AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kn
July 01, 2011 - July 16, 2011
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
Sure Charlie, I'll bite...
Dan,
>
> Throwing out your political opinion & then saying
> 'oops, sorry, nothing more should be said', just doesn't cut
> it. Kinda like asking you, in public, how long it's been
> since you quit beating your wife.
Political views never cease to amaze me...we all have one and I'm sure they have
been developed by each of us via nurture as well as nature. We develop them
through how we view the world, first through our parents eyes and then refined
by our own life experiences. I'm sure most of us (say aviators if you want a
defined parameter) are quite sincere in wanting what is best for our families
(I haven't beat my wife for a couple days now), our cities and our nation. However,
agreement in achieving the same goal has been polarized to the extreme ON
BOTH SIDES!
>
> It distresses me greatly when I see posts that brazenly
> say, in effect, 'political posts I agree with "probably"
> have no place here, but anything I disagree with is "sick,
> and definitely has no place here." ' It really makes me
> wonder what country this is, where only opinions we agree
> with are allowed, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor.
If the shoe fits Charlie, but I didn't say it. Going back to the issue at hand...The
President speaks out of both sides of his mouth (the Indians would say he
speaks with forked tongue) He increases this nations debt higher than it has
ever been, continues to do so, and expects everyone to roll over and let his
administration tax it back into the black. I don't care if we are talking about
someone selling pencils on the corner or corporate jets on the tarmac, when
a certain person or group is singeled out to pay a bigger slice of the pie IT
IS WRONG. We might as well just start calling Obama Robin Hood and replace his
teleprompter with a bow.
I know, I know...you will say that Bush spent the hell out of the the budget as
well and you are right, however, he did it for different reasons than the current
administration. Were they valid reasons? I would like to think so...for things
like national security and fighting the war on terror. He did it the American
way after 9-11 going over and taking it out of their hide. Was it justified?
Did he do it right? Lots of opinions on that one and I believe too many
politics for sure. But lets take a look at Obama now, He has continued the war
as it probably needed to be, but what right does he have taking our tax dollars
and bailing (buying) out corporate America? Pushing Obama Care through when
IT WAS NOT the will of the people. If that wasn't a dictorial move then I will
eat my hat. So now we are back to Robin Hood...smells like a whole lot of Socialism
to this guy. Just remember if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
and smells like a duck...
Bob, I think we need that other site now ;>\
Dan B
> Charlie
> Bob,
>
> I'm afraid that you've missed the point, as well. It isn't
> about jet owners, or oil companies; it's about fairness in
> application of the law. When an exec (employee, not owner)
> can have a company helicopter pick him up for work and the
> company is allowed a tax deduction for that, and at the same
> time I'm allowed no tax deduction as an employee for my
> transportation to work, the law isn't applied equitably.
>
> If the Pres had listed every offending individual, he'd
> never finish. He was obviously just offering examples, as I
> just did.
>
> Everybody hates paying taxes, but it astounds me when I
> hear hard working people who have no way out of paying more
> than their fair share, defending those who lobby (euphemism
> for *bribe*) their way into paying little or none of their
> share. What Eric's post doesn't mention is that the 50% of
> us who own 2% of everything, pay more than 50% of the taxes
> to support everything. Warren Buffet has said that his
> housekeeper pays taxes at a higher tax rate than Buffet.
> There's something very wrong with that.
>
> On 07/01/2011 09:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > At 07:39 AM 7/1/2011, you wrote:
> M. Jones"
> >>
> >> Clearly you distorted what President Obama said.
> >
> >. . . which misses the fundamental
> point
> >entirely. It's not about people
> having more or
> >less "stuff" being treated
> differently from
> >folks who have a different amounts of
> "stuff."
> >It's about the abuse of law.
> >
> >The law is simply the collective
> manifestation
> >of our individual right to self
> defense.
> >See Bastiat, "The Law":
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/The_Law.pdf
> >
> >In a civilized society the law is not
> a tool of
> >plunder, oppression or class
> warfare.
> >As soon as a politician utters a
> word
> >personal to any citizen, they have
> violated
> >the founding fathers spirit and
> intent for
> >crafting a civilized society.
> >
> >This isn't a conservative, liberal,
> republican,
> >or democratic thing. All of those
> entities
> >are pitting one group against
> another
> >with arguments that go into the most
> >trivial of details while ignoring
> >the "elephant in the room." Liberty
> is a
> >fundamental right to be left alone.
> >
> >The founding fathers were not
> interested
> >in groups but in individuals. Not for
> their
> >beliefs but for their behaviors. The
> honorable
> >citizen protects the liberty of
> himself and
> >his neighbors. The citizen capable of
> heroism
> >will do so at personal risk.
> >
> >The premise of the AEA response was
> dead on.
> >The idea that anyone should single
> out a
> >group of individuals for special
> attention
> >under the law completely ignores the
> far
> >reaching ramifications for that
> attack upon
> >liberty of millions. See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/I_Pencil.pdf
> >
> >An airplane, yacht, luxury home in
> the mountains,
> >or the lowly pencil are the sum
> totals of
> >work-product for millions of people.
> The idea that
> >corporate jets are separate and
> isolated
> >from the constellation of
> self-interested
> >providers of value all over the
> planet is
> >misguided. It's certainly not in
> keeping
> >with First Principals upon which
> this
> >country was founded.
> >
> >> And sorry for the politics.
> >
> >Class warfare, plunder and oppression
> ARE
> >indeed political. The fundamentals
> for creation
> >and maintenance of a civilized
> society are
> >not. Like rivets, aluminum, and oil
> for
> >the Tefzel insulation, they are
> ingredients
> >that go into a recipe for success.
> The fact
> >liberty and honorable endeavors are
> behaviors
> >as opposed to hard goods is what
> makes them
> >unique to humans.
> >
> >If you'd like to continue this
> discussion,
> >I can crank up another list-server
> engine
> >on matronics.com for that purpose. I
> have
> >a couple of them that are not in
> service
> >at the present time.
> >
> >Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna static discharge protection |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
I'm curious if anyone has experience with protecting RF circuits from
static buildup on exposed antennas during flight.
What is required? Assuming the circuit can only withstand small
voltages (10-20V), is a 100V ceramic blocking capacitor with a 1Meg
drain resistor sufficient? Do you need some sort of diode or gas
discharge device?
Has anyone done or seen research on how quickly voltages can rise (or
fall) on an antenna element in flight?
I'm looking at ham radio-type stuff here, so don't assume a nice,
robust nav/com radio :)
Thanks,
Daniel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
Hi Dan,
First, my apologies; I know you didn't make the 'sick' comment, & should
have been more careful in the structure of my previous post. I truly
didn't intend to tie you to that comment.
Second, please don't confuse an opinion about a single issue with
unquestioning support for for all policies. :-) Email really is a
difficult medium for discussing non-technical subjects; the feedback
loop time constant is too long most of the time & it's way too easy to
set up destructive oscillations in the 'circuit'. (Trying to give this
at least some aeroelectric reference....)
Your last paragraph contains enough subject matter for productive
conversation over at least a 5 course meal. Perhaps we can get together
some time & pursue it, either in person or on Bob's potential new
politics list.
Charlie
On 07/01/2011 05:25 PM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley
>
>
> Sure Charlie, I'll bite...
>
> Dan,
>> Throwing out your political opinion& then saying
>> 'oops, sorry, nothing more should be said', just doesn't cut
>> it. Kinda like asking you, in public, how long it's been
>> since you quit beating your wife.
> Political views never cease to amaze me...we all have one and I'm sure they have
been developed by each of us via nurture as well as nature. We develop them
through how we view the world, first through our parents eyes and then refined
by our own life experiences. I'm sure most of us (say aviators if you want
a defined parameter) are quite sincere in wanting what is best for our families
(I haven't beat my wife for a couple days now), our cities and our nation. However,
agreement in achieving the same goal has been polarized to the extreme
ON BOTH SIDES!
>
>> It distresses me greatly when I see posts that brazenly
>> say, in effect, 'political posts I agree with "probably"
>> have no place here, but anything I disagree with is "sick,
>> and definitely has no place here." ' It really makes me
>> wonder what country this is, where only opinions we agree
>> with are allowed, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor.
> If the shoe fits Charlie, but I didn't say it. Going back to the issue at hand...The
President speaks out of both sides of his mouth (the Indians would say
he speaks with forked tongue) He increases this nations debt higher than it has
ever been, continues to do so, and expects everyone to roll over and let his
administration tax it back into the black. I don't care if we are talking about
someone selling pencils on the corner or corporate jets on the tarmac, when
a certain person or group is singeled out to pay a bigger slice of the pie IT
IS WRONG. We might as well just start calling Obama Robin Hood and replace his
teleprompter with a bow.
>
> I know, I know...you will say that Bush spent the hell out of the the budget
as well and you are right, however, he did it for different reasons than the current
administration. Were they valid reasons? I would like to think so...for
things like national security and fighting the war on terror. He did it the
American way after 9-11 going over and taking it out of their hide. Was it justified?
Did he do it right? Lots of opinions on that one and I believe too many
politics for sure. But lets take a look at Obama now, He has continued the war
as it probably needed to be, but what right does he have taking our tax dollars
and bailing (buying) out corporate America? Pushing Obama Care through when
IT WAS NOT the will of the people. If that wasn't a dictorial move then I will
eat my hat. So now we are back to Robin Hood...smells like a whole lot of
Socialism to this guy. Just remember if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
and smells like a duck...
>
> Bob, I think we need that other site now ;>\
> Dan B
>> Charlie
>> Bob,
>>
>> I'm afraid that you've missed the point, as well. It isn't
>> about jet owners, or oil companies; it's about fairness in
>> application of the law. When an exec (employee, not owner)
>> can have a company helicopter pick him up for work and the
>> company is allowed a tax deduction for that, and at the same
>> time I'm allowed no tax deduction as an employee for my
>> transportation to work, the law isn't applied equitably.
>>
>> If the Pres had listed every offending individual, he'd
>> never finish. He was obviously just offering examples, as I
>> just did.
>>
>> Everybody hates paying taxes, but it astounds me when I
>> hear hard working people who have no way out of paying more
>> than their fair share, defending those who lobby (euphemism
>> for *bribe*) their way into paying little or none of their
>> share. What Eric's post doesn't mention is that the 50% of
>> us who own 2% of everything, pay more than 50% of the taxes
>> to support everything. Warren Buffet has said that his
>> housekeeper pays taxes at a higher tax rate than Buffet.
>> There's something very wrong with that.
>> On 07/01/2011 09:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L.
>> Nuckolls, III"
>>> At 07:39 AM 7/1/2011, you wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric
>> M. Jones"
>>>> Clearly you distorted what President Obama said.
>>> . . . which misses the fundamental
>> point
>>> entirely. It's not about people
>> having more or
>>> less "stuff" being treated
>> differently from
>>> folks who have a different amounts of
>> "stuff."
>>> It's about the abuse of law.
>>>
>>> The law is simply the collective
>> manifestation
>>> of our individual right to self
>> defense.
>>> See Bastiat, "The Law":
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/The_Law.pdf
>>>
>>> In a civilized society the law is not
>> a tool of
>>> plunder, oppression or class
>> warfare.
>>> As soon as a politician utters a
>> word
>>> personal to any citizen, they have
>> violated
>>> the founding fathers spirit and
>> intent for
>>> crafting a civilized society.
>>>
>>> This isn't a conservative, liberal,
>> republican,
>>> or democratic thing. All of those
>> entities
>>> are pitting one group against
>> another
>>> with arguments that go into the most
>>> trivial of details while ignoring
>>> the "elephant in the room." Liberty
>> is a
>>> fundamental right to be left alone.
>>>
>>> The founding fathers were not
>> interested
>>> in groups but in individuals. Not for
>> their
>>> beliefs but for their behaviors. The
>> honorable
>>> citizen protects the liberty of
>> himself and
>>> his neighbors. The citizen capable of
>> heroism
>>> will do so at personal risk.
>>>
>>> The premise of the AEA response was
>> dead on.
>>> The idea that anyone should single
>> out a
>>> group of individuals for special
>> attention
>>> under the law completely ignores the
>> far
>>> reaching ramifications for that
>> attack upon
>>> liberty of millions. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Simple-Ideas/TRL/I_Pencil.pdf
>>>
>>> An airplane, yacht, luxury home in
>> the mountains,
>>> or the lowly pencil are the sum
>> totals of
>>> work-product for millions of people.
>> The idea that
>>> corporate jets are separate and
>> isolated
>>> from the constellation of
>> self-interested
>>> providers of value all over the
>> planet is
>>> misguided. It's certainly not in
>> keeping
>>> with First Principals upon which
>> this
>>> country was founded.
>>>
>>>> And sorry for the politics.
>>> Class warfare, plunder and oppression
>> ARE
>>> indeed political. The fundamentals
>> for creation
>>> and maintenance of a civilized
>> society are
>>> not. Like rivets, aluminum, and oil
>> for
>>> the Tefzel insulation, they are
>> ingredients
>>> that go into a recipe for success.
>> The fact
>>> liberty and honorable endeavors are
>> behaviors
>>> as opposed to hard goods is what
>> makes them
>>> unique to humans.
>>>
>>> If you'd like to continue this
>> discussion,
>>> I can crank up another list-server
>> engine
>>> on matronics.com for that purpose. I
>> have
>>> a couple of them that are not in
>> service
>>> at the present time.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna static discharge protection |
At 07:04 PM 7/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>I'm curious if anyone has experience with protecting RF circuits from
>static buildup on exposed antennas during flight.
What kinds of circuits? Radios designed for the
aircraft environment are already so protected.
>What is required? Assuming the circuit can only withstand small
>voltages (10-20V), is a 100V ceramic blocking capacitor with a 1Meg
>drain resistor sufficient? Do you need some sort of diode or gas
>discharge device?
>
>Has anyone done or seen research on how quickly voltages can rise (or
>fall) on an antenna element in flight?
Not sure about rates of rise but intensities can
be very high . . . 100Kv type high
>I'm looking at ham radio-type stuff here, so don't assume a nice,
>robust nav/com radio :)
Voltages are high, but energies and currents are
very low. A simple inductor across the antenna lead
to ground having negligible conductivity at frequencies
of interest are quite sufficient.
A 1000 ohm resistor across a 50 ohm transmission
line would have negligible effect on swr and/or
lost energy . . . and a profound effect on buildup
of precipitation static.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna static discharge protection |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
> Voltages are high, but energies and currents are
> very low. A simple inductor across the antenna lead
> to ground having negligible conductivity at frequencies
> of interest are quite sufficient.
>
> A 1000 ohm resistor across a 50 ohm transmission
> line would have negligible effect on swr and/or
> lost energy . . . and a profound effect on buildup
> of precipitation static.
Ah! I hadn't considered a shunt inductor!
Thanks for the info! If anyone else knows where to find data on in flight ESD I'd
still love to see it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
>Perhaps we can get together some time & pursue it, either in person
>or on Bob's potential new politics list.
I'm working with Matt to fix some bugs in the
list-server engines I mentioned. When Matt
has some spare time, he'll get them squared
away.
At that time, I'll invite anyone who desires
to join a discussion group for what I'll call
Simple-Ideas. An exploration of fundamental
truths that transcends politics (but is often
stirred in with politics).
Subscription to these lists is by request/invitation.
I maintain the registered address lists manually
for now . . . as opposed to the user management
system that supports this list.
Will let you all know when it's up and running.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna static discharge protection |
At 10:40 PM 7/1/2011, you wrote:
>Ah! I hadn't considered a shunt inductor!
>
>Thanks for the info! If anyone else knows where to find data on in
>flight ESD I'd still love to see it.
We had a big shake-up at Beech about 25 years
ago to deal with some static discharge wick issues
on the fleet. There are pretty simple bench tests
to test the relative effectiveness of a static
wick. I'm aware of no flight test data . . . you
might poke around in the patents (freepatentsonline.com)
and NASA documents.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
I think I understand about avoiding ground loops by providing only a
single path to ground, but I'm confused by the fact that the avionics
manufacturers (Garmin and PS Engineering in particular) tell you to
ground both ends of a shielded cable. Specifically, when going from a
mic or phone input to the audio panel or going from a com radio to the
audio panel all the wiring diagrams show the shield grounded at both
ends. Doesn't this create a ground loop?
Can someone please enlighten me.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground loops |
At 11:43 AM 7/2/2011, you wrote:
>
>I think I understand about avoiding ground loops by providing only a
>single path to ground, but I'm confused by the fact that the
>avionics manufacturers (Garmin and PS Engineering in particular)
>tell you to ground both ends of a shielded cable. Specifically, when
>going from a mic or phone input to the audio panel or going from a
>com radio to the audio panel all the wiring diagrams show the shield
>grounded at both ends. Doesn't this create a ground loop?
If they are grounded to different locations . . . absolutely.
I am increasingly mystified by the instructions
from folks who should know better are mis-using shields over
wires . . . and especially 'grounding both ends' when the
shield is NOT being used as a signal path.
Here's an example of an audio system using NO shielded
wires. It also takes potential for ground loops into
account with note 2.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Audio/2000014C.pdf
Here's a drawing I produced where shields ARE part
of the signal pathways. Note specific treatment
callouts for shields at both ends.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Audio/DualCommAudio.pdf
Same thing here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Audio/hv1_760vhf.pdf
>Can someone please enlighten me.
If the shield over a wire is ALSO a signal path,
i.e. the 'ground' connection for a remotely mounted
mic or headset jack, then that shield goes to ground
at ONE END ONLY which will be the "lo" side of that
feature AT THE INTERCOM or RADIO's ground . . . which
in turn is taken to the instrument panel ground for
extension to aircraft ground as illustrated in Z-15.
You can have LOTS of grounds if they are strung out
in a planned, linear fashion. The "loop" happens when
a conductor operating at ground is tied to the airframe
in more than one place . . . when that structure
carries potentially antagonistic 'noise currents'.
Suggest you review
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_2.pdf
by searching on the word 'shield' in these two documents
and then review the context in each case.
The 'Richter Affair' was some years back but it seems
that many individuals have the same mis-conceptions
in common about shields. It's a sad day when the installers
instructions are not well thought out.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground loops |
At 11:43 AM 7/2/2011, you wrote:
>
>I think I understand about avoiding ground loops by providing only a
>single path to ground, but I'm confused by the fact that the
>avionics manufacturers (Garmin and PS Engineering in particular)
>tell you to ground both ends of a shielded cable.
Can you point me to wiring diagrams on the 'net that
speak to this?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground loops |
On 07/02/2011 11:43 AM, John Grosse wrote:
>
>
> I think I understand about avoiding ground loops by providing only a
> single path to ground, but I'm confused by the fact that the avionics
> manufacturers (Garmin and PS Engineering in particular) tell you to
> ground both ends of a shielded cable. Specifically, when going from a
> mic or phone input to the audio panel or going from a com radio to the
> audio panel all the wiring diagrams show the shield grounded at both
> ends. Doesn't this create a ground loop?
>
> Can someone please enlighten me.
>
> John Grosse
Hi John,
One thing to remember is that for signals in an unbalanced circuit,
'ground' is usually referring to the return path to complete a circuit.
The return is usually at 'ground' potential, but in some circuits, it
might not be.
A ground 'loop' is actually having 2 different paths for the ground, as
you say. In most audio circuits, the shield is used for the return path.
With the mic circuit, the mic jack is almost always specified as
isolated from the airframe to avoid that 2nd return path.
The radio to audio panel issue is a bit harder to reconcile with the
'rule', but signal levels are higher there & the shield path is
typically so short that secondary return paths don't seem to be as much
of an issue. If you allow one end of the shield to float, and let the
return find its own path through the airframe, I'd bet that you'd be
creating the kind of problems that the 'rule' is trying to prevent.
That's not a very satisfying answer, I know. Maybe someone else can give
a more technically specific answer.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground loops |
Thanks for the responses.
I misspoke about PS Engineering. They ground the shield at one end, but
here's the diagram for a Garmin SL40: You'll notice that they
specifically say to ground both ends of the shield to the case.
John
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> July 2, 2011 1:11 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you point me to wiring diagrams on the 'net that
> speak to this?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power line interferances |
Hi Bob
I have talked to you before about my needing to move the batteries in my Glasair
111 from the firewall to behind the baggage compartment. My latest problem with
this conversion is the routing of the 2 #2s and 2 #4s. To run down the center
console there are a lot of things running in that area, but there may be enough
room. The other option is to go under the wing, but that has it's problems as
well. There is minimum room between the bottom of the wing and the belly panel,
and a VOR antenna is in the way. My main question is: Are there potential
problems I need to factor into the equation as to where these big wires run in
relationship to the other wires and antennas. Any suggestions or ideas.
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power line interferances |
At 03:35 PM 7/2/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>I have talked to you before about my needing to move the batteries
>in my Glasair 111 from the firewall to behind the baggage
>compartment. My latest problem with this conversion is the routing
>of the 2 #2s and 2 #4s.
Why two #4. The two batteries can share a single
#2 ground.
> To run down the center console there are a lot of things running
> in that area, but there may be enough room. The other option is to
> go under the wing, but that has it's problems as well. There is
> minimum room between the bottom of the wing and the belly panel,
> and a VOR antenna is in the way. My main question is: Are there
> potential problems I need to factor into the equation as to where
> these big wires run in relationship to the other wires and
> antennas. Any suggestions or ideas.
Run them all together. There are no proximity issues
with respect to other wires/accessories.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground loops |
At 03:13 PM 7/2/2011, you wrote:
>Thanks for the responses.
>I misspoke about PS Engineering. They ground the shield at one end,
>but here's the diagram for a Garmin SL40: You'll notice that they
>specifically say to ground both ends of the shield to the case.
>
>John
Okay, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that
the "audio grounds" connected with wires are internally
grounded to chassis on both devices. Adding a shield
over a twisted pair adds no benefit for two devices
located next to each other. In this case, adding shields
and grounding at both ends is only redundant to the
ground-to-ground wire . . . hence, no risk.
You could just as easily wire these boxes up with twisted
pairs and no shields.
The radio to audio panel issue is a bit harder to reconcile with the
'rule', but signal levels are higher there & the shield path is
typically so short that secondary return paths don't seem to be as
much of an issue. If you allow one end of the shield to float, and
let the return find its own path through the airframe, I'd bet that
you'd be creating the kind of problems that the 'rule' is trying to prevent.
I think the potential is already there with the 'audio
grounds' If the radio were, say, in a rear cockpit and
the audio panel in front . . . and the battery grounds were
in the tail, then there is potential for ground loop coupling
whether or not a shield is present.
That's not a very satisfying answer, I know. Maybe someone else can
give a more technically specific answer.
Most general aviation systems make prolific use
of chassis ground for both power and signals within
any given device. This generally not a problem for
small aircraft . . . especially when we go to some
pains to avoid noisy circuits circulating on the airframe.
Military stuff uses chassis ground only for shielding
where LOCAL bonding to airframe is desirable. RFI filters
grounded to chassis bring signal and power wires
in to dedicated, floating grounds within the device.
This makes is MUCH easier to manage ground systems.
So I guess I'd have to continue to say there are no
hard 'rules' for handling shields because we seldom
are privy to wiring details inside the black boxes.
If the schematic John provided us was for some really
'advanced' equipment, those paired audio lines would
be true balanced pairs and only one "low side" would
be grounded internally to inside the source box. The load
end would be totally floating with a ton of common mode
rejection. Shielding would still be of no particular benefit.
All we can do is the best guess and then go after a
noise problem should it happen to pop up. Our best guess
is adequate probably 99% of the time.
What we can say for sure is that all the schematics
showing shields that are not part of a return path
could easily be replaced with a wire. Shielding has
essentially zero probability of added value in our
working environment.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | WxWorx REWX9ID USB Weather Receiver For Sale... |
I have a 1-year old WxWorx REWX9ID USB XM Aircraft Weather and XM Audio receiver
for sale. It was just removed from my RV-8 and is in perfect working order.
Includes Antenna, Mount, Receiver Unit, and USB Interface.
It is compatible with the Grand Rapids EFISs and a number of others. Gives text
and graphical representations of weather including Rain, Wind, Temp, etc. Requires
separate monthly XM subscription which is not included in this offering.
Attached are some pictures of the actual unit for sale.
Works great and I wouldn't fly without a similar product. I'm replacing the functionality
with an ADS-B receiver.
Additional information on the unit can be found here:
https://www.wxworx.com/portable-receiver-overview
https://www.wxworx.com/interface-modules
Aircraft Spruce has the unit for $595:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/fl190True.php
I will take $400 firm for the unit as shown plus $10 for shipping. First come,
first served. Email me with questions.
I can accept PayPal http://www.paypal.com using "dralle@matronics.com" or I can accept Visa/MC directly. I will take a 2.5% discount for a check, but it will have to clear before I ship.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Rebuild - Post Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm afraid that you've missed the point, as well. It isn't about jet owners,
> or oil companies; it's about fairness in application of the law. When an
> exec (employee, not owner) can have a company helicopter pick him up for
> work and the company is allowed a tax deduction for that, and at the same
> time I'm allowed no tax deduction as an employee for my transportation to
> work, the law isn't applied equitably.
Excuse me, If you had a company car the *COMPANY* would get a tax
break. It's between
you and your company whether providing you transportation is a
legitimate expense
for the company or not. If they don't provide it and you don't like it
you're free to look for
work elsewhere.
Like it or not private jet travel is a net positive. Or do you think
major stockholders would
prefer to not get all the dividends or capital gains that would accrue
without the expense
of a netjets account (after all they are greedy, right) ? Or do you
suffer under the delusion
that CEO's don't answer to anyone ?
And let me explain something to you. Any company that makes money that
isn't based
on government based preference is a good thing for you, whether you
believe it or not.
Granted GE makes some jet engines but most of the people in the
corporate jet business are not making money based on favorable
regulations in return for the political donations (as GE
and GM are doing now).
>
> If the Pres had listed every offending individual, he'd never finish. He was
> obviously just offering examples, as I just did.
>
So having access to a corporate jet an "offense" now ? Or merely just
having more money
than you ?
Nearly half the people in this country do not pay any income taxes at
all. The President is
hard at work at making that number a solid majority so the people that
think like him can do
whatever the hell they want without electoral consequence.
> Everybody hates paying taxes, but it astounds me when I hear hard working
> people who have no way out of paying more than their fair share, defending
> those who lobby (euphemism for *bribe*) their way into paying little or none
> of their share. What Eric's post doesn't mention is that the 50% of us who
> own 2% of everything, pay more than 50% of the taxes to support everything.
> Warren Buffet has said that his housekeeper pays taxes at a higher tax rate
> than Buffet. There's something very wrong with that.
Excuse me, that's complete bullshit. The top 1% (read that as large
corporations) pay
nearly 40% of all federal revenue. The bottom 50% don't pay shit. I
don't give a rats
butt about percentage rates (it's dollars not marginal rates that fund
the government).
As far as Buffet is concerned the stuff that comes out of his mouth is
exactly what he has to say (along with his massive political
donations/protection money to both parties) to keep the government
from destroying his company. Crony capitalism is socialism. And guess
what, every damn person on this list is going to get fried by it, long
before Buffet shrugs and
walks away offshore with enough money left over to not really give a shit.
Oh btw, if you're reading this list because you own your own airplane
or are considering
building one it means your disposable income puts you in the rich,
greedy, sob category
and you will be made a scapegoat sooner rather than later. Don't
expect the EPA to not
ban lead based fuel simply because you're going to have to take a 100
percent loss on any airplane you own not running a very low
compression engine. After all you don't need your airplane to eat so
you can afford to do your fair share by giving it up for the greater
good.
And i'm not sorry, I'm pissed. Don't start this crap and you won't
hear it from me. The days
of some idiot calling Bush, Palin, or Bachman, (or whoever the
designated person to
destroy is) stupid, greedy, or a war criminal or suggesting someone
more successful should do more and me saying nothing are over. Deal
with it.
c'ya,
Mike.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane completely out
of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty oscillating buzz as the
PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin SL40. Again, this is without the
engine running and just operating on my 12V battery. The TX light comes on (on
the radio), the transmit light turns red on the intercom, and when someone
else calls I can hear loud and clear.
In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and found a possible
reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One other person had a buzz happening
similar to mine (using the same radio) and found after great deliberation
that the connection to his antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo"
antenna (yes I did this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal
on the threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to ground.
He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a problem. he purchased
a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector, hooked it up, and said problem solved.
My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an antenna, does anyone
concur with this as a possible problem? I would also like to know if there
is a BNC connector (or proper terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna
with just the threads on the bottom. Thanks
Dan B
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 6:29 PM
> I didn't turn the lights off but I
> was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways.
> When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will
> need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane
> all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in
> street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point
> about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have
> quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be
> reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as
> well?
> Dan
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM
> > --> AeroElectric-List message
> > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
> > Billingsley
> > >
> > > I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it
> it
> > sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very
> consistant).
> > AFter going thru this symptom with a few
> folks...Garmin
> > techs saying they never heard of it b-4...
> > > I was scratching my head and looked up. The
> antenna
> > was hovering between two floursent lights in the
> > garage...it WAS AC!
> > > Dan
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn
> > off the lights
> > does the buzz go away?
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> Chat,
> > FAQ,
> >
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> Forums!
> >
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starter switch p-lead ground questions |
| From: | "jvolkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
I am installing a five position starter switch. Question, do I ground th p-lead
shields at the switch and the magneto or only the magneto?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345219#345219
________________________________________________________________________________
Dan,
Maybe a silly question, but have you tried another radio in its place? Had it bench
tested lately?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:19 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane completely out
of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty oscillating buzz as the
PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin SL40. Again, this is without the
engine running and just operating on my 12V battery. The TX light comes on (on
the radio), the transmit light turns red on the intercom, and when someone
else calls I can hear loud and clear.
In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and found a possible
reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One other person had a buzz happening
similar to mine (using the same radio) and found after great deliberation
that the connection to his antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo"
antenna (yes I did this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal
on the threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to ground.
He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a problem. he purchased
a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector, hooked it up, and said problem solved.
My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an antenna, does anyone
concur with this as a possible problem? I would also like to know if there
is a BNC connector (or proper terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna
with just the threads on the bottom. Thanks
Dan B
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 6:29 PM
> I didn't turn the lights off but I
> was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways.
> When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will
> need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane
> all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in
> street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point
> about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have
> quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be
> reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as
> well?
> Dan
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM
> > --> AeroElectric-List message
> > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
> > Billingsley
> > >
> > > I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it
> it
> > sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very
> consistant).
> > AFter going thru this symptom with a few
> folks...Garmin
> > techs saying they never heard of it b-4...
> > > I was scratching my head and looked up. The
> antenna
> > was hovering between two floursent lights in the
> > garage...it WAS AC!
> > > Dan
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn
> > off the lights
> > does the buzz go away?
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> Chat,
> > FAQ,
> >
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> Forums!
> >
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: AeroEletctric-List: Starter switch p-lead ground |
questions
John,
If I remember correctly we were bantering this topic around during the winter.
Do a search on the website posts for p-lead and so on. Like the battery topic,
there are several schools of thought on this one. In my mind, if the P-Lead is
grounded the engine won't start. Last time I checked, that was the objective.
The thread was fairly complete an should answer your question as desired.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jvolkober
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter switch p-lead ground questions
I am installing a five position starter switch. Question, do I ground th p-lead
shields at the switch and the magneto or only the magneto?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345219#345219
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter switch p-lead ground questions |
At 12:08 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>I am installing a five position starter switch. Question, do I
>ground th p-lead shields at the switch and the magneto or only the magneto?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/MagnetoSwitchOptions.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Dan,
Of course, I concur. Here's why:
Coaxial cables are classed as high frequency waveguides because the energy transmitted
in them is almost entirely within the insulation. An amazing demonstration
of this is that the group wave velocity is exactly equal to the speed of
the electromagnetic wave in the particular material out of which the insulation
is made. The importance of this is directly proportional to frequency. For audio
purposes it matters little. Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
"Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and both the inner conductor
and twisted-up-shield lead are treated as separate wires is deadly to signals
above a Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method that does
not increase the impedance of the shield or the inner conductor. There are
many ways to do this, but they all use some collar arrangement to terminate the
messy coax shield. Any coax catalog has lots of solutions--use them.
--------
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=345252#345252
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi Dan,
Any chance that someone in your area could just loan you a BNC type
antenna & coax for it? If so, you could just substitute. On 2nd thought,
how about a 'rubber ducky' off a handheld? You'd still need a BNC to BNC
cable, and a Male-Male BNC adapter to hook up the antenna, but that
should be easier & cheaper than a $100 antenna.
If you can't come up with a local solution, I might have one and a cable
in my collection I could ship to you for testing.
Another (long shot) idea is, are you running off a bench power supply,
or the plane's battery? If a bench supply, I wonder if RF could be
getting into the supply. Bob might be better able to address that
possibility.
Charlie
On 07/06/2011 08:19 PM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley
>
> Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane completely
out of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty oscillating buzz as
the PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin SL40. Again, this is without
the engine running and just operating on my 12V battery. The TX light comes on
(on the radio), the transmit light turns red on the intercom, and when someone
else calls I can hear loud and clear.
> In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and found a possible
reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One other person had a buzz
happening similar to mine (using the same radio) and found after great deliberation
that the connection to his antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo"
antenna (yes I did this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal
on the threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to ground.
He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a problem. he purchased
a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector, hooked it up, and said problem solved.
>
> My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an antenna, does
anyone concur with this as a possible problem? I would also like to know if there
is a BNC connector (or proper terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna
with just the threads on the bottom. Thanks
> Dan B
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
>> From: Dan Billingsley<dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 6:29 PM
>> I didn't turn the lights off but I
>> was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways.
>> When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will
>> need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane
>> all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in
>> street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point
>> about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have
>> quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be
>> reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as
>> well?
>> Dan
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message
>>> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>>
>>> At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan
>>> Billingsley
>>>> I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it
>> it
>>> sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very
>> consistant).
>>> AFter going thru this symptom with a few
>> folks...Garmin
>>> techs saying they never heard of it b-4...
>>>> I was scratching my head and looked up. The
>> antenna
>>> was hovering between two floursent lights in the
>>> garage...it WAS AC!
>>>> Dan
>>> Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn
>>> off the lights
>>> does the buzz go away?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:19 PM 7/6/2011, you wrote:
Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane
completely out of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty
oscillating buzz as the PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin
SL40. Again, this is without the engine running and just operating on
my 12V battery. The TX light comes on (on the radio), the transmit
light turns red on the intercom, and when someone else calls I can
hear loud and clear.
In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and
found a possible reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One
other person had a buzz happening similar to mine (using the same
radio) and found after great deliberation that the connection to his
antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo" antenna (yes I did
this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal on the
threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to
ground. He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a
problem. he purchased a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector,
hooked it up, and said problem solved.
My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an
antenna, does anyone concur with this as a possible problem? I would
also like to know if there is a BNC connector (or proper
terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna with just the threads on
the bottom. Thanks
DIY antennas have been successfully installed
on lots of OBAM aircraft. Back in the early days
of VHF comm radios in airplanes, virtually all
the antennas were built at the airframe factory,
not purchased.
Build one of these from RadioShack parts:
Emacs!
Stick it on the back of your comm transceiver in place
of the antenna coax. See if the 'buzz' goes away. Keep
the test transmissions short . . . a few seconds. This
load is only good for 2W continuous so your transceiver's
output represents an potential 'overload' condition but
short test transmissions wont hurt it.
If the noise goes away, then quality of the feedline
and antenna system is suspect. It could be a poorly
installed connector at the transceiver end, at some
intermediate joint, or the antenna end. The fact that
you have a DIY antenna is not an automatic recipe for
failure but it does put some extra-ordinary requirements
on the fabricator for quality of the made-up joints.
You could fabricate an antenna using one of these
coax-connector-to-rod adapters that are common to
the CB radio accessories market. One such article is
Radio Shack 219-0961
Emacs!
This product is designed to accept the PL-259
"UHF" style connector and an antenna rod fitted
with a 3/8-24 threaded end. Note that this product
comes with an internal tooth star washer to
effect good electrical connection between coax
shield and the aircraft skin. This washer needs
to be exactly centered in the final make up of
the joint.
Emacs!
You can install this style connector directly on the
end of your coax but it's a bit of a chore
http://tinyurl.com/2lwyc
You'll also need a step-down adapter
Emacs!
to mate the smaller RG-400 style coax with the
larger connector.
Alternatively, you can install a BNC connector
on the end of your coax and use a BNC-UHF
adapter on the antenna mount.
Emacs!
Steer clear of any coax connector that is
not crimped or soldered. "Twist on" or other
"solderless" connectors are to be avoided.
Many folks have discovered that $100 for a pre-assembled
antenna is not too bad a deal. You can spend a goodly
chunk of $time$ fabricating your own antenna. It's
not difficult but it's not a trivial exercise either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
"Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and both the
inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are treated as separate
wires is deadly to signals above a Megahertz. The shield should be
terminated by any method that does not increase the impedance of the
shield or the inner conductor.
I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
they become part of the antenna.
No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
on overall performance is impossible to simply
observe and can only be measured with pretty
sophisticated equipment.
There was some discussion a few years back
about the value of adding the ferrite beads
over feed line attached to an embedded foil
VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
photos at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
I did some work in the RF lab and found
that it took a couple dozen beads to
drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
same time, having NO beads installed produced
no observable value.
The observable effects for DIY departures from
idea are likely to be the result of poor
connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
between two components . . . not for having violated
the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
simply become part of the antenna's complex
impedance. Careful measurements would show that
the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
not make the radio perform batter in any way
you can observe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
Thank You all for your thoughtful inputs...I think a good place to start will be
building that dummy load Bob. Thank you and I will keep the list informed of
my progress.
Dan
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message
> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
> Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
>
> "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> inner conductor.
>
> I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> they become part of the antenna.
>
> No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> on overall performance is impossible to simply
> observe and can only be measured with pretty
> sophisticated equipment.
>
> There was some discussion a few years back
> about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> photos at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
>
>
> I did some work in the RF lab and found
> that it took a couple dozen beads to
> drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> same time, having NO beads installed produced
> no observable value.
>
> The observable effects for DIY departures from
> idea are likely to be the result of poor
> connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> between two components . . . not for having
> violated
> the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
>
> The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> simply become part of the antenna's complex
> impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> not make the radio perform batter in any way
> you can observe.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com> |
I'm with Mike and Bob on this one 100%.
The government uses laws, especially tax laws and now health care legislation to
pick winners and losers. If our President really believed his health care plan
was good for America and Americans his administration would not be granting
100's of waivers to friends of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Nobody would get
waivers and all would be held to the law equally.
As far as income (or wealth) distribution - not the same thing, BTW - it is none
of the government's business how it's distributed and it is confiscation when
they take from one to give to another in the name of "fairness."
On income distribution, I have attached a spreadsheet that approaches this from
a strictly mathematical model. I assume income is distributed in equal increments
from 10,000 to 1,000,000 over 100 people. I then add up each block of 20
people to see what the distribution is. For a simple straight line distribution
the top 20% of wage earners get 35.8% of the income. The bottom 20% of wage
earners get 4.2% of total income.
It's mathematics that does it, not any basic unfairness in the system!
Unfairness is getting something for nothing or because of political contributions
or favors. Unfairness is working 60 or 70 or 80 hours per week and putting
yourself through school and seeing 50% (total tax rate in most states when payroll,
income tax, property and sales taxes are included) taken AND IT IS STILL
NOT ENOUGH!
Read "The Law" and "Atlas Shrugged."
Lastly, our esteemed President said while campaigning he would met with Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad any time and without precondition. That is a privilege he will give
a dictator and abuser of human rights but will not give to the opposition
party when the future of our country is at stake? What in the world is he thinking?
Reelection and political power is more important than the financial health
of our country?
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345279#345279
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/income_distribution_2010_0627_180.xlsx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum
going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its
intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site
devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals,
can we just talk electrons here?
Rick Girard
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Bubblehead wrote:
> >
>
> I'm with Mike and Bob on this one 100%.
>
> The government uses laws, especially tax laws and now health care
> legislation to pick winners and losers. If our President really believed
> his health care plan was good for America and Americans his administration
> would not be granting 100's of waivers to friends of Harry Reid and Nancy
> Pelosi. Nobody would get waivers and all would be held to the law equally.
>
> As far as income (or wealth) distribution - not the same thing, BTW - it is
> none of the government's business how it's distributed and it is
> confiscation when they take from one to give to another in the name of
> "fairness."
>
> On income distribution, I have attached a spreadsheet that approaches this
> from a strictly mathematical model. I assume income is distributed in equal
> increments from 10,000 to 1,000,000 over 100 people. I then add up each
> block of 20 people to see what the distribution is. For a simple straight
> line distribution the top 20% of wage earners get 35.8% of the income. The
> bottom 20% of wage earners get 4.2% of total income.
>
> It's mathematics that does it, not any basic unfairness in the system!
>
> Unfairness is getting something for nothing or because of political
> contributions or favors. Unfairness is working 60 or 70 or 80 hours per
> week and putting yourself through school and seeing 50% (total tax rate in
> most states when payroll, income tax, property and sales taxes are included)
> taken AND IT IS STILL NOT ENOUGH!
>
> Read "The Law" and "Atlas Shrugged."
>
> Lastly, our esteemed President said while campaigning he would met with
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any time and without precondition. That is a privilege
> he will give a dictator and abuser of human rights but will not give to the
> opposition party when the future of our country is at stake? What in the
> world is he thinking? Reelection and political power is more important than
> the financial health of our country?
>
> --------
> John
> Keller, TX
> RV-8 N247TD
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345279#345279
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/income_distribution_2010_0627_180.xlsx
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
At 11:29 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
As I mentioned early last week, I have another list-server engine
on Matronics that I can dedicate to this and similar discussions.
Matt got it de-bugged over the weekend.
The membership list for this server has to be maintained manually.
Further, there will be no automatic archiving function. Individuals
who would like to have their email address added to (or removed from)
the SimpleIdeas-List can do so by emailing their wishes to me directly at
bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com
I have about 20 participants on the list already. I'm looking forward
to the sharing of ideas with any of you who wish to give it a try.
In the mean time, let's respect the wishes of attendees on the
AeroElectric-List not to be distracted with off-topic discussions.
Let's move it to the Simple-Ideas list.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Dan, If you have a 121.5 ELT use the portable antenna from it.
Rick Girard
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Dan Billingsley
wrote:
> dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
>
> Thank You all for your thoughtful inputs...I think a good place to start
> will be building that dummy load Bob. Thank you and I will keep the list
> informed of my progress.
> Dan
>
> --- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> > --> AeroElectric-List message
> > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
> >
> > "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> > both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> > treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> > Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> > that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> > inner conductor.
> >
> > I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> > appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> > shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> > the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> > they become part of the antenna.
> >
> > No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> > the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> > on overall performance is impossible to simply
> > observe and can only be measured with pretty
> > sophisticated equipment.
> >
> > There was some discussion a few years back
> > about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> > over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> > VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> > photos at:
> >
> > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
> >
> >
> > I did some work in the RF lab and found
> > that it took a couple dozen beads to
> > drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> > feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> > same time, having NO beads installed produced
> > no observable value.
> >
> > The observable effects for DIY departures from
> > idea are likely to be the result of poor
> > connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> > between two components . . . not for having
> > violated
> > the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
> >
> > The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> > simply become part of the antenna's complex
> > impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> > the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> > because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> > the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> > not make the radio perform batter in any way
> > you can observe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Under control . . . |
At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection
>forum going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use
>it for its intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally
>thousands of site devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC.
>How about it guys and gals, can we just talk electrons here?
Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
until we can get it squared away. The
AEC list is not in danger of getting away
from us!
You up for some 'cross country' in that
airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
put you up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
| From: | Mike Parker <park045(at)cox.net> |
FIREDOG
Mike Parker
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>> How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum going
to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its intended
purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site devoted to political
BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals, can we just talk
electrons here?
>
> Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
> line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
> until we can get it squared away. The
> AEC list is not in danger of getting away
> from us!
>
> You up for some 'cross country' in that
> airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
> for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
> put you up.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
in their best interest as well as yours.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair III.
But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the public, the
FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to install/approve
ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165) that
states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It then goes on
to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly hints that all
equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do not apply to us.
To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO that all STC's for
approval were not being accepted and that the only way to get approval was
from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked the FSDO if we (the home
builder) were considered the manufacturer and was told the FAA felt that it
was the kit manufacturer. I called the EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have any
ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
I wish it were that easy.
Garmin 530W TSO'ed
Garmin 330ES TSO'ed
RMI Microencoder Air Data Non-TSO'ed.
Garmin shrugged it's shoulders.
The stumbling block is going to be the air data system.
Unlike encoder certification by successfully completing a ground test,
there is NO ground/air testing protocol yet published for ADBS-B Out
approval.
Remember back in the early days of RNAV? You had to fly over known
landmarks and log the results to verify accuracy. That's what we need
here. But that would require ATC coordination.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Leffler
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues.
It's
in their best interest as well as yours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments - Survey |
Dear All,
Some of you may be aware that in the UK homebuilts are restricted to Day
VMC operation only. A discussion has started with the regulator (the UK
CAA) about extending the clearance for suitable airplanes to Night and
IFR operations. One area where there is little data, and significant CAA
interest, is the reliability of uncertified flight instruments.
It is proving difficult to obtain any data on this subject. I would like
to ask listers to help by providing some information based on your own
experiences. The UK homebuilders' association - The Light Aircraft
Association - has initiated a simple web based survey
<http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_World> to collect data. I would be
very grateful if you could spare the few minutes it will take to
complete. Thanks very much for your support.
Any UK pilots reading this are invited to use this version
<http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_UK> of the survey.
Best Regards,
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
Based on this paragraph I don't think the AC applies to experimental, I could be
wrong though.
1-2. Who This AC Applies to. This AC is for anyone who is applying for an initial
type certificate (TC), supplemental type certificate (STC), an amended TC,
or an amended STC for the installation and continued airworthiness of ADS-B Out
equipment.
Since the TC STC area doesn't apply I think we are left without any guidance at
this point.
Rodney
---- Bruce wrote:
>
> I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
> guys?
>
> ***************************
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
> III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
> public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
> install/approve ADBS-B.
>
> The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
> that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
> then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
> hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
> not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
> that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
> way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
> the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
> was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
> EAA, they were clueless.
>
> So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
> any ideas?
>
> Here's the link to the AC,
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
> ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
>
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com> |
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>
> I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
> guys?
>
> ***************************
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
> III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
> public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
> install/approve ADBS-B.
>
> The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
> that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
> then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
> hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
> not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
> that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
> way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
> the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
> was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
> EAA, they were clueless.
>
> So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
> any ideas?
>
> Here's the link to the AC,
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
> ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
>
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I disconnected the coax from
behind the SL40 and attached the rubber anntenna off of my HT. The sound is different...it
is no longer a buzz but it sounds as if it is turning itself on and
off when the PTT is depressed...a pulse of sorts approx two cycles per second.
Some have e-mailed and said to try turning the squelch down...check. I was
also told to turn the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems
to possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire going to the intercom.
Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw out the ideas if you get one.
Thanks, Dan
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message
> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
> Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
>
> "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> inner conductor.
>
> I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> they become part of the antenna.
>
> No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> on overall performance is impossible to simply
> observe and can only be measured with pretty
> sophisticated equipment.
>
> There was some discussion a few years back
> about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> photos at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
>
>
> I did some work in the RF lab and found
> that it took a couple dozen beads to
> drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> same time, having NO beads installed produced
> no observable value.
>
> The observable effects for DIY departures from
> idea are likely to be the result of poor
> connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> between two components . . . not for having
> violated
> the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
>
> The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> simply become part of the antenna's complex
> impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> not make the radio perform batter in any way
> you can observe.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:16 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I disconnected the
>coax from behind the SL40 and attached the rubber anntenna off of my
>HT. The sound is different...it is no longer a buzz but it sounds as
>if it is turning itself on and off when the PTT is depressed...a
>pulse of sorts approx two cycles per second. Some have e-mailed and
>said to try turning the squelch down...check. I was also told to
>turn the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems to
>possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire going to the
>intercom. Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw out the ideas if you get one.
>Thanks, Dan
This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a RADIATING
device that floods the wiring behind the panel with RF
energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad termination,
then the symptoms you're seeing may well be indiciative of
a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator from a bad
coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the radio
is not likely to yield useful information.
You need to do the dummy load thing first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
That's a good point. NavWorx, for example, ONLY sells non-TSO'd equipment so their
only market is Experimental, right? Seems like they wouldn't have a business
model if you couldn't install their ADS-B transceivers in your homebuilt...
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
At 02:09 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
>in their best interest as well as yours.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
At 01:47 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>I asked
>the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
>was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer.
This seems blatantly wrong. If I built an Experimental airplane of my own design
from scratch, there is no question I am the manufacture of the aircraft.
To that end, on my RV-8, when I registered it, under "Model" I put "RV-8", under
"Manufacture" I put "Matt Dralle (Van's Aircraft)".
Only the "Builder" (i.e. manufacture) of the aircraft can hold the Mechanics cert
for my RV-8. Last time I did an inspection on it, *I* signed the log book
off, not Van's Aircraft...
$.02
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine started to
sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible turn, but as
Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If the runway had only
been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a scratch or bruise, but now I
have a little rework to do.
Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
Rick
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>> How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum
>> going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its
>> intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site
>> devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals,
>> can we just talk electrons here?
>>
>
> Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
> line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
> until we can get it squared away. The
> AEC list is not in danger of getting away
> from us!
>
> You up for some 'cross country' in that
> airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
> for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
> put you up.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments |
- Survey
Peter,
you might ned to say, that you are just looking for data of
US/AUS/CAN/SA and UK pilots.
I did fill but could not choose my country I apologize to down under to
have seleceted AUS then :) still plan on a retirement there so not
totaly wrong.
Cheers
Werner
On 08.07.2011 00:08, Peter Pengilly wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Some of you may be aware that in the UK homebuilts are restricted to Day
> VMC operation only. A discussion has started with the regulator (the UK
> CAA) about extending the clearance for suitable airplanes to Night and
> IFR operations. One area where there is little data, and significant CAA
> interest, is the reliability of uncertified flight instruments.
>
> It is proving difficult to obtain any data on this subject. I would like
> to ask listers to help by providing some information based on your own
> experiences. The UK homebuilders' association - The Light Aircraft
> Association - has initiated a simple web based survey
> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_World> to collect data. I would be
> very grateful if you could spare the few minutes it will take to
> complete. Thanks very much for your support.
>
> Any UK pilots reading this are invited to use this version
> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_UK> of the survey.
>
> Best Regards,
> Peter
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
> This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a
> RADIATING
> device that floods the wiring behind the panel with
> RF
> energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad
> termination,
> then the symptoms you're seeing may well be
> indiciative of
> a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator
> from a bad
> coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the
> radio
> is not likely to yield useful information.
>
> You need to do the dummy load thing first.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> Roger That
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com> |
I don't think this is totally true. I have a '56 172, CAR 3 certified, TSO's
are not a requirement for all the equipment since this is not required on
the TC. For instance a KX-170B radio.
Bill Greenley
RV-10 (waiting on wing kit delivery)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
That's a good point. NavWorx, for example, ONLY sells non-TSO'd equipment
so their only market is Experimental, right? Seems like they wouldn't have
a business model if you couldn't install their ADS-B transceivers in your
homebuilt...
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
At 02:09 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
>in their best interest as well as yours.
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
At 11:07 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine
>started to sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible
>turn, but as Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If
>the runway had only been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a
>scratch or bruise, but now I have a little rework to do.
>Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
Just damn . . . glad you're okay. Did you
figure out what's up with the engine?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
my
airworthiness certificate ..........."
Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA FORM
8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL - AMATEUR
BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a mistake in
filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and ADDRESS
boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER box.
This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER and
not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14 CFR
regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to the
manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
aircraft.
2) "..... and the data plate."
This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount of
information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number) one
may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an aircraft
manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
"Manufacturer".)
3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not be
taken at face value.
Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT for
more insight into this issue.
4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort of
TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every builder of
E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular that
were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue about
the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the air.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
========================================================
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:40 AM
BGray(at)glasair.org
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you
suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the
result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says
so on
my
airworthiness certificate ..........."
Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA
FORM
8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL -
AMATEUR
BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a
mistake in
filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and
ADDRESS
boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER
box.
This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER
and
not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14
CFR
regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to
the
manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
aircraft.
2) "..... and the data plate."
This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount
of
information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number)
one
may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an
aircraft
manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
"Manufacturer".)
3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not
be
taken at face value.
Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
for
more insight into this issue.
4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort
of
TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every
builder of
E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular
that
were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue
about
the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the
air.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
========================================================
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you
want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just
like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, You wrote:
1) "ADBS-B Out"
It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
2) "...the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B." and "The FAA has published an advisory circular on
the subject (AC 20-165) that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be
approved before use."
Since many portions of 14 CFR and the supporting Advisory Circulars are
written by bureaucrats and approved by lawyers who do not have a clue
regarding the existence of E-AB (Experimental- Amateur Built) aircraft one
should not be surprised by lack of this path. (And maybe we should be
grateful that they did not attempt to provide one since it would probably be
nearly impossible to comply with.)
3) "I asked the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the
manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer."
Please see my response to Bob Taylor on this issue.
It is unfortunate that we have gotten all wrapped around the axle regarding
the semantics of "builder" versus "manufacturer". I think that we should
call all kit providers just that, "Kit Providers". They are neither the
manufacturers nor the builders of E-AB aircraft. And the E-AB builder is
just that, the builder, not the manufacturer of his E-AB aircraft.
4) "I called the EAA, they were clueless."
I think that if you call the EAA and talk to or email Joe Norris
(jnorris(at)eaa.org) you will find out that it is not the EAA that is clueless,
but rather the FAA responses when the EAA attempts to query the FAA on our
behalf on many issues.
5) "So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?"
If the ADSB-Out equipment that you have has some TSO markings on it, make
the best installation that you can and go fly it.**
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I can recall a posting by an individual many years ago when GPS was
new. This builder attempted to comply with the then existing Advisory
Circular on GPS installations to obtain some FAA approval. He wound up
airborne with a terrified FAA bureacrat for an approval flight. The poor FAA
employee spent the entire flight looking out the windows waiting the the
inevitable mid air collision that was about to happen any second. The FAA
employee never looked at the GPS equipment.
That experience cured that builder of ever again trying to get any E-AB
aircraft equipment installation approved by the FAA.
=========================================================
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I can't find anything wrong with it, no signs of seizure or anything like
that. It starts and runs fine. The weather at the time was very humid and
the temps had just dropped 20 degrees following a thunderstorm passage. I
wasn't on my best investigative abilities after I crawled out of the plane
so I didn't check to see if there was ice on the carbs.
I'd been thinking about modifying the front of the fuselage truss to
accommodate a forward opening canopy, so I'm looking on this as an
opportunity. :-}
Rick
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 11:07 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine started to
>> sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible turn, but as
>> Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If the runway had only
>> been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a scratch or bruise, but now I
>> have a little rework to do.
>> Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
>>
>
> Just damn . . . glad you're okay. Did you
> figure out what's up with the engine?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/8/2011
Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the use of
non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings related
thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in violation of
91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of worms again.
2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed TSO
performance requirements, but have not been through all the environmental
testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it is
available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop him or
ignore him.
4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace."
Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the MLS
(Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
==========================================================
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | New and Improved Low-Ohms Adapter |
I've just finished the first-article fabrication
on the next generation of Low Ohms Adapters. The
first version was something of a cluge . . .
assembled in a hurry with the materials and processes
on hand at the moment.
The AEC9008-3 features user selectable excitation
currents of 100 mA and 1000 mA. All the electronics
are mounted to an ECB. This version needed a fatter
battery so I designed around the legacy 6v, spring
top, lantern battery. The Low Ohms Adapter is rubber-
banded to the top of the battery for use. When you're
done with the measurement, you can put the batty back
in your lantern.
WallyWorld sells a lantern WITH battery for about
$5.
Folks who have the older version on order today will
receive the -3 at the original price. Had to boost
the new one by $5 to offset some new fabrication
costs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
Yes, I have been through the non TSO'd encoder wars with my RMI
microencoder.
If my Microencoder air data unit exceeds TSO requirements, how does that
help me when I'm standing before a NTSB judge?
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-Out B
7/8/2011
Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the
use of
non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings
related
thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in
violation of
91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of worms again.
2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed
TSO
performance requirements, but have not been through all the
environmental
testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it
is
available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop
him or
ignore him.
4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace."
Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the
MLS
(Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
==========================================================
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Hello all,
Why don't you who are worried about the legality of a non-TSO'd ADS-B box
ask one of the manufacturers instead of guessing. I'm sure Bill Moffitt of
NavWorx would be glad to elucidate. BillM(at)NavWorx.com
Dee
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM, wrote:
>
> 7/8/2011
>
> Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
>
> This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the use
> of non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings
> related thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in
> violation of 91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of wo
rms
> again.
>
> 2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
>
> In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed T
SO
> performance requirements, but have not been through all the environmental
> testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
>
> 3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
>
> I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it i
s
> available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
> work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop him
or
> ignore him.
>
> 4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
> airspace."
>
> Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the M
LS
> (Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> ========================
======**==================
>
> It could have well been a Freudian slip.
>
> Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
>
> According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR =A792.225) those aircraft
> equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
> equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
> How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
> TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
>
> Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
> airspace.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
=====**===================
===========**=
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: July 8, 2011 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
At 01:47 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>I asked
>the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
>was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer.
This seems blatantly wrong. If I built an Experimental airplane of my own
design from scratch, there is no question I am the manufacture of the
aircraft.
To that end, on my RV-8, when I registered it, under "Model" I put "RV-8",
under "Manufacture" I put "Matt Dralle (Van's Aircraft)".
Only the "Builder" (i.e. manufacture) of the aircraft can hold the Mechanics
cert for my RV-8. Last time I did an inspection on it, *I* signed the log
book off, not Van's Aircraft...
$.02
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
Bruce and everyone,
ADS-B doesn't have to be TSO'd until 2020. It's not illegal now, but
if it's not TSO'd by then, it will be according to today's FARs.
These things change. There is time to allow the manufacturers to TSO
their products. I have Navworx and I'm not too worried that I'll be
flying around with an illegal transmitter 9 years from now.
For Bruce's original question about how do you install a TSO'd ADS-B
system in a homebuilt, as others have said, I don't believe there is
an applicable FAR or FAA guidance. I'd look at it like any other
avionics. Maintained, yes, installed, no.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Ward <keithward1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure there
will be a learning curve.
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8 schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would this
be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential bus keeps
the necessary items happy.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8 back-up
alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can provide,
does the system just draw down the battery until components start shutting down,
or do other issues occur?
Thanks for the help.
Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Welcome Keith,
I'll try to answer a couple of your questions as I too am wiring now using
the 13/8 format.
The SD8 is an 8 amp alternator and can be 10 at high RPM (as I recall. Not
looking at specs right now).
If the main alt is off-line and the SD8 is on, it will produce what is being
asked of it to a max of it's capacity depending on RPM. The balance will
then be supplied by the battery until it starts running out of electrons.
After that, I would think some things will start shutting down, others will
start behaving is strange ways before shutting down completely.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Keith
Ward
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New to list
-->
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure
there will be a learning curve.
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8
schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would
this be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential
bus keeps the necessary items happy.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8
back-up alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can
provide, does the system just draw down the battery until components start
shutting down, or do other issues occur?
Thanks for the help.
Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Under control . . . |
>I'd been thinking about modifying the front of the fuselage truss to accom
modate a forward opening canopy=2C so I'm looking on this as an >opportunit
y. :-}
>Rick
Rick=2C
You could modify the front of the fuselage to accept "side swinging" door
s. They call it
an Xtra.
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:05 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and
I'm sure there will be a learning curve.
Welcome to the list!
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's
Z-13/8 schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main
bus? Would this be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components
while the essential bus keeps the necessary items happy.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Any time the
main bus is up (battery contactor closed) the endurance
bus is automatically powered through the normal feed-
path diode.
By closing the e-bus alternate feed path switch, the
e-bus components will stay powered directly from the
battery. If the SD-8 (8 amp alternator) is turned
ON and assuming that the engine is running at or above
2600 RPM, you can get 8+ amps out of the SD-8.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the
SD8 back-up alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than
the SD8 can provide, does the system just draw down the battery until
components start shutting down, or do other issues occur?
When any alternator is overloaded, the bus voltage sags
until the battery to starts picking up the difference
. . . somewhere around 12.5 volts. This condition
will continue until the battery drops below 11.0
volts whereupon it contains less than 5% of its useful
energy. After that the voltage falls more rapidly
and things start mis-behaving.
For endurance mode operations, the Plan-B checklist
should call for shutting the main bus OFF, e-bus
alternate feed ON, SD-8 Alternator ON. Then reduce
e-bus loads to 8A or less until airport of intended
destination is in sight. After that, you can turn
on what ever extra goodies are deemed necessary
for graceful approach to landing whether on the
e-bus or main bus.
I'm having trouble imagining what kind of troubleshooting
activity would be carried out with the main bus
down an only the e-bus on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Ward <keithward1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss switch was closed
and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle the master and the primary
alternator switches to see if that would solve the problem and bring the primary
alternator back online. With the essential bus on, the necessary components
would still be powered even while the master and alternator switches/breakers
were being cycled.
This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:53 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 02:05 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>
> Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure
there will be a learning curve.
>
> Welcome to the list!
>
>
> I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8 schematic.
>
> Here are a few questions:
>
> Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would this
be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential bus
keeps the necessary items happy.
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking here. Any time the
> main bus is up (battery contactor closed) the endurance
> bus is automatically powered through the normal feed-
> path diode.
>
> By closing the e-bus alternate feed path switch, the
> e-bus components will stay powered directly from the
> battery. If the SD-8 (8 amp alternator) is turned
> ON and assuming that the engine is running at or above
> 2600 RPM, you can get 8+ amps out of the SD-8.
>
> If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8 back-up
alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can provide,
does the system just draw down the battery until components start shutting
down, or do other issues occur?
>
> When any alternator is overloaded, the bus voltage sags
> until the battery to starts picking up the difference
> . . . somewhere around 12.5 volts. This condition
> will continue until the battery drops below 11.0
> volts whereupon it contains less than 5% of its useful
> energy. After that the voltage falls more rapidly
> and things start mis-behaving.
>
> For endurance mode operations, the Plan-B checklist
> should call for shutting the main bus OFF, e-bus
> alternate feed ON, SD-8 Alternator ON. Then reduce
> e-bus loads to 8A or less until airport of intended
> destination is in sight. After that, you can turn
> on what ever extra goodies are deemed necessary
> for graceful approach to landing whether on the
> e-bus or main bus.
>
> I'm having trouble imagining what kind of troubleshooting
> activity would be carried out with the main bus
> down an only the e-bus on.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:21 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss
>switch was closed and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle
>the master and the primary alternator switches to see if that would
>solve the problem and bring the primary alternator back
>online. With the essential bus on, the necessary components would
>still be powered even while the master and alternator
>switches/breakers were being cycled.
Yup, that's how it works.
>This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your thoughts.
You need to re-set your thinking as to the value
and function of the e-bus. "E" stands for endurance.
The idea behind it is to prevent main alternator
loss from becoming an emergency. You craft a
"Plan-B" that enables you to continue flight
to airport of intended destination by
partitioning off those equipment items
useful for cruising flight powered by
(1) battery only or (2) SD-8 plus Battery.
See chapter on system reliability and the notes
for Z-figures . . . particularly note for
Z-13/8.
Random, exploratory switch flipping in flight
is not recommended. More than one system failure
has been made worse by not having a simple, proven
Plan-B for dealing with alternator failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/8/2011
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "Every form that I filled out for my E-AB aircraft states that I am the
manufacturer (Taylor, Robert D.)."
A) Not true. See here, for example, FAA FORM 8130-6, APPLICATION FOR U. S.
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/form/faa8130-6.pdf
Note that in Box 2 they ask for the AIRCRAFT BUILDER'S NAME (Make). The
instructions in FAA Order 8130.2F for filling out this form specifically
state that for an E-AB aircraft the name of the amateur builder is entered
in Box 2.
B) Please LOOK at your airplane's FAA FORM 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATE and tell us exactly what was typed into the NAME and ADDRESS
boxes in Section B, MANUFACTURER and what was typed into the Section D,
BUILDER box by that FAA inspector from the Cleveland MIDO when he inspected
your airplane and created that form.
That will tell you (and us) in the eyes of the FAA who was the MANUFACTURER
(undoubtedly N / A) and who was the BUILDER (your name) of your airplane.
2) "My aircraft was not a kit."
Does not matter. Every E-AB aircraft, regardless of its initial source or
manner of creation, will have "TO OPERATE AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT" in the
PURPOSE box of SECTION A, and the amateur builder's name in the BUILDER box
of Section D of that aircraft's FAA FORM 8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATE.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
===============================================
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: ADBS-B Out
> Every form that I filled out for my E-AB aircraft states that I am the
> manufacturer (Taylor, Robert D.). The model is TigerCub. No, my
> inspector was not a DAR. He was from the Cleveland MIDO office. My
> aircraft was not a kit. It was built/manufactured by me.
>
> Bob Taylor
> TigerCub N657RT
>
> =================================
> From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:40 AM
> To: ; ;
>
> Subject: ADBS-B Out
>
>> 7/8/2011
>>
>> Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
>> subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
>> stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
>> the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the
>> result
>> of some Freudian slip on your part?)
>>
>> Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
>>
>> 1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so
>> on
>> my
>> airworthiness certificate ..........."
>>
>> Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA
>> FORM
>> 8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL - AMATEUR
>> BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a mistake
>> in
>> filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
>>
>> My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and ADDRESS
>> boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER
>> box.
>>
>> This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER and
>> not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14
>> CFR
>> regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to the
>> manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
>> aircraft.
>>
>> 2) "..... and the data plate."
>>
>> This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount
>> of
>> information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
>> 45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number)
>> one
>> may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
>> passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an aircraft
>> manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
>> "Manufacturer".)
>>
>> 3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
>>
>> Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not be
>> taken at face value.
>>
>> Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
>> EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
>> for
>> more insight into this issue.
>>
>> 4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
>>
>> I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort
>> of
>> TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every builder
>> of
>> E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular
>> that
>> were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue
>> about
>> the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the
>> air.
>>
>> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
>> to
>> gather and understand knowledge."
>>
>> ========================================================
>>
>> From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>>
>>
>> I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
>> my
>> airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you
>> want
>> in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just
>> like a
>> transponder, no?
>>
>> Bob Taylor
>> TigerCub N657RT
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/9/2011
Hello Noel Loveys, You wrote:
1) "To specifically make the builder the manufacturer?"
I don't understand why people are straining to be considered the
"manufacturer" of a product (namely one single E-AB aircraft) in the eyes of
the FAA.**
When one looks at the totality of the FAA definitions, and the FAA
regulations based on those definitions, it is absurd to consider the amateur
builder of a single E-AB to be the "manufacturer" of that aircraft. Let run
through a brief audit trail of what applies:
A) First, can an individual building an E-AB become a manufacturer? The
answer is, yes. See the definition of a Person from 14 CFR 1.1 General
Definitions here:
"Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a
trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them."
Now let's extract some definitions from FAA Order 8120.2G. You can look at
it here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
B) Second, what does a manufacturer do? See here:
"o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
C) Third, what does it mean to produce a product or article(s).
"s. Produce. To manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, a product or
article(s)."
D) Fourth, how does one go about having approval to produce a product or
article? See here:
"u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a PC,
a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
E) So all the individual person building an E-AB needs to formally become
the manufacturer of that procuct, instead of being the builder of an E-AB,
is to get the FAA to issue him a PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization. In order
to get the needed document from the FAA he can start by reading FAA Order
8120.2G -- Go for it!
2) "One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who
has
manufacturers' liability!"
Do you really think that the semantic distinction between suing the
"builder" or the "manufacturer" of an E-AB would stop some vulture lawyer
from initiating a lawsuit? Or would have any affect on the outcome of such a
law suit?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Apparently some E-AB aircraft builders feel that being the
"manufacturer" of that aircraft, rather than just the "builder" will give
them some special manufacturer's privileges such as that granted in 14 CFR
91.411 (b) (1) for example.
Really? Take a look at what it takes for even an approved aircraft
manufacturer to perform all the tests required by 91.411 and see how many
individual E-AB builders would have the equipment and expertise to perform
those tests even if given permission to do so.
=====================================================
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the back
of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy.
I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my system.
Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
(PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack of shielded
wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
Thanks,
Dan B
> > ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I
> disconnected the coax from behind the SL40 and attached the
> rubber anntenna off of my HT. The sound is different...it is
> no longer a buzz but it sounds as if it is turning itself on
> and off when the PTT is depressed...a pulse of sorts approx
> two cycles per second. Some have e-mailed and said to try
> turning the squelch down...check. I was also told to turn
> the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems
> to possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire
> going to the intercom. Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw
> out the ideas if you get one.
> > Thanks, Dan
>
> This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a
> RADIATING
> device that floods the wiring behind the panel with
> RF
> energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad
> termination,
> then the symptoms you're seeing may well be
> indiciative of
> a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator
> from a bad
> coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the
> radio
> is not likely to yield useful information.
>
> You need to do the dummy load thing first.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Dan,
This may be totally unuseful, but if you have the aux jacks installed
between the PS1000 (per PS's instructions) and radio, have you tried
disconnecting the intercom and plugging your headset and mike jacks into
those and tried the same experiment (with the dummy load)??
FWIW
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Billingsley" <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
>
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the
> back of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit
> PTT...no joy. I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret
> is within my system. Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/)
> hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my
> wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using
> shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my
> termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires
> using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
> I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack
> of shielded wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start
> would be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Dan B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:58 AM 7/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax
> from the back of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned
> things on, hit PTT...no joy. I still get the buzz.
Okay, good data.
Describe the "buzz" . . . what does it sound like?
When listening to the 'buzzing' transmitter on
another radio, is the same noise heard there too
or is it just in your own headset? Does the intercom
have an auto-bypass function? In other words, if you
power down just the intercom, does the mic and phones
wiring default to direct connection with the transceiver?
If so, does the buzz go away in default mode?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
Now I'm really confused.
How can the FAA consider the Kit Manufacturer the "Manufacturer"?
I know of no kit manufacturer who has a PC, PMA, TC, or Production
Approval. What they may have is a letter that their kit meets the 51
percent rule.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
7/9/2011
Hello Noel Loveys, You wrote:
1) "To specifically make the builder the manufacturer?"
I don't understand why people are straining to be considered the
"manufacturer" of a product (namely one single E-AB aircraft) in the
eyes of
the FAA.**
When one looks at the totality of the FAA definitions, and the FAA
regulations based on those definitions, it is absurd to consider the
amateur
builder of a single E-AB to be the "manufacturer" of that aircraft. Let
run
through a brief audit trail of what applies:
A) First, can an individual building an E-AB become a manufacturer? The
answer is, yes. See the definition of a Person from 14 CFR 1.1 General
Definitions here:
"Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It
includes a
trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them."
Now let's extract some definitions from FAA Order 8120.2G. You can look
at
it here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
B) Second, what does a manufacturer do? See here:
"o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
C) Third, what does it mean to produce a product or article(s).
"s. Produce. To manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, a product or
article(s)."
D) Fourth, how does one go about having approval to produce a product or
article? See here:
"u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a
PC,
a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
E) So all the individual person building an E-AB needs to formally
become
the manufacturer of that procuct, instead of being the builder of an
E-AB,
is to get the FAA to issue him a PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization. In
order
to get the needed document from the FAA he can start by reading FAA
Order
8120.2G -- Go for it!
2) "One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out
who
has
manufacturers' liability!"
Do you really think that the semantic distinction between suing the
"builder" or the "manufacturer" of an E-AB would stop some vulture
lawyer
from initiating a lawsuit? Or would have any affect on the outcome of
such a
law suit?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Apparently some E-AB aircraft builders feel that being the
"manufacturer" of that aircraft, rather than just the "builder" will
give
them some special manufacturer's privileges such as that granted in 14
CFR
91.411 (b) (1) for example.
Really? Take a look at what it takes for even an approved aircraft
manufacturer to perform all the tests required by 91.411 and see how
many
individual E-AB builders would have the equipment and expertise to
perform
those tests even if given permission to do so.
=====================================================
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the
builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to
be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who
has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Ward <keithward1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bob,
Makes sense. Thanks for the help!
Keith
On Jul 9, 2011, at 12:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
>
> At 10:21 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss
>> switch was closed and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle
>> the master and the primary alternator switches to see if that would
>> solve the problem and bring the primary alternator back online.
>> With the essential bus on, the necessary components would still be
>> powered even while the master and alternator switches/breakers were
>> being cycled.
>
> Yup, that's how it works.
>
>> This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your
>> thoughts.
>
> You need to re-set your thinking as to the value
> and function of the e-bus. "E" stands for endurance.
> The idea behind it is to prevent main alternator
> loss from becoming an emergency. You craft a
> "Plan-B" that enables you to continue flight
> to airport of intended destination by
> partitioning off those equipment items
> useful for cruising flight powered by
> (1) battery only or (2) SD-8 plus Battery.
>
> See chapter on system reliability and the notes
> for Z-figures . . . particularly note for
> Z-13/8.
>
> Random, exploratory switch flipping in flight
> is not recommended. More than one system failure
> has been made worse by not having a simple, proven
> Plan-B for dealing with alternator failure.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
As Dave suggested, try a headset out in the 'aux jacks' that are directly connected
to the radio (you did install them per the PS installation manual, right?
:) Or as Bob suggested, putting the intercom in bypass mode. The PM1000 II should
do that when turned off. This should cut the problem in half. Here are two
troubleshooting approaches that might work, given the result:
1) Headset directly into the radio is noisy:
Have you checked the supply voltage across the radio while transmitting and while
not transmitting? That is, with the meter probing the supply voltage *at the
radio*, grounded to the power ground *at the radio*. Transmitting is a high-power
activity, so it's possible that it's causing a big voltage sag that the
radio doesn't appreciate. This could be due to wire resistance in both the supply
AND ground wires. What is important is what the radio 'sees' while transmitting.
2) Headset directly into the radio is clean:
Another possibility is that the power ground to the radio isn't significant enough,
causing a noise voltage to be 'seen' on the audio at the intercom. This is
difficult to explain, but you could experiment by connecting an extra ground
wire at the radio and finding an additional ground point: the avionics ground,
the intercom power ground, one of the fast stack commons... This would help
the power supply electrons get to where they want to go without 'pushing' other
signals around.
Just to double-check, but you're not doing the test while connected to a battery
charger?
--Daniel
On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the back
of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy.
I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my system.
Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
> I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack of
shielded wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Dan B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 01:28 PM 7/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Makes sense. Thanks for the help!
My pleasure sir. Keep us apprised of your
progress.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
Since I've got the VP-X Pro on order, I have to finish reworking my VP-200
schematic to accommodate the VP-X. I know this isn't directly related to
any of Bob's schematics, but it also isn't at the other extreme of some of
the more recent political posts either. While this is related to a specific
Vertical Power battery configuration, I think the questions I ask about
Option 3 are generic enough that I should be able to get some feedback over
the week end from this list. If I'm about ready to do something stupid, I
know that folks here aren't shy about telling me.
I would like to use dual PC680 batteries. My preference is to provide more
AH than I can get with a TCWTECH IBBS. It's also about a third the cost,
although a few pounds heavier.
My requirements are:
1. Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
cranking capability
2. Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
3. Ability to charge the isolated battery
In looking at the recommendations in the Vertical Power manual, Dual battery
Option #1 meets the first two requirements. Option #2 meets the last two
requirements. So my question is will a hybrid design, like Option #3 meet
all requirements? Are there any negative attributes with having two current
paths when the aux battery contactor is closed?
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option1.jpg
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option2.JPG
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option3.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
>
> Okay, good data.
>
> Describe the "buzz" . . . what does it sound like?
The buzz has changed in pitch since removing the antenna. It used to be a medium
pitch (as far as notes go say a C)and oscillating. Now that the dummy load is
in place the buzz dropped to say a G (much lower) almost a growel. I don't want
to hold the key down too long (to determine if still oscillating) as I don't
want to overload the dummy...You pick which dummy as it can go either way at
this point :>)
> When listening to the 'buzzing' transmitter on
> another radio, is the same noise heard there too
> or is it just in your own headset?
When the antenna was connected, yes, I did transmit the buzz as the wife heard
it on the HT. I would hear her loud and clear and she reported the buzz.
Does the
> intercom
> have an auto-bypass function? In other words, if
> you
> power down just the intercom, does the mic and
> phones
> wiring default to direct connection with the
> transceiver?
Although the other guys here have indicated this intercom should have a bypass,
I just went out and turned off the intercom and tried it. I cannot hear myself
talk and hear nothing when I key the mic. I have gone into the radio and turned
down several things, so tomorrow I will look into this a bit further. I did
have the FastStack designed to operate a comm 2 (so it has another out). My
plan was to eventually run my hand held as a backup and they gave me a switch
to go back and forth. I have tried taking my Comm1 harness out of the comm1 jack
and moved it to Comm 2. I flipped the switch and still got the buzz.
>
> If so, does the buzz go away in default mode?
Will get back to you tomorrow on this one when I explore a bit more.
Thanks for the help,
Dan
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
Daniel, thanks for the ideas. I will be trying them tomorrow. Today I was chasing
parts (this I'm convinced is = to 3/4 of the build). No, not connected to a
charger...the battery shows full charge.
Dan B
--- On Sat, 7/9/11, Daniel Hooper wrote:
>
> As Dave suggested, try a headset out in the 'aux jacks'
> that are directly connected to the radio (you did install
> them per the PS installation manual, right? :) Or as Bob
> suggested, putting the intercom in bypass mode. The PM1000
> II should do that when turned off. This should cut the
> problem in half. Here are two troubleshooting approaches
> that might work, given the result:
>
> 1) Headset directly into the radio is noisy:
> Have you checked the supply voltage across the radio while
> transmitting and while not transmitting? That is, with the
> meter probing the supply voltage *at the radio*, grounded to
> the power ground *at the radio*. Transmitting is a
> high-power activity, so it's possible that it's causing a
> big voltage sag that the radio doesn't appreciate. This
> could be due to wire resistance in both the supply AND
> ground wires. What is important is what the radio 'sees'
> while transmitting.
>
> 2) Headset directly into the radio is clean:
> Another possibility is that the power ground to the radio
> isn't significant enough, causing a noise voltage to be
> 'seen' on the audio at the intercom. This is difficult to
> explain, but you could experiment by connecting an extra
> ground wire at the radio and finding an additional ground
> point: the avionics ground, the intercom power ground, one
> of the fast stack commons... This would help the power
> supply electrons get to where they want to go without
> 'pushing' other signals around.
>
> Just to double-check, but you're not doing the test while
> connected to a battery charger?
>
> --Daniel
>
> On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> Billingsley
> >
> > I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed
> the coax from the back of the radio and installed the dummy
> BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy. I still get the
> buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my
> system. Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> > (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the
> two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to
> the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using
> shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad
> guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I
> ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to
> the termination point.
> > I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I
> wonder if the lack of shielded wires could be hurting me.
> Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
> > Thanks,
> > Dan B
> >
> >
>
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Bose A20 Headset - NR Power Button - Panel Power |
Dear Listers,
I bought a couple pairs of the new Bose A20's for the RV-8 and they are very nice.
NR is better than the Bose X's and they seem to fit my head a little better
too.
But I quickly discovered that with the A20's you now have to hit the NR Power button
*every time* you start the aircraft even if you have them panel powered.
The older Bose X headsets have a slide switch for the NR power and so you can
just put the slide switch in the On position and not worry about it.
I really didn't like having to turn the NR on all the time and having to remind
my passengers about it, so I came up with a modification that will automatically
turn the NR on when panel power is applied. Its pretty simple, but requires
some special tools. Its completely self-contained inside the Control Module
and works great. The modification is generally only for installations that
are panel-powered, but you could do the modification to a unit that is normally
battery powered with no adverse effect. With the modification, the NR Power
button will work normally in battery power installations.
I created web page on the procedure including step-by-step photos and instructions.
Feedback is welcome.
http://www.matronics.com/BoseA20AutoOnModification/
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Just a quick note Dan, the intercom will only default Comm 1. If this
is com 2 it will not work with the Audio panel power off.
FWIW, TIm
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
>
> Just a quick note Dan, the intercom will only default Comm
> 1. If this
> is com 2 it will not work with the Audio panel power off.
> FWIW, TIm
> >
>
> Thanks Tim...good to know that.
Dan
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/10/2011
Hello Bruce, You wrote: "What they may have is a letter that their kit meets
the 51
percent rule."
That is correct. Let's take another look at some of the paragraphs that I
extracted from:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
"o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
"u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a
PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
Note that paragraph o does not have the word "only" between the words "may"
and "be".
Also paragraph u does not have the word "only" between the words "can" and
"take".
There is nothing in the regulations or FAA Order 8120.2G that prohibit the
FAA Administrator from using the word "manufacturer" in the letter that
informs the kit provider, and prospective kit purchasers, that his kit meets
the major portion rule.
Some additional comments on this specific issue:
1) Since the FAA writes the various types of documents based upon their
authority in the US Code they get to choose the wording (subject to public
review of draft regulations) in those documents.
2) When the bureaucrats and document approving lawyers wrote FAA Order
8120.2G they did not have the existence of E-AB (Experimental - Amateur
Built) aircraft or kit creators in their mind. (A very common situation
through out the FAA.)
3) There were a number of english language words available to that FAA
letter writer to describe the kit creators. Words such as "creators",
"assemblers", "manufacturers", and, my favorite word when writing on this
subject to avoid confusion with the builder who actually turns the kit into
an airplane, "providers". It seems logical for the writers to use the common
generic word "manufacturer", without creating any greater implication of the
word, when referring to the kit providers.
4) The power of the Administrator (and of the individuals within the FAA
acting on his behalf) is pretty complete, he can use the words that he
chooses to mean what he wants them to mean.
5) In a sense the type of letter to the kit provider that you refer to could
be considered a form of Production Approval thereby making the kit provider
a PAH (Production Approval Holder), but the FAA makes an effort to avoid
using the word "approval" regarding E-AB aircraft since there are no
published standards available to measure any E-AB approval against. (Before
people leap up to point out that indeed some approval requirements are
placed on E-AB aircraft I invite them to read again the Introduction to the
attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED
AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.)
5) So the use of the word "manufacturer" in the letters that you write of to
the kit provides should not create a significant problem or needed source of
confusion. And it certainly does not bear directly on the issue of whether
in the eyes of the FAA the builder of an E-AB meets the criteria of being a
"manufacturer" wherever that term is used throughout the FAA written
regulations.**
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I would appreciate it if any E-AB builders who want to be considered
"manufacturers" would identify to us the specific regulation(s) that they
think would benefit them by this categorization.
========================================================
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
Now I'm really confused.
How can the FAA consider the Kit Manufacturer the "Manufacturer"?
I know of no kit manufacturer who has a PC, PMA, TC, or Production
Approval. What they may have is a letter that their kit meets the 51
percent rule.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
them adding to the issue...
1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the buzz and it
is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across the radio as
it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
(BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded cables for
the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
signal and the small microphone signal.
So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this warning still
be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel andspliced
themwith Cat-5 cable. These jacksterminate behind the co-pilot.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 1:07:44 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
>
>
> As Dave suggested, try a headset out in the 'aux jacks' that are directly
>connected to the radio (you did install them per the PS installation manual,
>right? :) Or as Bob suggested, putting the intercom in bypass mode. The PM1000
>II should do that when turned off. This should cut the problem in half. Here are
>two troubleshooting approaches that might work, given the result:
>
> 1) Headset directly into the radio is noisy:
> Have you checked the supply voltage across the radio while transmitting and
>while not transmitting? That is, with the meter probing the supply voltage *at
>the radio*, grounded to the power ground *at the radio*. Transmitting is a
>high-power activity, so it's possible that it's causing a big voltage sag that
>the radio doesn't appreciate. This could be due to wire resistance in both the
>supply AND ground wires. What is important is what the radio 'sees' while
>transmitting.
>
> 2) Headset directly into the radio is clean:
> Another possibility is that the power ground to the radio isn't significant
>enough, causing a noise voltage to be 'seen' on the audio at the intercom. This
>is difficult to explain, but you could experiment by connecting an extra ground
>wire at the radio and finding an additional ground point: the avionics ground,
>the intercom power ground, one of the fast stack commons... This would help the
>power supply electrons get to where they want to go without 'pushing' other
>signals around.
>
> Just to double-check, but you're not doing the test while connected to a
>battery charger?
>
> --Daniel
>
> On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the back
>of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy.
I
>still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my system.
>Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
>
> > (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub
>that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to
>the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using shielded wires,
>however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my termination point is
>behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle
>to the termination point.
> > I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack of
>shielded wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start would be
>welcome.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Dan B
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
My requirements are:
* Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
cranking capability
* Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
* Ability to charge the isolated battery
In looking at the recommendations in the Vertical Power manual, Dual
battery Option #1 meets the first two requirements. Option #2 meets
the last two requirements. So my question is will a hybrid design,
like Option #3 meet all requirements? Are there any negative
attributes with having two current paths when the aux battery
contactor is closed?
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option1.jpg
Option 1 is the simplest way to add a second
battery which is why it is featured in Figure Z-30.
If you want to a battery maintainer for both
batteries, a maintainer plug that puts the
two batteries in parallel for storage takes
care of the 'charging' issue.
You need to think through the failure modes
and the precise way in which the duties of the
two batteries are partitioned during an alternator
out condition. Do an energy study for the two
duties and make sure the batteries are sized for
your endurance goals (x number electro whizzies for
y hours of operation) assuming also that you're going
to periodically cap-check the two batteries for
insuring those goals are achievable.
The precise manner in which you add the second battery
is not terribly important. The care with which you
craft and maintain Plan-B is very important. This
pre-supposes that your engine is electrically dependent
and/or you're going to spend a lot of time in situations
were the dark panel syndrome causes you to break a
sweat.
Given the way 99% of OBAM aviation flights are conducted,
and assuming that you have one mag on the engine, then
Plan-B might be something like this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
for a whole lot less weight, a ton more reliability
and lower cost of ownership. This has been my personal
Plan-B over the last 30 years and 1000+ hours. It
works good every time and in any airplane I rent.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:07 AM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
them adding to the issue...
1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the
buzz and it
is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across
the radio as
it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
(BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
Any electronics that is qualified to install
in TC aircraft is operational down to 11.0 volts
or lower with full performance and stable with
reduced performance down to 9.0 volts.
2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded
cables for
the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
signal and the small microphone signal.
Hmmmm . . . I would like to see this demonstrated.
It is exceedingly difficult to 'cross couple' significant
energy between two parallel wires at these signal
levels. The headphone signal is larger . . . but not
that much larger.
So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this
warning still
be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel and spliced
them with Cat-5 cable. These jacks terminate behind the co-pilot.
OOPS! 26 AWG solid wire? It would have been better to
use extensions of 22AWG tie-wrapped into a bundle.
I would check these extensions very closely. What
you're describing now smells strongly of wiring error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
You're using those jacks in your test even though the intercom is bypassed, right?
The unshielded wire feedback sounds more plausible than my other suggestions.
On Jul 10, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
> them adding to the issue...
> 1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the buzz and
it
> is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
> clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across the radio
as
> it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
> (BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
> 2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
> Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded cables for
> the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
> these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
> the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
> by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
> signal and the small microphone signal.
>
> So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this warning still
> be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
> mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel and spliced
> them with Cat-5 cable. These jacks terminate behind the co-pilot.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
=0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.co
m>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 9:51:
49 AM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz=0A>=0A>-- OOPS! 2
6 AWG solid wire? It would have been better to=0A>-- use extensions of
22AWG tie-wrapped into a bundle.=0A>-- I would check these extensions v
ery closely. What=0A>-- you're describing now smells strongly of wiring
error.=0A>=0A>-- Bob . . .=0A>Very well, back to shielded wire all the
================ =0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com> |
Just to close the loop regarding some comments I made the other day, my
paperwork does not indicate that I am the "manufacturer". My bad. It DOES
show the MAKE of my aircraft to be a Taylor, Robert D.. That's what lead me
to think it said I was the manufacturer. I was not looking to be the
maufacturer in order to gleen some advantage via the regulations, I just
thought (mistakenly) that that was what the paperwork said.
Regardless the above, I do think that I can put whatever equipment I wish
into my aircraft.
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
--------------------------------------------------
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
> 7/10/2011
>
> Hello Bruce, You wrote: "What they may have is a letter that their kit
> meets
> the 51
> percent rule."
>
> That is correct. Let's take another look at some of the paragraphs that I
> extracted from:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
>
> "o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
> Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
> manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
>
> "u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
> allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
> approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a
> PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
>
> Note that paragraph o does not have the word "only" between the words
> "may"
> and "be".
>
> Also paragraph u does not have the word "only" between the words "can" and
> "take".
>
> There is nothing in the regulations or FAA Order 8120.2G that prohibit the
> FAA Administrator from using the word "manufacturer" in the letter that
> informs the kit provider, and prospective kit purchasers, that his kit
> meets
> the major portion rule.
>
> Some additional comments on this specific issue:
>
> 1) Since the FAA writes the various types of documents based upon their
> authority in the US Code they get to choose the wording (subject to public
> review of draft regulations) in those documents.
>
> 2) When the bureaucrats and document approving lawyers wrote FAA Order
> 8120.2G they did not have the existence of E-AB (Experimental - Amateur
> Built) aircraft or kit creators in their mind. (A very common situation
> through out the FAA.)
>
> 3) There were a number of english language words available to that FAA
> letter writer to describe the kit creators. Words such as "creators",
> "assemblers", "manufacturers", and, my favorite word when writing on this
> subject to avoid confusion with the builder who actually turns the kit
> into
> an airplane, "providers". It seems logical for the writers to use the
> common
> generic word "manufacturer", without creating any greater implication of
> the
> word, when referring to the kit providers.
>
> 4) The power of the Administrator (and of the individuals within the FAA
> acting on his behalf) is pretty complete, he can use the words that he
> chooses to mean what he wants them to mean.
>
> 5) In a sense the type of letter to the kit provider that you refer to
> could
> be considered a form of Production Approval thereby making the kit
> provider
> a PAH (Production Approval Holder), but the FAA makes an effort to avoid
> using the word "approval" regarding E-AB aircraft since there are no
> published standards available to measure any E-AB approval against.
> (Before
> people leap up to point out that indeed some approval requirements are
> placed on E-AB aircraft I invite them to read again the Introduction to
> the
> attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED
> AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.)
>
> 5) So the use of the word "manufacturer" in the letters that you write of
> to
> the kit provides should not create a significant problem or needed source
> of
> confusion. And it certainly does not bear directly on the issue of whether
> in the eyes of the FAA the builder of an E-AB meets the criteria of being
> a
> "manufacturer" wherever that term is used throughout the FAA written
> regulations.**
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
> to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> **PS: I would appreciate it if any E-AB builders who want to be considered
> "manufacturers" would identify to us the specific regulation(s) that they
> think would benefit them by this categorization.
>
> ========================================================
>
>
> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>
>
> Now I'm really confused.
>
> How can the FAA consider the Kit Manufacturer the "Manufacturer"?
>
> I know of no kit manufacturer who has a PC, PMA, TC, or Production
> Approval. What they may have is a letter that their kit meets the 51
> percent rule.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Audio Panel Connection |
My SL40 com has separate "mic lo" and "head phone lo" outputs, but my PS
8000 audio panel only has a single "com lo" input. Can I just ignore one
of the "lo" outputs from the com assuming that they're all connected
internally anyway, or do I need to pigtail both "lo" output wires
together and connect to the single "lo" input on the audio panel?
Thanks.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John MacCallum" <vk2gcn(at)cirruscomms.com.au> |
| Subject: | Circuit Design Software |
HI all,
Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the appropriate
symbols (Starter Relays etc).
Cheers
John MacCallum
Builder # 41016
VH-DUU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
> Bob . . .
>Very well, back to shielded wire all the way to the jacks.
>Thanks for the input!
Not being shielded is no big deal whether the
mic and headset wires are bundled together or
not. Mic and headsets jacks should be insulated
from airframe and their respective grounds carried
to the intercom on separate wires. Twist them
as a pair (headset) and trio (mic) if it helps
keep them together. But I'm concerned about
gross connection error of some type that is
producing your feedback. Obviously, shielded
trios are very common and color coded to boot.
It's the easiest stuff to use so if you can find
some, go for it. I can send you some if you need
it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
Bob,
I understand and appreciate your comments, but you didn't address my
questions regarding Option 3. I understand your opinion on KISS. But I was
attempting to understand is there are any negative attributes with having
two current paths when the aux battery contactor is closed on Option 3? I
believe I understand the complexities and how to perform for a Plan B.
My concern for option 1, is that I will never truly know the state of both
batteries since they both are online. I only want to link both batteries
for occasional starts in cold weather when I may need a stronger battery.
So 99% of the time, I'll leave the battery isolated. I then need a
mechanism to ensure that the Aux battery is charged.
I understand that I truly will never know the exact length the aux battery
will last, but I will know that I can get x% of its rated value. Then it's
just a question of how conservative I want to be with the numbers. In
reality, it's head for the nearest airport and stop the flight even though I
know I may have longer time on the aux battery.
Thanks,
Bob
Description: Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option3.jpg
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration
Question
My requirements are:
1. Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
cranking capability
2. Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
3. Ability to charge the isolated battery
In looking at the recommendations in the Vertical Power manual, Dual battery
Option #1 meets the first two requirements. Option #2 meets the last two
requirements. So my question is will a hybrid design, like Option #3 meet
all requirements? Are there any negative attributes with having two current
paths when the aux battery contactor is closed?
Option 1 is the simplest way to add a second
battery which is why it is featured in Figure Z-30.
If you want to a battery maintainer for both
batteries, a maintainer plug that puts the
two batteries in parallel for storage takes
care of the 'charging' issue.
You need to think through the failure modes
and the precise way in which the duties of the
two batteries are partitioned during an alternator
out condition. Do an energy study for the two
duties and make sure the batteries are sized for
your endurance goals (x number electro whizzies for
y hours of operation) assuming also that you're going
to periodically cap-check the two batteries for
insuring those goals are achievable.
The precise manner in which you add the second battery
is not terribly important. The care with which you
craft and maintain Plan-B is very important. This
pre-supposes that your engine is electrically dependent
and/or you're going to spend a lot of time in situations
were the dark panel syndrome causes you to break a
sweat.
Given the way 99% of OBAM aviation flights are conducted,
and assuming that you have one mag on the engine, then
Plan-B might be something like this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
for a whole lot less weight, a ton more reliability
and lower cost of ownership. This has been my personal
Plan-B over the last 30 years and 1000+ hours. It
works good every time and in any airplane I rent.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
At 06:13 PM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>HI all,
>Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the
>appropriate symbols (Starter Relays etc).
None are "easy" . . . every cad system has it's
own 'language' and mouse/keyboard protocols to learn.
The brand of software will have little to do with
the outcome of your finished product.
TurboCAD will open, edit, save and print the AudoCAD
drawings on my website. You can snatch the symbols
library right out of those drawings.
Please be forewarned. If you are not already a
reasonably adept cad-driver, you have many hours
ahead of you for first learning to communicate
with the software's own language and more hours
acquiring the 'art' of producing 'pretty' drawings.
In the final analysis, the drawings will convey
no more meaning or have any higher value than those
produce neatly the a pencil, pink pearl eraser,
and straight-edge in a 3-ring binder for a whole
lot less $time$. $time$ that you might wish
to spend on your airplane instead.
On the other hand, getting good with a cad program
opens a lot of doors for doing designs of all types
and getting the parts to fit together on paper before
you start cutting wood, metal, tile, wires, etc. etc.
I've been driving an ancient version of AutoCAD for over
25 years. One of the best investments of $time$ I have
ever made after learning to type.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Panel Connection |
At 03:14 PM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>My SL40 com has separate "mic lo" and "head phone lo" outputs, but
>my PS 8000 audio panel only has a single "com lo" input. Can I just
>ignore one of the "lo" outputs from the com assuming that they're
>all connected internally anyway, or do I need to pigtail both "lo"
>output wires together and connect to the single "lo" input on the audio panel?
Probably. A simple ohmmeter check will confirm that
they all hook to a common ground internal to the radio.
99% plus probability is that they are and the single
ground between radio and intercom will suffice nicely.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
=0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.co
m>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 7:23:
07 PM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>>=0A>>
-- Bob . . .=0A>>=0A>>Very well, back to shielded wire all the way to t
he jacks.=0A>>=0A>>Thanks for the input!=0ANot being shielded is no big dea
l whether the=0Amic and headset wires are bundled together or=0Anot. Mic an
d headsets jacks should be insulated=0Afrom airframe and their respective g
rounds carried=0Ato the intercom on separate wires. Twist them=0Aas a pair
(headset) and trio (mic) if it helps=0Akeep them together. But I'm concerne
d about=0Agross connection error of some type that is=0Aproducing your feed
back.- Obviously, shielded=0Atrios are very common and color coded to boo
t.=0AIt's the easiest stuff to use so if you can find=0Asome, go for it. I
can send you some if you need=0Ait.=0A=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . . =0A- =0AThan
ks Bob,- Understood. The Approach guys told me when I discovered the line
s =0Awere too short that they would send me some wire as well if I found I
============== =0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/11/2011
Hello Robert Taylor, You wrote:
1) "...... my paperwork does not indicate that I am the "manufacturer". My
bad."
Thank you for your response and for confiming that information.
2) "....... I do think that I can put whatever equipment I wish into my
aircraft."
Almost true, but see these words extracted from the introduction to the
attached table:
"However, depending upon other portions of the FAR's, some items in certain
circumstances must not only be installed in experimental amateur built
aircraft, but must interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control)
equipment, other aircraft, or other entities external to the aircraft.
Altitude encoders, Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting,
some IFR navigation equipment, and ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters)
are examples of such equipment."
If equipment that must interface properly with entities external to the
aircraft has been installed in the E-AB aircraft and the FAA requires
equipment markings (such as a TSO), or, alternatively, testing to prove
proper functioning, and the equipment installed does not interface properly,
or is not properly marked, or has not been tested to the FAA's satisfaction,
then they can demand that the aircraft not operate with that equipment.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
==========================================================
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
Just to close the loop regarding some comments I made the other day, my
paperwork does not indicate that I am the "manufacturer". My bad. It DOES
show the MAKE of my aircraft to be a Taylor, Robert D.. That's what lead me
to think it said I was the manufacturer. I was not looking to be the
maufacturer in order to gleen some advantage via the regulations, I just
thought (mistakenly) that that was what the paperwork said.
Regardless the above, I do think that I can put whatever equipment I wish
into my aircraft.
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Morning, John...
As Bob said, there are many! And there are some open source free
ones out there as well. And they are all different in their
commands and useability.
I started with Generic Cadd at work back in the early '80s
because the pharmaceutical company I worked for didn't have any
IT department then and I had to buy my own computer and
software...Gcadd was cheap then ($99).
After a few years, when they started supplying Autocad at work, I
stuck with GCadd so as not to have to learn something new. My
work (production equipment and control design) was not involved
with the building engineering where the Autocad was used, so I
was allowed to do so.
I liked GCADD better than Autocad anyway, as I could work
faster...GCADD used two letter commands for the drawing options
as well as the standard icons or menu options that one had to
hunt down to select. It was fast and easy with the left hand
doing the selecting on the keyboard and the right doing the
drawing with the trackball.
So, I've stuck with it through the years. Generic Cadd is now
Visual CADD and works the same way. I would never change now.
So, find one that you can use and like (for example, Visual Cadd,
www.tritools.com , has full function demo for 30 days then you
can either just drop it or buy it...I believe many others do as
well.)
Or select one of the open source freebies ( for example,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/free-cad/ )
Note that most of them will be able to use the symbols you need.
Although their are differences, the format is pretty standard and
can be found all over the internet for downloading (
www.caddprimer.com/CAD_Symbols_symbol_library/CAD_symbol_symbols_library.htm
). Or, as Bob said, just open any of his drawings and extract the
symbols. Or, as I do, just make your own...any item you draw in
Cad can be saved as a symbol.
They all have their own level of difficulty, but once you've
learned what you need to know about one of them, the rest are
easier...so start with one, learn what you can, then try a few
others until you find one that you like.
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> HI all,
>
> Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the
> appropriate symbols (Starter Relays etc).
>
> Cheers
>
> John MacCallum
>
> Builder # 41016
>
> VH-DUU
>
> **
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
At 09:26 PM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I understand and appreciate your comments, but you didn't address my
>questions regarding Option 3. I understand your opinion on
>KISS. But I was attempting to understand is there are any negative
>attributes with having two current paths when the aux battery
>contactor is closed on Option 3? I believe I understand the
>complexities and how to perform for a Plan B.
>
>My concern for option 1, is that I will never truly know the state
>of both batteries since they both are online. I only want to link
>both batteries for occasional starts in cold weather when I may need
>a stronger battery. So 99% of the time, I'll leave the battery
>isolated. I then need a mechanism to ensure that the Aux battery is charged.
There is no better way to charge multiple
batteries than to hook them in parallel.
Why isolated? The battery will be happier
if it's used right along side the main
battery.
>I understand that I truly will never know the exact length the aux
>battery will last, but I will know that I can get x% of its rated
>value. Then it's just a question of how conservative I want to be
>with the numbers. In reality, it's head for the nearest airport and
>stop the flight even though I know I may have longer time on the aux battery.
If you don't know the capacity of your batteries,
then you don't have a Plan-B. Having a confident
Plan-B means that you've periodically confirmed
the capacity of both batteries and compared those
numbers with Plan-B energy requirements for
endurance. If your plan is to land at nearest
airport, then a single battery of known capacity
will suffice. You're going to be carrying around
a lot of lead and plastic to satisfy a purpose that
a reasonably maintained main battery will do
nicely.
Option 3 would put some degree of charge on
the second battery . . . slightly less than
the main battery due to diode drop. My personal
preference would be to run both batteries in
parallel all the time. Separate them to specific
predictable tasks when you get a low volts
warning. But since your design goals do not
call for endurance to airport of intended
destination, perhaps the second battery
is overkill.
Bob . . .
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bob
>
>
>Description: Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Opti
>
>
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:41 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question
>
>
>My requirements are:
> * Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
> cranking capability
> * Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
> * Ability to charge the isolated battery
>
>
>In looking at the recommendations in the Vertical Power manual, Dual
>battery Option #1 meets the first two requirements. Option #2 meets
>the last two requirements. So my question is will a hybrid design,
>like Option #3 meet all requirements? Are there any negative
>attributes with having two current paths when the aux battery
>contactor is closed?
>
>
> Option 1 is the simplest way to add a second
> battery which is why it is featured in Figure Z-30.
> If you want to a battery maintainer for both
> batteries, a maintainer plug that puts the
> two batteries in parallel for storage takes
> care of the 'charging' issue.
>
> You need to think through the failure modes
> and the precise way in which the duties of the
> two batteries are partitioned during an alternator
> out condition. Do an energy study for the two
> duties and make sure the batteries are sized for
> your endurance goals (x number electro whizzies for
> y hours of operation) assuming also that you're going
> to periodically cap-check the two batteries for
> insuring those goals are achievable.
>
> The precise manner in which you add the second battery
> is not terribly important. The care with which you
> craft and maintain Plan-B is very important. This
> pre-supposes that your engine is electrically dependent
> and/or you're going to spend a lot of time in situations
> were the dark panel syndrome causes you to break a
> sweat.
>
> Given the way 99% of OBAM aviation flights are conducted,
> and assuming that you have one mag on the engine, then
> Plan-B might be something like this . . .
>
><http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
>
>
> for a whole lot less weight, a ton more reliability
> and lower cost of ownership. This has been my personal
> Plan-B over the last 30 years and 1000+ hours. It
> works good every time and in any airplane I rent.
>
>
> Bob . . ..
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
>
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
These stories go waaaayyyyy back. One Jim Bede was a hot
number operating out of Newton, KS when I was in high
school. I think Bert Rutan worked with Jim at one time.
The airplanes were exciting but the business model was
a financial disaster. Interesting thing is, he cranked
up again in St. Louis with a jet and repeated the
process all over again. Sounds like that's what
Viking is all about.
Caveat emptor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
If you are just looking for something to document your electrical
system, you might consider ExpressSCH:
http://www.expresspcb.com/expresspcbhtm/download.htm
It appears to be free software that can be used to design custom
boards. I used just the SCHematic part to document my entire electrical
system. It doesn't have most of the components (symbols) we use in our
aircraft but I found it pretty easy to create my own.
It has just enough 'smarts' to act like a electrical schematic tool
should, rather than a drawing tool. A long way from a CAD program but a
step closer to what you might want than a universal drawing tool or
Powerpoint.
(I'd show you a sample but I'm not at home)
Bill "dripping sweat all over the project" Watson
On 7/10/2011 7:13 PM, John MacCallum wrote:
>
> HI all,
>
> Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the appropriate
> symbols (Starter Relays etc).
>
> Cheers
>
> John MacCallum
>
> Builder # 41016
>
> VH-DUU
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high
density sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular
pins, but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about
$365. I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
Don't go spending that much - I love taking your money, but that's just not
a good deal! We're going to send you the High Density die for the crimper
you already have.it'll turn your B&C crimper into an HD capable crimper.
It'll be coming your way with your new goodies free of charge!
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high density
sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular pins,
but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about $365.
I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
Outstanding. I though the only option was the really high quality
Daniels. I couldn't see investing that much in a professional tool for my
occasional use.
You realize, of course, this is why people speak so highly of your
business.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
In a message dated 7/11/2011 4:11:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stein(at)steinair.com writes:
Don=99t go spending that much =93 I love taking your money,
but that=99s just
not a good deal! We=99re going to send you the High Density die for
the
crimper you already haveit=99ll turn your B&C crimper into
an HD capable crimper.
It=99ll be coming your way with your new goodies free of charge!
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MLWynn
@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high
density sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regul
ar
pins, but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for abou
t
$365. I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
Now that's customer service! I'd like to hope everyone will take note and
remember Steinair appropriately when needing items or services which they
carry.
I'm not yet a customer let alone associated in any way, but sure will be if
and when I need items they carry. That's the type of treatment that deserves
return loyalty.
Good for you Stein.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Don't go spending that much - I love taking your money, but that's just not
a good deal! We're going to send you the High Density die for the crimper
you already have.it'll turn your B&C crimper into an HD capable crimper.
It'll be coming your way with your new goodies free of charge!
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high density
sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular pins,
but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about $365.
I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
Stein,
It is nice to see a classy act such as yours. I will remember this when
I have electrical needs for my RV-8A. Good show!
Bob Sultzbach
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:07, "Stein Bruch" wrote:
> Don=99t go spending that much =93 I love taking your money, bu
t that=99s just not a good deal! We=99re going to send you the H
igh Density die for the crimper you already haveit=99ll turn y
our B&C crimper into an HD capable crimper. It=99ll be coming your wa
y with your new goodies free of charge!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stein
>
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MLWynn(at)aol.com
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high densi
ty sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular pins,
but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about $365.
I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Michael Wynn
>
> RV 8 wiring
>
> San Ramon, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
Stein,
That is a class act! But I didn't realize that the RCT-3 crimper had
interchangeable/replaceable dies??
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Don't go spending that much - I love taking your money, but that's just not
a good deal! We're going to send you the High Density die for the crimper
you already have.it'll turn your B&C crimper into an HD capable crimper.
It'll be coming your way with your new goodies free of charge!
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high density
sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular pins,
but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about $365.
I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
I believe that it is the positioner for setting the pin depth that changes
not the actual die itself. There was a thread about this very thing a short
while ago, if memory serves. Bob and/or Stein can confirm.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Stein,
That is a class act! But I didn't realize that the RCT-3 crimper had
interchangeable/replaceable dies??
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Don't go spending that much - I love taking your money, but that's just not
a good deal! We're going to send you the High Density die for the crimper
you already have.it'll turn your B&C crimper into an HD capable crimper.
It'll be coming your way with your new goodies free of charge!
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: HD Sub-D Crimper
Hi all,
I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high density
sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular pins,
but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about $365.
I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
Thanks,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 wiring
San Ramon, CA
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
Stein,
You have moved to the top of my electronics needs provider.
Blue skie & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
Europa XS, Short Wing, Intercooled Rotax 914
rlborger(at)mac.com
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Jul 11, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Stein Bruch wrote:
> Don=92t go spending that much ' I love taking your money, but that=92s
just not a good deal! We=92re going to send you the High Density die
for the crimper you already have=85it=92ll turn your B&C crimper into an
HD capable crimper. It=92ll be coming your way with your new goodies
free of charge!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | HD Sub-D Crimper |
At 08:08 PM 7/11/2011, you wrote:
>I believe that it is the positioner for setting the pin depth that
>changes not the actual die itself. There was a thread about this
>very thing a short while ago, if memory serves. Bob and/or Stein can confirm.
Yup, added these to my catalog several months ago
as did Stein . . .
Emacs!
We make them here.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Yep, I found the whole site very interesting and amazingly compelling.
On 7/11/2011 9:28 PM, Bob McCallum wrote:
>
> *It's interesting to note that on the Viking engine website here;
> http://tinyurl.com/69whowh there are photographs of engines on the
> shipping dock (or at least crates purporting to be engines) and it
> says that next weeks shipments go to *Daniel Stanton, Christopher
> Leng, Glen Sterling, Richard Monroe and Burton Harger .
>
> *I understand frustration, and certainly no customer deserves to be
> hung up on, but is there a chance that this dissatisfaction could be
> premature??*
>
> *Don't know of course when that page was updated and whether or not it
> is current but some effort to deliver seems to be being made. *
>
> **
>
> *Bob McC*
>
> **
>
> **
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
johninreno
On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett(at)charter.net wrote:
>
> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>
> I believe his Honda engine would be excellent and I would consider one
> if I were to build a LSA. He continues to sell me needed supplies, if
> they are available in his inventory. Putting information online is
> damaging to a small business and can end up hurting the very support
> you need the most.
>
> Have flown my RV-6A for 53 hours now and am enjoying it very much.
> buying 91 octane is much cheaper than 100LL BY about $1.50/gal.
>
> Good luck and let's share our successes and help our alternative
> engine community.
>
> Ron Burnett
> M71 Greensfield, MO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
The fact that a Lycoming will run on 100LL is a BIG PLUS when traveling cro
ss country, as that's what's mostly available at airports. -The fact that
a Lycoming will run on unleaded automotive fuel is a BIG PLUS when operati
ng out of your home field or near a mogas available airport. -Best of bot
h worlds.=0A=0AI was looking at the pictures on the Viking website. -What
is a Columbian Viking dealer, besides a good looking se=F1or citizen?=0A
-=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: J
ohn Morgensen =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:59 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re:
=0A=0AYou do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane
as well, right?=0A=0Ajohninreno=0A=0AOn 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@char
ter.net=0A> =0A> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original S
ubaru H-4 engines.- I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate co
mplaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and delivery s
chedules slid considerably in many cases.- I do not believe any problems
were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and subcontracting problems as w
ell as others I don't pretend to know.=0A> =0A> I believe his Honda engine
would be excellent and I would consider one if I were to build a LSA.- He
continues to sell me needed supplies, if they are available in his invento
ry.- Putting information online is damaging to a small business and can e
nd up hurting the very support you need the most.=0A> =0A> Have flown my RV
-6A for 53 hours now and am enjoying it very much. buying 91 octane is much
cheaper than 100LL BY about $1.50/gal.=0A> =0A> Good luck and let's share
our successes and help our alternative engine community.=0A> =0A> Ron Burne
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
What does any of this have to do with aircraft electrics??
On 7/12/2011 7:32 AM, Mike Welch wrote:
> Guys,
>
> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> still don't have the
> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do you?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
At 09:41 AM 7/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>What does any of this have to do with aircraft electrics??
Not much, but all the discussions about "who manufactured
my airplane" didn't either. But it is OBAM aviation and
delete buttons work well on any uninteresting posting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Op Limits, was Viking Engines |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Folks, Please see FAA Order 8130.2G "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft
and Related Products", pages 4-44 through 4-48 for E-LSA and pages 4-64
through 4-69 for E-AB.
Rick Girard
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AEC9008 Low Ohms Adapters User's Manual |
Had some queries about the instructions for the
new low ohms adapter. The manual was just posted
at:
http://tinyurl.com/6g9e7vm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
| From: | Christopher SeeStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
Michael...
I purchased mine at a surplus electronics outlet in Fremont... I think it
was on Christy St. There also used to be a number of surplus electronics
stores in the San Jose/Milpitas/Fremont area. There's always E-bay and
Craig's list...
Chris Stone
RV-8
Oregon
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
> **
> Hi all,
>
> I am upgrading a radio and am going to have to crimp a bunch of high
> density sub-D pins. I have a great little crimper from B&C for the regular
> pins, but don't have anything for the HD pins. Steinair has one for about
> $365. I was trying to find a less expensive way to go. Any sources?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 wiring
> San Ramon, CA
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
It would be interesting to consider plane with Lycoming derived
experimental engine, that was changed enough to require 40 hour Phase 1
test period had any specifications. Certainly is debate as to
applicability of ADs to such an engine. I would expect same debate as to
whether Part 43 Appendix A had any applicability to such an engine.
On 7/12/2011 10:06 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
> Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an
> alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort
> for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that
> listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would
> seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a
> second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a
> data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any
> specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of
> Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of
> course.
>
> Ed Holyoke
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
As of this morning my PTT Buzz ghost is gone. I haven't done an engine start
yet, so I'm not going to do back-flips (don't wanna jinx it) but I am a happy
camper. As per my e-mail below to Bob N. , I started tracing wires and noticed
the red and white tristed pair which were "salvaged" wires meant for an engine
instrument. I know these thermocouple wires are dissimilar and now I know this
is a big no no to use them in a system for power or return.
Thanks Bob and All for the ideas and comments.
Dan B
----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: Dan Billingsley
> Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 9:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: PTT issue
>
> At 02:56 PM 7/12/2011, you wrote:
> > Bob, As I was working on the issue at hand with the PTT buzz, I noticed that
>I
> > used a twisted pair of theromocouple wire (originally intended for an engine
> > instrument) as the hot wire from my buss to my on off toggle switch and then
> > back to the hot wire on the radio. I remember taking a second look at using
>this
> > twisted pair while installing it, but dismissed it. I tend to think is is a
> > non-issue as the radio works great while receiving, but I am now at the point
>of
> > troubleshooting I will entertain any plausible problem.
>
> That needs to come out. TC wire is very high resistance stuff
> and not at all suited to carrying power. In fact, a high resistance
> in the power lead might very well be the cause of your problem.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: PTT issue |
At 11:31 AM 7/13/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>As of this morning my PTT Buzz ghost is gone. I haven't done an engine start
>yet, so I'm not going to do back-flips (don't wanna jinx it) but I am a happy
>camper. As per my e-mail below to Bob N. , I started tracing wires
>and noticed
>the red and white tristed pair which were "salvaged" wires meant for
>an engine
>instrument. I know these thermocouple wires are dissimilar and now I
>know this
>is a big no no to use them in a system for power or return.
>
>Thanks Bob and All for the ideas and comments.
What Dan was experiencing was a manifestation of
'negative resistance' . . . a euphemism for the
effects on closed loop system stability where root cause
is an un-accounted for increase in resistance somewhere
in the loop. The resistance causes devices with gain to
believe they're seeing positive feedback. Positive feedback
+ gain can produce instabilities, i.e. oscillations.
The classic example discussed here on the list at
various times over the years was the "galloping ammeter"
in airplanes where the power path from the bus through
a breaker, alternator switch, ov protection system and
perhaps a dozen crimps and mated pins in connectors
was carrying BOTH field_current AND sense-voltage
for a simple regulator.
After years of service, the sum total of resistance
in this path might rise by several hundred milliohms.
At some point, this became a 'negative resistance' value
that caused the voltage regulator to 'chase' a moving
target for bus voltage . . . voltage the regulator could
SEE at the end of the wire was waving in the breeze in
response to changes of field current as the regulator
attempted to get it's arms around design goals.
Interestingly enough, many such problems appeared to
go away after a mechanic replace THE master switch or
THE circuit breaker. The mechanic would then pronounce
the replaced device as 'bad' and push the airplane
out the door . . . only to have it return in perhaps
a few months with the same problem.
This is discussed in more detail on page 9 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
This is a situation where TOTAL replacement of all
components in the field-power/voltage-sense path would
offer a new lease on regulator stability probably for
tens of years.
Dan's situation involved a transceiver that didn't
draw enough current in receive to produce a distasteful
voltage at the back of the radio. But when he attempted
to transmit, the voltage fell below some value that
caused some part of the transmitter to shut down.
The current would drop, the transmitter would recover,
the offended circuit would do it's thing again. In this
case it was a pretty fast rate of shut-down, recovery and
shutdown that produced a near musical note.
These situations are pretty rare except where they are
literally designed in. The engineers that wired alternators
in Cessnas in 1968 had no idea that aging of the quality
of joints in that power/sense path over 30+ years would
cause the system to go unstable. None-the-less, it happens
on lots of older airplanes all the time and very few mechanics
understand why or how to really fix it.
Dan's particular discovery for this phenomenon turned
out to be a craftsmanship/materials issue. MUCH easier
to find and fix than design errors. His radio is going
to be just fine in 30 years . . . but as you read these
words, many an ammeter on lots of Piper and Cessna aircraft
is waving in the breeze.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 AH
in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've got
the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it for
testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and maybe not
even aviation related, like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I
don't want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of you
may know we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area couple
of months ago and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet of water
in it and the battery was one of the things that I didn't put in the POD
when I emptied out the hangar in preparation for the flood. So, the
battery ended up sitting under water for about a week. I was sure that
it was a "goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts.
Now, what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the battery
charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they weren't quite
sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might have an idea.
Any thoughts?
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Bill=2C
A quick check of the specific gravity of typical battery acid says=3B
In one of its most familiar
applications=2C it serves as the electrolyte in the lead-acid storage
battery commonly used in motor vehicles (acid for this use=2C containing ab
out 33%
H2SO4 and
with specific gravity about 1.25=2C is often called battery acid).
Water=2C on the other hand=2C is 1.0 ( @ 4 deg C). Temps above 4C will b
e a minute amount less.
What all these means is....battery acid weighs more than flood water. Assu
ming no one shook
you battery around while it was under water=2C the heavier battery acid jus
t stayed "put"!!
Your battery was unaffected by rising flood water. For the same reasons
why oil floats on top
of water=2C because oil weighs less than water=2C "water" weighs less than
your battery acid=2C and
therefore will NOT seep into and displace the heavier acid.
Mike Welch
From: n744bh(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drowned battery
Date: Wed=2C 13 Jul 2011 20:47:07 -0500
Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice
on. I use a B&C 25 AH in my Glasair and tend to change them out every
year or so. I've got the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and
I use it for testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and ma
ybe
not even aviation related=2C like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I d
on't
want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of you may know
we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area couple of months a
go
and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet of water in it and the batt
ery
was one of the things that I didn't put in the POD when I emptied out the
hangar in preparation for the flood. So=2C the battery ended up sitting
under water for about a week. I was sure that it was a "goner" but when I
put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts. Now=2C what I'm wondering is wh
at
will happen when I put the battery charger on the battery. I asked the
folks at B&C and they weren't quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or
someone else might have an idea. Any thoughts?
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drowned battery |
At 08:47 PM 7/13/2011, you wrote:
>Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25
>AH in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've
>got the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it
>for testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and
>maybe not even aviation related, like when I'm working on a
>motorcycle that I don't want to buy a battery for until I get it
>restored. As some of you may know we had a bit of high water down
>here in the Memphis area couple of months ago and my hangar at M01
>ended up with about 6 feet of water in it and the battery was one of
>the things that I didn't put in the POD when I emptied out the
>hangar in preparation for the flood. So, the battery ended up
>sitting under water for about a week. I was sure that it was a
>"goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read 12.7 volts. Now,
>what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the battery
>charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they weren't
>quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might have an
>idea. Any thoughts?
Sure, this is a sealed battery . . . so there's no
risk for water getting inside. The terminals were
immersed in water but were so far apart in the fluid
that no significant discharge current flowed.
Charge/maintain it per your regular processes. It's
probably no worse a battery after the bath than
it was before the bath.
A flooded battery with vent-caps would be another
matter entirely. I've heard of flooded batteries
being externally flooded getting the water/acid dumped,
replaced with a temporary mix of new water/acid,
being charged, and then having the electrolyte
replaced again with SG equal to full charge.
Of course, you'd have to be working with a very
expensive battery to make it practical to spend
that much $time$ recovering it. But your SVLA battery
would be pretty much immune to the effects of temporare
immersion in water.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drowned battery |
FWIW
The depth of the water might be a factor. 6ft of water would create
approximately 2.5 psi of pressure trying to force the water into any gas
spaces in the battery. I don't know if the battery design results in any
gas spaces within the battery and I don't know if the release valve or
any other part of the battery would be vulnerable to water infiltration
at that pressure. Just another factor to consider.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 07/13/2011 11:03 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:47 PM 7/13/2011, you wrote:
>> Here's one that I could use some opinion/advice on. I use a B&C 25 AH
>> in my Glasair and tend to change them out every year or so. I've got
>> the one that I changed out this year in my hangar and I use it for
>> testing/powering up things that are out of the airplane and maybe not
>> even aviation related, like when I'm working on a motorcycle that I
>> don't want to buy a battery for until I get it restored. As some of
>> you may know we had a bit of high water down here in the Memphis area
>> couple of months ago and my hangar at M01 ended up with about 6 feet
>> of water in it and the battery was one of the things that I didn't put
>> in the POD when I emptied out the hangar in preparation for the flood.
>> So, the battery ended up sitting under water for about a week. I was
>> sure that it was a "goner" but when I put the voltmeter on it I read
>> 12.7 volts. Now, what I'm wondering is what will happen when I put the
>> battery charger on the battery. I asked the folks at B&C and they
>> weren't quite sure so I thought that maybe Bob or someone else might
>> have an idea. Any thoughts?
>
> Sure, this is a sealed battery . . . so there's no
> risk for water getting inside. The terminals were
> immersed in water but were so far apart in the fluid
> that no significant discharge current flowed.
>
> Charge/maintain it per your regular processes. It's
> probably no worse a battery after the bath than
> it was before the bath.
>
> A flooded battery with vent-caps would be another
> matter entirely. I've heard of flooded batteries
> being externally flooded getting the water/acid dumped,
> replaced with a temporary mix of new water/acid,
> being charged, and then having the electrolyte
> replaced again with SG equal to full charge.
>
> Of course, you'd have to be working with a very
> expensive battery to make it practical to spend
> that much $time$ recovering it. But your SVLA battery
> would be pretty much immune to the effects of temporare
> immersion in water.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: PTT issue |
Bob,
Thanks for the very well written explanation of negative resistance. I
appreciate all of the effort you give to this list...it is invaluable to so many
of us trying to learn/ understand the nature ofthese things called electrons.
The next time I rent an ole Cessna with a waving ammeter, I'll give it a wave
back for you.
Dan
----- Original Message ----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 6:28:53 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: PTT issue
>
>
>
> At 11:31 AM 7/13/2011, you wrote:
>
> >
> > As of this morning my PTT Buzz ghost is gone. I haven't done an engine start
> > yet, so I'm not going to do back-flips (don't wanna jinx it) but I am a
happy
> > camper. As per my e-mail below to Bob N. , I started tracing wires and
>noticed
> > the red and white tristed pair which were "salvaged" wires meant for an
>engine
> > instrument. I know these thermocouple wires are dissimilar and now I know
>this
> > is a big no no to use them in a system for power or return.
> >
> > Thanks Bob and All for the ideas and comments.
>
> What Dan was experiencing was a manifestation of
> 'negative resistance' . . . a euphemism for the
> effects on closed loop system stability where root cause
> is an un-accounted for increase in resistance somewhere
> in the loop. The resistance causes devices with gain to
> believe they're seeing positive feedback. Positive feedback
> + gain can produce instabilities, i.e. oscillations.
>
> The classic example discussed here on the list at
> various times over the years was the "galloping ammeter"
> in airplanes where the power path from the bus through
> a breaker, alternator switch, ov protection system and
> perhaps a dozen crimps and mated pins in connectors
> was carrying BOTH field_current AND sense-voltage
> for a simple regulator.
>
> After years of service, the sum total of resistance
> in this path might rise by several hundred milliohms.
> At some point, this became a 'negative resistance' value
> that caused the voltage regulator to 'chase' a moving
> target for bus voltage . . . voltage the regulator could
> SEE at the end of the wire was waving in the breeze in
> response to changes of field current as the regulator
> attempted to get it's arms around design goals.
>
> Interestingly enough, many such problems appeared to
> go away after a mechanic replace THE master switch or
> THE circuit breaker. The mechanic would then pronounce
> the replaced device as 'bad' and push the airplane
> out the door . . . only to have it return in perhaps
> a few months with the same problem.
>
> This is discussed in more detail on page 9 of
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
>
> This is a situation where TOTAL replacement of all
> components in the field-power/voltage-sense path would
> offer a new lease on regulator stability probably for
> tens of years.
>
> Dan's situation involved a transceiver that didn't
> draw enough current in receive to produce a distasteful
> voltage at the back of the radio. But when he attempted
> to transmit, the voltage fell below some value that
> caused some part of the transmitter to shut down.
> The current would drop, the transmitter would recover,
> the offended circuit would do it's thing again. In this
> case it was a pretty fast rate of shut-down, recovery and
> shutdown that produced a near musical note.
>
> These situations are pretty rare except where they are
> literally designed in. The engineers that wired alternators
> in Cessnas in 1968 had no idea that aging of the quality
> of joints in that power/sense path over 30+ years would
> cause the system to go unstable. None-the-less, it happens
> on lots of older airplanes all the time and very few mechanics
> understand why or how to really fix it.
>
> Dan's particular discovery for this phenomenon turned
> out to be a craftsmanship/materials issue. MUCH easier
> to find and fix than design errors. His radio is going
> to be just fine in 30 years . . . but as you read these
> words, many an ammeter on lots of Piper and Cessna aircraft
> is waving in the breeze.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drowned battery |
At 11:39 PM 7/13/2011, you wrote:
>
>FWIW
>
>The depth of the water might be a factor. 6ft of water would create
>approximately 2.5 psi of pressure trying to force the water into any
>gas spaces in the battery. I don't know if the battery design
>results in any gas spaces within the battery and I don't know if the
>release valve or any other part of the battery would be vulnerable
>to water infiltration at that pressure. Just another factor to consider.
Good point. I can't speak to all SLVA batteries
but I believe most of them feature vent valves that
release on over-pressure from inside the case but
remain tight for over-pressure from outside.
One of the reasons given is to reduce the amount of
dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte. SVLA batteries
have a very low self-discharge rate because they are
not subject to outside atmospheric changes that tend
to boost dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
| From: | "n395v" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:53 pm Post subject: HD Sub-D Crimper
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now thats customer service! Id like to hope everyone will take note and remember
Steinair appropriately when needing items or services which they carry.
>
>
That kind of service is typical of Stein.
--------
Milt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346311#346311
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HD Sub-D Crimper |
> That kind of service is typical of Stein.
>
> --------
> Milt
Milt=2C and guys=2C
I concur. When I was hooking up my Dynon D10A in my panel last
winter=2C I saw that my pre-wired harness was missing one of the
pins and the wire in the 'alarm' location in the DB15 plug.
Stein supplies Dynon with their optional wiring harness. Years ago=2C
when my D10A was sold=2C there wasn't a call for a pin & wire in that
spot=2C so therefore it didn't come with one.
Stein's answer was to send me the missing pin & wire....for free!
Such customer service is the foundation of long-term loyalty.
Maybe someone should forward Stein's email address to Jan E.
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com> |
harley(at)AgelessWings.co wrote:
> Morning, John...
>
> I started with Generic Cadd at work back in the early '80s because the
pharmaceutical company I worked for didn't have any IT department then
and I had to buy my own computer and software...Gcadd was cheap then ($99).
>
> After a few years, when they started supplying Autocad at work, I stuck
with GCadd so as not to have to learn something new. My work (production
equipment and control design) was not involved with the building engineering
where the Autocad was used, so I was allowed to do so.
>
> I liked GCADD better than Autocad anyway, as I could work faster...GCADD
used two letter commands for the drawing options as well as the standard
icons or menu options that one had to hunt down to select. It was fast
and easy with the left hand doing the selecting on the keyboard and the
right doing the drawing with the trackball.
>
> So, I've stuck with it through the years. Generic Cadd is now Visual
CADD and works the same way. I would never change now.
>
> [b]
I did the same thing. I needed a CAD package and my employer did not want to ante
up for a full package but he did pay for a seat of Generic Cadd. 20 years
later I've used AutoCad, TurboCAD, and my favorite SolidWorks but GenericCadd
has a fond place in my heart. I loved the two letter abbreviations. I entered
them left handed and worked the mouse right handed and could really fly!
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346337#346337
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
>
>I did the same thing. I needed a CAD package and my employer did
>not want to ante up for a full package but he did pay for a seat of
>Generic Cadd. 20 years later I've used AutoCad, TurboCAD, and my
>favorite SolidWorks but GenericCadd has a fond place in my heart. I
>loved the two letter abbreviations. I entered them left handed and
>worked the mouse right handed and could really fly!
AutoCAD has a script file one can edit
For example, here's my one and two letter
overlay script for 99% of all the AutoCAD
commands I need to do my work. I learned to
mouse with either hand and type with the ohter
to minimize tendencies for repetitive motion
damage.
I also found this list useful for teaching
AutoCAD . . . If one learns this list of
commands first, you can be VERY productive
while learning the other 1000 commands as needed!
AR, *ARRAY
B, *BLOCK
BR, *BREAK
C, *CIRCLE
CH, *CHAMFER
C, *COPY
E, *ERASE
ED, *DDEDIT
EL, *ELLIPSE
EX, *EXTEND
H, *HATCH
I, *INSERT
L, *LINE
LA, *LAYER
LT, *LINETYPE
M, *MOVE
MI, *MIRROR
P, *PAN
PE, *PEDIT
PL, *PLINE
P, *PURGE
R, *REDRAW
RE, *REGEN
RCT, *RECTANGLE
RO, *ROTATE
S, *STRETCH
SC, *SCALE
SCR, *SCRIPT
T, *TRIM
V, *VIEW
W, *WBLOCK
X, *EXPLODE
Z, *ZOOM
I knew some folks who had to routinely use two
different cad systems. The customized command overlay
file made AutoCAD mimic the other program to a large
degree . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want to
place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the next
part, and have the computer automagically arrange everything so that
nothing overlaps and one can label the wires, etc. Don't know that it
exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> I did the same thing. I needed a CAD package and my employer did not
>> want to ante up for a full package but he did pay for a seat of
>> Generic Cadd. 20 years later I've used AutoCad, TurboCAD, and my
>> favorite SolidWorks but GenericCadd has a fond place in my heart. I
>> loved the two letter abbreviations. I entered them left handed and
>> worked the mouse right handed and could really fly!
>
> AutoCAD has a script file one can edit
>
> For example, here's my one and two letter
> overlay script for 99% of all the AutoCAD
> commands I need to do my work. I learned to
> mouse with either hand and type with the ohter
> to minimize tendencies for repetitive motion
> damage.
>
> I also found this list useful for teaching
> AutoCAD . . . If one learns this list of
> commands first, you can be VERY productive
> while learning the other 1000 commands as needed!
>
>
> AR, *ARRAY
> B, *BLOCK
> BR, *BREAK
> C, *CIRCLE
> CH, *CHAMFER
> C, *COPY
> E, *ERASE
> ED, *DDEDIT
> EL, *ELLIPSE
> EX, *EXTEND
> H, *HATCH
> I, *INSERT
> L, *LINE
> LA, *LAYER
> LT, *LINETYPE
> M, *MOVE
> MI, *MIRROR
> P, *PAN
> PE, *PEDIT
> PL, *PLINE
> P, *PURGE
> R, *REDRAW
> RE, *REGEN
> RCT, *RECTANGLE
> RO, *ROTATE
> S, *STRETCH
> SC, *SCALE
> SCR, *SCRIPT
> T, *TRIM
> V, *VIEW
> W, *WBLOCK
> X, *EXPLODE
> Z, *ZOOM
>
> I knew some folks who had to routinely use two
> different cad systems. The customized command overlay
> file made AutoCAD mimic the other program to a large
> degree . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
At 08:11 PM 7/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
>to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to
>the next part, and have the computer automagically arrange
>everything so that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires,
>etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
But who is your market? For most product development
efforts the schematic is but an intermediate step
between conception and production. Schematic generation
programs with any degree of sophistication generate
'net lists' which are operated on to convert the schematic
to an etched circuit board. Interestingly enough, these
same schematics are often used to publish various
service/training manuals. The net list generator couldn't
care less whether the schematic is on one or 100 pages.
But the poor tech trying to trace a circuit has to jump
across pages with cryptic 'bus labels' to guide them.
Some free schematic generation systems like Express PCB
would probably come close to what you want to do but for
a guy who grew up looking at ARRL schematics in the
Handbook and QST magazine, symbology for most schematic
generation programs seems pretty crude . . . but then
the drawing of crystal clear diagrams is becoming a lost
art form.
So before you launch into what has to be a monumental
programming and graphics effort, it could be well to
make sure there's a market for your work-product.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Micro soft Visio.... Works great for this, made for it in fact.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2011, at 6:11 PM, David wrote:
>
> I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want to place
a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the next part, and have
the computer automagically arrange everything so that nothing overlaps and
one can label the wires, etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to
write it someday.
>
> David M.
>
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I did the same thing. I needed a CAD package and my employer did not want
to ante up for a full package but he did pay for a seat of Generic Cadd. 20 years
later I've used AutoCad, TurboCAD, and my favorite SolidWorks but GenericCadd
has a fond place in my heart. I loved the two letter abbreviations. I entered
them left handed and worked the mouse right handed and could really fly!
>>
>> AutoCAD has a script file one can edit
>>
>> For example, here's my one and two letter
>> overlay script for 99% of all the AutoCAD
>> commands I need to do my work. I learned to
>> mouse with either hand and type with the ohter
>> to minimize tendencies for repetitive motion
>> damage.
>>
>> I also found this list useful for teaching
>> AutoCAD . . . If one learns this list of
>> commands first, you can be VERY productive
>> while learning the other 1000 commands as needed!
>>
>>
>> AR, *ARRAY
>> B, *BLOCK
>> BR, *BREAK
>> C, *CIRCLE
>> CH, *CHAMFER
>> C, *COPY
>> E, *ERASE
>> ED, *DDEDIT
>> EL, *ELLIPSE
>> EX, *EXTEND
>> H, *HATCH
>> I, *INSERT
>> L, *LINE
>> LA, *LAYER
>> LT, *LINETYPE
>> M, *MOVE
>> MI, *MIRROR
>> P, *PAN
>> PE, *PEDIT
>> PL, *PLINE
>> P, *PURGE
>> R, *REDRAW
>> RE, *REGEN
>> RCT, *RECTANGLE
>> RO, *ROTATE
>> S, *STRETCH
>> SC, *SCALE
>> SCR, *SCRIPT
>> T, *TRIM
>> V, *VIEW
>> W, *WBLOCK
>> X, *EXPLODE
>> Z, *ZOOM
>>
>> I knew some folks who had to routinely use two
>> different cad systems. The customized command overlay
>> file made AutoCAD mimic the other program to a large
>> degree . . .
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get
rid of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Don't need a market. It would be just for me and whoever wants it.
david
of the Gnu generation
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:11 PM 7/14/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
>> to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the
>> next part, and have the computer automagically arrange everything so
>> that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires, etc. Don't know
>> that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
>
> But who is your market? For most product development
> efforts the schematic is but an intermediate step
> between conception and production. Schematic generation
> programs with any degree of sophistication generate
> 'net lists' which are operated on to convert the schematic
> to an etched circuit board. Interestingly enough, these
> same schematics are often used to publish various
> service/training manuals. The net list generator couldn't
> care less whether the schematic is on one or 100 pages.
> But the poor tech trying to trace a circuit has to jump
> across pages with cryptic 'bus labels' to guide them.
>
> Some free schematic generation systems like Express PCB
> would probably come close to what you want to do but for
> a guy who grew up looking at ARRL schematics in the
> Handbook and QST magazine, symbology for most schematic
> generation programs seems pretty crude . . . but then
> the drawing of crystal clear diagrams is becoming a lost
> art form.
>
> So before you launch into what has to be a monumental
> programming and graphics effort, it could be well to
> make sure there's a market for your work-product.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Outstanding! I'll try it. Thanks.
David
tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net
>
> Micro soft Visio.... Works great for this, made for it in fact.
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 6:11 PM, David wrote:
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David
>>
>> I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want to place
a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the next part, and have
the computer automagically arrange everything so that nothing overlaps and
one can label the wires, etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to
write it someday.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I did the same thing. I needed a CAD package and my employer did not want
to ante up for a full package but he did pay for a seat of Generic Cadd. 20
years later I've used AutoCad, TurboCAD, and my favorite SolidWorks but GenericCadd
has a fond place in my heart. I loved the two letter abbreviations. I
entered them left handed and worked the mouse right handed and could really fly!
>>>>
>>> AutoCAD has a script file one can edit
>>>
>>> For example, here's my one and two letter
>>> overlay script for 99% of all the AutoCAD
>>> commands I need to do my work. I learned to
>>> mouse with either hand and type with the ohter
>>> to minimize tendencies for repetitive motion
>>> damage.
>>>
>>> I also found this list useful for teaching
>>> AutoCAD . . . If one learns this list of
>>> commands first, you can be VERY productive
>>> while learning the other 1000 commands as needed!
>>>
>>>
>>> AR, *ARRAY
>>> B, *BLOCK
>>> BR, *BREAK
>>> C, *CIRCLE
>>> CH, *CHAMFER
>>> C, *COPY
>>> E, *ERASE
>>> ED, *DDEDIT
>>> EL, *ELLIPSE
>>> EX, *EXTEND
>>> H, *HATCH
>>> I, *INSERT
>>> L, *LINE
>>> LA, *LAYER
>>> LT, *LINETYPE
>>> M, *MOVE
>>> MI, *MIRROR
>>> P, *PAN
>>> PE, *PEDIT
>>> PL, *PLINE
>>> P, *PURGE
>>> R, *REDRAW
>>> RE, *REGEN
>>> RCT, *RECTANGLE
>>> RO, *ROTATE
>>> S, *STRETCH
>>> SC, *SCALE
>>> SCR, *SCRIPT
>>> T, *TRIM
>>> V, *VIEW
>>> W, *WBLOCK
>>> X, *EXPLODE
>>> Z, *ZOOM
>>>
>>> I knew some folks who had to routinely use two
>>> different cad systems. The customized command overlay
>>> file made AutoCAD mimic the other program to a large
>>> degree . . .
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get
rid of Soros.
>>
>> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type
of gubmnt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
| From: | "zodiac601" <timtreat(at)sbcglobal.net> |
+1 for Visio
I've drawn electrical schematics with it several times.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346455#346455
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Another plug for MS Visio. Attached is a draft 'start circuit' I drew for
myself a few months back. Outputing to PDF resized some of the lines, but
Visio itself is great.
Cheers, Stu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of zodiac601
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Design Software
-->
+1 for Visio
I've drawn electrical schematics with it several times.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346455#346455
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
>
>I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
>to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to
>the next part, and have the computer automagically arrange
>everything so that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires,
>etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
My suggestion is to download the FREE Express PCB software
and give it a try. I find it to be rather easy to use and has symbols with
it, that are easy to place and interconnect.
So, give it a go. . . "Nothing ventured nothing lost"
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
At 03:38 AM 7/15/2011, you wrote:
>Another plug for MS Visio. Attached is a draft 'start circuit' I drew for
>myself a few months back. Outputing to PDF resized some of the lines, but
>Visio itself is great.
I would encourage anyone who is willing to spend the
$time$ to become competent in any sort of illustration
software also take the time to become fluent in
the language of speaking and illustrating "electronese".
If you look at any drawings produced in the 'Connection
or on aeroelectric.com, the diagrams speak to specific
connections of wires to terminals of devices, to wire
sizes, symbology to suggest type of terminals used,
internal functions of devices such as switches, relays,
contactors, motors, etc. The whole story on one page.
VERY FEW professional illustrators of consumer
product wiring diagrams bother to offer such detail
in their work-product. Even folks who should know
better. I can't tell you how many no-value hours
I spent trying to find a truly descriptive schematic
of how the fuel selector valve and gage system worked
in my '87 GMC truck. All the schematics in 'official'
published documents showed "boxes" with colored wires
routing between them and no information what so ever
as to what goes on inside the boxes. Having finally
discovered what I needed to know, it made perfect
sense and I can now draw the schematic from memory,
not as an activity to mimic somebody else's drawings
but as a fundamental understanding of how the system
works.
I'll suggest there are two aspects of creating really
useful drawings. The choice of illustration software
obviously drives the general appearance of the finished
drawings. But organization and completeness is entirely
up to the skills, willingness and experience of the
illustrator.
Symbols for lucid production of schematics and diagrams
are the language of the discipline. Learn the symbols
too and use what ever illustrative tools to present
those symbols in a manner that makes understanding
'jump off the page' into the mind of the competent
observer. These same drawings will provide a solid
foundation for sharing understanding for the not-so-
competent observer with a willingness and desire to
learn.
Just a few more little lines in the published schematics
for my truck's fuel system would have completed the
story and saved a lot of wasted time. COMPLETE
schematics are the tools of both teaching how
something works but the tools of understanding
for how to fix the thing that doesn't work at
some later time.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | strobe power supply |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
My decades-old Whelen supply now flashes only one of two tubes even if I
reverse the tube cables - looks like one channel is dead. No longer makes
the whining sound when operational, either. Looking to replace with a
suitable Whelen supply not made for aviation use but similar energy output.
Any reason a Whelen CPS 660 or 690 wouldn't work? Much cheaper on Ebay than
any of the aviation power supplies.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | strobe power supply |
Boyd=2C
That kind of like the strobe power supplies I use. They are built for th
e "emergency
vehicle" use (police=2C fire engines=2C etc) strobes. They flash my 'Beech
Aircraft' strobe
units just fine!! The units are made by "Optimax".
Mike Welch
Date: Fri=2C 15 Jul 2011 10:45:05 -0400
Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe power supply
From: sportav8r(at)gmail.com
My decades-old Whelen supply now flashes only one of two tubes even if I re
verse the tube cables - looks like one channel is dead. No longer makes the
whining sound when operational=2C either. Looking to replace with a suita
ble Whelen supply not made for aviation use but similar energy output.
Any reason a Whelen CPS 660 or 690 wouldn't work? Much cheaper on Ebay tha
n any of the aviation power supplies.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
| From: | b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com> |
1. Are you looking for an active program like SPICE? (Simulated
analysis)
2. Or a passive, flat program to show the electrical diagram?
3. Or do you want to show the actual component layout on the circuit
board?
Sorry but I missed the beginning of the discussion. It sounds like you have
already bread-boarded and proven your circuit and are looking to go from 2
to 3 for production. Is that correct?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:58 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
> >to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to
> >the next part, and have the computer automagically arrange
> >everything so that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires,
> >etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
>
>
> My suggestion is to download the FREE Express PCB software
> and give it a try. I find it to be rather easy to use and has symbols with
> it, that are easy to place and interconnect.
>
> So, give it a go. . . "Nothing ventured nothing lost"
>
> Roger
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Confusing... you say you do not want a CAD system then you describe CAD
system.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: July 15, 2011 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Design Software
Don't need a market. It would be just for me and whoever wants it.
david
of the Gnu generation
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:11 PM 7/14/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
>> to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the
>> next part, and have the computer automagically arrange everything so
>> that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires, etc. Don't know
>> that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
>
> But who is your market? For most product development
> efforts the schematic is but an intermediate step
> between conception and production. Schematic generation
> programs with any degree of sophistication generate
> 'net lists' which are operated on to convert the schematic
> to an etched circuit board. Interestingly enough, these
> same schematics are often used to publish various
> service/training manuals. The net list generator couldn't
> care less whether the schematic is on one or 100 pages.
> But the poor tech trying to trace a circuit has to jump
> across pages with cryptic 'bus labels' to guide them.
>
> Some free schematic generation systems like Express PCB
> would probably come close to what you want to do but for
> a guy who grew up looking at ARRL schematics in the
> Handbook and QST magazine, symbology for most schematic
> generation programs seems pretty crude . . . but then
> the drawing of crystal clear diagrams is becoming a lost
> art form.
>
> So before you launch into what has to be a monumental
> programming and graphics effort, it could be well to
> make sure there's a market for your work-product.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get
rid of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY
type of gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: strobe power supply |
Bill,
Is the strobe that does flash the same one when you reverse the cables?
I had a similar problem a couple of years ago and it turned out to be a
burned out strobe lamp.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Boyd
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe power supply
My decades-old Whelen supply now flashes only one of two tubes even if
I reverse the tube cables - looks like one channel is dead. No longer
makes the whining sound when operational, either. Looking to replace
with a suitable Whelen supply not made for aviation use but similar
energy output.
Any reason a Whelen CPS 660 or 690 wouldn't work? Much cheaper on
Ebay than any of the aviation power supplies.
-Bill B
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07/14/11
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strobe power supply |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, noticed the problem when I replaced an obviously burned out strobe head
- the replacement didn't fix the issue. Swapped cables and verified each
strobe head will flash normally, it's a dead channel in the PS, possibly
from trying to fire a burned-out strobe head for awhile...
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Bill Hibbing wrote:
> **
> Bill,
>
> Is the strobe that does flash the same one when you reverse the cables? I
> had a similar problem a couple of years ago and it turned out to be a burned
> out strobe lamp.
>
> Bill
> Glasair SIIS-FT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bill Boyd
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, July 15, 2011 9:45 AM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: strobe power supply
>
> My decades-old Whelen supply now flashes only one of two tubes even if I
> reverse the tube cables - looks like one channel is dead. No longer makes
> the whining sound when operational, either. Looking to replace with a
> suitable Whelen supply not made for aviation use but similar energy output.
>
>
> Any reason a Whelen CPS 660 or 690 wouldn't work? Much cheaper on Ebay
> than any of the aviation power supplies.
>
> -Bill B
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/15/2011 12:40 PM, b d wrote:
> WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
Yes, I thought it was helpful.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | It's nice when the center holds . . . |
See:
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
I've attached a schematic created with Express SCH for reference.
Bill "it can be really tough to get any work done at the airport on a
nice day" Watson
> Another plug for MS Visio. Attached is a draft 'start circuit' I drew for
> myself a few months back. Outputing to PDF resized some of the lines, but
> Visio itself is great.
>
> Cheers, Stu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of zodiac601
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:40 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Design Software
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "zodiac601"
> -->
>
> +1 for Visio
>
> I've drawn electrical schematics with it several times.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346455#346455
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Anyone know of an aftermarket drop-in LED replacement for the 14v/25w clear
white halogen bulb used in the Whelen A555 tail position light assembly?
Finding all kinds of lights not working on this annual condition
inspection...
considering rolling my own from a fistful of white LED's in series, too.
Can't be that hard.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Nice landing, and a very good demonstration of excellent pilot skills!
The only thing I don't really understand is why you (native English
speakers) call this situation a "Dead Stick" landing, when this is
everything but a dead stick. On the contrary, this is a very "Alive stick"
situation..
What is really dead is the power source!
Carlos Trigo
> -----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: sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011 18:40
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: It's nice when the center holds . . .
>
>
>
> See:
>
> http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Hi Carlos,
The expression precedes the jet engine by many years. The "stick" was
the propeller (most likely wood at that time), dead when engine (power
source) stops.
Regards, Rich
On 7/15/2011 2:55 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Nice landing, and a very good demonstration of excellent pilot skills!
>
> The only thing I don't really understand is why you (native English
> speakers) call this situation a "Dead Stick" landing, when this is
> everything but a dead stick. On the contrary, this is a very "Alive
> stick" situation....
>
> What is really dead is the power source!
>
> Carlos Trigo
>
> > -----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: sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011 18:40
>
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: It's nice when the center holds . . .
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > See:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bob . . .
>
> > ////
>
> > (o o)
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | It's nice when the center holds . . . |
The expression precedes the jet engine by many years. The
"stick" was the propeller (most likely wood at that time), dead when engine
(power source) stops.
I did not know this origin. Guess you can
always learn something here on the "Lectric List"
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Havarlah" <clouduster(at)austin.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail light LED |
Check out the boat replacement led running lights at Superbright LEDs.
Dennis H.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Boyd
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tail light LED
Anyone know of an aftermarket drop-in LED replacement for the 14v/25w
clear white halogen bulb used in the Whelen A555 tail position light
assembly?
Finding all kinds of lights not working on this annual condition
inspection...
considering rolling my own from a fistful of white LED's in series,
too. Can't be that hard.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail light LED |
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/el/ledlighting_replacement.html
On 7/15/2011 11:37 AM, Bill Boyd wrote:
> Anyone know of an aftermarket drop-in LED replacement for the 14v/25w
> clear white halogen bulb used in the Whelen A555 tail position light
> assembly?
>
> Finding all kinds of lights not working on this annual condition
> inspection...
>
> considering rolling my own from a fistful of white LED's in series,
> too. Can't be that hard.
>
> -Bill B
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Richard Dudley is correct, Roger. -Here is the Wiki explanation:=0A=0A-
- -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing=0A-=0ALesson learn
ed: as old as we are, we still don't know everything. -Thank you, Richard
.=0A=0ACarlos, I bet you have similar sayings in your country.=0A=0AHenador
Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: ROGER & JEAN
CURTIS =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:55 PM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: It
's nice when the center holds . . .=0A=0A=0A--- --- The express
ion precedes the jet engine by many years. The=0A"stick" was the propeller
(most likely wood at that time), dead when engine=0A(power source) stops.
=0A--- --- =0A=0A--- --- --- --- I did
not know this origin.- Guess you can=0Aalways learn something here on the
"Lectric List"=0A=0A--- --- --- --- Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
| From: | b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com> |
*The only thing I don=92t really understand is why you (native English
speakers) call this situation a =93Dead Stick=94 landing, when this is
everything but a dead stick. On the contrary, this is a very =93Alive stick
=94
situation=85.*
*What is really dead is the power source!*
Excellent observation . . . . the question is, shall we go back and change
all the references using the "dead stick" phrase from all the books
references and logs or shall we allow you to get over it and accept it. One
vs. zillions :-)
As I recall in a my old conversations with the Wright Bothers it originally
meant "you are close to being dead if you don't use the stick to save your
ass". I remember asking that very same question to Orville and Wilbur while
sitting around their potbellied stove as if it was yesterday. They
reiterated that "dead" had nothing to do with the engine but more about the
pilot.
So if you were them, what phrase would you like to use if we were to correc
t
the whole 100 plus years of aviation history and all log books to reflect
your choice of phrases? "Alive stick"?
This reminds me of the prison story where the new guy comes in and hears
"257" and everyone laughs, then "522" and everyone laughs. He questions
what is going on and his cell mate says, "we have told these jokes so many
times we just numbered them to save time". The new guy says "let me try on
e
. . . 257!" but nobody laughed . . . then "522" and once again nobody
laughed . . . he asked his cell mate "what gives?"
The cell mate said, "some people can tell a joke and some can't!"
You can stick with "Alive stick" and see how it works for you however
removing the word "dead" from your thoughts may not be as healthy at that
particular time. . . please let us know how it works for you. You could
just yell out "dead" and forget the stick if that confuses you. That way th
e
"dead" will give you some indication of what happens if you don't move the
stick in the proper, timely sequence.
Don't take it personal, I'm just having fun with you . . . Where are you
from?
Bruce
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote
:
> **
>
> Nice landing, and a very good demonstration of excellent pilot skills!***
*
>
> ** **
>
> The only thing I don=92t really understand is why you (native English
> speakers) call this situation a =93Dead Stick=94 landing, when this is
> everything but a dead stick. On the contrary, this is a very =93Alive sti
ck=94
> situation=85. ****
>
> What is really dead is the power source!****
>
> ** **
>
> Carlos Trigo****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> > -----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: sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011 18:40
>
> > To: **aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com**
>
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: It's nice when the center holds . . .
>
> >
>
>
> > <**nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> >
>
> > See:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bob . . .
>
> > ////
>
> > (o o)
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
>
>What is really dead is the power source!
The last few words of the pilot suggested something I'd
not heard before. He talked about a 'hydrazine' hazard
around his aircraft as he was talking with locals at
his airport of destination. There was also a reference
to an "EPU" . . . 'possible emergency power unit'.
Hydrazine and sulfuric acid combine in a manner that
provides spontaneous combustion with a very energetic
release of energy. In this case, I'm thinking that the
airplane was fitted with what could be a compact
and relatively light weight energy source that required
very little maintenance and has a long storage life.
(I've seen AQM-37 hydrazine powered targets successfully
flown after 20 years in storage).
It would be interesting to hear from folks with experience
inside the operating world of this style of aircraft
as to it's 'dead stick' options for power.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
At 04:18 PM 7/15/2011, you wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d wrote:
WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
Sure! Mr. Baker's unusual clarity of insight into
the innate perversity human behaviors is worthy
of consideration by any interested, competent observer.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about folks who are building
airplanes . . . or folks who would dearly love to burden
us with the same regulatory millstones carried by our
brothers in the TC aircraft industry. So I'd hardly call
his efforts on our behalf 'spam'.
A few milliseconds action on the 'delete' key will
unburden the disinterested reader in a heartbeat.
In my business, I use it many times a day every
day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Sure we do Henador, but this one of yours seemed to be contradictory,
thinking the stick could be the one you control your aircraft with. Now that
I got the explanation that the dead "stick" is the propeller, it makes
sense.
Here in Portugal we aviators use to say, when the engine stops, that we have
a "fixed joist" in the nose.
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henador
Titzoff
Sent: sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011 22:26
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: It's nice when the center holds . . .
...................
Carlos, I bet you have similar sayings in your country.
Henador Titzoff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Good Evening All,
Personally, I find O. C.s comments to be interesting and always well
documented. I don't always come to the same conclusion as he does, but that is
not unusual considering the vast flexibility of interpretation that is
inherent in our FAR's.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
CFI - RAIG & ME
A&P/IA
In a message dated 7/15/2011 4:27:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com writes:
Bruce, The discussion has been interesting to me, certainly more than your
rather rude comment.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d <_gpabruce(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:gpabruce(at)gmail.com) > wrote:
WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:37 AM, <_bakerocb(at)cox.net_
(mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net) > wrote:
(mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net) >
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media,
as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay,
gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys)
when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
===================================
-List" target="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/_
(http://www.matronics.com/) Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
===================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/_ (http://www.matronics.com/)
contribution
===================================
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
On 07/15/2011 04:47 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is really dead is the power source!
>>
>
> The last few words of the pilot suggested something I'd
> not heard before. He talked about a 'hydrazine' hazard
> around his aircraft as he was talking with locals at
> his airport of destination. There was also a reference
> to an "EPU" . . . 'possible emergency power unit'.
>
> Hydrazine and sulfuric acid combine in a manner that
> provides spontaneous combustion with a very energetic
> release of energy. In this case, I'm thinking that the
> airplane was fitted with what could be a compact
> and relatively light weight energy source that required
> very little maintenance and has a long storage life.
> (I've seen AQM-37 hydrazine powered targets successfully
> flown after 20 years in storage).
>
> It would be interesting to hear from folks with experience
> inside the operating world of this style of aircraft
> as to it's 'dead stick' options for power.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Someone actually discusses the system in the comments below the video.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
On 7/15/2011 3:55 PM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> The expression precedes the jet engine by many years. The
> "stick" was the propeller (most likely wood at that time), dead when engine
> (power source) stops.
>
>
> I did not know this origin. Guess you can
> always learn something here on the "Lectric List"
>
...and I've always known what it meant having been an RC enthusiast in
the '60s when 50% of landings were 'dead stick'.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Bob,
APU is the aux power unit used to start the jet engine after
landing in the boondocks. N2H4 is a mono propellant and works great
with no other chemical, just a catalyst. Deadly stuff gives you cancer .
So inflight engine shutdown and the APU would not do the restart or
was defective. At least that is the way In understand the APU.
Lots of combat planes have the N2H4 APUs.
We use the stuff exclusively for satelite propulsion systems. That is
how we steer the spy satelites.
PaulW
=======
At 03:47 PM 7/15/2011, you wrote:
>>What is really dead is the power source!
>
> The last few words of the pilot suggested something I'd
> not heard before. He talked about a 'hydrazine' hazard
> around his aircraft as he was talking with locals at
> his airport of destination. There was also a reference
> to an "EPU" . . . 'possible emergency power unit'.
>
> Hydrazine and sulfuric acid combine in a manner that
> provides spontaneous combustion with a very energetic
> release of energy. In this case, I'm thinking that the
> airplane was fitted with what could be a compact
> and relatively light weight energy source that required
> very little maintenance and has a long storage life.
> (I've seen AQM-37 hydrazine powered targets successfully
> flown after 20 years in storage).
>
> It would be interesting to hear from folks with experience
> inside the operating world of this style of aircraft
> as to it's 'dead stick' options for power.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Would it make sense to use a program like Spice in the mix, in order to
show how the circuits work (and possibly identify problems before
something is burned out?)
I'm looking at the gEDA project (gpl electronic design automation) as
the toolset to use right now. Don't know how hard it is to use or
anything. Bear in mind, I have very little background in electronics.
I'm hoping that the relatively simple schematic of the airplane will
not be terribly difficult to model.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 03:38 AM 7/15/2011, you wrote:
>> Another plug for MS Visio. Attached is a draft 'start circuit' I
>> drew for
>> myself a few months back. Outputing to PDF resized some of the
>> lines, but
>> Visio itself is great.
>
> I would encourage anyone who is willing to spend the
> $time$ to become competent in any sort of illustration
> software also take the time to become fluent in
> the language of speaking and illustrating "electronese".
>
> If you look at any drawings produced in the 'Connection
> or on aeroelectric.com, the diagrams speak to specific
> connections of wires to terminals of devices, to wire
> sizes, symbology to suggest type of terminals used,
> internal functions of devices such as switches, relays,
> contactors, motors, etc. The whole story on one page.
>
> VERY FEW professional illustrators of consumer
> product wiring diagrams bother to offer such detail
> in their work-product. Even folks who should know
> better. I can't tell you how many no-value hours
> I spent trying to find a truly descriptive schematic
> of how the fuel selector valve and gage system worked
> in my '87 GMC truck. All the schematics in 'official'
> published documents showed "boxes" with colored wires
> routing between them and no information what so ever
> as to what goes on inside the boxes. Having finally
> discovered what I needed to know, it made perfect
> sense and I can now draw the schematic from memory,
> not as an activity to mimic somebody else's drawings
> but as a fundamental understanding of how the system
> works.
>
> I'll suggest there are two aspects of creating really
> useful drawings. The choice of illustration software
> obviously drives the general appearance of the finished
> drawings. But organization and completeness is entirely
> up to the skills, willingness and experience of the
> illustrator.
>
> Symbols for lucid production of schematics and diagrams
> are the language of the discipline. Learn the symbols
> too and use what ever illustrative tools to present
> those symbols in a manner that makes understanding
> 'jump off the page' into the mind of the competent
> observer. These same drawings will provide a solid
> foundation for sharing understanding for the not-so-
> competent observer with a willingness and desire to
> learn.
>
> Just a few more little lines in the published schematics
> for my truck's fuel system would have completed the
> story and saved a lot of wasted time. COMPLETE
> schematics are the tools of both teaching how
> something works but the tools of understanding
> for how to fix the thing that doesn't work at
> some later time.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
Mostly, my purpose is to document my airplane wiring. If I can get
analysis while I'm at it, I'm willing to learn to do so. Others have
differing needs, of course.
David M.
b d wrote:
>
> 1. Are you looking for an active program like SPICE? (Simulated
> analysis)
> 2. Or a passive, flat program to show the electrical diagram?
> 3. Or do you want to show the actual component layout on the
> circuit board?
>
>
> Sorry but I missed the beginning of the discussion. It sounds like you
> have already bread-boarded and proven your circuit and are looking to
> go from 2 to 3 for production. Is that correct?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:58 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
> >to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to
> >the next part, and have the computer automagically arrange
> >everything so that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires,
> >etc. Don't know that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it
> someday.
>
>
> My suggestion is to download the FREE Express PCB
> software
> and give it a try. I find it to be rather easy to use and has
> symbols with
> it, that are easy to place and interconnect.
>
> So, give it a go. . . "Nothing ventured nothing lost"
>
> Roger
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
What I don't want is a lot of arcane commands to learn just to basically
document my airplane's wiring. However, if I can also get circuit
analysis (confirmation ) then I'm willing to learn some. I do not
want another WordPerfect.
David M.
Noel Loveys wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
>
> Confusing... you say you do not want a CAD system then you describe CAD
> system.
>
> Noel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Sent: July 15, 2011 12:27 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Design Software
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David
>
> Don't need a market. It would be just for me and whoever wants it.
>
> david
> of the Gnu generation
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>
>> At 08:11 PM 7/14/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David
>>>
>>> I'd like to have a drawing system that is not a CAD system. I want
>>> to place a part with standardized icon, draw a line from there to the
>>> next part, and have the computer automagically arrange everything so
>>> that nothing overlaps and one can label the wires, etc. Don't know
>>> that it exists. Guess I'll have to write it someday.
>>>
>> But who is your market? For most product development
>> efforts the schematic is but an intermediate step
>> between conception and production. Schematic generation
>> programs with any degree of sophistication generate
>> 'net lists' which are operated on to convert the schematic
>> to an etched circuit board. Interestingly enough, these
>> same schematics are often used to publish various
>> service/training manuals. The net list generator couldn't
>> care less whether the schematic is on one or 100 pages.
>> But the poor tech trying to trace a circuit has to jump
>> across pages with cryptic 'bus labels' to guide them.
>>
>> Some free schematic generation systems like Express PCB
>> would probably come close to what you want to do but for
>> a guy who grew up looking at ARRL schematics in the
>> Handbook and QST magazine, symbology for most schematic
>> generation programs seems pretty crude . . . but then
>> the drawing of crystal clear diagrams is becoming a lost
>> art form.
>>
>> So before you launch into what has to be a monumental
>> programming and graphics effort, it could be well to
>> make sure there's a market for your work-product.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>> ////
>> (o o)
>> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
>> < Go ahead, make my day . . .>
>> < show me where I'm wrong.>
>> ================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ELT antenna placement |
| From: | Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com> |
I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The
installation instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3
feet from my VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the
possibility of manually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an
emergency, while continuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm
thinking that the more likely scenarios will be to operate one or the other,
but not both. That is, the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true
emergency, in which case I would first squawk emergency and communicate the
situation by VHF voice (flying the airplane first, of course). Then,
activate the ELT (one button press) if a forced landing appears inevitable,
but I'm probably done talking on the radio at that point.
Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conductor
in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its
performance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same
time, is 3 ft of separation important?
At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective to
put them closer together. Any advice?
Thanks,
Paul Kuntz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
In one prior case, we had an airplane that was transmitting ground control v
oice (121.9) over 121.5. We attributed it to resonance on the elt antenna, w
hich was in a non standard location for that type, closer than normal to the
vhf com. After moving the elt antenna back a couple of feet the bleed over
stopped. This type of problem might be something to consider in your decis
ion.
On Jul 16, 2011, at 1:28, Paul Kuntz wrote:
> I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The installat
ion instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3 feet from my
VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the possibility of m
anually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an emergency, while co
ntinuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm thinking that the more l
ikely scenarios will be to operate one or the other, but not both. That is,
the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true emergency, in which cas
e I would first squawk emergency and communicate the situation by VHF voice (
flying the airplane first, of course). Then, activate the ELT (one button p
ress) if a forced landing appears inevitable, but I'm probably done talking o
n the radio at that point.
>
> Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conducto
r in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its p
erformance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same t
ime, is 3 ft of separation important?
>
> At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective t
o put them closer together. Any advice?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Kuntz
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Bob,
I don't know F-16 systems, but have experience of other single seat
military aircraft. I'm guessing the Hydrazine unit is a light weight
method of mitigating the hazard of providing power once the (single)
motor has stopped, without fitting a huge battery. Most combat aircraft
are started with a ground power unit, so the battery doesn't have to be
very big. I'm guessing the electrical demands of an F-16 are quite large
(fly-by-wire), even with load shedding, so a huge battery would be
required to get the airplane to the ground from max altitude - or a
reasonably powerful (heavy) gas turbine APU. So a one shot hydrazine
based system is a reasonable (light weight) solution, although it has a
maintenance overhead. Bear in mind the F-16 was designed as a
lightweight fighter, so weight saving was probably quite high on the
priority list.
Peter
On 15/07/2011 22:47, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is really dead is the power source!
>>
>
> The last few words of the pilot suggested something I'd
> not heard before. He talked about a 'hydrazine' hazard
> around his aircraft as he was talking with locals at
> his airport of destination. There was also a reference
> to an "EPU" . . . 'possible emergency power unit'.
>
> Hydrazine and sulfuric acid combine in a manner that
> provides spontaneous combustion with a very energetic
> release of energy. In this case, I'm thinking that the
> airplane was fitted with what could be a compact
> and relatively light weight energy source that required
> very little maintenance and has a long storage life.
> (I've seen AQM-37 hydrazine powered targets successfully
> flown after 20 years in storage).
>
> It would be interesting to hear from folks with experience
> inside the operating world of this style of aircraft
> as to it's 'dead stick' options for power.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ELT antenna placement |
7/16/2011
Hello Paul, You wrote: "Is this really necessary?"
After 6 years plus of construction and many hours of preparation for the
first flight in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur built aircraft I was unable
to taxi out of the apron area because every time I keyed my number one VHF
com radio to request taxi clearance from ground control the ELT transmitter
was activated -- very frustrating.
The problem was caused by proximity and orientation of the antennas of the
two devices. I eventually relocated the ELT antenna -- problem solved.
OC
PS for Bruce: Knowledge of 14 CFR 91.207 (f) (4) permitted me to disable the
ELT and complete the first flight as plannned.
================================================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT antenna placement
From: Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com>
I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The
installation instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3
feet from my VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the
possibility of manually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an
emergency, while continuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm
thinking that the more likely scenarios will be to operate one or the other,
but not both. That is, the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true
emergency, in which case I would first squawk emergency and communicate the
situation by VHF voice (flying the airplane first, of course). Then,
activate the ELT (one button press) if a forced landing appears inevitable,
but I'm probably done talking on the radio at that point.
Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conductor
in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its
performance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same
time, is 3 ft of separation important?
At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective to
put them closer together. Any advice?
Thanks,
Paul Kuntz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
I agree, I've seen comm radios set of a nearby ELT on several
occasions. It's not uncommon at all.
I'd keep those antennas away from each other.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:06 AM, wrote:
>
> 7/16/2011
>
> Hello Paul, You wrote: "Is this really necessary?"
>
> After 6 years plus of construction and many hours of preparation for the
> first flight in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur built aircraft I was unable
> to taxi out of the apron area because every time I keyed my number one VHF
> com radio to request taxi clearance from ground control the ELT transmitter
> was activated -- very frustrating.
>
> The problem was caused by proximity and orientation of the antennas of the
> two devices. I eventually relocated the ELT antenna -- problem solved.
>
> OC
>
> PS for Bruce: Knowledge of 14 CFR 91.207 (f) (4) permitted me to disable the
> ELT and complete the first flight as plannned.
>
> ================================================================
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT antenna placement
> From: Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com>
>
> I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The
> installation instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3
> feet from my VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the
> possibility of manually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an
> emergency, while continuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm
> thinking that the more likely scenarios will be to operate one or the other,
> but not both. That is, the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true
> emergency, in which case I would first squawk emergency and communicate the
> situation by VHF voice (flying the airplane first, of course). Then,
> activate the ELT (one button press) if a forced landing appears inevitable,
> but I'm probably done talking on the radio at that point.
>
> Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conductor
> in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its
> performance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same
> time, is 3 ft of separation important?
>
> At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective to
> put them closer together. Any advice?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Kuntz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Carlos,
I'll take a shot at that. Back in the days of yore airplanes were slower
and if you lost your engine your control surfaces, on some airplanes, w
ere sluggish at best. This made the stick somewhat unresponsive. So some
one said "it's a dead stick" Just one of those things that stuck in our
lexicon. Another such example was told to us, my Aeronautics ground scho
ol, by our instructor. He had worked for the first air mail service. He,
and the rest of his team hosted a british aviator and as they were doin
g they're flying and lying the britisher mentioned the word altimeter. W
ell, up to that point we called the instrument an al-ta-meter. The briti
sh gentleman called it an al-tim-meter. The boys of the first air mail s
ervice thought that his way of saying it was more like the way it should
be said. And it stuck, world wide. Things just happen that way.
Larry
On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
> Nice landing, and a very good demonstration of excellent pilot skills!
>
> The only thing I don=92t really understand is why you (native English
speakers) call this situation a =93Dead Stick=94 landing, when this is e
verything but a dead stick. On the contrary, this is a very =93Alive sti
ck=94 situation=85.
> What is really dead is the power source!
>
> Carlos Trigo
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aer
oelectric-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> > Sent: sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011 18:40
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: It's nice when the center holds . . .
> >
> >
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> > ////
> > (o o)
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
>
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e219d9dda3df2f1c1st06vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
Another risk is that many ELT transmitters are poorly shielded from
strong adjacent RF. Flying near a TV or FM transmitter antenna can cause
the oscillator of the ELT transmitter to radiate harmonics, which then
are picked up by your com radio, breaking squelch and causing poor
reception. My plane used to suffer from this syndrome until I moved one
of the VHF antennas to the belly.
On 7/16/2011 5:10 AM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Saylor
>
> I agree, I've seen comm radios set of a nearby ELT on several
> occasions. It's not uncommon at all.
>
> I'd keep those antennas away from each other.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:06 AM, wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>> 7/16/2011
>>
>> Hello Paul, You wrote: "Is this really necessary?"
>>
>> After 6 years plus of construction and many hours of preparation for the
>> first flight in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur built aircraft I was unable
>> to taxi out of the apron area because every time I keyed my number one VHF
>> com radio to request taxi clearance from ground control the ELT transmitter
>> was activated -- very frustrating.
>>
>> The problem was caused by proximity and orientation of the antennas of the
>> two devices. I eventually relocated the ELT antenna -- problem solved.
>>
>> OC
>>
>> PS for Bruce: Knowledge of 14 CFR 91.207 (f) (4) permitted me to disable the
>> ELT and complete the first flight as plannned.
>>
>> ================================================================
>>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT antenna placement
>> From: Paul Kuntz<paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The
>> installation instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3
>> feet from my VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the
>> possibility of manually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an
>> emergency, while continuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm
>> thinking that the more likely scenarios will be to operate one or the other,
>> but not both. That is, the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true
>> emergency, in which case I would first squawk emergency and communicate the
>> situation by VHF voice (flying the airplane first, of course). Then,
>> activate the ELT (one button press) if a forced landing appears inevitable,
>> but I'm probably done talking on the radio at that point.
>>
>> Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conductor
>> in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its
>> performance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same
>> time, is 3 ft of separation important?
>>
>> At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective to
>> put them closer together. Any advice?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul Kuntz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's nice when the center holds . . . |
At 04:46 AM 7/16/2011, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I don't know F-16 systems, but have experience of other single seat
>military aircraft. I'm guessing the Hydrazine unit is a light weight
>method of mitigating the hazard of providing power once the (single)
>motor has stopped, without fitting a huge battery. Most combat
>aircraft are started with a ground power unit, so the battery
>doesn't have to be very big. I'm guessing the electrical demands of
>an F-16 are quite large (fly-by-wire), even with load shedding, so a
>huge battery would be required to get the airplane to the ground
>from max altitude - or a reasonably powerful (heavy) gas turbine
>APU. So a one shot hydrazine based system is a reasonable (light
>weight) solution, although it has a maintenance overhead. Bear in
>mind the F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter, so weight
>saving was probably quite high on the priority list.
That's about what I would have guessed.
Some years ago, there was some work described in
the development of tiny, combustion driven turbines
for hi-energy stand-by sources. One author even
hypothesized a lap-top computer running on butane.
Haven't heard/read anything along those lines since.
The GAR series IR guided missiles I used to work on
at Hughes-Tucson had a little bottle of nitrogen
held in liquid state at room temperatures . . . man,
that was a lot of pressure! A frangible diaphragm held
the liquid in check until launch. Then for the 90-second
or so service life of the missile, the liquid expanded
to run a small PM alternator that produced 150 watts
to power electronics. It was then routed to the back of
the IR optics to keep the lens cool at Lots-a-Mach. After
that, it pressurized an open loop hydraulic system that
operated flight controls at the trailing edges of the
guidance fins before being exhausted overboard. That
was in 1960.
Given the advances in really tiny gas turbines, it
seems certainly possible and perhaps practical to
craft a light weight power generation device with
considerable output and endurance while using up
much less volume and weight budget needed for batteries
of the same capability.
Some ideas take a very long time to evolve into
useful product . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
At 07:10 AM 7/16/2011, you wrote:
Saylor
I agree, I've seen comm radios set of a nearby ELT on several
occasions. It's not uncommon at all.
I'd keep those antennas away from each other.
It would appear to be the only option. It
may be very $difficult$ to fix what appears
to be a design bug internal to the ELT.
The earliest ELT's used a spring-loaded
mass to close an activation switch in response
to g-forces of a crash. No doubt modern ELTs
use the solid-state acceleration sensors
for this task . . . which produce VERY tiny
signals requiring a lot of circuit gain.
This type of circuitry offers a high risk
of vulnerability to RF interference. This
may be an area where qualification of the
device to standard DO-160 (good for part
23) stresses was insufficient to stand off
the extra-ordinary vulnerabilities of these
kinds of circuits. A lot of hardware we
did for the military and for Part-25 and up
applications was exposed to really nasty
RF radiation . . . 200 volts/meter or more
. . . during qualification. No doubt this
extra step in qualification would have exposed
vulnerabilities that are now plaguing customers.
> Paul wrote:
> I'm installing a 121.5/406 MHz ELT in my homebuilt project. The
> installation instructions tell me to put the ELT whip antenna at least 3
> feet from my VHF radio antenna. Is this really necessary? There is the
> possibility of manually activating the ELT in the air in the event of an
> emergency, while continuing to communicate with the VHF radio, but I'm
> thinking that the more likely scenarios will be to operate one or the other,
> but not both. That is, the ELT becomes a factor only in the case of a true
> emergency, in which case I would first squawk emergency and communicate the
> situation by VHF voice (flying the airplane first, of course). Then,
> activate the ELT (one button press) if a forced landing appears inevitable,
> but I'm probably done talking on the radio at that point.
>
> Is the concern simply the presence of another vertically oriented conductor
> in relatively close proximity to the antenna in use, thus influencing its
> performance? Even if both the ELT and the VHF radio are active at the same
> time, is 3 ft of separation important?
>
> At any rate, it would be more convenient from an installation perspective to
> put them closer together. Any advice?
Give it a try . . . but with a Plan-B for moving
one or both of the antennas to achieve demonstrably
necessary separation. I suspect that not all ELT
products are victim to the hypothesized vulnerability
I cited above. There are no grave performance issues
that would arise from antenna proximity issues so if
you "get away Scott free" with your desired configuration,
you're good to go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
At 09:27 AM 7/16/2011, you wrote:
>
>Another risk is that many ELT transmitters are poorly shielded from
>strong adjacent RF. Flying near a TV or FM transmitter antenna can
>cause the oscillator of the ELT transmitter to radiate harmonics,
>which then are picked up by your com radio, breaking squelch and
>causing poor reception. My plane used to suffer from this syndrome
>until I moved one of the VHF antennas to the belly.
Interesting! I hadn't thought of that scenario. Unlike
transceivers where the antenna is connected to a receiver
input circuit 99.9% of the time, the ELT antenna is
permanently connected to the output circuitry of a
transmitter's power output stage.
A strong analog TV station impressed on the ELT
antenna could be conducted into the non-linear,
transistor junctions where the TV signal could
produce inter-modulation products that spread over
a very wide spectrum. Now that we're all-digital
in the off-air TV world, I suspect probability
is reduced. I'm aware of no other "trash rich"
high power signals that would produce this
effect today.
This is a phenomenon that was never explored
by DO-160 although I've read some military
qualification test protocols that do look for
inter-modulation mixing and re-radiation of
foreign energies coming down the antenna feedline.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)mediacombb.net> |
| Subject: | It's nice when the center holds . . . |
Gentlemen -
The Cliff Notes from a retired F-16-driver buddy:
There are many batteries on the F-16 but they are relatively small. Each of
the axis of the flight control computer has a FLCS battery (3) and then
there are others as well as the A/C battery. But, the EPU, not APU, is an
emergency power unit powered by hydrazine that flows across an iridium
catalyst to product energy. The hydrazine is pressurized with nitrogen I
believe and flows from the tank across the catalyst. It then runs a small
turbine (at a very high rpm) which in turn powers an aux hydraulic pump with
also powers a small aux generator. It is good for a finite period of time
(of which I do not recall) and basically dumps water vapor overboard.
neal
===========
Bob,
I don't know F-16 systems, but have experience of other single seat military
aircraft. I'm guessing the Hydrazine unit is a light weight method of
mitigating the hazard of providing power once the (single) motor has
stopped, without fitting a huge battery. Most combat aircraft are started
with a ground power unit, so the battery doesn't have to be very big. I'm
guessing the electrical demands of an F-16 are quite large (fly-by-wire),
even with load shedding, so a huge battery would be required to get the
airplane to the ground from max altitude - or a reasonably powerful (heavy)
gas turbine APU. So a one shot hydrazine based system is a reasonable (light
weight) solution, although it has a maintenance overhead. Bear in mind the
F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter, so weight saving was probably
quite high on the priority list.
That's about what I would have guessed.
Some years ago, there was some work described in
the development of tiny, combustion driven turbines
for hi-energy stand-by sources. One author even
hypothesized a lap-top computer running on butane.
Haven't heard/read anything along those lines since.
The GAR series IR guided missiles I used to work on
at Hughes-Tucson had a little bottle of nitrogen
held in liquid state at room temperatures . . . man,
that was a lot of pressure! A frangible diaphragm held
the liquid in check until launch. Then for the 90-second
or so service life of the missile, the liquid expanded
to run a small PM alternator that produced 150 watts
to power electronics. It was then routed to the back of
the IR optics to keep the lens cool at Lots-a-Mach. After
that, it pressurized an open loop hydraulic system that
operated flight controls at the trailing edges of the
guidance fins before being exhausted overboard. That
was in 1960.
Given the advances in really tiny gas turbines, it
seems certainly possible and perhaps practical to
craft a light weight power generation device with
considerable output and endurance while using up
much less volume and weight budget needed for batteries
of the same capability.
Some ideas take a very long time to evolve into
useful product . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT antenna placement |
It was particularly obnoxious in Phoenix, where the VFR transition over
Sky Harbor has you aimed right at an antenna farm that has 80 percent of
all broadcast stations for the area, distance less than 7 nm. Probably a
few million watts being radiated between the FM and TV stations
transmitters there. As soon as I disconnected the ELT coax from the ELT,
I could fly right up within a mile of those towers with no problem, but
with it connected, as soon as I got within 10 nm constant squelch break
and weak reception both on KX155 and on KX170(McCoy conversion). Had it
happen elsewhere, but not where it caused problems when I had to be in
communication with approach inside Class B airspace. Fixed as soon as I
removed one of Comant 121 antennas from top of fuselage and replaced
with Comant 122 on belly. I've heard of many other ELT installs having
same problem. As you say, I don't think there were a lot of requirements
for RF interference back in 1973 when the TSO was originally written.
On 7/16/2011 8:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Interesting! I hadn't thought of that scenario. Unlike
July 01, 2011 - July 16, 2011
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kn