Eng audio/intercom, which then gives him a direct connection to the radio. I also suggested he power off the transponder. If that fails to help, I have loaned him a new antenna (I will be a while building yet) to try. If that doesn't help ... ??? Does anyone have any other ideas that should be looked into ? Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2008
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Choosing Z-Diagram base
We found a way to not have any electrons for keeping the engine alive. Easy enough not to have our problem, but very critical that you do it right. The fat wire from the battery to the contactor shorted out on a brake line and filled the cabin with smoke. Shutting off the master didn't help since it was downstream of the short. Dragged the battery down to 5 volts. We do have one magneto and that's what kept it running long enough to get on the ground. Very, very important that this wire not be allowed to short, especially if both of your ignitions are on it. Pax, Ed Holyoke Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> >> I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual >> electronic ignition and one alternator. >> >> I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. >> >> Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good >> solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition >> would best be served by two batteries. > > . . . that statement is pretty old . . . when folks > were still installing a lot of vacuum pumps. Do you > plan a vacuum system or all electric? > > If all electric, have you done a load analysis to > see how much power you need for comfortable completion > of flight with the main alternator out? You mentioned > Z-12 but consider also, Z-13/8. This is an exceedingly > light and inexpensive way to make sure you have electrons > to keep an engine running. I suspect you can trim an > e-bus load down to 8A or less. Keep in mind too that > you don't need to run both electronic ignitions all > the time. During alternator-out operations, you can > drop to one ignition with very little loss of performance > which still holds a second system in reserve. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Prestolite vs B&C
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%...
As of the 13th, the Fund Raiser is currently about 30% behind last year in terms of the number of Contributions. Yet, oddly the number of messages posted per day is up by 10 to 20% on the average. It costs real money to run these Lists and they are supported 100% though your Contributions during the Fund Raiser. Won't you please take a minute right now to make your Contribution to keep these Lists up and running? Contribution Page: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JAMES SMITH <jandl55(at)msn.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%...
Date: Nov 14, 2008
Matt: I tried several times last year to donate=2C but could not make it work and gave up. I'll try again and let you know how it works -- either way. Jim Smith> Date: Fri=2C 14 Nov 2008 00:04:45 -0800> To: aeroelectric-list@m atronics.com> From: dralle(at)matronics.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... > > --> AeroElectric-List message p osted by: Matt Dralle > > As of the 13th=2C the Fund Raiser is currently about 30% behind last year in terms of the number of Co ntributions. Yet=2C oddly the number of messages posted per day is up by 10 to 20% on the average. It costs real money to run these Lists and they are supported 100% though your Contributions during the Fund Raiser. Won't you please take a minute right now to make your Contribution to keep these Lis ts up and running? > > Contribution Page: > > http://www.matronics.com/cont ribution > > Thank you for your support! > > Matt Dralle > Email List Admin =====================> > > _________________________________________________________________ Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_ 112008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing
> >We found a way to not have any electrons for keeping the engine alive. >Easy enough not to have our problem, but very critical that you do it >right. The fat wire from the battery to the contactor shorted out on a >brake line and filled the cabin with smoke. Shutting off the master didn't >help since it was downstream of the short. When the industry accepted the notion that fat wire protection wasn't useful or necessary in TC aircraft, they were also cognizant of a need for due-diligence in the installation of said wires . . . separation and support being chief amongst concerns. The scenario cited above could also have caused a landing accident. If the short had been a soft fault, it might have slowly eroded a hole in a brake line causing loss of brakes. Here's an excerpt from a thread that ran though the List 4 years ago: ----- IMHO, the only advantage of zip-ties is reduced time for installation. I don't recommend using them in the engine compartment, they get brittle with time and can let loose without warning. This is mostly a materials issue. Like bolts, you can purchase cable ties in a wide variety of materials and qualities . . . and like bolts, you cannot deduce the any secrets of fabrication by simply looking at it. Not all plastics are equal but most all plastics are relatively cheap . . . so it's not difficult to purchase cable ties fabricated from known materials selected for their suitability to the task. If one wishes to acquire the Cadillac of cable ties made from the same stuff as the wire insulation of choice, you can purchase Tefzel ties from lots of places not the least of which is our friends a Steinair. See: http://www.steinair.com/cableties.htm Any supplier worth his salt will KNOW where his inventory comes from, what it's made of and MAY be able to advise for or against the use of any particular product in certain applications. When you buy that big jar of 1000 cable ties at Harbor Freight for $9.95, what you see is what you get and you cannot deduce much from simply seeing. For ties that you do not wish to look and or touch for a very long time, it's worth your time and effort to purchase ties by name brand manufacturers where the material and it's features are cited. Looking for UV, ozone, and/or hydrocarbon resistant products. These are NOT the generic nylon cable wraps offered by the vast majority of consumer oriented suppliers including Walmart and Harbor Freight. Tensioning zip-ties is also problematic. If you overtension, they WILL eat the insulation with enough vibration/time. There are at least two underlying issues here. Insulation is hard to "eat" . . . but certain insulations like Teflon are soft enough to flow under continuous pressure exceeding its compression strength combined with heating cycles. I have also seen wire-ties eat into engine mounts and aluminum when installed improperly There have been suggestions in this thread concerning abrasion of metal tubes like engine mounts due to the improper use of cable ties. I'll suggest that ANY form of wire attachment can become a problem for metals IF the attachment is loose enough to allow motion -AND- you add dust and grit to the space between the metal surface and whatever is riding against it. I had a power steering hose simply lay against a brake line in my '57 Chevy for a bunch of years. I lost brakes when a hole blew out in a section of the brake line thinned by continuous motion of a rubber hose lubricated with gritty grease. This didn't even involve a wire tie, "Adel" clamp or similar technology. These kinds of things CAN and DO happen and it has nothing to do with the type of retention technology and a LOT to do with craftsmanship. If you undertension, wire-ties they don't hold well. They have a tendency to slightly loosen after initial installation. To cure the above problems, you might consider a wire tie install tool. There are cable tie installation tools that feature adjustable and repeatable tensioning and cutoff adjustments. Many factories use them (including Raytheon Aircraft) and they've proven useful. They're not cheap. I've never bothered to own one. The range of acceptable tensions for wire ties is large and it's not hard to apply them by hand in a way that offers long service life. Wire-ties also have an affinity for human skin. You'll find this out down the road when you reach up behind your panel to do something and shortly thereafter donate a small amount of blood to the nylon god. This is not so much an issue with the tie but how the tail is cut off. Avoid using the classic diagonal wire cutter (dikes) . . . they part the material by driving two symmetrical wedges together and the finished cut protrudes from the tie buckle and is sharp. Use flush cutters like: http://www.action-electronics.com/cutters.htm http://www.home-jewelry-business-success-tips.com/wire-cutter.html http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Cutters/Flush-Cutters.jpg . . . and trim the tail off squarely and flush with the buckle and you'll not have to bleed on the project at any time in the future. For shear beauty (and no cuts on your hands) nothing can beat tying your wires together the old fashioned way. See the aeroelectric site for the technique. Yes, it's time consuming! and requires a certain amount of learned skill. Probably no more effort than required to learn the use of a cable-tie installation tool. However, there's nothing 'magic' about the techniques suggested in: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html the choice of MATERIALS is still just as critical. You wouldn't want to tie up your wire bundles with kite string. Adels work great. They also weigh more and are time consuming to install. I'd use them to use larger wiring harnesses and for all wiring attachment in the engine compartment unless no other option exists. We're talking about two related but different tasks. The cable tie is used in many places to simply hold the bundle of wires together. The MS21919 (Adel) series clamps . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/adel.html . . . are certainly adequate to many applications. This doesn't mean that other materials and technologies are not recommended. Proper use of any technology is dependent upon understanding it's limitations. On occasion, a bundle of wires needs to be support on the airframe either for the purpose of simply holding the bundle in place -or- to prevent the bundle from coming into adverse contact with parts of the airplane. Like all things on an aircraft, each situation will require a balance of needs and limitations... Exactly. The situation is further improved with a thoughtful analysis of cause and effect for both materials selection and techniques applied to their use. --------------- We who make a living swinging hammers and CAD keyboards on airplanes experience the "red flag event" when any two objects come into contact with each other in an uncontrolled manner be it fluid lines, wires, control cables, etc. The drill is to (1) fasten them together with appropriate retention and buffering as illustrated in the cable lacing article cited above or (2) separate them. >Dragged the battery down to 5 volts. I presume this was a voltage measured on the ground after the smoke cleared. It's clearly indicative of a fault that drained the battery well past the "used up" voltage level of 10 volts. It would be interesting to have the carcasses of shorted wire and brake line to inspect . . . IMPORTANT . . . some readers of this thread may be thinking that a fuse would have prevented this. NO. ANL's and their cousins would probably have carried the current necessary to feed this fault and discharge this battery. It's a much more practical mitigation of risk to concentrate on installation technique than to add protection for lack of craftsmanship. >We do have one magneto and that's what kept it running long enough to get >on the ground. Very, very important that this wire not be allowed to short, Yup! > especially if both of your ignitions are on it. Please don't run both electrically dependent ignitions from the same power source. Better yet, make at least one of the ignition systems a self-powered Emag. These are USEFUL events to know about, contemplate, and analyze for discovery of lessons-learned (or reminders of lessons forgotten). These are the things that grey-beards in the factories do as sort of second-nature and it's become one of the most important services I can offer my customers. The problem is that fewer and fewer of my contemporaries get their hands dirty working on real hardware . . . and fewer and fewer of our production line folks are trained for or expected to think for themselves nor are they given such information to contemplate. It's just not the ISO9000 way. Bottom line is that while our TC airframes grow in parts count and operational complexity, the OBAM aircraft community is becoming the true expert in practical, low-risk aircraft design, fabrication and operation. Recall that several years ago we here on the AeroElectric-List mounted an effort to help defend Matronics from a silly, knee-jerk lawsuit. If we can put on the white hats and come rushing over the hill to rescue a good thing under attack, then we must certainly nurture it too. It may be heartwarming to offer somebody a Thanksgiving dinner with all the trimmings . . . but there are 364 OTHER days in the year too. If I were to send 1800 List members a bill for their share of my services for the year at my current rates, it would be a hell of a lot more than $10 apiece. If Matt finds it necessary to give up this endeavor for lack of support of the hardware, then we suffer loss of a critical communication tool. Be assured that I cannot spend the $time$ necessary to support the same mission one-on-one through my telephone or email! I've donated over $1000 in product to this cause, you folks can do a lot more for a lot less if you all participate. Do it now. Sent your $10 or more right now. The money we're talking about won't buy you a lunch at Bennigan's. This is MORE IMPORTANT than care and feeding of the occasional predatory lawyer. Go to . . . http://matronics.com/contribution Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%...
>Matt: > >I tried several times last year to donate, but could not make it work and >gave up. I'll try again and let you know how it works -- either way. Just checked it. It flagged a typo in my email address and made me go back and fix it. After that, it worked as advertised. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Prestolite vs B&C
>After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down I'm >running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only solution I >can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the original >Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more than the >B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any major >disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan They're certainly a known quantity. Tho shalt not fly a tail-heavy airplane lest ye discover that you have but mere seconds to regret it. A guy has to do what a guy has to do. What airplane are you working with and what combination of installation decisions painted you into this corner? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Prestolite vs B&C
Date: Nov 14, 2008
A guy called Mark Landoll (405-392-3847 from Sport Aviation) used to sell a harmonic dampener that bolted to the crankshaft and weighed 15+lb. It might help with the cg issues and also make the engine run more smoothly? I believe a B&C starter is around 9lb lighter than a Prestolite, but the cg of a Prestolite is a couple of inches further aft. Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allan Aaron Sent: 14 November 2008 07:18 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prestolite vs B&C After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Prestolite vs B&C
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
Bob, it's a Mustang II. The CG is within the allowable range as long as I manage my fuel properly and don't carry any meaningful baggage. However, I suspect the rear CG is making my handling on landing more difficult. As for the combination of decisions .. I bought the plane as a part completed project with wet wings (rather than a single forward mounted fuel tank). I've relocated the battery to the firewall (using an odyssey PC625 - I might be able to add a second battery there or maybe a heavier one but really like the odyssey). I have a CS prop (a fair bit more weight forward). The only thing I regret is making a slick and very lightweight carbon fibre cowling whereas I could have made a much cheaper and heavier fibreglass cowl:) Allan They're certainly a known quantity. Tho shalt not fly a tail-heavy airplane lest ye discover that you have but mere seconds to regret it. A guy has to do what a guy has to do. What airplane are you working with and what combination of installation decisions painted you into this corner? Bob . . . >After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down >I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only >solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing >the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs >more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any >major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. >Allan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Prestolite vs B&C
Date: Nov 14, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Prestolite vs B&C
Pretty good idea, and he also sells a simple steel ring of about the same weight that's a lot less expensive than the damper (had one on my 1st RV-4). BTW, if you need a Prestolite, I think I've got one on the shelf. Email me off list & I'll try to come up with a price. Charlie Peter Pengilly wrote: > > A guy called Mark Landoll (405-392-3847 from Sport Aviation) used to > sell a harmonic dampener that bolted to the crankshaft and weighed > 15+lb. It might help with the cg issues and also make the engine run > more smoothly? I believe a B&C starter is around 9lb lighter than a > Prestolite, but the cg of a Prestolite is a couple of inches further aft. > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *Allan Aaron > *Sent:* 14 November 2008 07:18 > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Prestolite vs B&C > > > > After going to a lot of trouble to get the weight of my Mustang down > I'm running out of options to get my CG further forward. The only > solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing > the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs > more than the B&C. Assuming it will fit in my cowling, are there any > major disadvantages (advantages?) in using the Prestolite. Thanks. Allan > > * * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 14, 2008
Subject: Re: Prestolite vs B&C
In a message dated 11/14/2008 1:21:17 A.M. Central Standard Time, aaaron(at)tvp.com.au writes: The only solution I can think of is taking off my B&C starter and re-installing the original Prestolite starter which I guess weighs about 10-15lbs more than the B&C. >>> I replaced a Delco starter (similar to Prestolite if not the same thing) with a Sky-tec which really screwed up the W&B on my O-320/wood prop RV-6A exactly as you describe. After hearing many recommendations on the RV-list and elsewhere over the years, I added a Landoll Ring (a little over $100) to my ring gear to balance things back out, but will need to get everything dynamically balanced before I know the full effects of the Ring. Copied from the Yeller Pages: MARK LANDOLL 405-392-3847 405-685-0239 _landollskydoll2001(at)yahoo.com_ (mailto:%20landollskydoll2001(at)yahoo.com) STARTERS, MASS/DAMPING RINGS, ALTERNATORS Mark Phillips Columbia, TN _http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_ (http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Prestolite vs B&C
Date: Nov 14, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2008
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing Bob, I didn't build the plane, but I did maintain it for more than 3 years (and annual condition inspections) without noticing the danger posed by the proximity of the two. I will never overlook this particular issue again. The builder used a stainless braided line for the brake which crossed near the battery cable at 90 degrees. The last time I replaced the battery, apparently I failed to insure separation and it rubbed through causing the short. The current was conducted along the brake line to the gear leg mount where it was also rubbing, another oversight on my part. The 5606 was all boiled off and filled the cabin with smoke. My nephew declared emergency and shut off the master and E-busses while holding the canopy part open, so he could breathe, with one hand and flying with the other. He found an airport and landed and yes, the brake was not functional. The voltage was measured after the fact, as you surmised, Bob. When I got there 90 minutes later, the brake line was still in contact with the cable. The cable had a total of 3 broken strands and some localized discoloration. There was about a half a square inch of insulation missing. It was returned to service with a few layers of heat shrink over the scar. The braided line was limp and I made a replacement in the field out of the aluminum tubing that Van's supplies. There is now very positive separation between it and the battery cable, believe me. I have replaced the fluid with the high temp variant, MIL- PRF-83282. I also replaced the O-rings in the calipers with Viton for higher temperature capacity. I just wanted to share this story in the hope that people designing, installing or maintaining systems take a hard look at the way the battery cable to the contactor is protected from harm. This is pretty much the only place in the plane where an insulation failure cannot be mitigated by turning off a switch or automatically by circuit protection. The other issue, as has been mentioned, is that if 2 electronic ignitions are hooked to 1 battery, bad stuff you hadn't accounted for could take them both down at once. I don't particularly like magnetos and I think that, barring a failure in the power provided to them, an electronic ignition is probably way more reliable. The thought of having an magneto, which will almost certainly crap out at some point, as a backup to a more reliable system offends my sensibilities. My next airplane will have 2 EIs on board, and 2 batteries also. One of them may wind up being little to save weight, but I don't want all my eggs in one basket. Pax, Ed Holyoke Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> >> >> We found a way to not have any electrons for keeping the engine >> alive. Easy enough not to have our problem, but very critical that >> you do it right. The fat wire from the battery to the contactor >> shorted out on a brake line and filled the cabin with smoke. Shutting >> off the master didn't help since it was downstream of the short. > > When the industry accepted the notion that fat wire > protection wasn't useful or necessary in TC aircraft, > they were also cognizant of a need for due-diligence in > the installation of said wires . . . separation and > support being chief amongst concerns. > > The scenario cited above could also have caused a > landing accident. If the short had been a soft fault, > it might have slowly eroded a hole in a brake line > causing loss of brakes. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: test email
Date: Nov 15, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Squeal PTT
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
Paul, you were right. It was my lightspeed Twenty3G headset that was the problem. My 20XLc work fine as do the passive set I used. I=92ll email lightspeed and see if they will fix them. Thanks for the tip! Allan On Behalf Of Paul McAllister Hi Allan, I called Light Speed and the worked on them at no charge to address the problem. I can't say that it was completely fixed, but it improved them to the point of making them usable. Cheers, Paul Checked by AVG. 13/11/2008 6:01 PM Checked by AVG. 14/11/2008 7:32 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2008
Subject: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Ed, Consider having a E-Mag air "P-Mag" as at least one of the ignition sources. That requires no outside source of power after starting. I have two of them on my Rv. They are great. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2QH0Bxn54hc1Q3cSHOASOOlkzcB7rdFTA0otj784iAHvBCB/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing Jim, How many flight hours do you have on these P-Mags? Thanks. Henador Titzoff ----- Original Message ---- From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:18:18 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing Ed, Consider having a E-Mag air "P-Mag" as at least one of the ignition sources. That requires no outside source of power after starting. I have two of them on my Rv. They are great. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2005
From: "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: E-mag CATASTROPHIC FAILURES!
I have heard some stories of several Catastrophic failures with the E-Mag. Is anyone aware of what is happening with fixes? I personally would not buy one of these mags until they have been proven to be reliable. I understand that some of these units have been working great, but the failures worry me. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing > >Bob, > >I didn't build the plane, but I did maintain it for more than 3 years (and >annual condition inspections) without noticing the danger posed by the >proximity of the two. I will never overlook this particular issue again. Ahhh . . . the crystal clarity of experience and hindsight! > The builder used a stainless braided line for the brake which crossed > near the battery cable at 90 degrees. The last time I replaced the > battery, apparently I failed to insure separation and it rubbed through > causing the short. What kind of insulation was used on the battery cable? I ask because Tefzel (22759 and cousins) and welding cable are exceedingly resistant to touch-erosion. It takes some sharp-edged (read high pressure) forces which includes grit-laden contaminants on top of motion eat away at the insulation. You mentioned an overbraid on the brake line, if this was steel and finely pitched wires, then perhaps this was the source of high-pressure contact. >The current was conducted along the brake line to the gear leg mount where >it was also rubbing, another oversight on my part. Steel resistance is much higher than copper so it's axiomatic that the overbraid would warm up like heater wires in your toaster. The resulting heat energy would be conducted into the fluid line that was supposed to be PROTECTED by the braid . . . >The 5606 was all boiled off and filled the cabin with smoke. My nephew >declared emergency and shut off the master and E-busses while holding the >canopy part open, so he could breathe, with one hand and flying with the >other. He found an airport and landed and yes, the brake was not >functional. The voltage was measured after the fact, as you surmised, Bob. >When I got there 90 minutes later, the brake line was still in contact >with the cable. The cable had a total of 3 broken strands and some >localized discoloration. There was about a half a square inch of >insulation missing. It was returned to service with a few layers of heat >shrink over the scar. The relatively low damage level to the copper is striking. When it comes to an jousting match between Sir Copper and Sir Steel using electron- lances it's not an even match. I wouldn't be surprised that the fault current flowing was much less than the levels experienced during engine cranking . . . 100 amps is probably more than enough to produce the conditions cited. >The braided line was limp and I made a replacement in the field out of the >aluminum tubing that Van's supplies. There is now very positive separation >between it and the battery cable, believe me. I have replaced the fluid >with the high temp variant, MIL-PRF-83282. I also replaced the O-rings in >the calipers with Viton for higher temperature capacity. The biggest change to your airplane's configuration is the separation. Of course, upgrading fluid system components is not a bad thing to do . . . but when it comes to draining your battery through the overbraid on a non-metalic fluid line, the contents of the line and accessories would not have changed the outcome. >I just wanted to share this story in the hope that people designing, >installing or maintaining systems take a hard look at the way the battery >cable to the contactor is protected from harm. This is pretty much the >only place in the plane where an insulation failure cannot be mitigated by >turning off a switch or automatically by circuit protection. Thank you so much for doing this. Interestingly enough, this incident would not have been classed as an electrically initiated event. Similarly hazardous conditions could have presented had this been a control cable contacting a fuel line where the fuel line fails first or a control cable rubbing the battery cable where the control cable would fail first. These events grow out of failure to mechanically separate and secure potentially antagonistic pairings. I'm sure we're all pleased that this experience had a relatively benign outcome . . . and we hope your nephew is not having nightmares about it. It had to be an exceedingly tense moment. His willingness and ability to prevail in the face of such discomfort is laudable. >The other issue, as has been mentioned, is that if 2 electronic ignitions >are hooked to 1 battery, bad stuff you hadn't accounted for could take >them both down at once. I don't particularly like magnetos and I think >that, barring a failure in the power provided to them, an electronic >ignition is probably way more reliable. The thought of having an magneto, >which will almost certainly crap out at some point, as a backup to a more >reliable system offends my sensibilities. My next airplane will have 2 EIs >on board, and 2 batteries also. One of them may wind up being little to >save weight, but I don't want all my eggs in one basket. Sure. If the AeroElectric Connection philosophy of system architecture is reduced to its simplest terms, it is "failure tolerance". As the airplane is planned, parts procured, installed, tested, operated and maintained, the builder/owner/pilot needs to be constantly considering ways that the failure of any single component becomes more than a maintenance event. The happy pilot is one who never breaks a sweat in the air no matter how much time he sweats turning wrenches on the ground. Your willingness to share this experience goes directly to these deliberations . . . a thought process that is almost never matched by trying to dissect a systems issue in "Never Again" or "I Learned about Flying from That". Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Electronic ignition reliability
Thanks for the tip, Jim. I've been following them for some time. Sounds like they have most of their reliability problems solved, but only time will tell on that one. I'm happy that you and others are doing the beta testing. I hope that they prove, long term, to be the great ignitions that they look as if they should be. I try to keep an open mind. I've got almost 4 years and 350 hrs behind the Lightspeed and a thousand hours on the engine, so equipped. A lot of people I know have more time than that on them. So far, that's my choice. One thing I like about them is that the magnet position is fixed on the flywheel and the unit will always get a timing signal that has a direct relationship to the crankshaft position. I suppose that what it does with that info, re: advance, could go haywire, but I've never heard of one report to that effect in the 15 years they've been out there. Another thing I like is that they have an aggressive advance profile which helps with economy, but I've never had any issues with detonation, even though I lean early and often. Disclosure: I have performed some maintenance on the Lightspeed. At about 800 hrs, I replaced the coils, one of which didn't meet the resistance spec of the manufacturer. I replaced the spark plug wires, to be proactive. The timing, when checked at annual, has always been spot on. I replace the plugs at every annual, even though they don't look like they need it. The original Plasma I ignition (which this one is) had an issue with a power transformer running hot. I opened ours and it looked a little scorched, so I had it replaced by Klaus over at Lightspeed with the current version. I also enlarged the air hole and put a larger avionics fan on it and it runs much cooler now. How many hours do you have on yours, so far? Do you have the latest magnet retention upgrade? I, for one, would be pleased to hear longevity/service difficulty reports as time goes on. More info is better info. Pax, Ed Holyoke James H Nelson wrote: > > Ed, > Consider having a E-Mag air "P-Mag" as at least one of the > ignition sources. That requires no outside source of power after > starting. I have two of them on my Rv. They are great. > > > Jim > ____________________________________________________________ > Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2QH0Bxn54hc1Q3cSHOASOOlkzcB7rdFTA0otj784iAHvBCB/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2008
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing Embedded responses below: Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> >> >> Bob, >> >> I didn't build the plane, but I did maintain it for more than 3 years >> (and annual condition inspections) without noticing the danger posed >> by the proximity of the two. I will never overlook this particular >> issue again. > > > Ahhh . . . the crystal clarity of experience and hindsight! Yup! > >> The builder used a stainless braided line for the brake which >> crossed near the battery cable at 90 degrees. The last time I >> replaced the battery, apparently I failed to insure separation and it >> rubbed through causing the short. > > What kind of insulation was used on the battery > cable? I ask because Tefzel (22759 and cousins) > and welding cable are exceedingly resistant to > touch-erosion. It takes some sharp-edged (read high > pressure) forces which includes grit-laden contaminants > on top of motion eat away at the insulation. It was Tefzel. Those braided lines are _very_ abrasive. > > > You mentioned an overbraid on the brake line, > if this was steel and finely pitched wires, then > perhaps this was the source of high-pressure > contact. Yup. > > >> The current was conducted along the brake line to the gear leg mount >> where it was also rubbing, another oversight on my part. > > Steel resistance is much higher than copper so it's > axiomatic that the overbraid would warm up like heater > wires in your toaster. The resulting heat energy would > be conducted into the fluid line that was supposed > to be PROTECTED by the braid . . . > >> The 5606 was all boiled off and filled the cabin with smoke. My >> nephew declared emergency and shut off the master and E-busses while >> holding the canopy part open, so he could breathe, with one hand and >> flying with the other. He found an airport and landed and yes, the >> brake was not functional. The voltage was measured after the fact, as >> you surmised, Bob. >> When I got there 90 minutes later, the brake line was still in >> contact with the cable. The cable had a total of 3 broken strands and >> some localized discoloration. There was about a half a square inch of >> insulation missing. It was returned to service with a few layers of >> heat shrink over the scar. > > The relatively low damage level to the copper is > striking. When it comes to an jousting match > between Sir Copper and Sir Steel using electron- > lances it's not an even match. I wouldn't be surprised > that the fault current flowing was much less than > the levels experienced during engine cranking . . . > 100 amps is probably more than enough to produce the > conditions cited. > > >> The braided line was limp and I made a replacement in the field out >> of the aluminum tubing that Van's supplies. There is now very >> positive separation between it and the battery cable, believe me. I >> have replaced the fluid with the high temp variant, MIL-PRF-83282. I >> also replaced the O-rings in the calipers with Viton for higher >> temperature capacity. > > The biggest change to your airplane's configuration > is the separation. Of course, upgrading fluid > system components is not a bad thing to do . . . but > when it comes to draining your battery through the > overbraid on a non-metalic fluid line, the contents > of the line and accessories would not have changed > the outcome. You are correct. No brake fluid would have put up with this abuse without smoking. If the line had split open in the cockpit, the fluid could ignite making a horrible situation worse. High flash point fluid might have been better if that had happened. I replaced the brake fluid mostly because of concern for brake overheating and fires as reported on the RV-List. This was a good time to make the change. > >> I just wanted to share this story in the hope that people designing, >> installing or maintaining systems take a hard look at the way the >> battery cable to the contactor is protected from harm. This is pretty >> much the only place in the plane where an insulation failure cannot >> be mitigated by turning off a switch or automatically by circuit >> protection. > > Thank you so much for doing this. Interestingly enough, > this incident would not have been classed as an > electrically initiated event. Similarly hazardous > conditions could have presented had this been a > control cable contacting a fuel line where the > fuel line fails first or a control cable rubbing > the battery cable where the control cable would > fail first. > > These events grow out of failure to mechanically > separate and secure potentially antagonistic pairings. > I'm sure we're all pleased that this experience > had a relatively benign outcome . . . and we hope > your nephew is not having nightmares about it. > It had to be an exceedingly tense moment. His > willingness and ability to prevail in the face > of such discomfort is laudable. I have nothing but the greatest respect for how he handled the emergency. He got it done in exemplary manner. He survived. The airplane survived. I don't know how I would have been able to live with the knowledge that my oversight had caused his death. I'm very glad that to have had the opportunity to correct this situation and share it with others without loss of life so dear. The day after the incident, we drove back up there, where I fabbed the new brake line, bled the brake, and re-installed the battery cable and the recharged battery. When the plane was ready, Mark was sort of reluctant to fly it home. I mentioned that, "I'm not telling you what to do, but if it had been my flight, I would want to complete the mission by bringing the bird back home". He decided to go ahead with it and when I met him back at the hangar later, he thanked me for the nudge. He said that he felt a lot better about himself for having faced his fear. I don't recommend having emergencies as a way of gaining confidence, but having been through a carburetor related engine stoppage myself, and handling it, I can attest to the power of such an experience to educate. >> The other issue, as has been mentioned, is that if 2 electronic >> ignitions are hooked to 1 battery, bad stuff you hadn't accounted for >> could take them both down at once. I don't particularly like magnetos >> and I think that, barring a failure in the power provided to them, an >> electronic ignition is probably way more reliable. The thought of >> having an magneto, which will almost certainly crap out at some >> point, as a backup to a more reliable system offends my >> sensibilities. My next airplane will have 2 EIs on board, and 2 >> batteries also. One of them may wind up being little to save weight, >> but I don't want all my eggs in one basket. > > Sure. If the AeroElectric Connection philosophy > of system architecture is reduced to its simplest > terms, it is "failure tolerance". As the airplane > is planned, parts procured, installed, tested, > operated and maintained, the builder/owner/pilot > needs to be constantly considering ways that the > failure of any single component becomes more than > a maintenance event. The happy pilot is one who > never breaks a sweat in the air no matter how much > time he sweats turning wrenches on the ground. > > Your willingness to share this experience goes > directly to these deliberations . . . a thought > process that is almost never matched by trying to > dissect a systems issue in "Never Again" or > "I Learned about Flying from That". I'm ashamed that I didn't catch this before it became an emergency. It would be easier to keep this to myself, but I feel strongly that it is better to bare this in the hope that I can help save a life. Pax, Ed Holyoke > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for 19+ years worth of online archive data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, Wiki and PhotoShare. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport... List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Troy Maynor" <wingnut54(at)charter.net>
Subject: Tachometer Question
Date: Nov 16, 2008
Hi Folks, I have a Rotax 912S in a Europa I have been building. I have a Mitchell tach. installed and also an Audio Flight Avionics AV-10 digital electronic engine monitor. I want to monitor the rpm on both of these at the same time. Can anyone tell me what precautions I need to take in connecting these in parallel? I'm not very electronic savy, but I can understand some of the terms and parts one might use. Any thoughts? Troy Maynor N120EU Europa Monowheel Classic Left to finish: Seats, engine install underway, some wiring. Weaverville, NC USA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
Subject: Looking for Bill Von Dane's phone number
Date: Nov 16, 2008
Bill are you monitoring this list? Does anyone have Bill's pnone number? I have a ;ong overdue order that I need to check up on. Thanks. Don VS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tachometer Question
>Hi Folks, >I have a Rotax 912S in a Europa I have been building. I have a Mitchell >tach. installed and also an Audio Flight Avionics >AV-10 digital electronic engine monitor. I want to monitor the rpm on both >of these at the same time. Can anyone tell me what precautions I need to >take in connecting these in parallel? I'm not very electronic savy, but I >can understand some of the terms and parts one might use. Any thoughts? I wish there were a simple answer. There are tachometers, and then there are tachometers. MOST were originally crafted to interpret the frequency (read rpm) information from magneto p-leads . . . the most gawd awful 'signal' in an airplane. Over the years, variations popped up including tachs that looked at the AC widing of a Rotax engine, hall effect devices that read the magnetic field spinning inside a magneto, crankshaft or tach drive transducers, etc. Each of these variants had 'signal' qualities that might make the indicators incompatible with each other when driven by a single signal source. You need to know what the two indicators expect in the way of an RPM sensing signal. Given that you're flying a Rotax, it seems likely that the only choices you may have for this engine is to read the AC voltage from the alternator winding or some sort of add-on crankshaft sensor. Given that most tachometer folks expect to read p-leads, it may be that your engine will require some sort of signal conditioner to make your existing tach indicators function. Further, it may need to be a dual-output signal conditioner that accommodates both tachs. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Dumb question, Why not get rid of the expensive 20 year old T1 technology and get high speed cable for $100.00 /month? Are you married to the vendor? Storage is cheap. I recently bought a Terabyte of storage for $130.00 that I can carry in my hand. I can also store it off-site for a lot less money because I don't need to crate tapes and other space consuming items around. It's not like your serving up streaming video, this is just text and a few pictures. Further, do you really have a requirement to provide the public domain with guaranteed backups? Who is going to sue you if you lose a year or two? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:46 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What's My Contribution Used For? Dear Listers, Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for 19+ years worth of online archive data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, Wiki and PhotoShare. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport... List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Hernando, I'm in my Phase one and have 20 hours on them. My engine starts quickly and I love the timing method if you have to remove them for any updating. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Security Camera for your small business. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1urM11iqlfAiHlBaHHo1RYt7UF0MedUEVZXNA7ABNobfZ2J/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Choosing Z-Diagram base
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Et al, Thanks for your suggestions. My e-bus load will easily fall below 8A with one ignition and one Dynon running. The Z-13/8 may be a great opportunity to save weight, money and still keep the lights on. Other than the dual electronic ignition my system has no special requirements. I'll check it out. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Choosing Z-Diagram base > >I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual >electronic ignition and one alternator. > >I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. > >Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good >solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition >would best be served by two batteries. . . . that statement is pretty old . . . when folks were still installing a lot of vacuum pumps. Do you plan a vacuum system or all electric? If all electric, have you done a load analysis to see how much power you need for comfortable completion of flight with the main alternator out? You mentioned Z-12 but consider also, Z-13/8. This is an exceedingly light and inexpensive way to make sure you have electrons to keep an engine running. I suspect you can trim an e-bus load down to 8A or less. Keep in mind too that you don't need to run both electronic ignitions all the time. During alternator-out operations, you can drop to one ignition with very little loss of performance which still holds a second system in reserve. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Electronic ignition reliability
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Hi Ed I'm just a new one. I've only got 20 hours on the bird since new and I have upgraded the ignition units at every opportunity. I was going to use the Light speed ign. units but went with the E-Magair system. Time will tell but I'm very happy with the service and so far zero problems. Since they are going for certification for regular aircraft, they are not going to be a fly by night supplier. There are some units out there with a lot more time than mine naturally. I am not sure who has the greatest time but I would not be surprised if it were over 500 hours. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Find success and happiness with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Click now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2ZDsOwFqLUBK48TkuzshMSwmL5KWbGvAE323Ye3v08fEFhX/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
> >Dumb question, > >Why not get rid of the expensive 20 year old T1 technology and get high >speed cable for $100.00 /month? Are you married to the vendor? Storage >is cheap. I recently bought a Terabyte of storage for $130.00 that I can >carry in my hand. I can also store it off-site for a lot less money >because I don't need to crate tapes and other space consuming items >around. It's not like your serving up streaming video, this is just text >and a few pictures. Further, do you really have a requirement to provide >the public domain with guaranteed backups? Who is going to sue you if >you lose a year or two? This isn't about hardware and connectivity, it's about $time$ and the willingness of folks with extra-ordinary abilities and resources to support an activity that otherwise would not exist. How many folks have Matt's $time$, skills, resources and enthusiasm for this activity? If it were cheap/easy, everybody would be doing it. Given that $time$ is the rudimentary commodity of exchange amongst free-market participants, how many $hours$ were not wasted because the short path to success was freely offered on the List? How many such $hours$ were made available for more productive efforts because of ideas shared on the List? Where else can you get nearly instantaneous like-minded individuals located anywhere on the surface of the planet? It's an honorable free-market decision for everyone who participates on Matt's lists. One can free-load for ever, and nobody is going to kick them off the List. At the same time there is always risk that Matt will find the demans on $time$ too great for his skills, resources and willingness to to bear. I'm not suggesting that Matt is approaching anything a tipping point . . . but it would be short-sighted of us not to consider the extremes of all possibilities both pleasant and unpleasant. We make choices, react to those choices and hope we accurately assess risk, return on investment and consequences. I suggest that an investment that won't take the family out to McDonald's offers an attractive and often demonstrated return with very low risk. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What's My Contribution Used For?
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: mlwynn(at)aol.com
I can only say that my contribution is a real bargin.? There is so much useful information on this and the other associated lists.? Thanks, Bob, for all the time you put into this. Regards, Michael Wynn -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Sent: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 8:56 am Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: What's My Contribution Used For? ? >? >Dumb question,? >? >Why not get rid of the expensive 20 year old T1 technology and get high? >speed cable for $100.00 /month? Are you married to the vendor? Storage? >is cheap. I recently bought a Terabyte of storage for $130.00 that I can? >carry in my hand. I can also store it off-site for a lot less money? >because I don't need to crate tapes and other space consuming items? >around. It's not like your serving up streaming video, this is just text? >and a few pictures. Further, do you really have a requirement to provide? >the public domain with guaranteed backups? Who is going to sue you if? >you lose a year or two?? ? ? This isn't about hardware and connectivity, it's about $time$? ? and the willingness of folks with extra-ordinary abilities? ? and resources to support an activity that otherwise would? ? not exist.? ? ? How many folks have Matt's $time$, skills, resources and? ? enthusiasm for this activity? If it were cheap/easy, everybody? ? would be doing it. Given that $time$ is the rudimentary? ? commodity of exchange amongst free-market participants,? ? how many $hours$ were not wasted because the short? ? path to success was freely offered on the List? How? ? many such $hours$ were made available for more productive? ? efforts because of ideas shared on the List? Where? ? else can you get nearly instantaneous like-minded? ? individuals located anywhere on the surface of the? ? planet?? ? ? It's an honorable free-market decision for everyone who? ? participates on Matt's lists. One can free-load for ever,? ? and nobody is going to kick them off the List. At the same? ? time there is always risk that Matt will find the demans? ? on $time$ too great for his skills, resources and willingness? ? to to bear. I'm not suggesting that Matt is approaching? ? anything a tipping point . . . but it would be short-sighted? ? of us not to consider the extremes of all possibilities? ? both pleasant and unpleasant. We make choices, react to those? ? choices and hope we accurately assess risk, return on investment? ? and consequences.? ? ? I suggest that an investment that won't take the family? ? out to McDonald's offers an attractive and often demonstrated? ? return with very low risk.? ? ? Bob . . .? ? ? ? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Choosing Z-Diagram base
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Two questions on Z13-8... I like the design. My engine comes with an 80 amp internally regulated alternator. Assuming its use, but not yet needing 80 amps (may add air-conditioning later), may I reduce the current at the ANL using say, a 50 amp ANL? I am assuming the shunt would be 80 AMP coming off the Alt. Does B & C offer a product to monitor/switch (from DC Power Master sw) an alternator that is already internally regulated? Thanks -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:25 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Choosing Z-Diagram base Et al, Thanks for your suggestions. My e-bus load will easily fall below 8A with one ignition and one Dynon running. The Z-13/8 may be a great opportunity to save weight, money and still keep the lights on. Other than the dual electronic ignition my system has no special requirements. I'll check it out. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Choosing Z-Diagram base > >I am building a system which will contain a Lycoming 360 with dual >electronic ignition and one alternator. > >I have looked at Z-12, Z-19 and Z-28 as an addendum. > >Which one or combination of these diagrams would support a good >solution? I read somewhere in the pages that dual electronic ignition >would best be served by two batteries. . . . that statement is pretty old . . . when folks were still installing a lot of vacuum pumps. Do you plan a vacuum system or all electric? If all electric, have you done a load analysis to see how much power you need for comfortable completion of flight with the main alternator out? You mentioned Z-12 but consider also, Z-13/8. This is an exceedingly light and inexpensive way to make sure you have electrons to keep an engine running. I suspect you can trim an e-bus load down to 8A or less. Keep in mind too that you don't need to run both electronic ignitions all the time. During alternator-out operations, you can drop to one ignition with very little loss of performance which still holds a second system in reserve. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Electronic ignition reliability
Yeah I got about 300 on mine and there were some early problems but I think they have those licked now. Frank RV7a IO360 (mogas with 10% ETOH) no.com> Hi Ed I'm just a new one. I've only got 20 hours on the bird since new and I have upgraded the ignition units at every opportunity. I was going to use the Light speed ign. units but went with the E-Magair system. Time will tell but I'm very happy with the service and so far zero problems. Since they are going for certification for regular aircraft, they are not going to be a fly by night supplier. There are some units out there with a lot more time than mine naturally. I am not sure who has the greatest time but I would not be surprised if it were over 500 hours. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Electronic ignition reliability
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Frank, Which injection unit are you using. I also have an IO-360 and AFP injection and would like to use mogas but with the ethanol issue, I have not been anxious to try it. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find experienced pros to help with your home improvement project. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2eRI2QmUPsX7iC5eOamcqq6aFZERvscnXarsqbpdbbPbgSl/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Electronic ignition reliability
I am using the AFP unit which is compatible with 100% and any mixture therof. I also built a vapour lock proof fuel system in that both of my electric fuel pumps are in the wingroots..If you do a search under the username "Frankh" at www.vansairforce.net you will see how I built it. The problem areas will be the fuel drain O rings (easily swapped to florosilicone), the viton fuel cap oring (I fly negative G acro and so far seems to be fine but also easily swapped) and the meachanical fuel pump..As I don't have a mechanical fuel pump that issue solved itself. There is rumour the mech fuel pump diaphram won't like ethanol but I have no way to prove this one way or the other. Frank RV7a IO360, with 10%ETOH -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:59 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic ignition reliability --> Frank, Which injection unit are you using. I also have an IO-360 and AFP injection and would like to use mogas but with the ethanol issue, I have not been anxious to try it. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: RScott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: Christmas Tree project for EAA
Willow, Thank you, thank you thank you! for volunteering to help out on this by contacting the growers. I have attached information on Young Eagles as well as a list of tree growers with contact info. I am sending a copy of this note to Keith Pugh and Henry Pflegl and they may have additional info to add or may suggest changes in what I have written. We have an offer of 50 trees from Dan Green (not on the list), so that's a start. The most we can handle is probably about 250 more. I can see a couple ways we can approach this. One is to make contact soon, so they can keep us in mind and think about what they are going to do with left over trees, if they have any. Then we call back around December 1 when all the trees have been shipped. The second way is to just call once, around December 1. Some growers will hold on to left over trees, hoping they will find a local buyer (retailer) who needs more trees. Others may just want to get done with the project and will be willing to let us have them right away so we can start selling the first weekend in December. Growers need to understand certain things: We are asking for a donation of trees, not looking to buy--we don't have any money. We are a non-profit. We don't expect we can handle more than 250 more trees and we will be contacting multiple growers. Any number of trees up to 250 is good and we are grateful. But if grower A offers 25, that's wonderful, and if grower B offers 50 we can't handle more than 175 from grower C even if he offers 250. We are hoping for /baled/ trees. On the other hand, beggars can't be choosers, so we'll take what we can get. Most trees left over are baled, so this will probably not be an issue. The grower doesn't have to do anything beyond giving us permission and access to the trees. We'll pick up and haul. Either nobles or Doug firs are OK. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Dick Scott 503-630-4739 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Soldering fat wires
I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside of the butt end. The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. Is this normal, or is it just me? Sam Hoskins www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2008
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing Jim, Come back in 500 hours and tell us about how fabulous they are. 20 hours ain't nothing in light of the reliability problems they're having. Henador Titzoff ----- Original Message ---- From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:52:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing Hernando, I'm in my Phase one and have 20 hours on them. My engine starts quickly and I love the timing method if you have to remove them for any updating. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Security Camera for your small business. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1urM11iqlfAiHlBaHHo1RYt7UF0MedUEVZXNA7ABNobfZ2J/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 17, 2008
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
Hi Sam, I found a technique that works pretty well. Several companies have little solder and flux slugs that fit right down into the terminal. Then, you heat the terminal until the solder melts, push in the wire and keep heating until you have good solder flow. Let it cool, apply the heat shrink to the outside and there you are. Regards, Michael Wynn In a message dated 11/17/2008 4:15:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com writes: I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside of the butt end. The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. Is this normal, or is it just me? Sam Hoskins _www.samhoskins.blogspot.com_ (http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com/) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
Subject: What wire to use for pitch servo
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
I need to wire my Ray Allen servo on my Europa. I think it's a T3 servo, has 5 wires. I don't mind working with very small wires. Will install a connector at servo. Will run servo wiring on port side, and antennas on starboard. What suggestions on wire to use? Some options: ****Ray Allen sells 5 color coded 26 gauge that is not twisted: WC2 ... 5 WIRE TEFLON INSTALLATION CABLE We highly recommend using this wire cable for Ray Allen trim installations. It consists of 5 separate color coded, 26 gauge, 19 strand, silver coated, DuPont FEP Teflon insulated wires inside a tough, all Teflon sheathing. This wire cable will easily last the lifetime of your airframe. The cable is .140 inch (3.5 mm) in diameter. ****Stein Air sells 7 conductor twisted tefzel servo wire, consisting of 5 of 22 gauge and 2 of 20 gauge. Can remove 2 of the 20 and have 5 of 22 left, or remove 2 of the 22 and have 2 of 20 and 3 of 22 left ****Aircraft Spruce sells 24 gauge and 22 gauge tefzel wire. Options: 5 of 24 3 of 24 and 2 of 22 Twist or not twist? Thanking you in advance. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Members Are Saying...
Dear Listers, November is the Annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists are supported solely through your generous Contributions during this time. Please make your Contribution today and pick up a really nice free gift at this same time: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Listers have been including some really nice comments regarding what the Lists mean to them along with their Contributions this year. I've included a few of them below. Please read them over and see if some perhaps echo your feelings as well. Thank you for your support this year! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best bargain in the entire industry!! -Owen B Every year your lists are better, sure #1 in e-mail list in the world. -Gary G Thank you for an awesome site! -Ashley M Your lists are important to me and well worth paying for. -Calvin A Thank you for providing such and informative and ad free environment to learn by. -Myron H As always, a valuable and extremely useful resource. Stephen T As always, a great service. -Reade G Very much appreciate this site and the communications it has enabled between builders. -Larry M This service is worth every penny. -Robert S Great site! Thanks a ton for its functionality! -Peter B The RV-10 list feels like my community. -Dave S The lists are fantastic, a great source! -Jimmy Y I've learned a lot from the List. -Gabriel F A wonderful resource. -Gerald G Well done. -Richard N Years of good service. -William M Valuable service. -Keith H The site is quite helpful. -Jon M Very interesting List that I read form the beginning. -Alain L A well managed site. -Carl B Great service. -Svein Kare J Still the most useful program on the computer. -Fergus K Great contribution to my project! -Robert K Thanks for keeping a great list. -Dt G The List continues to provide excellent information. -Tony C This is a wonderful resource that has easily saved me a bunch on my build-time. -Ralph C Thank you for providing a great service. The Zenith builder's community would be in sad shape without the Zenith-List's. -Terrence P I really do get pleasure out of reading the List every day. -Bill V Great source of information. -Arthur V Thanks for a great service. Very enjoyable. -Louis B You know we all could not do without your support!! -James S Great resource! -Douglas D Thanks for the great service. -John B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
Bob, I have seen in several documents that you say it is okay to switch the fat wires on the S701-1 contactor - which I would like to do. My contactor looks like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg What would be the proper way to handle the diode and jumper wire? Thanks Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for
Sharing Howdy, Let me rephrase that. Please let us know how they're doing at 500 hrs. Inquiring minds want to know. The easy timing method is the one thing that worries me about them. Hope they've got it solved, but some of them have forgotten what time it is. Pax, Ed Holyoke Henador Titzoff wrote: > > Jim, > > Come back in 500 hours and tell us about how fabulous they are. 20 hours ain't nothing in light of the reliability problems they're having. > > Henador Titzoff > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:52:28 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten, Tools for Sharing > > > Hernando, > I'm in my Phase one and have 20 hours on them. My engine starts > quickly and I love the timing method if you have to remove them for any > updating. > > > Jim > ____________________________________________________________ > Security Camera for your small business. Click Now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1urM11iqlfAiHlBaHHo1RYt7UF0MedUEVZXNA7ABNobfZ2J/ > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
>Bob, > >I have seen in several documents that you say it is okay to switch the fat >wires on the S701-1 contactor - which I would like to do. >My contactor looks like this: ><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg > >What would be the proper way to handle the diode and jumper wire? You need to reverse everything in the picture. Diode flips over, jumper wire moves to the right-hand terminals, battery fat-wire now goes on right fat terminal, system fat-wire goes on left fat terminal. Alternatively, you can simply turn the contactor around on its mounting bolts and leave it wired as shown in the photo. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
>I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg >wires. I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. > >I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I >apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past >the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the >outside of the butt end. > >The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around >the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. > >Is this normal, or is it just me? Sounds like you're using way too much heat. See if you can put your hands on a "micro torch" of some variety. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/Gas_Tools/ Alternatively, turn your pipe-blaster propane shop torch down to the smallest possible stable flame. The inner blue cone should be about 1/4" long max. The wire strands inside the terminal need to be TIGHT. Heat conducts across strands by virtue of (1) contact and (2) immersion in molten solder. Make sure the strands are well-wedged to improve upon condition (1) so that condition (2) progresses nicely as well. Start by heating the back side of the terminal flag and touch solder to the corner between the front side of the flag and the cut ends of the wire. As soon as the solder melts, it will begin to pick up the wire strands. Walk around the terminal barrel with the heat while feeding solder into the strands adjacent to the inside surface of the barrel. The heat in the joint will be climbing all the time and by the time you get all around the barrel, you will see solder wicking into the strands pretty much all around. Feed a little more solder into the stranding until all the ends are captured. If you see ANY solder at the other end of the barrel, you've gotten it too hot and/or put in too much solder. From the time the solder first flows until the joint is done is less than one minute. The longer you take, the hotter things get, the less likely it is that you can maintain control over the flow of solder. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
Good. I didn't know if it was all interchangeable in the innards. And I guess you answered another question, that gravity and vertical orientation has no real effect on the successful operation of the solenoid. Sam On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > >> Bob, >> >> I have seen in several documents that you say it is okay to switch the fat >> wires on the S701-1 contactor - which I would like to do. >> My contactor looks like this: < >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg> >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg >> >> What would be the proper way to handle the diode and jumper wire? >> > > You need to reverse everything in the picture. Diode > flips over, jumper wire moves to the right-hand terminals, > battery fat-wire now goes on right fat terminal, system > fat-wire goes on left fat terminal. > > Alternatively, you can simply turn the contactor around > on its mounting bolts and leave it wired as shown in the > photo. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
Actually, I am already using a Bernzomatic micro torch. I'll heed your advice by wedging it tighter and turning the heat down a bit. Sam On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > >> I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. >> I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. >> >> I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I >> apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past >> the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside >> of the butt end. >> >> The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around >> the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. >> >> Is this normal, or is it just me? >> > > Sounds like you're using way too much heat. See > if you can put your hands on a "micro torch" > of some variety. > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/Gas_Tools/ > > Alternatively, turn your pipe-blaster propane > shop torch down to the smallest possible stable flame. > The inner blue cone should be about 1/4" long > max. > > The wire strands inside the terminal need to be > TIGHT. Heat conducts across strands by virtue of > (1) contact and (2) immersion in molten solder. > Make sure the strands are well-wedged to improve > upon condition (1) so that condition (2) progresses > nicely as well. > > Start by heating the back side of the terminal flag > and touch solder to the corner between the front > side of the flag and the cut ends of the wire. As > soon as the solder melts, it will begin to pick up > the wire strands. Walk around the terminal barrel > with the heat while feeding solder into the strands > adjacent to the inside surface of the barrel. The > heat in the joint will be climbing all the time > and by the time you get all around the barrel, you > will see solder wicking into the strands pretty much > all around. Feed a little more solder into the stranding > until all the ends are captured. If you see ANY solder > at the other end of the barrel, you've gotten it too > hot and/or put in too much solder. > > From the time the solder first flows until the joint > is done is less than one minute. The longer you take, > the hotter things get, the less likely it is that > you can maintain control over the flow of solder. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Static in radio reception
Does no one have any comments to offer on this ? Thanks, Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- A friend of mine is flying a Citabria. It is quite new, but suffered in a crash. I was completely rebuilt/restored and is now again a beautiful airplane. It has one snag. Perhaps folks on the list have some ideas. The symptom is that sometimes radio reception is unreadable. Scratchy static overwhelms the voice audio. It is most obvious when within 5 miles of the control tower, since it is necessary to ask the controller to repeat multiple times. Other times, aircraft from over 100 miles away are heard on common frequencies, or the controller is clear, so sometimes the receive works very well. Transmit is believed okay. The tower never complains about transmissions, but this has never really been checked over greater distances than 10 miles. The radio is a new Garmin, which was swapped for a few days with an identical model, which exhibited the same symptoms. Consultation with the factory has yielded little. Mechanics have checked phyical connections and continuity, and cut the fabric under the antenna so the ground doesn't rely entirely on the screws. He has tried different headsets. The ground plane is a piece of aluminum about 6" wide and 15" long on the back of the aircraft where the ELT antenna is typically installed. There are about 8 wires, tied together and attached to the ground plane about 4" ahead of the antenna, and these wires wrap down around the fuselage to extend the ground plane. The ground plane is also electrically connected to the steel fuselage tubing. This is all per factory instructions. There are no adjacent antennas, and this antenna is at least 4 feet ahead of the tail. Reportedly, a VSWR test at the antenna gave a poor result, but I was not involved in the test and I am not sure about the reliability of the equipment or the person doing the test. The antenna is a new Comant, with COM and GPS. Most of the things I can think of being wrong would likely affect transmit more than receive and not produce static. I am currently thinking that perhaps the radio, antenna etc. are actually fine, but are intermittently being interfered with. I have suggested to the owner that when the problem occurs, he try powering off the new PS Eng audio/intercom, which then gives him a direct connection to the radio. I also suggested he power off the transponder. If that fails to help, I have loaned him a new antenna (I will be a while building yet) to try. If that doesn't help ... ??? Does anyone have any other ideas that should be looked into ? Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
Actually, I am already using a Bernzomatic micro torch. I'll heed your advice by wedging it tighter and turning the heat down a bit. Sam On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > >> I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. >> I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. >> >> I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I >> apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past >> the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside >> of the butt end. >> >> The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around >> the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. >> >> Is this normal, or is it just me? >> > > Sounds like you're using way too much heat. See > if you can put your hands on a "micro torch" > of some variety. > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/Gas_Tools/ > > Alternatively, turn your pipe-blaster propane > shop torch down to the smallest possible stable flame. > The inner blue cone should be about 1/4" long > max. > > The wire strands inside the terminal need to be > TIGHT. Heat conducts across strands by virtue of > (1) contact and (2) immersion in molten solder. > Make sure the strands are well-wedged to improve > upon condition (1) so that condition (2) progresses > nicely as well. > > Start by heating the back side of the terminal flag > and touch solder to the corner between the front > side of the flag and the cut ends of the wire. As > soon as the solder melts, it will begin to pick up > the wire strands. Walk around the terminal barrel > with the heat while feeding solder into the strands > adjacent to the inside surface of the barrel. The > heat in the joint will be climbing all the time > and by the time you get all around the barrel, you > will see solder wicking into the strands pretty much > all around. Feed a little more solder into the stranding > until all the ends are captured. If you see ANY solder > at the other end of the barrel, you've gotten it too > hot and/or put in too much solder. > > From the time the solder first flows until the joint > is done is less than one minute. The longer you take, > the hotter things get, the less likely it is that > you can maintain control over the flow of solder. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Static in radio reception
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 605 TES/DOA" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil>
Jeff - If the problem persists when you swap radios, then it's in the system. Check the wiring again. I've experiences similar problems when the plugs at the back of the tray don't fully engage as the radio is seated. Scratchy audio could result from dirty pins/sockets, mismatched pins/sockets, bad crimps, broken wires in intermitent contact, etc. It could also reside in the audio panel / intercom. If the antenna is the correct length, the bad VSWR could result from impropper mating at the connector, bad crimps, dirty connectors, poor ground, etc. neal ================ Does no one have any comments to offer on this ? Thanks, Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- It has one snag. Perhaps folks on the list have some ideas. The symptom is that sometimes radio reception is unreadable. Scratchy static overwhelms the voice audio. It is most obvious when within 5 miles of the control tower, since it is necessary to ask the controller to repeat multiple times. Other times, aircraft from over 100 miles away are heard on common frequencies, or the controller is clear, so sometimes the receive works very well. Reportedly, a VSWR test at the antenna gave a poor result, but I was not involved in the test and I am not sure about the reliability of the equipment or the person doing the test. The antenna is a new Comant, with COM and GPS. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Static in radio reception
Date: Nov 18, 2008
You did not mention the cable. Replace it or do a temp trial with a known, good cable. I too had that problem in a Citabria and a replacement cable cured it. Regards, Greg Young > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Jeff Page > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:49 AM > To: AeroElectric List > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static in radio reception > > > Does no one have any comments to offer on this ? > Thanks, Jeff > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A friend of mine is flying a Citabria. It is quite new, but > suffered in a crash. I was completely rebuilt/restored and > is now again a beautiful airplane. > > It has one snag. Perhaps folks on the list have some ideas. > The symptom is that sometimes radio reception is unreadable. > Scratchy static overwhelms the voice audio. It is most > obvious when within 5 miles of the control tower, since it is > necessary to ask the controller to repeat multiple times. > Other times, aircraft from over 100 miles away are heard on > common frequencies, or the controller is clear, so sometimes > the receive works very well. > > Transmit is believed okay. The tower never complains about > transmissions, but this has never really been checked over > greater distances than 10 miles. > > The radio is a new Garmin, which was swapped for a few days > with an identical model, which exhibited the same symptoms. > > Consultation with the factory has yielded little. Mechanics > have checked phyical connections and continuity, and cut the > fabric under the antenna so the ground doesn't rely entirely > on the screws. He has tried different headsets. > > The ground plane is a piece of aluminum about 6" wide and 15" > long on the back of the aircraft where the ELT antenna is > typically installed. > There are about 8 wires, tied together and attached to the > ground plane about 4" ahead of the antenna, and these wires > wrap down around the fuselage to extend the ground plane. > The ground plane is also electrically connected to the steel > fuselage tubing. This is all per factory instructions. > There are no adjacent antennas, and this antenna is at least > 4 feet ahead of the tail. > > Reportedly, a VSWR test at the antenna gave a poor result, > but I was not involved in the test and I am not sure about > the reliability of the equipment or the person doing the > test. The antenna is a new Comant, with COM and GPS. > > Most of the things I can think of being wrong would likely > affect transmit more than receive and not produce static. > > I am currently thinking that perhaps the radio, antenna etc. > are actually fine, but are intermittently being interfered with. > > I have suggested to the owner that when the problem occurs, > he try powering off the new PS Eng audio/intercom, which then > gives him a direct connection to the radio. I also suggested > he power off the transponder. If that fails to help, I have > loaned him a new antenna (I will be a while building yet) to try. > > If that doesn't help ... ??? > > Does anyone have any other ideas that should be looked into ? > > Thanks ! > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Samuelian <psamuelian(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Static in radio reception
Date: Nov 18, 2008
I agree with Greg. Start by replacing the antenna coax with a known good cable. It may have been damaged in the crash and have an intermittent center conductor. When transmitting there is enough power to punch through to the tower even with the VSWR mismatch, but reception is extremely low power and subject to signal degradation. Just a guess... Phil RV7 Saving for wing/Cessna 177 On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Greg Young wrote: > sol.com> > > You did not mention the cable. Replace it or do a temp trial with a > known, > good cable. I too had that problem in a Citabria and a replacement > cable > cured it. > > Regards, > Greg Young > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On >> Behalf Of Jeff Page >> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:49 AM >> To: AeroElectric List >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static in radio reception >> >> >> >> Does no one have any comments to offer on this ? >> Thanks, Jeff >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> A friend of mine is flying a Citabria. It is quite new, but >> suffered in a crash. I was completely rebuilt/restored and >> is now again a beautiful airplane. >> >> It has one snag. Perhaps folks on the list have some ideas. >> The symptom is that sometimes radio reception is unreadable. >> Scratchy static overwhelms the voice audio. It is most >> obvious when within 5 miles of the control tower, since it is >> necessary to ask the controller to repeat multiple times. >> Other times, aircraft from over 100 miles away are heard on >> common frequencies, or the controller is clear, so sometimes >> the receive works very well. >> >> Transmit is believed okay. The tower never complains about >> transmissions, but this has never really been checked over >> greater distances than 10 miles. >> >> The radio is a new Garmin, which was swapped for a few days >> with an identical model, which exhibited the same symptoms. >> >> Consultation with the factory has yielded little. Mechanics >> have checked phyical connections and continuity, and cut the >> fabric under the antenna so the ground doesn't rely entirely >> on the screws. He has tried different headsets. >> >> The ground plane is a piece of aluminum about 6" wide and 15" >> long on the back of the aircraft where the ELT antenna is >> typically installed. >> There are about 8 wires, tied together and attached to the >> ground plane about 4" ahead of the antenna, and these wires >> wrap down around the fuselage to extend the ground plane. >> The ground plane is also electrically connected to the steel >> fuselage tubing. This is all per factory instructions. >> There are no adjacent antennas, and this antenna is at least >> 4 feet ahead of the tail. >> >> Reportedly, a VSWR test at the antenna gave a poor result, >> but I was not involved in the test and I am not sure about >> the reliability of the equipment or the person doing the >> test. The antenna is a new Comant, with COM and GPS. >> >> Most of the things I can think of being wrong would likely >> affect transmit more than receive and not produce static. >> >> I am currently thinking that perhaps the radio, antenna etc. >> are actually fine, but are intermittently being interfered with. >> >> I have suggested to the owner that when the problem occurs, >> he try powering off the new PS Eng audio/intercom, which then >> gives him a direct connection to the radio. I also suggested >> he power off the transponder. If that fails to help, I have >> loaned him a new antenna (I will be a while building yet) to try. >> >> If that doesn't help ... ??? >> >> Does anyone have any other ideas that should be looked into ? >> >> Thanks ! >> >> Jeff Page >> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
Sam Hoskins wrote: > Good. I didn't know if it was all interchangeable in the innards. > > And I guess you answered another question, that gravity and vertical > orientation has no real effect on the successful operation of the > solenoid. About the only time you might want to consider orientation is in the unlikely event that the solenoid return spring should fail. It would be nice, then, if you could have gravity (or centrifugal force) working for you to open the contacts. Dale R. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
I gave it another try today and really packed them tight. It worked a lot better. Great advice, Bob. Thanks for all your help. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > >> I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. >> I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. >> >> I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I >> apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past >> the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside >> of the butt end. >> >> The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around >> the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. >> >> Is this normal, or is it just me? >> > > Sounds like you're using way too much heat. See > if you can put your hands on a "micro torch" > of some variety. > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/Gas_Tools/ > > Alternatively, turn your pipe-blaster propane > shop torch down to the smallest possible stable flame. > The inner blue cone should be about 1/4" long > max. > > The wire strands inside the terminal need to be > TIGHT. Heat conducts across strands by virtue of > (1) contact and (2) immersion in molten solder. > Make sure the strands are well-wedged to improve > upon condition (1) so that condition (2) progresses > nicely as well. > > Start by heating the back side of the terminal flag > and touch solder to the corner between the front > side of the flag and the cut ends of the wire. As > soon as the solder melts, it will begin to pick up > the wire strands. Walk around the terminal barrel > with the heat while feeding solder into the strands > adjacent to the inside surface of the barrel. The > heat in the joint will be climbing all the time > and by the time you get all around the barrel, you > will see solder wicking into the strands pretty much > all around. Feed a little more solder into the stranding > until all the ends are captured. If you see ANY solder > at the other end of the barrel, you've gotten it too > hot and/or put in too much solder. > > From the time the solder first flows until the joint > is done is less than one minute. The longer you take, > the hotter things get, the less likely it is that > you can maintain control over the flow of solder. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Soldering fat wires
I gave it another try today and really packed them tight. It worked a lot better. Great advice, Bob. Thanks for all your help. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > >> I just started attempting to solder terminals onto several 4awg wires. >> I'm using welding cable and one of those little butane torches. >> >> I am attempting to use the techniques n Bob's article. However, when I >> apply the solder, it seems to wick along the cable, up to two inches past >> the terminal. It seems to run on the inside, without saturating the outside >> of the butt end. >> >> The second time I tried it I was more careful to apply the solder around >> the perimeter of the wire, but still had the same result. >> >> Is this normal, or is it just me? >> > > Sounds like you're using way too much heat. See > if you can put your hands on a "micro torch" > of some variety. > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/Gas_Tools/ > > Alternatively, turn your pipe-blaster propane > shop torch down to the smallest possible stable flame. > The inner blue cone should be about 1/4" long > max. > > The wire strands inside the terminal need to be > TIGHT. Heat conducts across strands by virtue of > (1) contact and (2) immersion in molten solder. > Make sure the strands are well-wedged to improve > upon condition (1) so that condition (2) progresses > nicely as well. > > Start by heating the back side of the terminal flag > and touch solder to the corner between the front > side of the flag and the cut ends of the wire. As > soon as the solder melts, it will begin to pick up > the wire strands. Walk around the terminal barrel > with the heat while feeding solder into the strands > adjacent to the inside surface of the barrel. The > heat in the joint will be climbing all the time > and by the time you get all around the barrel, you > will see solder wicking into the strands pretty much > all around. Feed a little more solder into the stranding > until all the ends are captured. If you see ANY solder > at the other end of the barrel, you've gotten it too > hot and/or put in too much solder. > > From the time the solder first flows until the joint > is done is less than one minute. The longer you take, > the hotter things get, the less likely it is that > you can maintain control over the flow of solder. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
At 05:14 PM 11/18/2008, you wrote: > >Sam Hoskins wrote: >>Good. I didn't know if it was all interchangeable in the innards. >> >>And I guess you answered another question, that gravity and >>vertical orientation has no real effect on the successful operation >>of the solenoid. > >About the only time you might want to consider orientation is in the >unlikely event that the solenoid return spring should fail. It >would be nice, then, if you could have gravity (or centrifugal >force) working for you to open the contacts. I've never seen one fail. They're very lightly stressed. I've seen them corrode . . . but then after water enters the device, worrying about spring corrosion is the least of concerns. There's a lot of mythology circulating around about "proper orientation of contactors with respect to g-loads" . . . This has been debunked several times and can be reviewed in the archives. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Leaking Duracells
At 09:24 AM 11/19/2008, you wrote: >The Dec Consumer Reports AA batt tests show Duracell in 8th place >for the alkaline used for a camera ($/50 shots=$0.70). Best was >Kirkland (@$0.10). Cost for 2 was 2.25 & 0.43 respectively >calculated from the bulk packages. >No mention of defects. >Paul I did a return-on-investment study of a variety of AA alkaline cells about 6 years ago. The original article can be secured at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf I've since tested a host of additional products in the AA cell family. From the perspective of contained energy I discovered that the most inexpensive cells you can buy are the best $value$. On occasion, I tested a product that delivered only 80% of the average energy for the constellation of products tested . . . but their price was so attractive (on the order of 20 to 25 cents per cell), that the cost-per-watt-second of delivered energy was VERY competitive. I probably have 100 alkaline cells on the shelf ranging from AAAA to D and the brands are all over the map. I've not suffered the indignity of a cell leakage event for years. But then, my battery powered devices don't spend much time in dormant storage with risks of allowing depleted cells to remain installed. I'll start keeping dead cells. I'll put a date on them when I toss them into the common battery grave and see what happens with respect to leaking. The last time I saw a leaking AA cell it was a group of ni-cads . . . and those puppies run down in a month or so just sitting. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Behind By 21% - Advertising May Be Needed...?
Dear Listers, The percentage of people making a Contribution to support the Lists this year is currently lagging behind last year by approximately 21%! I'm hoping that everyone is just waiting until the last minute to show their support... ;-) Please remember that it is solely your direct Contributions that keep these Lists up and running and most importantly - AD FREE! If the members don't want to support the Lists directly, then I will likely have to start adding advertisements to offset the costs of running the Lists. But I *really* don't want to have to start doing that. I really like the non-commercial atmosphere here and I think that a lot of the members appreciate that too. Please take a moment to make a Contribution today in support of the continued ad-free operation of all these Lists: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I want to send out a word of appreciation to all of the members that have already made their generous Contribution to support the Lists! Thank you! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2008
Subject: Re: Leaking Duracells
The leaking Duracells I discovered in my LED flashlight had been used frequently during the past 9-10 months. They spent very little "sitting around doing nothing" time in the flashlight. >From the earlier discussion and other anecdotal information, there may be reason to suspect a problem with the Duracell brand. We need more datapoints. Time will tell the story on this subject. Regardless, I will buy other brands - or as Bob has recommended, the cheapest "generic" batteries. Stan Sutterfield But then, my battery powered devices don't spend much time in dormant storage with risks of allowing depleted cells to remain installed. **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2008
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Leaking Duracells
This may or may not be important, but my father was visiting with me today about how he had to change the batteries in his DISH network changer, he purchased some Duracells, and when he tried to install them he found that they would not fit! Apparently the newest Duracells are marginally larger than the old batteries that came with the unit, He ended up purchasing some lesser know brand that were indeed a trifle smaller just to get them to fit. ????? Could it be that the larger size is having an impact on the their covering/protection?? Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote: > The leaking Duracells I discovered in my LED flashlight had been > used frequently during the past 9-10 months. They spent very > little "sitting around doing nothing" time in the flashlight. > From the earlier discussion and other anecdotal information, there may > be reason to suspect a problem with the Duracell brand. We need more > datapoints. Time will tell the story on this subject. > Regardless, I will buy other brands - or as Bob has recommended, the > cheapest "generic" batteries. > Stan Sutterfield > > > But then, my battery powered > devices don't spend much time in dormant storage > with risks of allowing depleted cells to remain > installed. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *One site has it all.* Your email accounts, your social networks, and > the things you love. *Try%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001">AOL.com today!* > * > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com>
Subject: Re: Leaking Duracells
Date: Nov 20, 2008
Deems, maybe the Duracells your dad tried in his DishNet remote expanded and were/are getting ready to leak. I would keep an eye on them to see if they do. I typically buy Ray-O-Vacs, because they seem to be the most cost-effective and are readily available at local stores. I once had contact info of a Ray-O-Vac engineer up in Minnesota and used to ask him all sorts of questions about batteries. I wish I still had his info. He told me once upon a time that Ray-O-Vac alkalines had about 95% the energy density of Energizer batteries but of course were a lot cheaper and thus were very cost effective. This is why I've used them exclusively for years. They've never leaked, but someone earlier on this forum said they come off the same line as Duracells. Was this ever confirmed? I bought a package of 48 AA Ray-O-Vacs about four months ago, and about half of them are in use. I haven't seen or heard of any of them leaking. Simon Ramirez Copyright 2008 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:48 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Leaking Duracells This may or may not be important, but my father was visiting with me today about how he had to change the batteries in his DISH network changer, he purchased some Duracells, and when he tried to install them he found that they would not fit! Apparently the newest Duracells are marginally larger than the old batteries that came with the unit, He ended up purchasing some lesser know brand that were indeed a trifle smaller just to get them to fit. ????? Could it be that the larger size is having an impact on the their covering/protection?? Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote: > The leaking Duracells I discovered in my LED flashlight had been > used frequently during the past 9-10 months. They spent very > little "sitting around doing nothing" time in the flashlight. > From the earlier discussion and other anecdotal information, there may > be reason to suspect a problem with the Duracell brand. We need more > datapoints. Time will tell the story on this subject. > Regardless, I will buy other brands - or as Bob has recommended, the > cheapest "generic" batteries. > Stan Sutterfield > > > But then, my battery powered > devices don't spend much time in dormant storage > with risks of allowing depleted cells to remain > installed. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *One site has it all.* Your email accounts, your social networks, and > the things you love. *Try%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001">AOL.com today!* > * > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2008
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Leaking Duracells
Interesting piece of information. Could they be swelling up after a period on the shelf and as a result rupturing (leaking). My recent experiences have been just to many incidents of their leaking - one of the reasons I picked Duracell is before they never leaked where as other cheaper batteries did. Now they appear as being no better. Sure would like to know what has changed about them. jerb At 05:48 PM 11/20/2008, you wrote: > >This may or may not be important, but my father was visiting with me >today about how he had to change the batteries in his DISH network >changer, he purchased some Duracells, and when he tried to install >them he found that they would not fit! Apparently the newest >Duracells are marginally larger than the old batteries that came >with the unit, He ended up purchasing some lesser know brand that >were indeed a trifle smaller just to get them to fit. ????? >Could it be that the larger size is having an impact on the their >covering/protection?? > >Deems Davis # 406 >'Its all done....Its just not put together' >http://deemsrv10.com/ > > >Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote: >>The leaking Duracells I discovered in my LED flashlight had been >>used frequently during the past 9-10 months. They spent very >>little "sitting around doing nothing" time in the flashlight. >> From the earlier discussion and other anecdotal information, there >> may be reason to suspect a problem with the Duracell brand. We >> need more datapoints. Time will tell the story on this subject. >>Regardless, I will buy other brands - or as Bob has recommended, >>the cheapest "generic" batteries. >>Stan Sutterfield >> >> >> But then, my battery powered >> devices don't spend much time in dormant storage >> with risks of allowing depleted cells to remain >> installed. >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>*One site has it all.* Your email accounts, your social networks, >>and the things you love. *Try%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001">AOL.com today!* >>* >> >>* > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Thermocouples connected to Dynon EGT CHT
Please help me work through this. 1. I am reusing my old Westach EGT/CHT thermocouples, type J & K. They appear to be shielded and have 48" leads and will need new terminals. 2. I have a pre-fab TC harness from Stein Air (for Dynon), which is made from a non-copper wire. It seems to be pretty stiff. The EGT lead wires, under the sheath, are rust/yellow. The CHT wires are rust/white. This harness wire is way too long and needs to be shortened. My questions are: A. Due to the crazy airframe, it is not uncommon to pull the engine at annual inspection time. What would be the best connector to use? Could I use a D-sub? The connection to the D180 is a 25 pin D-sub. B. For temperature accuracy purposes, would it be better to position the connector forward or aft of the firewall? The most convienient would be forward. Thanks, in advance. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thermocouples connected to Dynon EGT CHT
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2008
Hi Sam, If you are talking about a connector on the firewall, use a metal circular connector i.e., AMP. Do not use a a db submini for three reasons: They are not deep enough to pass through most firewalls, they provide no thermal insulation and are not rated for constant hi temp environment, and they are not gas tight against carbon monoxide etc. AMP makes special pins for TC connections, but I have never seen anyone ever use them. Just live with the relatively tiny errors due to the extra junction -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215559#215559 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2008
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Thermocouples connected to Dynon EGT CHT
My questions are: A. Due to the crazy airframe, it is not uncommon to pull the engine at annual inspection time. What would be the best connector to use? Could I use a D-sub? The connection to the D180 is a 25 pin D-sub. B. For temperature accuracy purposes, would it be better to position the connector forward or aft of the firewall? The most convienient would be forward. Thanks, in advance. Sam The 25 pin d-sub is a good choice. Use the ones with the crimped pins, since soldering of thermocouple wires is not recommended. You can use these forward of the firewall with very little degradation of accuracy. The important thing with using a nonthermocouple material connector is that both sides of the connector should be at the same temperature, otherwise greater error will be introduced. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: LOC
Dear Listers, Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by popping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics Email Lists c/o Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
From: "dksington" <derek(at)sington.net>
Date: Nov 22, 2008
On this topic (kind of), I have a S701-2 but now am only going down the single Alt route. Do I need to remove the extra diodes for it to work properly as (effectively) a S701-1? I presume that they are the same internally. Many thanks, Derek Sington RV-7 Finishing Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215737#215737 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
At 09:09 AM 11/22/2008, you wrote: > >On this topic (kind of), I have a S701-2 but now am only going down >the single Alt route. Do I need to remove the extra diodes for it >to work properly as (effectively) a S701-1? I presume that they >are the same internally. Correct. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Z-13/8 design and operating philosophy
>>Hi Bob. Love your book. Thank you. I'm pleased that you find it a good value. >> On page 17-9 dealing with the SD-8 Alt, second column, second >> paragraph. I assume you would want to open the battery cont, >> close the E-bus alt feed switch and close the SD-8alt control >> relay (same as aux alt off/on swithch on Z-13 to on?)ONLY if the >> main alt fails as mentioned in the next para? Yes. That was the original intent. E-bus alt feed is closed before you turn off the battery master for the purpose of load shedding during battery-only operations. To avoid having the e-bus go down during the changeover, you turn on alternate-feed first, battery master off next. SD-8 can go on at any time in the sequence. Now assuming that an SD-8 is installed, it may be brought on to support e-bus loads thus saving all the battery's stored energy to support approach to landing were the battery master is turned back on and other equipment items are added to the system loads. >> Then will the SD-8 just be supplying pwr to charge the battery, >> or will it directly be supplying pwr to the essential bus because >> it is supplying more volts? It's a reasonable assumption that the battery was fully charged when the main alternator failed. There is no need for the SD-8 to "charge" the battery . . . it needs to support e-bus loads so as to NOT discharge the battery. As long as the SD-8 output remains above 12.7 volts or so, the battery will not contribute to operation of e-bus loads . . . i.e. is held in reserve. >> Someone told me he flies around with his SD-8 aux alt switch on >> all the time so there will never be a situation where there is no >> missing pwr to the field to get it to work. I don't think that is >> the correct way is it? With the SD-8, is it best to assume the >> endurance bus should not exceed about 7 amps (just under the 8)? He doesn't understand the equipment installed aboard his aircraft and has not crafted a Plan-A/Plan-B operating protocol based on understanding. His concerns for keeping the SD-8 "alive" are unfounded. First, the SD8 doesn't have an externally excited field. Second, assuming he has an active notification of low voltage (LV warning light) then the changeover from Plan-A to Plan-B after main alternator failure is a no-big-rush deal. The battery is sitting there substantially topped off and will run things nicely for some time . . . he could finish unwrapping his stick of gum and properly stow the wrapper before making the change. The SD-8 can be loaded to as much as 10A at cruise rpm without sagging below the 12.8 volt levels that begins to load the battery. There are no hard and fast "rules" about operations with the SD-8. Back before we installed SD-8's on a handy, vacated vacuum pump pad we sized AND MAINTAINED batteries for the purpose of supporting e-bus loads to meet design goals. If the builder's design goals call for battery-only endurance to be equal to fuel endurance, then the options for battery-only ops were constrained by trade-offs for battery size versus endurance loads. Once a second engine driven power source is added, one may use ALL the capability of this source without taxing the battery. However, let us assume that endurance loads need to be 12 amps. Okay, 10A from the SD-8 and 2A from the battery. This formula for achieving comfortable termination of flight is still quite attractive. You make your own rules based on load analysis and design goals for operating YOUR CHOICE of endurance mode accessories and planning on how you'll supply that energy. >> And finally, what is the best way to tie in dual LSEs and the >> SD-8 together? Thank you very much. David Buntin Run each ignition from the battery bus on it's own fuse. Run only one ignition during endurance mode operations. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Thermocouples connected to Dynon EGT CHT
At 11:04 AM 11/21/2008, you wrote: >My questions are: > > >A. Due to the crazy airframe, it is not uncommon to pull the >engine at annual inspection time. What would be the best >connector to use? Could I use a D-sub? The connection to the >D180 is a 25 pin D-sub. A d-sub with MACHINED crimped pins is fine. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg >B. For temperature accuracy purposes, would it be better to > position the connector forward or aft of the firewall? > The most convienient would be forward. Forward is fine. Just don't mount the connector THROUGH the firewall with an expectation of maintaining firewall integrity. I'd recommend you wrap the mated pair of connectors with silicone self-fusing tape to help keep them clean in service. These are NOT environmentally robust with respect to dirt, oils, etc. Alternatively, you could consider a mil-spec connector like the MS3470 series. These can be installed with the same crimp tool as the d-subs if you manually position the pins in the tool. But a mated set in low quantities will cost you about $50. The d-subs wrapped with silicone tape is the more economical. Effects on thermocouple readings will be small and insignificant. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
From: "dksington" <derek(at)sington.net>
Date: Nov 22, 2008
Thank you for the swift reply, but would you mind clarifying? Am I correct in assuming that I need to remove the diodes (in which case the photo of the S-701-1 on B&C's website seems to show only one diode with just a wire going from the side contactor to the front contactor. http://www.bandc.biz/s701-1l.jpg Or can I simply leave the S701-2 as-is? Sorry to be a pain! Many thanks, Derek Sington. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215759#215759 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z-13/8 design and operating philosophy
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Bob, Thanks for updating our thinking. I too am going through this installation. Just to re-iterate the flow.. Low voltage condition or other on primary alt, so... 1. Switch main DC Power from Alt to Bat. 2. Shed un-necessary load. 2. Close the Alt E-Bus Feed switch. 2. Switch main DC Power from Bat to Off. 2. Switch on the Aux Alt SD-8 (After storing gum wrappers). 4. Fly to a safe place. Thanks -----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, November 22, 2008 11:29 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-13/8 design and operating philosophy >>Hi Bob. Love your book. Thank you. I'm pleased that you find it a good value. >> On page 17-9 dealing with the SD-8 Alt, second column, second >> paragraph. I assume you would want to open the battery cont, >> close the E-bus alt feed switch and close the SD-8alt control >> relay (same as aux alt off/on swithch on Z-13 to on?)ONLY if the >> main alt fails as mentioned in the next para? Yes. That was the original intent. E-bus alt feed is closed before you turn off the battery master for the purpose of load shedding during battery-only operations. To avoid having the e-bus go down during the changeover, you turn on alternate-feed first, battery master off next. SD-8 can go on at any time in the sequence. Now assuming that an SD-8 is installed, it may be brought on to support e-bus loads thus saving all the battery's stored energy to support approach to landing were the battery master is turned back on and other equipment items are added to the system loads. >> Then will the SD-8 just be supplying pwr to charge the battery, >> or will it directly be supplying pwr to the essential bus because >> it is supplying more volts? It's a reasonable assumption that the battery was fully charged when the main alternator failed. There is no need for the SD-8 to "charge" the battery . . . it needs to support e-bus loads so as to NOT discharge the battery. As long as the SD-8 output remains above 12.7 volts or so, the battery will not contribute to operation of e-bus loads . . . i.e. is held in reserve. >> Someone told me he flies around with his SD-8 aux alt switch on >> all the time so there will never be a situation where there is no >> missing pwr to the field to get it to work. I don't think that is >> the correct way is it? With the SD-8, is it best to assume the >> endurance bus should not exceed about 7 amps (just under the 8)? He doesn't understand the equipment installed aboard his aircraft and has not crafted a Plan-A/Plan-B operating protocol based on understanding. His concerns for keeping the SD-8 "alive" are unfounded. First, the SD8 doesn't have an externally excited field. Second, assuming he has an active notification of low voltage (LV warning light) then the changeover from Plan-A to Plan-B after main alternator failure is a no-big-rush deal. The battery is sitting there substantially topped off and will run things nicely for some time . . . he could finish unwrapping his stick of gum and properly stow the wrapper before making the change. The SD-8 can be loaded to as much as 10A at cruise rpm without sagging below the 12.8 volt levels that begins to load the battery. There are no hard and fast "rules" about operations with the SD-8. Back before we installed SD-8's on a handy, vacated vacuum pump pad we sized AND MAINTAINED batteries for the purpose of supporting e-bus loads to meet design goals. If the builder's design goals call for battery-only endurance to be equal to fuel endurance, then the options for battery-only ops were constrained by trade-offs for battery size versus endurance loads. Once a second engine driven power source is added, one may use ALL the capability of this source without taxing the battery. However, let us assume that endurance loads need to be 12 amps. Okay, 10A from the SD-8 and 2A from the battery. This formula for achieving comfortable termination of flight is still quite attractive. You make your own rules based on load analysis and design goals for operating YOUR CHOICE of endurance mode accessories and planning on how you'll supply that energy. >> And finally, what is the best way to tie in dual LSEs and the >> SD-8 together? Thank you very much. David Buntin Run each ignition from the battery bus on it's own fuse. Run only one ignition during endurance mode operations. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thermocouples connected to Dynon EGT CHT
si claro. Si Marta me deja sacar fotos pues lo har=E9, sino no pasa nada. Rercuerda que no tengo ganas de crear problemas ni mucho menos lastimar sentimientos de esta gente, que es bastante trajico todo. un abrazo 2008/11/21 rampil > > Hi Sam, > > If you are talking about a connector on the firewall, use a metal > circular connector i.e., AMP. Do not use a a db submini for three > reasons: They are not deep enough to pass through most firewalls, > they provide no thermal insulation and are not rated for constant hi temp > environment, and they are not gas tight against carbon monoxide etc. > > AMP makes special pins for TC connections, but I have never seen > anyone ever use them. Just live with the relatively tiny errors due to > the extra junction > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215559#215559 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Ordered Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: F.S. Silver plated 2 AWG wire
Please forgive the shameless plug. 25 feet of 2AWG silver plated wire I bought this a while back and decided not to use it. Selling it for what I paid for. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190268745419 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: S7701-1 battery contactor hook-up
At 10:58 AM 11/22/2008, you wrote: > >Thank you for the swift reply, but would you mind clarifying? Am I >correct in assuming that I need to remove the diodes (in which case >the photo of the S-701-1 on B&C's website seems to show only one >diode with just a wire going from the side contactor to the front contactor. > >http://www.bandc.biz/s701-1l.jpg > >Or can I simply leave the S701-2 as-is? Wire per the schematics and pictures. You need a jumper and one diode for a battery contactor. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Z-13/8 design and operating philosophy
At 11:37 AM 11/22/2008, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Thanks for updating our thinking. I too am going through this >installation. > >Just to re-iterate the flow.. > >Low voltage condition or other on primary alt, so... > >1. Switch main DC Power from Alt to Bat. >2. Shed un-necessary load. >2. Close the Alt E-Bus Feed switch. >2. Switch main DC Power from Bat to Off. >2. Switch on the Aux Alt SD-8 (After storing gum wrappers). >4. Fly to a safe place. That works. Just keep in mind that the whole idea behind artfully maintained batteries and second engine driven power sources is so that a "safe" place is also a comfortable, convenient place for effecting repairs to your machine. Further, all the goodies on the panel cannot offer the be-there-when-you-need-it utility of the stuff in your flight bag. Bob . . . >Thanks > >-----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, November 22, 2008 11:29 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-13/8 design and operating philosophy > > > > > >>Hi Bob. Love your book. > > Thank you. I'm pleased that you find it a good value. > > >> On page 17-9 dealing with the SD-8 Alt, second column, second > >> paragraph. I assume you would want to open the battery cont, > >> close the E-bus alt feed switch and close the SD-8alt control > >> relay (same as aux alt off/on swithch on Z-13 to on?)ONLY if the > >> main alt fails as mentioned in the next para? > > Yes. That was the original intent. E-bus alt feed is closed before > you turn off the battery master for the purpose of load shedding > during battery-only operations. To avoid having the e-bus go down > during the changeover, you turn on alternate-feed first, battery > master off next. SD-8 can go on at any time in the sequence. > > Now assuming that an SD-8 is installed, it may be brought on > to support e-bus loads thus saving all the battery's stored > energy to support approach to landing were the battery master > is turned back on and other equipment items are added to > the system loads. > > >> Then will the SD-8 just be supplying pwr to charge the battery, > >> or will it directly be supplying pwr to the essential bus because > >> it is supplying more volts? > > It's a reasonable assumption that the battery was fully > charged when the main alternator failed. There is no need > for the SD-8 to "charge" the battery . . . it needs to support > e-bus loads so as to NOT discharge the battery. As long as > the SD-8 output remains above 12.7 volts or so, the battery > will not contribute to operation of e-bus loads . . . i.e. > is held in reserve. > > >> Someone told me he flies around with his SD-8 aux alt switch on > >> all the time so there will never be a situation where there is no > >> missing pwr to the field to get it to work. I don't think that is > >> the correct way is it? With the SD-8, is it best to assume the > >> endurance bus should not exceed about 7 amps (just under the 8)? > > He doesn't understand the equipment installed aboard > his aircraft and has not crafted a Plan-A/Plan-B > operating protocol based on understanding. > > His concerns for keeping the SD-8 "alive" are unfounded. > First, the SD8 doesn't have an externally excited field. > Second, assuming he has an active notification of low > voltage (LV warning light) then the changeover from > Plan-A to Plan-B after main alternator failure is > a no-big-rush deal. The battery is sitting there > substantially topped off and will run things nicely > for some time . . . he could finish unwrapping his > stick of gum and properly stow the wrapper before > making the change. > > The SD-8 can be loaded to as much as 10A at cruise > rpm without sagging below the 12.8 volt levels that > begins to load the battery. There are no hard and fast > "rules" about operations with the SD-8. Back before > we installed SD-8's on a handy, vacated vacuum pump > pad we sized AND MAINTAINED batteries for the purpose > of supporting e-bus loads to meet design goals. > > If the builder's design goals call for battery-only > endurance to be equal to fuel endurance, then the > options for battery-only ops were constrained > by trade-offs for battery size versus endurance > loads. > > Once a second engine driven power source is added, > one may use ALL the capability of this source > without taxing the battery. However, let us > assume that endurance loads need to be 12 amps. > Okay, 10A from the SD-8 and 2A from the battery. > This formula for achieving comfortable termination > of flight is still quite attractive. > > You make your own rules based on load analysis and design > goals for operating YOUR CHOICE of endurance mode accessories > and planning on how you'll supply that energy. > > >> And finally, what is the best way to tie in dual LSEs and the > >> SD-8 together? Thank you very much. David Buntin > > Run each ignition from the battery bus on it's > own fuse. Run only one ignition during endurance > mode operations. > > Bob . . . > > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >11/22/2008 6:59 PM Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. I have two possible power inputs A or B. I have two possible devices, C or D. I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with no other combinations. A powers C B powers D Off Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two sets of fuel injectors. Thanks, Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Date: Nov 23, 2008
Sam, Can the center position be 'OFF'? If so, a double pole/double throw switch will work if you use it to only sw itch the positive leads and use a common for the negative for both connecti ons. One pole, with throw in one direction, (say up) could give you the A p ower to C and the other pole with the other direction throw (say down) woul d give you B power to D. Dale Ensing ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Hoskins To: Aerolectric List Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 7:58 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. I have two possible power inputs A or B. I have two possible devices, C or D. I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with n o other combinations. A powers C B powers D Off Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with only one sw itch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two set s of fuel injectors. Thanks, Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2008
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. I have two possible power inputs A or B. I have two possible devices, C or D. I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with no other combinations. A powers C B powers D Off Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two sets of fuel injectors. Thanks, Sam You can accomplish this using a 2-10 switch connected as follows: A to 2, B to 5, C to 1, D to 6. A simple dpdt center off switch can be also wired for this circuit. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2008
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote: > > I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. > > I have two possible power inputs A or B. > > I have two possible devices, C or D. > > I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, > with no other combinations. > > A powers C > B powers D > Off > > Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure > couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it > with only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? > > This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two > sets of fuel injectors. > > Thanks, > > Sam > > * * > *You can accomplish this using a 2-10 switch connected as follows: A to 2, B to 5, C to 1, D to 6.* > * * > *A simple dpdt center off switch can be also wired for this circuit.* > * * > *Roger* Is it acceptable that one switch failure takes out both systems? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2008
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
I never understood why guys like this sort of thing. It means you do NOT have redundant systems since one switch failure can fail both sources of power. FWIW my engine continues to run if I energize both injection systems and feed twice the normal fuel to it. Definitely rich but not a show stopper. Ken Sam Hoskins wrote: > I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. > > I have two possible power inputs A or B. > > I have two possible devices, C or D. > > I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with > no other combinations. > > A powers C > B powers D > Off > > Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure > couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with > only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? > > This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two > sets of fuel injectors. > > Thanks, > > Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Value of the List...
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some lame magazine or even just a single dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the Lists? Contribution Page: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
At 08:41 PM 11/23/2008, you wrote: > >I never understood why guys like this sort of thing. It means you do >NOT have redundant systems since one switch failure can fail both >sources of power. > >FWIW my engine continues to run if I energize both injection systems >and feed twice the normal fuel to it. Definitely rich but not a show stopper. > >Ken It is a product of design goals that do not consider every single component's vulnerability to failure. In the certified side of the house, we like to fill spread sheets with lots of calculations derived from failure rate numbers that are too often assumed and combinations that are too seldom confirmed for reliability. The final insult comes when all potential consequences for failure have not been mitigated even when a backup for the failed part exists. Remember Apollo 13? Somebody cranked the numbers on that thermostat and was "comfortable" with the probability of failure. Shucks, the vehicle had a service life of less than 1000 hours. Just how good does it need to be? Oh yeah, if it DOES croak . . . can I live with getting my tail blasted off? I will suggest that the term "redundant" is most useful when Plan-A has no components in common with Plan-B. The icing on the cake comes from consideration of the consequences of any single failure . . . the "best" failures do not propagate their effects beyond a need to replace the failed part after a comfortable termination of flight has been accomplished. Sam, the best advice we can give you is to craft your redundant systems with as much electrical isolation as possible/practical. This would include separate control switches for each set of injectors. Bob . . . >Sam Hoskins wrote: >>I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. >>I have two possible power inputs A or B. >>I have two possible devices, C or D. >>I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, >>with no other combinations. >>A powers C >>B powers D >>Off >>Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure >>couldn't figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it >>with only one switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? >>This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to >>two sets of fuel injectors. >>Thanks, >>Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Thanks, Bob, et al. This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of unintended consequences. The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and more efficient. The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel Injection. The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many items not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in weight - in direct opposition to The Goal. I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of real estate for the switch grouping. That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source with one switch. There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another #@$*% switch. FWIW, here is my current power distribution: http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf And the wire page for the coils and injectors: http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf And the load analysis: http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf Regards, Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 08:41 PM 11/23/2008, you wrote: > >> >> I never understood why guys like this sort of thing. It means you do NOT >> have redundant systems since one switch failure can fail both sources of >> power. >> >> FWIW my engine continues to run if I energize both injection systems and >> feed twice the normal fuel to it. Definitely rich but not a show stopper. >> >> Ken >> > > It is a product of design goals that do not consider every > single component's vulnerability to failure. In the certified > side of the house, we like to fill spread sheets with lots > of calculations derived from failure rate numbers that are > too often assumed and combinations that are too seldom > confirmed for reliability. The final insult comes when all > potential consequences for failure have not been mitigated > even when a backup for the failed part exists. Remember > Apollo 13? Somebody cranked the numbers on that thermostat > and was "comfortable" with the probability of failure. Shucks, > the vehicle had a service life of less than 1000 hours. Just > how good does it need to be? Oh yeah, if it DOES croak . . . > can I live with getting my tail blasted off? > > I will suggest that the term "redundant" is most useful when > Plan-A has no components in common with Plan-B. The icing > on the cake comes from consideration of the consequences of > any single failure . . . the "best" failures do not propagate > their effects beyond a need to replace the failed part after > a comfortable termination of flight has been accomplished. > > Sam, the best advice we can give you is to craft your redundant > systems with as much electrical isolation as possible/practical. > This would include separate control switches for each set of > injectors. > > Bob . . . > > > Sam Hoskins wrote: >> >>> I am trying to configure a switch and am currently stumped. >>> I have two possible power inputs A or B. >>> I have two possible devices, C or D. >>> I want the three position switch to have the following conditions, with >>> no other combinations. >>> A powers C >>> B powers D >>> Off >>> Do you think this is possible with a single 2-10 Switch? I sure couldn't >>> figure it out. How else might I be able to accomplish it with only one >>> switch? Maybe a 4-10 (and where would I get one)? >>> This all has to do with redundant power inputs providing power to two >>> sets of fuel injectors. >>> Thanks, >>> Sam >>> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >Thanks, Bob, et al. > >This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of >unintended consequences. > >The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster >and more efficient. >The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel Injection. >The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many >items not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain >in weight - in direct opposition to The Goal. > >I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control >power and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed >endurance loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty >much run out of real estate for the switch grouping. > >That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power >source with one switch. > >There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has >been fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for >another #@$*% switch. > >FWIW, here is my current power distribution: ><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf > >And the wire page for the coils and injectors: ><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf > >And the load analysis: ><http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus creating a situation that causes you to take some action. Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity, ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Bob, Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. The RWS EFI controller <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> (ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine battery bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank. All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a better way. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >> Thanks, Bob, et al. >> >> This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of >> unintended consequences. >> >> The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and more >> efficient. >> The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel >> Injection. >> The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many items >> not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in weight - in >> direct opposition to The Goal. >> >> I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power >> and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance >> loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of real >> estate for the switch grouping. >> >> That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source >> with one switch. >> >> There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been >> fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another #@$*% >> switch. >> >> FWIW, here is my current power distribution: >> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf >> >http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pdf >> >> And the wire page for the coils and injectors: >> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf> >> http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf >> >> And the load analysis: >> <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf> >> http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf >> > > It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's > axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches > in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the > optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the > more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus > creating a situation that causes you to take some action. > > Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure > from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting > the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to > single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the > process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running > quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity, > ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >Bob, > >Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. > >The <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller >(ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted >on a single board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost >identical and separate. > >They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition >and fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and >engine, can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. >I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine >battery bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On >my drawing, the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". Okay, why not a double-pole switch that controls each ECU from it's own battery bus as depicted in Z-19. This eliminates two switches. In other words, what do you perceive a need to "back up"? It is exceedingly remote that you will experience two failures on any one tank full of fuel. I presume you're going to carry well maintained batteries (known capacity) and that your alternator-out endurance numbers for loss of an alternator are know. >Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a >similar thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or >the engine battery bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's >backup. The two Facet pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux >tanks to the header supply tank. Why not one switch per pump fed from different batteries? You have dual ignition already. Why not one switch to control magneto. One to control electronic ignition from a battery bus. Do the fuel injectors draw current if their associated ECU is powered down? If not, hook main injectors to engine battery, TB injector to main battery. No switches. >All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a >better way. I think this reduces your switch count by 3. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours. Sam On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. >> >> The <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller (ECU) >> has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single >> board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. >> >> They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and >> fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can >> each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. >> > > I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus >> and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the >> engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". >> > > > Okay, why not a double-pole switch that controls each ECU > from it's own battery bus as depicted in Z-19. This eliminates > two switches. In other words, what do you perceive a need to > "back up"? It is exceedingly remote that you will experience > two failures on any one tank full of fuel. I presume you're going > to carry well maintained batteries (known capacity) and that your > alternator-out endurance numbers for loss of an alternator are > know. > > Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar >> thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine battery >> bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet >> pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank. >> > > Why not one switch per pump fed from different batteries? > > You have dual ignition already. Why not one switch to control > magneto. One to control electronic ignition from a battery bus. > Do the fuel injectors draw current if their associated ECU is > powered down? If not, hook main injectors to engine battery, > TB injector to main battery. No switches. > > All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a >> better way. >> > > I think this reduces your switch count by 3. > > Bob . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Date: Nov 24, 2008
Sam, I think you are over complicating the matter - I am assuming that the engine will run on either the A or the B system. Why not wire the whole of the A system from the main bus and the whole of the B system from the engine bus? Both systems become completely independent and you have 2 completely redundant systems. There is no confusion as to which side of the ECU/pump/etc is running on what. If you suspect any kind of failure switch off the system currently in use and switch on the other one. Fly to the nearest airport and investigate the failure on the ground. Use both systems regularly so you trust them both. Any further redundancy perhaps is overkill and may just introduce further (unintended?) failure modes. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: 24 November 2008 16:53 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? Bob, Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. The RWS EFI controller <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> (ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine battery bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank. All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a better way. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: Thanks, Bob, et al. This project could be held up as a textbook example of the laws of unintended consequences. The initial project Goal: Make an already flying plane go faster and more efficient. The method: Aerodynamic clean up and addition of Electronic Fuel Injection. The consequence: The project stretching out over a year, with many items not on the original list, and worst, a not insignificant gain in weight - in direct opposition to The Goal. I have a wire count well over one hundred, 16 switches to control power and fuel, and require in the neighborhood of 20 amps to feed endurance loads! I am using a version of Z19/RB. I have pretty much run out of real estate for the switch grouping. That is why I am trying to include the A power source and B power source with one switch. There are lots of asides to this story, but the project really has been fun. I'll mull all this over and see if I can find room for another #@$*% switch. FWIW, here is my current power distribution: <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.pd f>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/N202SH_POWER_DISTRIBUTION_07.p df And the wire page for the coils and injectors: <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf>http:// www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/injectors_and_coils.pdf And the load analysis: <http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf>http://www.mi stakeproofing.net/transfer/Load_analysis.pdf It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus creating a situation that causes you to take some action. Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity, ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: Alternator noise
Date: Nov 24, 2008
I am getting a lot of what is clearly alternator or voltage regulator noise on my radio. (No noise on battery, increasing noise in volume and frequency as RPM increases. Radio is a Terra 760D fed from the main bus. I have a small permanent magnet alternator (18 amp John Deere) feeding a motorcycle voltage regulator (Crane Fireball), connected to the main bus using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit which already includes a big filter capacitor. One strange thing I have noticed is that when I turn on the battery, the alternator fail light comes on, but when I switch on the alternator relay (even with the engine not running), the light goes out. Perhaps I wired it incorrectly? Charging seems to work fine. Anyone had a similar problem and found a fix? Thanks, Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2008
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Z13/8 Battery Contactor Failure
A friend of mine noticed something when looking at my wiring diagram tonight. If the battery contactor opens in flight, say due to the internal coil failing, or the control wiring open circuiting, then the alternator will be alive, but without the battery to stabilize the voltage. That sounds to me like a bad thing. I expect I would know about it immediately, due to a buzz in the intercom, but would I (or my wife) recognize the fault in time to shut of the main switch before damage is done ? Will the overvoltage circuitry react well to this scenareo and open the field drive soon enough ? Obviously many aircraft are wired this way, and presumably, this is an unlikely fault, but ... Is there a way to improve on the design ? Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Yes, I probably am over complicating the matter. In fact, I'm sure of it. Armed with a wide set of possibilities and a good CAD program, I can merril y spend hours and hours woring on all sorts of permutations. Now I'll spend a little time trying to simplicate the thing. I appreciate the reality check. Thanks. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Peter Pengilly wro te: > Sam, > > > I think you are over complicating the matter ' I am assuming that the > engine will run on either the A or the B system. Why not wire the whole o f > the A system from the main bus and the whole of the B system from the eng ine > bus? Both systems become completely independent and you have 2 completely > redundant systems. There is no confusion as to which side of the > ECU/pump/etc is running on what. > > > If you suspect any kind of failure switch off the system currently in use > and switch on the other one. Fly to the nearest airport and investigate t he > failure on the ground. Use both systems regularly so you trust them both. > Any further redundancy perhaps is overkill and may just introduce further > (unintended?) failure modes. > > > Regards, Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins > *Sent:* 24 November 2008 16:53 > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done? > > > Bob, > > Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. > > The RWS EFI controller <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> (ECU) > has two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single > board. These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separat e. > > They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and > fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can > each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. > > I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus > and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the > engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". > > Adding to that, are two Walbro fuel pumps, and here I continued a similar > thought pattern. That is, either the main battery bus or the engine batt ery > bus would feed either the main EFI pump, or it's backup. The two Facet > pumps transfer fuel from the main and aux tanks to the header supply tank . > > All of this adds up to a boatload of switches. I invite ideas for a bett er > way. > > Sam > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 08:52 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > > > It's not clear how you ended up with so many switches. It's > axiomatic that the more choices you have for operating switches > in a tense situation, the less likely that you'll make the > optimum/right choice. Further, the more switches you have, the > more likely it is that you'll suffer a switch failure thus > creating a situation that causes you to take some action. > > Can you share the rationale that prompted your departure > from Z19 suggestions? What value is perceived for splitting > the ECU controls into two separate switches as opposed to > single, double pole switches? Have you thought through the > process(es) you'll exercise when the engine is not running > quite right? The best Plan-B involves a minimum of activity, > ideally free of possibilities for doing the wrong thing. > > Bob . . . > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > * -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --* > > * (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)* > > ** > > * November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on* > > * the Contribution link below to find out more about* > > * this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts!* > > ** > > * List Contribution Web Site:* > > ** > > * --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > ** > > * Thank you for your generous support!* > > ** > > * -Matt Dralle, List Admin.* > > ** > > ** > > * - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > * --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* > > ** > > ** > > * - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -* > > ** > > ** > > * --> http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > * > =========== =========== =========== ============* > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2008
Subject: Another leaking battery
Yesterday I had the occasion to open the battery compartment on a small audio amplifier that uses four AA alkaline batteries. All four had leaked and two had to be pried out. Apple cider vinegar cleaned up the mess with the usual bubbles normally seen when using baking soda on lead acid battery leaks. The batteries were purchased at Harbor Freight with Thunderbolt Magnum made in China on their labels. I believe we are approaching the point that after using a device powered by batteries, they must be removed until the next use to prevent problems. I remember doing this in years gone by.. Earl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
At 01:23 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours. >Sam > > >On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III ><nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: ><nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > >At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >Bob, > >Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. > >The ><<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS >EFI controller (ECU) has two separate Ignition/fuel injection >controllers mounted on a single board. These are labeled as A & >B. They are almost identical and separate. > > >They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition >and fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and >engine, can each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. > > >I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine >battery bus and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On >my drawing, the engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". Yes, there are MANY combinations of things you can do that function as advertised. I've seen airplanes at fly-ins that have LOTS of switches. Your task as system designer and integrator of components is to 'optimize' the design. I.e., what components can be eliminated to reduce complexity from the (1) perspective of reliability and space savings and (2) reduce pilot workload for having to make the right decisions for continued flight when some part of the system decides to throw a temper tantrum. I'll suggest you reconsider your design with the notion that (1) the hardware SHARED by plan-a and plan-b systems needs to be an absolute minimum. (2) Likelihood of having two failures in the airplane on any single tank full of fuel is exceedingly rare (read insignificant). (3) Manage energy sources and loads to meet design goals for endurance when a failure does occur. I'm certain that you'll discover a way to reduce numbers of switches down to independent control of system-A and system-B probably as simple as one switch per system. Does each ECU have its own dedicated fuel pump or can either pump supply either system? If the former, combine the pumps on the ECU controls. If the later, one switch per pump is called for. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Either pump can supply either system. The second EFI pump is just a back-up to the first. I think these automotive pumps are very reliable and I won't ever need the backup unit, but since it keeps the fan turning, it's pretty important to have the backup. The fuel system has a bypass-type pressure regulator. When I originally set this up, I wanted to design it so either pump could be on-line, but not both, so as not to overload the regulator. That lead to the set-up that required two switches and an either/or condition. I don't really know the capacity of the regulator, it just seemed like a good idea. Instead, I think I will go back to one switch per pump, dedicate them to main/engine, and arrange the switch bank to better group things together - make the error proofing visual rather than mechanical. As you suggested, I am looking into the characteristics of the internally excited coils and the fuel injectors to see if there is any current draw when there is no ECU input. My first reaction was to insist that they be switched, mostly for maintenance purposes. But on second, thought maybe a panel breaker would do the trick - provided there is no current draw. Yes, the switch count is coming down. Sam On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 01:23 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >> Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours. >> Sam >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: >> <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> >> >> At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >> Bob, >> >> Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. >> >> The <<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> >> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller (ECU) has >> two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single board. >> These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. >> >> >> They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and >> fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can >> each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. >> >> >> I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus >> and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the >> engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". >> > > Yes, there are MANY combinations of things you can do that > function as advertised. I've seen airplanes at fly-ins that > have LOTS of switches. > > Your task as system designer and integrator of components is > to 'optimize' the design. I.e., what components can be eliminated > to reduce complexity from the (1) perspective of reliability and > space savings and (2) reduce pilot workload for having to make > the right decisions for continued flight when some part of the > system decides to throw a temper tantrum. > > I'll suggest you reconsider your design with the notion that > (1) the hardware SHARED by plan-a and plan-b systems needs to > be an absolute minimum. (2) Likelihood of having two failures > in the airplane on any single tank full of fuel is exceedingly > rare (read insignificant). (3) Manage energy sources and loads > to meet design goals for endurance when a failure does occur. > > I'm certain that you'll discover a way to reduce numbers of > switches down to independent control of system-A and system-B > probably as simple as one switch per system. Does each ECU > have its own dedicated fuel pump or can either pump supply > either system? If the former, combine the pumps on the > ECU controls. If the later, one switch per pump is called for. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Either pump can supply either system. The second EFI pump is just a back-up to the first. I think these automotive pumps are very reliable and I won't ever need the backup unit, but since it keeps the fan turning, it's pretty important to have the backup. The fuel system has a bypass-type pressure regulator. When I originally set this up, I wanted to design it so either pump could be on-line, but not both, so as not to overload the regulator. That lead to the set-up that required two switches and an either/or condition. I don't really know the capacity of the regulator, it just seemed like a good idea. Instead, I think I will go back to one switch per pump, dedicate them to main/engine, and arrange the switch bank to better group things together - make the error proofing visual rather than mechanical. As you suggested, I am looking into the characteristics of the internally excited coils and the fuel injectors to see if there is any current draw when there is no ECU input. My first reaction was to insist that they be switched, mostly for maintenance purposes. But on second, thought maybe a panel breaker would do the trick - provided there is no current draw. Yes, the switch count is coming down. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 01:23 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >> Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours. >> Sam >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: >> <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> >> >> At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >> Bob, >> >> Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. >> >> The <<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> >> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller (ECU) has >> two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single board. >> These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. >> >> >> They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and >> fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can >> each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. >> >> >> I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus >> and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the >> engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". >> > > Yes, there are MANY combinations of things you can do that > function as advertised. I've seen airplanes at fly-ins that > have LOTS of switches. > > Your task as system designer and integrator of components is > to 'optimize' the design. I.e., what components can be eliminated > to reduce complexity from the (1) perspective of reliability and > space savings and (2) reduce pilot workload for having to make > the right decisions for continued flight when some part of the > system decides to throw a temper tantrum. > > I'll suggest you reconsider your design with the notion that > (1) the hardware SHARED by plan-a and plan-b systems needs to > be an absolute minimum. (2) Likelihood of having two failures > in the airplane on any single tank full of fuel is exceedingly > rare (read insignificant). (3) Manage energy sources and loads > to meet design goals for endurance when a failure does occur. > > I'm certain that you'll discover a way to reduce numbers of > switches down to independent control of system-A and system-B > probably as simple as one switch per system. Does each ECU > have its own dedicated fuel pump or can either pump supply > either system? If the former, combine the pumps on the > ECU controls. If the later, one switch per pump is called for. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z13/8 Battery Contactor Failure
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 25, 2008
> Obviously many aircraft are wired this way, and presumably, this is an > unlikely fault, but ...Is there a way to improve on the design ? Jeff, Racecars use a mechanical battery switch. The FAA demands a "one-hand operable battery disconnect and this complies. Even though this may be difficult to arrange compared to a contactor, it is probably worth the effort. (Google: Flaming River Battery Switch). "The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be smarter, and only the good people want to improve." - Eolake Stobblehouse -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=216212#216212 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Z13/8 Battery Contactor Failure
At 09:35 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >A friend of mine noticed something when looking at my wiring diagram tonight. > >If the battery contactor opens in flight, say due to the internal coil >failing, or the control wiring open circuiting, then the alternator >will be alive, but without the battery to stabilize the voltage. When I revise the chapters on alternators and regulators, I'm going to have to revise advice based on to-long and deeply-held beliefs that the battery carries a major role in voltage stabilization for a battery/alternator power system. There IS a role for the battery but it's a more of a firewall against (1) system collapse under large transient loads that cause the alternator to "stall" and (2) mitigation of surge voltage amplitude during large load dumps. This is pretty easy to understand: Consider that a battery needs 14.0 volts or so to take significant charge. It delivers energy at 12.5 volts and below. So if the bus is wiggling around between these two values (read alternator ripple voltage) how much can the battery participate in smoothing this perturbation? Not much. Battery ability to 'stabilize' bus perturbations within the bounds of 12.5 to 14.0 volts is nil. >That sounds to me like a bad thing. I expect I would know about it >immediately, due to a buzz in the intercom, but would I (or my wife) >recognize the fault in time to shut of the main switch before damage >is done ? Loss of battery is not a recipe for over-stressed electro- whizzies . . . >Will the overvoltage circuitry react well to this scenareo and open >the field drive soon enough ? Any source of 3-phase power rectified to produce DC power has an inherent "ripple" or noise component on the order of 5% of the DC component. A 14v alternator may be expected to have a strong ripple voltage of 0.7 volts with lower energy but higher voltage components consisting of harmonics and diode switching transients. The bible for crafting DC power generation systems for vehicles is Mil-Std-704 which allows 3 volts pk-pk noise on 28v systems, 1.5 volts pk-pk noise on 14v systems. This is allowed because it is EXPECTED from a normally operating alternator or generator. See Figure 15 of . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/Mil-Std-704_excerpts.pdf Okay, take these values a compare them with the battery's ability to accept or deliver energy. That 1.5 volt, 'window' of compliance described above is almost exactly the same as an expected pk-pk noise value delivered by the alternator. Here's a couple of 'scope traces taken from my dearly departed Safari van a couple of years ago . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Safari_Bus_Noise_1.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Safari_Bus_Noise_2.gif The trash on the bus is in keeping with expected performance of the alternator as a potential noise source and the battery as a wish-it-were-a-better-filter. >Obviously many aircraft are wired this way, and presumably, this is an >unlikely fault, but ... >Is there a way to improve on the design ? Doesn't need it. Electro-whizzies for aircraft are EXPECTED to perform as advertised when powered from systems not unlike that measured in the traces above and quantified in mil-std-704. There are certified aircraft (including A36 Bonanza and B58 Baron) that have independent alternator and battery switches. The alternators on these aircraft will come on line without benefit of external battery. Further, the noise on the bus is affected very little by the presence of a battery. Operation without battery is not prohibited in the AFM. Short answer: Don't loose any sleep over it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator noise
At 05:13 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >I am getting a lot of what is clearly alternator or voltage >regulator noise on my radio. (No noise on battery, increasing noise >in volume and frequency as RPM increases. Radio is a Terra 760D fed >from the main bus. > >I have a small permanent magnet alternator (18 amp John Deere) >feeding a motorcycle voltage regulator (Crane Fireball), connected >to the main bus using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit which >already includes a big filter capacitor. > >One strange thing I have noticed is that when I turn on the battery, >the alternator fail light comes on, but when I switch on the >alternator relay (even with the engine not running), the light goes >out. Perhaps I wired it incorrectly? Charging seems to work fine. > >Anyone had a similar problem and found a fix? It would be helpful to see your power distribution diagram. Did you use a z-figure? Can you describe your ground system to us too? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
I called B&C and wound up talking to Bill Bainbridge about their S700-2-11 switch configuration. This is listed as ON-ON-OFF. He confessed that he didn't have any info on it and referred me to Bob. Is there a link that shows this switch? Thanks. Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Samuelian <psamuelian(at)charter.net>
Subject: MaxDim Group Buy Opportunity
Date: Nov 25, 2008
For anyone interested... I have set up a "group buy" for the MaxDim panel dimmer. It is ONLY for U.S. members of this Aeroelectric List. If you are designing/planning your panel or accumulating parts for it... and there is enough interest (around 6 units or more) I will provide these for $128 each + shipping (+ sales tax in CA) for a limited time. These dimmers are unparalleled in performance... NO heat, NO separate, bulky control unit. NO heatsink. Amazing 350W power control in a 1.25" diameter unit. This is a best-of-breed product. Mooney has specified these for all their new planes! (STC and PMA) 5-35VDC, 12.5Amps and around 2.5 ounces! Hook up power, ground, and lights (3 connections), 2 mounting holes to drill, and you're done. PLEASE CONTACT OFF-LIST psamuelian(at)charter.net and provide answers to: What is your Name? How many MaxDim units do you want to reserve? When do you require them? What is your shipping address? (USA only, please) What is your phone number? Please mention the "Aeroelectric MaxDim Group Buy" in the subject of your email. Please... FIRM COMMITMENTS ONLY. Treat this as an order. These are priced a few bucks above distribution to cover the shipping costs to me, and handling charges when redistributed to you. I am doing this on a trial basis to see how it goes. If/when we reach the minimum level I will request payment from you, and place the order. I recently installed 2 of these in my Cessna and they perform as advertised. Thanks! Phil RV7 (looking for wing kit), Cessna 177 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2008
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Sam FWIW there have been several cases of EFI pump failure over the years so I agree that a backup is a very good idea. On my subaru the fuel pressure goes up 2 or 3 psi if I run two paralleled pumps simultaneously. I'm aware of similar reports with other regulators. That pressure increase is pretty insignificant as far as the engine is concerned as injector flow varies with the square root of the pressure. I no longer bother to run two pumps for takeoff and landing but my switches are laid out such that all engine problems are dealt with by positioning all switches up with one hand without having to look at them. A simple emergency procedure like that is well worth some effort to implement if you can. The injectors that I'm aware of operate by grounding one side of the coil through a solid state "transistor". There have been a few cases of injectors locking on from a shorted "transistor" or wiring. I don't know if there have been any from the coil shorting internally to ground. However a locked on injector will not likely be noticed at full power and maybe not even at cruise power. Definitely noticeable upon power reduction. Ken Sam Hoskins wrote: > Either pump can supply either system. The second EFI pump is just a back-up > to the first. > > I think these automotive pumps are very reliable and I won't ever need the > backup unit, but since it keeps the fan turning, it's pretty important to > have the backup. > > The fuel system has a bypass-type pressure regulator. When I originally set > this up, I wanted to design it so either pump could be on-line, but not > both, so as not to overload the regulator. That lead to the set-up that > required two switches and an either/or condition. I don't really know the > capacity of the regulator, it just seemed like a good idea. > > Instead, I think I will go back to one switch per pump, dedicate them to > main/engine, and arrange the switch bank to better group things together - > make the error proofing visual rather than mechanical. > > As you suggested, I am looking into the characteristics of the internally > excited coils and the fuel injectors to see if there is any current draw > when there is no ECU input. My first reaction was to insist that they be > switched, mostly for maintenance purposes. But on second, thought maybe a > panel breaker would do the trick - provided there is no current draw. > > Yes, the switch count is coming down. > > Sam > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering
Date: Nov 26, 2008
Chapter 9 of the 'Connection discusses the tradeoffs between soldered and crimped connections, and suggests that for those who do not want to invest in crimp-on terminals and associated tools, soldering is acceptable and possibly preferable for use on airplanes. This chapter goes on to explain the proper method for soldering and heat-shrinking ring terminals to wire. However, a solder method for fast-on tabs is not addressed. Since some electrical components come with male fast-on tabs, it is necessary to terminate some wires with female fast-on tabs. Do I still need to invest in the crimp-on terminals and associated tools to do fast-on tabs, or is there a method and terminal type for soldering fast-on tabs as well, and if so, is there any documentation on this? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few More Days...
Dear Listers, There are just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser. There are some great gifts available when you make a qualifying Contribution and there's plenty still available. Don't forget that its *your* Contribution that keeps the computers running, the electricity turned on, and the computer room AC cooling! If you look forward to reading your List email each day, won't you please take a minute right now to make your personal Contribution? Credit Card or Paypal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Personal Check: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering
Date: Nov 26, 2008
Fast-On Tabs and SolderingDave; It matters not what type of connection the connector provides, the wire attachment is identical. Ring, tongue, hook, fork, fast-on female, fast-on male, etc, etc. The wire termination parts are the same, so the methods of attachment are the same. You can get non-insulated versions of all of these as well as the PIDG style for crimping. Bob McC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave VanLanen To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:17 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering Chapter 9 of the 'Connection discusses the tradeoffs between soldered and crimped connections, and suggests that for those who do not want to invest in crimp-on terminals and associated tools, soldering is acceptable and possibly preferable for use on airplanes. This chapter goes on to explain the proper method for soldering and heat-shrinking ring terminals to wire. However, a solder method for fast-on tabs is not addressed. Since some electrical components come with male fast-on tabs, it is necessary to terminate some wires with female fast-on tabs. Do I still need to invest in the crimp-on terminals and associated tools to do fast-on tabs, or is there a method and terminal type for soldering fast-on tabs as well, and if so, is there any documentation on this? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Okay. I have completely split the two EFI fuel pumps - one from the engine bat bus and one from the main bat bus. The four primary injectors are now fed solely by the main bat bus and the backup throttle body (TB) injector is fed solely by the engine bat bus. A single double-pole switch turns on both A & B sides of the ECU - OFF/BOTH. The ECU has it's own dedicated panel with it's own A/B switch, not shown here. I have not figured another, more independent way to feed the four ignition coils from either the main or bat bus, so I guess I'll leave that switch arrangement alone. I think it's important to be able to feed from either bus. I have also rearranged the remaining switches a little better. Here are the modified arrangements: http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Isolated_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Switches_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf Thanks for everyone's input. A team always has a better result than just individuals slugging away. Sam On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 01:23 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote: > >> Thanks Bob. Let me cogitate over that a few hours. >> Sam >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: >> <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> >> >> At 10:53 AM 11/24/2008, you wrote: >> Bob, >> >> Here are my basic thoughts and rational on the design. >> >> The <<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> >> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS EFI controller (ECU) has >> two separate Ignition/fuel injection controllers mounted on a single board. >> These are labeled as A & B. They are almost identical and separate. >> >> >> They allow separate +12V supply inputs, as well as separate ignition and >> fuel injector output triggers. The two battery busses, main and engine, can >> each supply the A or B sides of the ECU. >> >> >> I am able to select a feed from either the main or the engine battery bus >> and supply it to either the A input of the B input. On my drawing, the >> engine bus is sometimes reffered to as "backup". >> > > Yes, there are MANY combinations of things you can do that > function as advertised. I've seen airplanes at fly-ins that > have LOTS of switches. > > Your task as system designer and integrator of components is > to 'optimize' the design. I.e., what components can be eliminated > to reduce complexity from the (1) perspective of reliability and > space savings and (2) reduce pilot workload for having to make > the right decisions for continued flight when some part of the > system decides to throw a temper tantrum. > > I'll suggest you reconsider your design with the notion that > (1) the hardware SHARED by plan-a and plan-b systems needs to > be an absolute minimum. (2) Likelihood of having two failures > in the airplane on any single tank full of fuel is exceedingly > rare (read insignificant). (3) Manage energy sources and loads > to meet design goals for endurance when a failure does occur. > > I'm certain that you'll discover a way to reduce numbers of > switches down to independent control of system-A and system-B > probably as simple as one switch per system. Does each ECU > have its own dedicated fuel pump or can either pump supply > either system? If the former, combine the pumps on the > ECU controls. If the later, one switch per pump is called for. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2008
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Okay. I have completely split the two EFI fuel pumps - one from the engine bat bus and one from the main bat bus. The four primary injectors are now fed solely by the main bat bus and the backup throttle body (TB) injector is fed solely by the engine bat bus. A single double-pole switch turns on both A & B sides of the ECU - OFF/BOTH. The ECU has it's own dedicated panel with it's own A/B switch, not shown here. I have not figured another, more independent way to feed the four ignition coils from either the main or bat bus, so I guess I'll leave that switch arrangement alone. I think it's important to be able to feed from either bus. I have also rearranged the remaining switches a little better. Here are the modified arrangements: http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Isolated_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Switches_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf Sam, Going back to your first request for info on this thread, you asked how to operate either of 2 ECU's from 2 separate power sources through 1 switch. Several individuals indicated that it is not a good thing to go through 1 switch and thus create a "single point of failure" for both systems. You now have a single point of failure in your ECU ON / Off switch. Assuming that you will need to have 1 ECU and 1 EFI pump operating continuously, wire ECU A and EFI# 1 through a DPDT switch, the one you presently have for your ECU ON / OFF, connected as follows: Engine Battery Bus to pin 2; Engine Battery Bus to pin 3 (fused separately); ECU A to pin 1; EFI Pump 1 to pin 4. Repeat similar wiring from Main battery Bus to ECU B and EFI pump 2. This will give you a totally separate, redundant system and will also eliminate 1 switch. Now when you turn on switch #1, ECU A and EFI fuel pump# 1 will be on, supplied with power from the Engine Battery Bus. If you turn on Switch# 2, ECU B and EFI fuel pump# 2 will be on, powered from Main Battery Bus. This is only one of many ways to wire a fault tolerant redundant system. I am sure others will have different ideas for wiring schemes. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2-10 SWITCH - Can this be done?
Roger, you are correct. My oops. Right after I hit the send button I realized my error. I changed it so the ECU is controlled by two independent switches. I had to add in another switch, but I laid out the panel to be more logical. The second row is all the backup stuff. You can see that if you click on the links below. This is what I came up with before your e-mail. I'll spend a few minutes and look over your suggestions. Thanks. My bad. Sam "I'm not a real airplane builder. I just play one at home". On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS < mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote: > Okay. > > I have completely split the two EFI fuel pumps - one from > the engine bat bus and one from the main bat bus. > > The four primary injectors are now fed solely by the main > bat bus and the backup throttle body (TB) injector is fed solely by the > engine bat bus. > > A single double-pole switch turns on both A & B sides of the > ECU - OFF/BOTH. The ECU has it's own dedicated panel with it's own A/B > switch, not shown here. > > I have not figured another, more independent way to feed the > four ignition coils from either the main or bat bus, so I guess I'll leave > that switch arrangement alone. I think it's important to be able to feed > from either bus. > > I have also rearranged the remaining switches a little > better. > > Here are the modified arrangements: > > > http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Isolated_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf > > > http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/Switches_POWER_DISTRIBUTION.pdf > > > Sam, > > Going back to your first request for info on this thread, you asked how to > operate either of 2 ECU's from 2 separate power sources through 1 switch. > Several individuals indicated that it is not a good thing to go through 1 > switch and thus create a "single point of failure" for both systems. You > now have a single point of failure in your ECU ON / Off switch. > Assuming that you will need to have 1 ECU and 1 EFI pump operating > continuously, wire ECU A and EFI# 1 through a DPDT switch, the one you > presently have for your ECU ON / OFF, connected as follows: > > Engine Battery Bus to pin 2; Engine Battery Bus to pin 3 (fused > separately); > ECU A to pin 1; EFI Pump 1 to pin 4. Repeat similar wiring from Main > battery Bus to ECU B and EFI pump 2. This will give you a totally > separate, > redundant system and will also eliminate 1 switch. > > Now when you turn on switch #1, ECU A and EFI fuel pump# 1 will be on, > supplied with power from the Engine Battery Bus. If you turn on Switch# 2, > ECU B and EFI fuel pump# 2 will be on, powered from Main Battery Bus. > > This is only one of many ways to wire a fault tolerant redundant system. I > am sure others will have different ideas for wiring schemes. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2008
From: Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Another leaking battery
AA alkaline cells... I have been using Panasonic and Costco brand AA cells for 10+ years without a leak. Knock on wood. Chris Stone RV-8 Newberg, OR -----Original Message----- >From: "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> >Sent: Nov 25, 2008 8:45 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Another leaking battery > > >Yesterday I had the occasion to open the battery compartment on a small audio amplifier that uses four AA alkaline batteries. All four had leaked and two had to be pried out. Apple cider vinegar cleaned up the mess with the usual bubbles normally seen when using baking soda on lead acid battery leaks. > >The batteries were purchased at Harbor Freight with Thunderbolt Magnum made in China on their labels. > >I believe we are approaching the point that after using a device powered by batteries, they must be removed until the next use to prevent problems. I remember doing this in years gone by.. Earl > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering
Date: Nov 26, 2008
Dave, do yourself a favor,...get the tools. They are very cheap in the overall scheme of things, will make your work quicker and probably cleaner as well. You can crimp connectors on in lots of places that you would never get at easily with a soldering gun. Do solder splices if you get the chance. The look good, and are trim and clean. The fast-on crimper tool falls in the same category as band saws, hemostats, side cutters, wire strippers, angle drill attachments, rivet fan guides, scotch bright wheels on a bench grinder, air drills, and center punches. You can do without any or all of them but you will do it better, faster, and cleaner with good "mechanical help". The cost of good tools is really nothing in the overall cost of the plane and you can probably get at least 50% back when you sell them after finishing. Good luck Bill S 7a finishing _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave VanLanen Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:17 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering Chapter 9 of the 'Connection discusses the tradeoffs between soldered and crimped connections, and suggests that for those who do not want to invest in crimp-on terminals and associated tools, soldering is acceptable and possibly preferable for use on airplanes. This chapter goes on to explain the proper method for soldering and heat-shrinking ring terminals to wire. However, a solder method for fast-on tabs is not addressed. Since some electrical components come with male fast-on tabs, it is necessary to terminate some wires with female fast-on tabs. Do I still need to invest in the crimp-on terminals and associated tools to do fast-on tabs, or is there a method and terminal type for soldering fast-on tabs as well, and if so, is there any documentation on this? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just 3 Days Left - Please Make Your List Contribution
Today! There are only three days left until the end of this year's List Fund Raiser. Please take a minute to show your support as so many others have this year and make sure YOUR name is on the forthcoming List of Contributors 2008! Its quick and easy using the secure web site with a credit card or PayPal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by sending your personal check to: Matronics Lists c/o Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551-0347 (Please write your email address on the check!) Thank you in advance for your support of these List services! Matt Dralle Matronics Email and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering
Good advice Bill. I would remind all of our readers that tools are not just about convenience. I'm presently reorganizing and concentrating my family's business ventures in Medicine Lodge, KS. Some days I am overwhelmed by the numbers and variety of tools we need to inventory, sort and organize to make them most useful. When the shops are finally in place, we'll be doing home repairs, locksmithing, HVAC, electronics development and manufacturing, just to name the top activities. These things can be accomplished by a very small group of folks only because we have the tools and are willing to grow our talents in their application. Tools give you options. Solder is best sometimes, crimping is best some times. Unless you acquire the tools to do both, you have no options but to do the one thing. In the final analysis, tools go directly to the best use of $time$ and the level of craftsmanship in the finished product. It's sometimes hard to see a return on investment for having acquired a tool. But take it from one who is up to his eyeballs in tools . . . you won't regret having done it! We have spent several thousand dollars outfitting the HVAC side of the house. Those tools will be paid for in our first change- out job. A job that would not even be possible without the tools. Bob . . . At 10:22 PM 11/26/2008, you wrote: >Dave, do yourself a favor,...get the tools. They are very cheap in >the overall scheme of things, will make your work quicker and >probably cleaner as well. You can crimp connectors on in lots of >places that you would never get at easily with a soldering gun. Do >solder splices if you get the chance. The look good, and are trim and clean. > >The fast-on crimper tool falls in the same category as band saws, >hemostats, side cutters, wire strippers, angle drill attachments, >rivet fan guides, scotch bright wheels on a bench grinder, air >drills, and center punches. You can do without any or all of them >but you will do it better, faster, and cleaner with good "mechanical >help". The cost of good tools is really nothing in the overall cost >of the plane and you can probably get at least 50% back when you >sell them after finishing. > >Good luck > >Bill S >7a finishing > > >---------- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >Dave VanLanen >Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:17 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fast-On Tabs and Soldering > >Chapter 9 of the 'Connection discusses the tradeoffs between >soldered and crimped connections, and suggests that for those who do >not want to invest in crimp-on terminals and associated tools, >soldering is acceptable and possibly preferable for use on >airplanes. This chapter goes on to explain the proper method for >soldering and heat-shrinking ring terminals to wire. However, a >solder method for fast-on tabs is not addressed. Since some >electrical components come with male fast-on tabs, it is necessary >to terminate some wires with female fast-on tabs. Do I still need >to invest in the crimp-on terminals and associated tools to do >fast-on tabs, or is there a method and terminal type for soldering >fast-on tabs as well, and if so, is there any documentation on this? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
At 01:19 PM 11/25/2008, you wrote: >I called B&C and wound up talking to Bill Bainbridge about their >S700-2-11 switch configuration. This is listed as ON-ON-OFF. He >confessed that he didn't have any info on it and referred me to Bob. > >Is there a link that shows this switch? > >Thanks. 2-11? Where did you see this? I'm not familiar with that configuration. My 1 dash and 2 dash numbers for the S700 series switches first from AEC and then from B&C was developed from the Honeywell-Microswitch numbering conventions shown in. http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf There are no dash 11 configurations. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty E-Bis Diode
Date: Nov 28, 2008
Bob: I'm putting together my Relay and just noticed that your Z 32 diagram for the Heavy Duty E-Bus relay uses a IN4001 Diode. When I ordered my relay from B&C a month or 2 ago, they supplied me with the IN5400 Diode which corresponds to their diagram..... My question is: Is it critical that I use the IN4001 Diode for my Heavy Duty E-Bus configuration or can I use the 5400? Thanks Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
This switch is listed on the B&C site. See if this link works http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-1-1 Go about 9 panels down. It is called out as a S700-2-11. Bill didn't know what it was. Maybe it's a typo. Sam On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 01:19 PM 11/25/2008, you wrote: > >> I called B&C and wound up talking to Bill Bainbridge about their S700-2-11 >> switch configuration. This is listed as ON-ON-OFF. He confessed that he >> didn't have any info on it and referred me to Bob. >> >> Is there a link that shows this switch? >> >> Thanks. >> > > 2-11? Where did you see this? I'm not > familiar with that configuration. My 1 dash > and 2 dash numbers for the S700 series > switches first from AEC and then from B&C > was developed from the Honeywell-Microswitch > numbering conventions shown in. > > http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf > > There are no dash 11 configurations. > > Bob . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com>
Subject: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
Date: Nov 28, 2008
BOB: See Page 15 in the B&C catalog. http://www.bandcspecialty.com/2008_Catalog_20pg_sm.pdf Joe R -----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, November 28, 2008 11:10 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration At 01:19 PM 11/25/2008, you wrote: >I called B&C and wound up talking to Bill Bainbridge about their >S700-2-11 switch configuration. This is listed as ON-ON-OFF. He >confessed that he didn't have any info on it and referred me to Bob. > >Is there a link that shows this switch? > >Thanks. 2-11? Where did you see this? I'm not familiar with that configuration. My 1 dash and 2 dash numbers for the S700 series switches first from AEC and then from B&C was developed from the Honeywell-Microswitch numbering conventions shown in. http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf There are no dash 11 configurations. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty E-Bis Diode
At 03:22 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: > > >Bob: > >I'm putting together my Relay and just noticed that your Z 32 diagram for >the Heavy Duty E-Bus relay uses a IN4001 Diode. When I ordered my relay >from B&C a month or 2 ago, they supplied me with the IN5400 Diode which >corresponds to their diagram..... > >My question is: Is it critical that I use the IN4001 Diode for my Heavy >Duty E-Bus configuration or can I use the 5400? ANY diode will work electrically. The 5400 has larger leads and may be difficult to get into the PIDG terminal wire grip along with the 22AWG coil wire. If you can get the crimp to work, it will be fine. Otherwise, go to Radio Shack and get a 1N400x diode . . . any digit in the x location is okay. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
At 12:43 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: > >BOB: See Page 15 in the B&C catalog. > >http://www.bandcspecialty.com/2008_Catalog_20pg_sm.pdf Interesting. B&C shows a -11 and a -51 which I've not see before. The H-M catalog speaks to a -21, -31, -51 and -61 which are three position switches having one extreme position locked out thus making them a two- position (mid and one extreme). The -51 version has a momentary position opposite the keyway. So if I were to guess, Carling offers some devices having a mid and extreme positions only with some spring-loaded momentary options. I've not had occasion to use one in a design. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty E-Bis Diode
Date: Nov 28, 2008
Thanks Bob: I used the 5400....a little tough to crimp, but it cam e our just fine....... Thanks Henry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:38 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Heavy Duty E-Bis Diode > > At 03:22 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: > > > > > >Bob: > > > >I'm putting together my Relay and just noticed that your Z 32 diagram for > >the Heavy Duty E-Bus relay uses a IN4001 Diode. When I ordered my relay > >from B&C a month or 2 ago, they supplied me with the IN5400 Diode which > >corresponds to their diagram..... > > > >My question is: Is it critical that I use the IN4001 Diode for my Heavy > >Duty E-Bus configuration or can I use the 5400? > > ANY diode will work electrically. The 5400 has larger > leads and may be difficult to get into the PIDG terminal > wire grip along with the 22AWG coil wire. If you can get > the crimp to work, it will be fine. Otherwise, go to Radio > Shack and get a 1N400x diode . . . any digit in the x > location is okay. > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
Bill didn't know what it was. Maybe it's a typo. Sam On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> > > At 12:43 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: > >> >> BOB: See Page 15 in the B&C catalog. >> >> http://www.bandcspecialty.com/2008_Catalog_20pg_sm.pdf >> > > Interesting. B&C shows a -11 and a -51 which I've not > see before. The H-M catalog speaks to a -21, -31, -51 > and -61 which are three position switches having one > extreme position locked out thus making them a two- > position (mid and one extreme). > > The -51 version has a momentary position opposite the > keyway. So if I were to guess, Carling offers some devices > having a mid and extreme positions only with some > spring-loaded momentary options. I've not had occasion > to use one in a design. > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: RFI problem
Date: Nov 28, 2008
Bob and all, I recently upgraded the lighting in the shop where my airplane is under construction from the 20+ year old, 8 foot fluorescent fixtures to the newer, more energy efficient type with electronic ballasts. The light is much better, and that irritating audible hum that the old lights made is gone. However, all radio reception and the lower TV channels are gone too, now nothing but static. Both the radio and TV are connected to an outside antenna via RG6 coax. Someone at an electronics store suggested that replacing the existing coax with RG6 Quad Shield in from the antenna would solve the problem. I am not familiar with this product. Any thoughts? I rather miss having the radio on while working on the plane. Regards, Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum - wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RFI problem
At 06:19 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: >Bob and all, > >I recently upgraded the lighting in the shop where my airplane is >under construction from the 20+ year old, 8 foot fluorescent >fixtures to the newer, more energy efficient type with electronic >ballasts. The light is much better, and that irritating audible hum >that the old lights made is gone. However, all radio reception and >the lower TV channels are gone too, now nothing but static. Both >the radio and TV are connected to an outside antenna via RG6 >coax. Someone at an electronics store suggested that replacing the >existing coax with RG6 Quad Shield in from the antenna would solve >the problem. I am not familiar with this product. Any thoughts? I >rather miss having the radio on while working on the plane. > >Regards, > My best guess is that the ballasts were not filtered to control the effects of radiation from the tubes. I've heard of this before. The 8' tubes make really good antennas for radiating the noise. Additional shielding of the feedline to your radios is unlikely to make any difference. Try a hand-held AM/FM radio and see how far you have to move away from the lights to get unaffected reception. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com>
Subject: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration
Date: Nov 28, 2008
It looks, from Page 15, that the 2-11 ON-ON-OFF is the same as 2-1 ON-OFF-ON except for the location of the OFF position and +$12.00. It is similar for the 2-5 and 2-51. Joe R From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B&C S700-2-11 switch configuration Bill didn't know what it was. Maybe it's a typo. Sam On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 12:43 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: BOB: See Page 15 in the B&C catalog. http://www.bandcspecialty.com/2008_Catalog_20pg_sm.pdf Interesting. B&C shows a -11 and a -51 which I've not see before. The H-M catalog speaks to a -21, -31, -51 and -61 which are three position switches having one extreme position locked out thus making them a two- position (mid and one extreme). The -51 version has a momentary position opposite the keyway. So if I were to guess, Carling offers some devices having a mid and extreme positions only with some spring-loaded momentary options. I've not had occasion to use one in a design. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Listers Have Been Saying
Wow! Many of the members making a List Support Contribution this year have been using the Comments field to leave a personal message about the Lists. Thank you! I have included a number of them below. Please read over a few and see if you perhaps can echo some of the same sentiments regarding the value of the Lists to you... There is only a couple more days left for this year's List Fund Raiser and we're still way behind previous years. If you've been waiting until the last minute to show your support, Now is the Time! Please make your Contribution and pick up a great gift at the same time! By Credit Card or Paypal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or By Personal Check: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94550-7227 Thank you in advance!! Matt Dralle Email List and Forums Administrator Here is some of the great feedback members have been including along with their personal Contributions this year... Over the years, the info I have received from the RV-List has saved me thousands of dollars, and dozens of hours of time by helping me avoid bad purchases, pointing me at vendors with low prices and excellent support, and providing solutions to the typical head scratchers that you run into. Kevin H Valuable service. Best List(s) on the Internet! George A Please accept this token not as an indicator of what this list has been worth to me this past year. Lew G Great information and entertainment. Tim V Thanks again for another great year of service. This project would be beyond me if it were not for the list. Moreover, the friendships I have found are worth their weight in GOLD! Robert B Great support you provide to all the subscribers! Freddie H Read it every day. PF B Thanks for your excellent management of the Matronics Lists! Your services are head and shoulders above the rest. James M Without the "List", there would be no Kolb "community". Bill T Thanks, Matt, for a great service! I've been monitoring and using the lists since 1999. Richard D Thanks for such a terrific site and for all the work and effort you put into it. John R A great service year after year. John D ..another year of fantastic service. Jerry B This list is a great resource. Arden A Great list. James M Lists were a great help while building HRII N561FS. John S Great resources for both the beginner and experienced. George R Good service. Gary G The List is an invaluable resource! William C AeroElectric list is a great source of info and learning! Janice J Thank you, Matt for being there for us making it all happen on the List for so many years - Great JOB! Sam S Thank you for providing a great venue. You definitely hit the nail on the head with your solicitation asking if readers look forward to receiving the email digests. I certainly do and when I move from a dreamer to a builder, I expect the anticipation will only increase. Joe S Thanks for a Perfect working list. Hans-Peter R Great List Bryan K Such a great selection of valuable forums! David G Nice job! Walt E Good resource... Robert P Thank you for another great year! Scott S I could not do this without you... Robert D I believe I've been a list member for over a decade now. Thanks for the service! Tim L Great List Hendrik W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Failed Contactor?
Date: Nov 29, 2008
I was demonstrating my newly wired panel for family this weekend and the contractor mysteriously dropped off line. I had my battery charger connected to the battery and system voltage was 13.3v DC. When the master is OFF, I'm seeing .5v between the two small contactor terminal with the diode removed and zero volts when the master is ON, yet contactor will not activate. All other external wiring checks out and the contractor is wired per the B&C web site. System has been working fine up until now, any one have ideas as to what has happened? Did the Contactor suddenly go bad? Marty RV6A Brentwood TN getting ready to paint! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: RFI problem
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Bob, I need to get 5-10 feet outside of the building before the reception clears up. Tom Barter -----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, November 28, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RFI problem At 06:19 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: >Bob and all, > >I recently upgraded the lighting in the shop where my airplane is >under construction from the 20+ year old, 8 foot fluorescent >fixtures to the newer, more energy efficient type with electronic >ballasts. The light is much better, and that irritating audible hum >that the old lights made is gone. However, all radio reception and >the lower TV channels are gone too, now nothing but static. Both >the radio and TV are connected to an outside antenna via RG6 >coax. Someone at an electronics store suggested that replacing the >existing coax with RG6 Quad Shield in from the antenna would solve >the problem. I am not familiar with this product. Any thoughts? I >rather miss having the radio on while working on the plane. > >Regards, > My best guess is that the ballasts were not filtered to control the effects of radiation from the tubes. I've heard of this before. The 8' tubes make really good antennas for radiating the noise. Additional shielding of the feedline to your radios is unlikely to make any difference. Try a hand-held AM/FM radio and see how far you have to move away from the lights to get unaffected reception. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 8:17 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Failed Contactor?
At 10:02 AM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > >I was demonstrating my newly wired panel for family this weekend and the >contractor mysteriously dropped off line. I had my battery charger >connected to the battery and system voltage was 13.3v DC. When the master >is OFF, I'm seeing .5v between the two small contactor terminal with the >diode removed and zero volts when the master is ON, yet contactor will not >activate. All other external wiring checks out and the contractor is wired >per the B&C web site. System has been working fine up until now, any one >have ideas as to what has happened? Did the Contactor suddenly go bad? The contactor will not operate until voltage between the two small terminals exceeds 8 volts or so. The voltages you cited for the two positions of the master switch were at or near zero. This means that the jumper between the fat battery terminal and the small coil terminal is open . . . or the wiring between the other small terminal through the master to ground has gone open. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Alternate Switch
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Bob: In your Z-32 Diagram, you use a 1-3 Switch - Is this a B&C S700-1-3: Single Pole-Double Throw ??? My second question is: I have a Honeywell 1TL-1-2D (MS24658-22D) - Locking Single Pole-Single Throw that I purchased from Digi-Key and I'm wondering if that would work in place of the 1-3 ? If it can, then this switch has 2 terminals: #2 & #3..... (NO #1)....would I wire the ground to #2 and 22g from the relay to #3...........or do I really need to order a SPDT ? Thanks Henry Trzeciakowski Pittsburgh, Pa. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Circuit lesson
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Bob, Why do we feed power to the starter contactor thru the master contactor? Could one run a short hot lead from the always hot terminal on the master contactor to the starter contactor. Thus eliminating the voltage drop and stress on the master contactor when starting. Interested in your comments. Marty RV-6A Brentwood TN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: re: Failed contactor
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Bob: I disconnected the diode between the terminals. With the master off, I read on my Fluke meter 13.34 VDC on the terminal fed from the jumper to the fat battery terminal. The other terminal with the ground lead to the master switch reads 0.47 VDC with the master off. With the master switch on, voltage between the two small terminals reads 13.34 VDC. I checked the continuity of the master wire and switch to ground and it works fine. I also disconnected everything and get an open circuit reading between the two small terminals, no resistance and no short circuit warning on my Fluke. If you ask me, the small internal coil on the contractor has failed open. Does this seem possible with a new contactor? Marty Subject: Re: Failed Contactor? From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net) Date: Sat Nov 29 - 9:20 AM At 10:02 AM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > >I was demonstrating my newly wired panel for family this weekend and the >contractor mysteriously dropped off line. I had my battery charger >connected to the battery and system voltage was 13.3v DC. When the master >is OFF, I'm seeing .5v between the two small contactor terminal with the >diode removed and zero volts when the master is ON, yet contactor will not >activate. All other external wiring checks out and the contractor is wired >per the B&C web site. System has been working fine up until now, any one >have ideas as to what has happened? Did the Contactor suddenly go bad? The contactor will not operate until voltage between the two small terminals exceeds 8 volts or so. The voltages you cited for the two positions of the master switch were at or near zero. This means that the jumper between the fat battery terminal and the small coil terminal is open . . . or the wiring between the other small terminal through the master to ground has gone open. Bob . . . Marty ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit lesson
Emrath wrote: > > Bob, > Why do we feed power to the starter contactor thru the master contactor? > Could one run a short hot lead from the always hot terminal on the master > contactor to the starter contactor. Thus eliminating the voltage drop and > stress on the master contactor when starting. Interested in your comments. > > Marty RV-6A Brentwood TN I'm not Bob, but the master contactor is a backup disconnect if the starter contactor fails 'on'. It makes it possible to kill all electrical energy from the battery except the (hopefully short) run from the battery + to the master contactor. (Except the 'endurance bus, of course.) Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that means three things:.. 1) Today I am now officially 45 years old... 2) It marks that last "official" day of this year's List Fund Raiser! 3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way to keep the List bills paid. I will be posting the List of Contributors next week so make sure your name is on it! Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly appreciated. http://www.matronics.com/contribution Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "RALPH HOOVER" <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Failed Contactor?
Marty, Just to amplify what Bob has said. A simple troubleshooting technique is as follows. (Ground to operate circuit as in Master Contactor) 1. (Switch off) Measure from Ground to either small terminal should be Battery voltage. 2. If 0 on both terminals battery supply is missing. If 0 on only one terminal then the coil is open. 3. (Switch on) If both terminals are battery voltage the ground circuit through the switch is open. 4. If one is battery and one is 0 then the contactor should operate. (If not the coil is suspect). 5. If the coil is suspect measure it's DC resistance with an ohmmeter (I imagine less than 100 ohms is good, It will probably be OK or open to very high resistance, If shorted expect smoke) 6. As an aside a 12V test lamp between the ground side of the contactor and battery ground should glow if the supply voltage is present, the coil is OK and the switch is off. With the switch on it will go off if the ground circuit is OK. Reading the voltage across the contactor coil verified that there is no voltage drop and thus no operation but it doesn't tell you what part of the circuit is open. Measuring to the battery ground tells you exactly what is missing. Usually parts are reliable (although not 100%), and problems are found in installation workmanship. Suspect bad crimps and the like. (I have been doing electronic wiring for 45 years and I still screw-up a crimp now and again (crimp insulation only, cut the wire, not crimped tight etc.)). Check everything! Happy hunting. Ralph & Laura Hoover RV7A N527LR 21 hours and having a ball -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:03 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Failed Contactor? I was demonstrating my newly wired panel for family this weekend and the contractor mysteriously dropped off line. I had my battery charger connected to the battery and system voltage was 13.3v DC. When the master is OFF, I'm seeing .5v between the two small contactor terminal with the diode removed and zero volts when the master is ON, yet contactor will not activate. All other external wiring checks out and the contractor is wired per the B&C web site. System has been working fine up until now, any one have ideas as to what has happened? Did the Contactor suddenly go bad? Marty RV6A Brentwood TN getting ready to paint! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit lesson
At 05:58 PM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > >Bob, >Why do we feed power to the starter contactor thru the master contactor? >Could one run a short hot lead from the always hot terminal on the master >contactor to the starter contactor. Thus eliminating the voltage drop and >stress on the master contactor when starting. Interested in your comments. > >Marty RV-6A Brentwood TN You've already seen a good answer to this. I would elaborate by sharing two tense moments in OBAM aircraft where the starter contactor stuck closed (it's the most abused contactor in the airplane) and the battery master was not wired to shut down the starter. In one case, the starter survived but the 17 a.h. battery case melted. In the other case, the pilot was able to get out, pull the cowl and disconnect the battery before anything smoked or melted. Type certificated aircraft have always been wired such that EVERYTHING other than battery-bus power goes through the battery master contactor. Turning off the battery switch gets the electrical system the most benign condition possible. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: re: Failed contactor
At 05:58 PM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > >Bob: > >I disconnected the diode between the terminals. With the master off, I read >on my Fluke meter 13.34 VDC on the terminal fed from the jumper to the fat >battery terminal. The other terminal with the ground lead to the master >switch reads 0.47 VDC with the master off. With the master switch on, >voltage between the two small terminals reads 13.34 VDC. I checked the >continuity of the master wire and switch to ground and it works fine. I also >disconnected everything and get an open circuit reading between the two >small terminals, no resistance and no short circuit warning on my Fluke. If >you ask me, the small internal coil on the contractor has failed open. Does >this seem possible with a new contactor? ANYTHING is possible. Your measurements do indicate that the contactor coil is indeed open. It would be interesting to do a tear-down and find out where it broke. You should be able to get a replacement from whoever sold it to you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: RFI problem
At 10:13 AM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > > >Bob, > >I need to get 5-10 feet outside of the building before the reception clears >up. Hmmm . . . assuming it's a metal building, it seems likely that the noise is radiating directly into the radio through the enclosure. You stated that the antenna was outside and would therefore expect to see a similar benefit of shielding or distance attenuation. If you have several fixtures, it's probably easier to find a radio that is more resistant to local noises than to figure out how to filter/shield the lamps. As a final experiment, can you pull the antenna coax outside and then operated the radio outside the building while connected to the antenna coax? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Alternate Switch
At 08:02 PM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > > >Bob: > >In your Z-32 Diagram, you use a 1-3 Switch - Is this a B&C S700-1-3: Single >Pole-Double Throw ??? Yes. This presumes also that your system includes a pullable 5A breaker for the alternator field supply. This allows you to do ground operations battery only by pulling the field breaker. >My second question is: > >I have a Honeywell 1TL-1-2D (MS24658-22D) - Locking Single Pole-Single >Throw that I purchased from Digi-Key and I'm wondering if that would work in >place of the 1-3 ? If it can, then this switch has 2 terminals: #2 & >#3..... (NO #1)....would I wire the ground to #2 and 22g from the relay to >#3...........or do I really need to order a SPDT ? The Honeywell switch is fine. The 1TL1-2D is OFF when the toggle is on the key-way side. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf This means that the switch would have to be installed key-way down. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Choosing Z-Diagram base
At 11:33 AM 11/17/2008, you wrote: > >Two questions on Z13-8... > >I like the design. My engine comes with an 80 amp internally regulated >alternator. Assuming its use, but not yet needing 80 amps (may add >air-conditioning later), may I reduce the current at the ANL using say, >a 50 amp ANL? I am assuming the shunt would be 80 AMP coming off the >Alt. No, the ANL or any other protective device is intended to open under extreme stress of faulting a wire. It's not a controlling device to change or limit the effects of your alternator. Aside from weight and size, there's nothing wrong with having a "too big" alternator. There's a bunch of C-150/ C-152 flying with 60A alternators! Lots of OBAM aircraft with Continental engines use salvaged 60A alternators from a Cessna even if their power requirements are a hand-full of amps. >Does B & C offer a product to monitor/switch (from DC Power Master sw) >an alternator that is already internally regulated? Any switch (including those sold by B&B) will control an alternator that is controllable. Do you know the brand and part number of the alternator supplied? Are there instructions with it that indicate the alternator is controllable? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Alternate Switch
Date: Nov 30, 2008
So Bob, If I understand what you're saying: mount the 1TL-1-2D keyway down, #2 terminal = ground wire and #3 terminal = 22 g wire from S401 relay.....or do I have it backwards ??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: E-Bus Alternate Switch > > At 08:02 PM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > > > > > >Bob: > > > >In your Z-32 Diagram, you use a 1-3 Switch - Is this a B&C S700-1-3: Single > >Pole-Double Throw ??? > > Yes. This presumes also that your system includes > a pullable 5A breaker for the alternator field supply. > This allows you to do ground operations battery only > by pulling the field breaker. > >My second question is: > > > >I have a Honeywell 1TL-1-2D (MS24658-22D) - Locking Single Pole-Single > >Throw that I purchased from Digi-Key and I'm wondering if that would work in > >place of the 1-3 ? If it can, then this switch has 2 terminals: #2 & > >#3..... (NO #1)....would I wire the ground to #2 and 22g from the relay to > >#3...........or do I really need to order a SPDT ? > > The Honeywell switch is fine. The 1TL1-2D is OFF when > the toggle is on the key-way side. See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf > > This means that the switch would have to be installed > key-way down. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 12/24V systems
Hello all, I'm building a Velocity with a Deltahawk Diesel engine.- This engine requires 24 volts to start, so I'm planing a 24 V system.- Most ev erything I'm installing is able to handle 24V without any problem; however, the hydraulic pump and associated circuitry that raise the gear are design ed for 12V, so I'll need a 12V bus.- I've been looking at battery equaliz ers as a way to feed this bus from a center tap while not causing a battery imbalance.- There are several different models out there, primarily aime d at RVs, big rigs, and solar electric battery banks. Does anyone have experience with these units?- Any recommendations on the best unit for use in an aircraft I probably need a 10 or 20 A unit)?- Al so, what kind of failure modes do I need to prepare for in architecting a s ystem using these.- Finally, will having one of these units allow me to e ffectively charge both batteries using a 12V battery charger (this isn't te rribly important, but nice to know). Thanks in advance for your help. Dan =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Failed Contactor
Date: Nov 30, 2008
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll call Todd at B&C tomorrow about this. Marty Subject: Re: re: Failed contactor From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net) Date: Sun Nov 30 - 8:56 AM At 05:58 PM 11/29/2008, you wrote: > >Bob: > >I disconnected the diode between the terminals. With the master off, I read >on my Fluke meter 13.34 VDC on the terminal fed from the jumper to the fat >battery terminal. The other terminal with the ground lead to the master >switch reads 0.47 VDC with the master off. With the master switch on, >voltage between the two small terminals reads 13.34 VDC. I checked the >continuity of the master wire and switch to ground and it works fine. I also >disconnected everything and get an open circuit reading between the two >small terminals, no resistance and no short circuit warning on my Fluke. If >you ask me, the small internal coil on the contractor has failed open. Does >this seem possible with a new contactor? ANYTHING is possible. Your measurements do indicate that the contactor coil is indeed open. It would be interesting to do a tear-down and find out where it broke. You should be able to get a replacement from whoever sold it to you. Bob . . . Marty ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: 12/24V systems
Date: Nov 30, 2008
I'll ask the obvious. Have you contacted the vendor who makes the hydraulic pump to see if a 24v version is available. If the pump is made by Oildyne, I'm sure a 28v version can be had. Same with relays. Bruce <http://www.glasair.org/> www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Fritz Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 8:59 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12/24V systems Hello all, I'm building a Velocity with a Deltahawk Diesel engine. This engine requires 24 volts to start, so I'm planing a 24 V system. Most everything I'm installing is able to handle 24V without any problem; however, the hydraulic pump and associated circuitry that raise the gear are designed for 12V, so I'll need a 12V bus. I've been looking at battery equalizers as a way to feed this bus from a center tap while not causing a battery imbalance. There are several different models out there, primarily aimed at RVs, big rigs, and solar electric battery banks. Does anyone have experience with these units? Any recommendations on the best unit for use in an aircraft I probably need a 10 or 20 A unit)? Also, what kind of failure modes do I need to prepare for in architecting a system using these. Finally, will having one of these units allow me to effectively charge both batteries using a 12V battery charger (this isn't terribly important, but nice to know). Thanks in advance for your help. Dan 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Alternate Switch
At 09:37 PM 11/30/2008, you wrote: > > >So Bob, > >If I understand what you're saying: mount the 1TL-1-2D keyway down, #2 >terminal = ground wire and #3 terminal = 22 g wire from S401 relay.....or >do I have it backwards ??? > It's a simple on-off switching action. The terminal numbers are insignificant. You can wire it either way. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 12/24V systems
At 07:59 PM 11/30/2008, you wrote: >Hello all, I'm building a Velocity with a Deltahawk Diesel >engine. This engine requires 24 volts to start, so I'm planing a 24 >V system. Most everything I'm installing is able to handle 24V >without any problem; however, the hydraulic pump and associated >circuitry that raise the gear are designed for 12V, so I'll need a >12V bus. I've been looking at battery equalizers as a way to feed >this bus from a center tap while not causing a battery >imbalance. There are several different models out there, primarily >aimed at RVs, big rigs, and solar electric battery banks. > >Does anyone have experience with these units? Any recommendations >on the best unit for use in an aircraft I probably need a 10 or 20 A >unit)? Also, what kind of failure modes do I need to prepare for in >architecting a system using these. Finally, will having one of >these units allow me to effectively charge both batteries using a >12V battery charger (this isn't terribly important, but nice to know). > >Thanks in advance for your help. Multi-voltage systems aboard aircraft are difficult to craft for reliability and cost of ownership. The only successful airplane I've touched with a multi-voltage system had TWO independent alternator-battery systems. This was a research Bonanza wherein we drove a second alternator from the pad where an air conditioning compressor would mount. Suggest you go all 24 volt. The 12v accessories you cited are probably available in 24 volt. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Garmin GTX 320A circuit breaker
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2008
Anyone know off hand what CB size you need for a Garmin GTX 320A? -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217149#217149 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: David Posey <dlposey-atlanta(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Master contactor
Instead of a contactor I am considering a master disconnect switch as used on race cars. My battery must go behind the cockpit for W&B so the battery leads will pass the cockpit. Therefore the disconnect would not require anything extra. It would be located in an accessible area. Any thoughts? David Posey TriQ200 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin GTX 320A circuit breaker
3A is recommended br Werner > > Gig Giacona wrote: >> >> >> Anyone know off hand what CB size you need for a Garmin GTX 320A? >> >> -------- >> W.R. "Gig" Giacona >> 601XL Under Construction >> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217149#217149 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Master contactor
At 09:02 AM 12/1/2008, you wrote: > > >Instead of a contactor I am considering a master disconnect switch >as used on race cars. My battery must go behind the cockpit for W&B >so the battery leads will pass the cockpit. Therefore the disconnect >would not require anything extra. It would be located in an >accessible area. Any thoughts? Would the lead between battery(+) and the switch be as short as if it were between battery(+) and a contactor? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: New Email Address
In preparation for moving operations to Medicine Lodge, KS, I've taken advantage of Matt's email services and set up accounts independent of my present ISP. My new account for the List is shown in the header of this posting. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Pressure switch failures
>Hi Bob, > >I just read your article on the subject and maybe found reason why >my retract gear pressure switches go kaput after brief service.. >could it be due to spikes from their intermittent duty relays (sold >from Lancair parts provider) which probably don't have internal >diode (how can I check?). > >Now my question: if I want to try an external spike catching diode, >what are its requested specs? >Better, can you suggest a model? It's unlikely that your contactors came with diodes installed. I used to sell an intermittent duty contactor that did feature built in spike suppression but it was only one of dozens of similar parts by the same company that did not have diodes installed. I like the 3 amp rated devices like 1N5400 series. Exact voltage or current rating is not critical. These devices have relatively robust lead wires and housings. See: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62578 Can you share the part numbers and/or specifications for the pressure switches? It may be that your system would benefit from addition of solid-state buffers between the switches and contactors. Those intermittent duty contactors take 4-5 amps to close and might be tough on the switches whether or not spike suppressors are installed on the contactors. Also, if you have a failed pressure switch you could send me, it would be useful to do a tear-down inspection and see if we can learn more about the failure mode. But in any case, addition of the diodes on the contactor coils is not a bad thing to do and may well take care of most of your problems. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Garmin GTX 320A circuit breaker
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Voltage 11-33, Amps 5. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: [Probable SPAM] AeroElectric-List: Garmin GTX 320A circuit breaker Anyone know off hand what CB size you need for a Garmin GTX 320A? -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217149#217149 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Intercom XM Radio noise
Can this be managed with a filter? Can anyone tell me what is a good filter to add to cut out radio interference in my headset as I listen to music th rough my intercom? Sounds like someone running their finger up and down the ir lips as the speak.....sort of like 10 or 20 blips per second of momentar y block of the signal. Annoying. The Comm seems unaffected. - Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Where to find closed-end lugs for Super-CCA cable
Where is the best place to buy lugs for Eric Jones' Super-CCA electric cable in #4 size? My partners wants a "closed end" type as suggested by Bob Nuckolls on one of his weekend seminars. It appears that Eric only sells the open end type. This would be a type which uses the "solder pellet" which you drop into the lug, then insert the wire and heat. Dee DeWitt (Dee) Whittington 406 N Mulberry St Richmond, VA 23220-3320 (804) 358-4333 phone and fax SKYPE: hilltopkid dee.whittington(at)gmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Where to find closed-end lugs for Super-CCA cable
Try welding supply and farm supply stores. Rick On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM, DeWitt Whittington wrote: > Where is the best place to buy lugs for Eric Jones' *Super-CCA electric > cable in #4 size? My partners wants a "closed end" type as suggested by Bob > Nuckolls on one of his weekend seminars. It appears that Eric only sells the > open end type. This would be a type which uses the "solder pellet" which > you drop into the lug, then insert the wire and heat. > > *Dee > > DeWitt (Dee) Whittington > 406 N Mulberry St > Richmond, VA 23220-3320 > (804) 358-4333 phone and fax > SKYPE: hilltopkid > dee.whittington(at)gmail.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: "Jerry Jerome" <jjflyboy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Use of Vans ES14684 60A Alternator
Sorry if this question has been dealt with before, but I would like to know if use of a Vans ES 14684 60A alternator with internal regulation would be suitable in a system designed around Bob's Z-11 Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System. As this alternator is internally regulated, is the generic "Ford" regulator still needed or should it be eliminated? I am also considering purchase of the Overvoltage Module (OVM-14) from B & C but see there is a caution about using OV protection with this alternator on Vans site. The caution concerns a need to contact the manufacturer of the OV device to ensure any special wiring requirements are met. Would the Z-11 diagram show the correct wiring for use of this device with this alternator? I also have a Grand Rapids (model 4000) EIS I am planning on using so I plan on eliminating the low voltage monitor module (AEC 9005 - 101) as I believe this function is included in the EIS. Any comments? Thanks for your help. Regards, Jerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: Help debugging an alternator noise problem
Date: Dec 02, 2008
I submitted this before, but am now including much more information, per Bob's request. Problem - I am getting a lot of clearly alternator (or voltage regulator noise) on the receive side of my radio. There is no noise on only battery power, or with the alternator disconnect relay unpowered. The noise is very low at idle, and increases in both volume and frequency as RPM increases, At high RPM makes it very difficult to understand transmissions. Radio is a Terra 760D fed from the main bus. I have checked to be sure that the problem persists even with no other equipment powered up (not coming somehow from lights or avionics). System - The system is pretty similar to Z-17, except that I have two batteries (PC-680) connected through a marine selector switch (A-B-Both-Off) and no master relay. There is a secondary EFIS bus which can be powered through a DC-DC regulator, but the problem does not depend on whether this bus is powered up or not. In place of the SD-8, I have an 18 amp John Deere permanent magnet alternator feeding through a 4-wire motorcycle voltage regulator (Crane Fireball, installation doc here http://tinyurl.com/17a), connected to the main bus using the B&C relay/overvoltage protection kit as shown in the diagram, which includes a big filter capacitor. Bus voltage is fine with the alternator connected (about 14V) and the charging portion is working OK. Questions: [1] Should not the big capacitor be filtering out this noise? [2] Could the capacitor be bad? Can I test it? [3] What would happen if I wired the cap backwards? (I will check ASAP.) [4] Is there other or additional filtering I could put on the feed? If so, what? [5] Are there other things I could check/test? Thanks, Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ N601GE,601XL/TD,Corvair ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Where to find closed-end lugs for Super-CCA cable
I made my own lugs with soft copper tubing. I drilled a hole about 1" deep into an aluminum block, the same diameter as the copper tubing. Drill the hole near the edge of the block. Cut a piece of tubing about 2" long and insert it into the hole. I use an arbor press and place the block with the tubing inserted, on a flat plate and press the copper flat against the plate. When you pull the tubing out of the block, it will have a nice round barrel for the cable to be inserted. Drill a hole in the tab and round the edges of the tab for a finished look. Solder in the wire, add shrink sleeve and you are done. I found with minimal practice I was able to make very nice lugs. If you don't have an arbor press you can gently pound the tab flat with a hammer. Roger Try welding supply and farm supply stores. Rick On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM, DeWitt Whittington wrote: Where is the best place to buy lugs for Eric Jones' Super-CCA electric cable in #4 size? My partners wants a "closed end" type as suggested by Bob Nuckolls on one of his weekend seminars. It appears that Eric only sells the open end type. This would be a type which uses the "solder pellet" which you drop into the lug, then insert the wire and heat. Dee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: APRS for aircraft
Date: Dec 02, 2008
Lincoln, Sorry to be so late to reply to your question of utilizing APRS for flight positioning - my computor go doodoo. I haven't searched out all the answers you received but noted fairly early that no one mentioned that it is purely an licensed Amateur Radio function. That is, you must be licensed to utilize 144.39MHz as a Ham. Like so many other things devised and made to work by hams and then copied for profit, APRA is the brainchild of W4APR who first fixed a transmitter into the football hat worn by the Navy players as they progressed from the Navy college up to the Army college for the annual ball game. He had applied his transmitter onto Navy cars accompanying the runner previously but managed a miniature form for the runners helmet. Having given the idea broad freedom, he saw hams apply it to their cars and other vehicles, eventually to their aircraft. It is possible now to send your details directly through the email system to your computer and file same as a flight log of sorts. As someone else wrote, the end of your trail is either an airport, airfield or your crash site. PRBs will do the same thing and UPS traces your truck by means of a commercial copy, so it's not new. It was inevitable that someone would copy the idea onto a commercial frequency and sell it. Like most things, you can do it free with difficulty, or just pay every time otherwise. Ferg Europa 914 Classic ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: breaker specs
Date: Dec 02, 2008
Bob, et al I'm trying to educate myself about circuit breakers (Klixon in this case). I can't find any tech info online, nor any sales info from Mouser, Digi-key, Electronic etc. Can you suggest a source? I'm beginning to think Klixon is not a manufacture's name but just a product name. Still, I should be able to find performance specs online though, no? Relevance: Due to space and design goals, I am incorporating fuse blocks and some breakers (Klixon) into my panel (RV7A). However, I have just recently discovered another type of breaker that I'm sure you're aware of, namely the switch/breaker, see http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info <http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=189&prod ucts_id=8161> &cPath=189&products_id=8161 This nifty puppy will save space by incorporating a switch and circuit breaker into one unit at comparable cost to a switch and klixon breaker. However, when reading the performance specs, (click on the data sheet tab here http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=655-W31-X2M1G-5 ) it looks to be very slow acting at the current flows that we are dealing with. I would think that we want an overload to be shut own within seconds not minutes. Even at a response time of 10 seconds, the amount of overload would have to be 150-250% of rated value ( I suppose dependant on ambient temperature). I don't think this is acceptable for an aircraft, do you? This is why I wonder what the Klixon's response times are. Maybe they are no better. I'm pretty sure that an ATO type fuse will be lightning fast at 150% overload, no? I look forward to you comments. Thanks Bevan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Where to find closed-end lugs for Super-CCA cable
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
You can get the closed end version from marine supply: http://www.boatersworld.com/product/199323221msk.htm The "Super-2-CCA" takes a 1/0 AWG (one-aught) connector and the "Super-4-CCA" take a 2 AWG connector, because CCA cable is slightly larger than the copper sizes. I have been selling a lot of this CCA cable recently, and SteinAir is distributing the Super-2-CCA. We sell a lot of this in custom sizes to NASCAR and Indy racers, as well as some military aircraft builders. The Tesla electric car also uses it. The NASCAR guys are super-secretive about the material--demanding no markings on the insulation or on the spools! "...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock. Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham... Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions and cornbread; nothing else...." --Will Rogers -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217478#217478 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Subject: Re: breaker specs
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Try here: http://www.sensata.com/ Ron Q. At 22:35 12/2/2008, you wrote: >Bob, et al > >I'm trying to educate myself about circuit breakers (Klixon in this >case). I can't find any tech info online, nor any sales info from >Mouser, Digi-key, Electronic etc. Can you suggest a source? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: breaker specs
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Just as a general note on electrical protection; the trip times that you mention for such an overload (in the region of 150-250%) are perfectly acceptable; an overload condition should not produce a quick response, but allow the system time to shed the overload if it is a transient condition (starting for example). If there is a fault that generates a high current then the protection element (cct breaker) should trip much faster. In large power electrical systems this is called an IDMT characteristic (Inverse Definite Mean Time); in a small CB this characteristic is attained by use of a bi-metallic strip that heats up slowly during an overload; once past a certain limit the circuit is opened using clever spring thingie arrangements.. ;-) When a large current is passed the strip heats a lot faster causing the faster trip. The circuit that you are feeding should be able to handle the overload condition for that period of time without damage, itll just heat up. Incidentally, that is why there is an earth (or ground) in electrical systems- it is there to create a defined return path to the power source that will create a good solid and DETECTABLE fault. Once detected it can be cleared. Thats another reason to make sure that metal skins are well bonded (electrically- that is, they are electrically continuous) in an aircraft, so that if a positive wire rubs through somewhere it must find a good return path to the negative terminal of the battery as soon as possible. That way the fault can be detected and isolated by your cleverly designed reticulation system and fuses/ breakers :-) Fuses have similar characteristics; they also rely on heat generated by conducted current.. Jay ________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: 03 December 2008 08:36 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: breaker specs Bob, et al I'm trying to educate myself about circuit breakers (Klixon in this case). I can't find any tech info online, nor any sales info from Mouser, Digi-key, Electronic etc. Can you suggest a source? I'm beginning to think Klixon is not a manufacture's name but just a product name. Still, Ishould be able to find performance specs online though, no? Relevance: Due to space and design goals, I am incorporating fuse blocksand some breakers (Klixon) into my panel (RV7A). However, I have just recently discovered another type of breaker that I'm sure you're aware of, namely the switch/breaker, see http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=189&prod ucts_id=8161 This nifty puppy will save space by incorporating a switch and circuit breaker into one unitat comparable cost to a switch and klixon breaker. However, when reading the performance specs,(click on the data sheet tab here http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=655-W31-X2M1G-5) it looks to be very slow acting at the current flows that we are dealing with. I would think that we want an overload to be shut own within seconds not minutes. Even at a response time of 10 seconds, the amount of overload would have to be 150-250% of rated value ( I suppose dependant on ambient temperature). I don't think this is acceptable for an aircraft, do you? This is why I wonder what the Klixon's response times are. Maybe they are no better. I'm pretty sure that an ATO type fuse will be lightning fast at 150% overload, no? I look forward to you comments. Thanks Bevan -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is believed to be clean. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com>
Subject: breaker specs
Date: Dec 03, 2008
BEVAN: I don't know if this is what you are looking for but try this link. http://www.sensata.com/products/controls/acb.htm They also have a catalog that you can download. Hope this helps. Joe R From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:36 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: breaker specs Bob, et al I'm trying to educate myself about circuit breakers (Klixon in this case). I can't find any tech info online, nor any sales info from Mouser, Digi-key, Electronic etc. Can you suggest a source? I'm beginning to think Klixon is not a manufacture's name but just a product name. Still, I should be able to find performance specs online though, no? Relevance: Due to space and design goals, I am incorporating fuse blocks and some breakers (Klixon) into my panel (RV7A). However, I have just recently discovered another type of breaker that I'm sure you're aware of, namely the switch/breaker, see http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info <http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=189&prod ucts_id=8161> &cPath=189&products_id=8161 This nifty puppy will save space by incorporating a switch and circuit breaker into one unit at comparable cost to a switch and klixon breaker. However, when reading the performance specs, (click on the data sheet tab here http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=655-W31-X2M1G-5 ) it looks to be very slow acting at the current flows that we are dealing with. I would think that we want an overload to be shut own within seconds not minutes. Even at a response time of 10 seconds, the amount of overload would have to be 150-250% of rated value ( I suppose dependant on ambient temperature). I don't think this is acceptable for an aircraft, do you? This is why I wonder what the Klixon's response times are. Maybe they are no better. I'm pretty sure that an ATO type fuse will be lightning fast at 150% overload, no? I look forward to you comments. Thanks Bevan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty E-Bis Diode
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
> I'm putting together my Relay and just noticed that your Z 32 diagram for the Heavy Duty E-Bus relay uses a IN4001 Diode. When I ordered my relay from B&C a month or 2 ago, they supplied me with the IN5400 Diode which corresponds to their diagram..... > My question is: Is it critical that I use the IN4001 Diode for my Heavy > Duty E-Bus configuration or can I use the 5400? Thanks, Henry By the way....that's ONE N5400 not EYE N5400. You should use bidirectional Zeners anyway.... -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217509#217509 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2008
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Does the Alternator shut down if battery power is removed?
Given an alternator and an LR3 controller, with the engine running, will the alternator shut down if the battery master is switched off? I'm guessing that the alternator will continue to function normally since it's still self-exciting the field line. Shutting down the alternator would require pulling the field breaker. Is that correct? Thanks Bill Watson RV10 with a Z-14 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2008
From: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 12/24V systems12/24V systems
Bob and Bruce, Thanks for the helpful advice. - Ben, This probably isn't the right forum for bashing your competition in engine development and production. - dan=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: breaker specs
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Thanks for the replies. Exactly what I'm looking for. Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe Ronco Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:53 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: breaker specs BEVAN: I don't know if this is what you are looking for but try this link. http://www.sensata.com/products/controls/acb.htm They also have a catalog that you can download. Hope this helps. Joe R ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 12/24V systems12/24V systems
From: "Dan Stanton" <daniel_stanton1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Dan, I don't think that Ben is bashing anyone. Just a simple statement of fact. I also wanted a Delta Hawk engine for my CH 801. That was two years ago with a delivery date in 6 mo.. I now have almost two hundred hours on the plane and to my knowledge no one has yet received an engine from Delta Hawk. Good thing Superior has a better delivery system. I think the Delta Hawk will be a great engine when it is ready for use, but most folks don't/can't wait forever for one. Just ;my 2 cents worth -------- Dan Stanton 801 125 hrs. 701 75% done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217589#217589 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Use of Vans ES14684 60A Alternator
At 02:45 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote: >Sorry if this question has been dealt with before, but I would like >to know if use of a Vans ES 14684 60A alternator with internal >regulation would be suitable in a system designed around Bob's Z-11 >Generic Light Aircraft Electrical System. As this alternator is >internally regulated, is the generic "Ford" regulator still needed >or should it be eliminated? It's eliminated. > I am also considering purchase of the Overvoltage Module (OVM-14) > from B & C but see there is a caution about using OV protection > with this alternator on Vans site. The caution concerns a need to > contact the manufacturer of the OV device to ensure any special > wiring requirements are met. Would the Z-11 diagram show the > correct wiring for use of this device with this alternator? I was recently offered a tour of an alternator/ starter remanufacturing facility that produces about 22,000 units a day. They box product for a host of customers not the least of which is AC Delco and includes many of big-name chain stores. I learned that it's exceedingly difficult if not impossible for a "small" users of alternators to acquire a factory-fresh device . . . The folks who build brand new product want to schedule car-loads of units to a minimum number of deliveries. This is because transportation and handling is a MAJOR cost of the product. I'm working on a white-paper that will publish details of what I learned but the short answer now is that we don't know where Van's alternators come from. We do know that SOME parts were vulnerable to their own load dump transients in the past. I do know that the factory, QA and IR&D facilities I toured produces products intended to withstand a series of five, max-rpm, max-current, high-temperature load-dumps in a row without damage to its internals. I witnessed one such demonstration in their labs. 14684 is a "Lester Number" . . . an industry cataloging system that brings parts of like functionality into a specific application. While this part number MIGHT get you a device with all original parts from the likes of Nipon Denso or Bosch, it's not a guarantee and most likely, the part has been disassembled for some manner of refurbishment. If you want to buy 100 pcs minimum per month, you can put your hands on brand-new 14684 machines here: http://tinyurl.com/5sguzm Bottom line is that there are dozens of alternators from DOZENS OF SOURCES that are adaptable to your engine. By adaptable we mean that the alternator requires appropriate mounting configuration to bolt to your machine. Van offers a kit of tension arm and bracket to adapt a "14684" alternator to Lycoming engines at: http://tinyurl.com/5uz5n6 I'll call the reader's attention to the caveat on Van's page that reads as follows: Caution: Builders planning to utilize overvoltage protection with Van's internally regulated 60 amp alternator should consult with the manufacturer of the overvoltage device to insure that any special wiring requirements are met during installation. I've never enjoyed direct conversation with folks at Van's in spite of specific attempts to enter into constructive dialog. Their initial reaction to reported failures of alternators combined with b-lead disconnect contactors was not so measured as the statement above. As it turns out, not all alternators are potential victims to their own load-dump transients in spite of the fact that they have THE SAME part number. The short answer is that installing ANY internally regulated alternator with external ov protection described in: http://tinyurl.com/5n989y . . . is a perfectly rational thing to do. Just be wary of turning the alternator OFF under load at more than idle RPM until the final solution described is available. Alternatively, one may certainly run the alternator "barefoot" as many folks recommend. This discussion isn't about imperatives. It's about risk reduction. >I also have a Grand Rapids (model 4000) EIS I am planning on using >so I plan on eliminating the low voltage monitor module (AEC 9005 - >101) as I believe this function is included in the EIS. Any comments? The low voltage annunciation on your EIS is a useful substitution for independent low voltage warning. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2008
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: breaker specs
At 12:35 AM 12/3/2008, you wrote: >Bob, et al > >I'm trying to educate myself about circuit breakers (Klixon in this >case). I can't find any tech info online, nor any sales info from >Mouser, Digi-key, Electronic etc. Can you suggest a source? > >I'm beginning to think Klixon is not a manufacture's name but just a >product name. Still, I should be able to find performance specs >online though, no? "Klixon" has been associated with Texas Instruments for a very long time. I don't know if it originated with TI or they acquired it. Klixon forte was a slightly dished disk of homogenous material useful for push-button springs and the bi-metal versions suited for use as current sensors in breakers. You can drink from the firehose of data on Sensata-Klixon at: http://www.sensata.com/products/controls/circuitbreakers.htm > >Relevance: Due to space and design goals, I am incorporating fuse >blocks and some breakers (Klixon) into my panel (RV7A). However, I >have just recently discovered another type of breaker that I'm sure >you're aware of, namely the switch/breaker, see > > ><http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=189&products_id=8161>http://www.avionicsmall.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=189&products_id=8161 > >This nifty puppy will save space by incorporating a switch and >circuit breaker into one unit at comparable cost to a switch and >klixon breaker. However, when reading the performance specs, (click >on the data sheet tab >here ><http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=655-W31-X2M1G-5>http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=655-W31-X2M1G-5 >) it looks to be very slow acting at the current flows that we are >dealing with. I would think that we want an overload to be shut own >within seconds not minutes. Even at a response time of 10 seconds, >the amount of overload would have to be 150-250% of rated value ( I >suppose dependant on ambient temperature). I don't think this is >acceptable for an aircraft, do you? > >This is why I wonder what the Klixon's response times are. Maybe >they are no better. I'm pretty sure that an ATO type fuse will be >lightning fast at 150% overload, no? I look forward to you comments. Don't loose any sleep over it. Studying the response times of the hundreds of products will not yield satisfying conclusions. ALL breakers and breaker-switches are suited


November 09, 2008 - December 05, 2008

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ig