AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kv
January 21, 2012 - February 05, 2012
-----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: January 21, 2012 6:24 PM
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
>the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
>on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
>
> Roger
>
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
transmission line sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 03:54 PM 1/21/2012, you wrote:
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
Roger
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
transmission line sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common. (insert OOPS here
when I sent the response too soon).
I fumbled the ball when I changed the subject line
and my complete response didn't get tacked onto this
thread. Be sure to get the whole 9-yard response under
a similar subject line.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
Roger
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
transmission line sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common. (insert OOPS here
when I sent the response too soon).
I fumbled the ball when I changed the subject line
and my complete response didn't get tacked onto this
thread. Be sure to get the whole 9-yard response under
a similar subject line.
Bob . . .
Thanks Guys,
It appears that I have a unit suitable for the CB band.
Since they are reasonably priced I will purchase a new one in the correct
frequency band.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SWR Meter OOPS |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
WRT the SW DIGITAL SWR METER shown below.
It looks like a pretty cool little device that anyone could have in their OBAM
tool kit. And there are sure bunches of them for sale on e-bay.
It appears to have threaded (TNC?) connections. Would one make up short lengths
of BNC to TNC coax to connect it into the antenna line? Or are there BNC/TNC
adaptors that are more appropriate?
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> You need something
> tailored to VHF to do any serious work with your ship's
> antennas. Something like this
>
> which can be had for about $60 off eBay. It's optimized
> for VHF and will produce more useful readings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
You need something
tailored to VHF to do any serious work with your ship's
antennas. Something like this
which can be had for about $60 off eBay. It's optimized
for VHF and will produce more useful readings.
I noticed on Ebay that these come in
several different flavors, various power output, and some specific to a
particular radio.
For our OBAM purpose, are there any specs to
adhere to, other than VHF band?
Thanks,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SWR Meter OOPS |
At 08:06 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>WRT the SW DIGITAL SWR METER shown below.
>
>It looks like a pretty cool little device that anyone could have in
>their OBAM tool kit. And there are sure bunches of them for sale on e-bay.
>
>It appears to have threaded (TNC?) connections. Would one make up
>short lengths of BNC to TNC coax to connect it into the antenna
>line? Or are there BNC/TNC adaptors that are more appropriate?
Those are type N connectors. You'll want some
N-male/BNC-female adapters to make the transition
to connectors popular with the aircraft world.
Emacs!
I have a Bird 43 and don't need one of these for
my own purposes but I would like to put my hands
on one to compare with the Bird. As a teacher
it is always good to be able to say, "been there,
done that."
So Roger my friend, here's a plan. I'll order
one of these along with the requisite adapters.
I'll fabricate a BNC-BNC jumper cable that facilitates
the insertion of the instrument into your transmitter's
coax feeder. I'll compare the device with my
Bird 43 and report the findings to the List.
Then I'll offer you the test article and
accessories for what I have in them + postage.
Sounds like a deal to me . . . what say you sir?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | 28 to 12v down-converter |
A short time ago we were discussing options for
adding some 12-14 accessories to a 28v airplane.
I think the author of the thread was also interested
in having some 'cigar lighter' jacks for the odd
appliance.
Here's a device I ran across on eBay . . .
http://tinyurl.com/7phxaoy
Of course there are bumps and potholes in the translation
of specifications into English but for the most part, this
device seems a likely candidate. It features both
output voltage and current limit adjustments. This makes
it suitable for the task and even somewhat idiot proof
in that it's self protecting in case of a short circuit
or overload.
Of course, compatibility with respect to radio noise is
unknown but I've never met a noise problem I couldn't
whip.
Food for thought.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
So Roger my friend, here's a plan. I'll order
one of these along with the requisite adapters.
I'll fabricate a BNC-BNC jumper cable that facilitates
the insertion of the instrument into your transmitter's
coax feeder. I'll compare the device with my
Bird 43 and report the findings to the List.
Then I'll offer you the test article and
accessories for what I have in them + postage.
Sounds like a deal to me . . . what say you sir?
Bob . . .
Sounds like a deal to me, go for it.
When everything is complete you can package
it up with the gooseneck light and ship it all together. I'm not in a
rush,
so if you can do it in the next 3 or 4 months, that would be great.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SWR Meter OOPS |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
You got a deal!
Let me know how much when you are ready to ship and I'll have a check in the mail
that day.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 22, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:06 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> WRT the SW DIGITAL SWR METER shown below.
>>
>> It looks like a pretty cool little device that anyone could have in their OBAM
tool kit. And there are sure bunches of them for sale on e-bay.
>>
>> It appears to have threaded (TNC?) connections. Would one make up short lengths
of BNC to TNC coax to connect it into the antenna line? Or are there BNC/TNC
adaptors that are more appropriate?
>
> Those are type N connectors. You'll want some
> N-male/BNC-female adapters to make the transition
> to connectors popular with the aircraft world.
>
> <15f453f4.jpg>
>
>
> I have a Bird 43 and don't need one of these for
> my own purposes but I would like to put my hands
> on one to compare with the Bird. As a teacher
> it is always good to be able to say, "been there,
> done that."
>
> So Roger my friend, here's a plan. I'll order
> one of these along with the requisite adapters.
> I'll fabricate a BNC-BNC jumper cable that facilitates
> the insertion of the instrument into your transmitter's
> coax feeder. I'll compare the device with my
> Bird 43 and report the findings to the List.
>
> Then I'll offer you the test article and
> accessories for what I have in them + postage.
> Sounds like a deal to me . . . what say you sir?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Sounds like a deal to me, go for it.
It shall be done.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Do you get the same static when you return from a flight? Does the hiss go
away as the engine cools down?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: January 20, 2012 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
continues.
Lancair has an all carbon Legacy available but this one is all fiberglass
with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer, which is carbon. The
antenna is inside the fuselage about 4+feet forward of the stabilizer.
The bottom and rear half of the plane is in primer. The rest of the plane
is bare fiberglass. The primer ends just about at the location of the
antenna on the fuselage. I don't know if this would have an effect on the
static on the plane or not. I would have had to consider static wicks a
long time earlier in the build in order to install bonding wire. It is too
late now AFAIK.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 10:18 PM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious
>of likely P-static. Does the aircraft have any static wicks?
He didn't mention flying in precip and static
wicks don't have anything to 'connect' to on
a glass airplane. If it's a carbon fiber then
wicks might be useful but my impression was that
his poor signal reports were at low altitudes
and probably slowed down for approach to landing
and in clear weather. P-static wouldn't hurt
a transmitted signal, only a received signal and
he didn't mention not being able to hear . . .
only be heard.
This is why the differentiation between weak-signal
static versus poor connection static is important.
The presence of carbon would support the notion of
it being the weak-signal variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | really cheap relay deck; was 28 to 12v down-converter |
The same ebay company had this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250975404341#ht_4310wt_1398
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250975404341#ht_4310wt_1398>
Looks like it would be an economical alternative to the high dollar
relay decks used with stick grip switches, etc. The relay coils are 5V,
but a handful of dropping resistors or a 5V supply feeding the control
switches would solve that.
Charlie
On 01/22/2012 09:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> A short time ago we were discussing options for
> adding some 12-14 accessories to a 28v airplane.
> I think the author of the thread was also interested
> in having some 'cigar lighter' jacks for the odd
> appliance.
>
> Here's a device I ran across on eBay . . .
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/7phxaoy*
>
> Of course there are bumps and potholes in the translation
> of specifications into English but for the most part, this
> device seems a likely candidate. It features both
> output voltage and current limit adjustments. This makes
> it suitable for the task and even somewhat idiot proof
> in that it's self protecting in case of a short circuit
> or overload.
>
> Of course, compatibility with respect to radio noise is
> unknown but I've never met a noise problem I couldn't
> whip.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Bob,
I have borrowed an ICOM A6 handheld that I could use to do the sniffing you
are describing, but I cant use it to transmit in the plane. It seems that
the A6 comes with a headset adapter, but if you don't also buy the optional
PTT adapter as well, both mics will be open at the same time.
Do you suggest a good value handheld radio? I need to buy one, but I am
concerned with the type of "gotchas" that ICOM seems to have. It also will
not transmit they tell me if the external power is plugged in.
During this probing you describe, I should have everything in the panel
turned on for the first pass, then if I get a response, start turning
everything off one at a time till I find what causes the response??
This includes the radio??
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my
radio
>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far)
and
>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 28 to 12v down-converter |
Seems like isolating the input ground and output ground could be
difficult in some situations... manageable to isolate the lighter
socket, but if, for instance, you're running an audio device that you
want to connect to music-in on the intercom, oh oh!
Paul
On 1/22/2012 7:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> A short time ago we were discussing options for
> adding some 12-14 accessories to a 28v airplane.
> I think the author of the thread was also interested
> in having some 'cigar lighter' jacks for the odd
> appliance.
>
> Here's a device I ran across on eBay . . .
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/7phxaoy*
>
> Of course there are bumps and potholes in the translation
> of specifications into English but for the most part, this
> device seems a likely candidate. It features both
> output voltage and current limit adjustments. This makes
> it suitable for the task and even somewhat idiot proof
> in that it's self protecting in case of a short circuit
> or overload.
>
> Of course, compatibility with respect to radio noise is
> unknown but I've never met a noise problem I couldn't
> whip.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please note my new email address!
millner(at)me.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
The adapter you describe is simply a NO (normally open) momentary switch
connected to a 1/8 in mono jack. Both mikes only open if you push the PTT
switch on the radio.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: January 22, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Bob,
I have borrowed an ICOM A6 handheld that I could use to do the sniffing you
are describing, but I cant use it to transmit in the plane. It seems that
the A6 comes with a headset adapter, but if you don't also buy the optional
PTT adapter as well, both mics will be open at the same time.
Do you suggest a good value handheld radio? I need to buy one, but I am
concerned with the type of "gotchas" that ICOM seems to have. It also will
not transmit they tell me if the external power is plugged in.
During this probing you describe, I should have everything in the panel
turned on for the first pass, then if I get a response, start turning
everything off one at a time till I find what causes the response??
This includes the radio??
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my
radio
>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far)
and
>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
I wonder why the handheld mike is not turned off when the headset adapter is
plugged in? That would solve the problem and you wouldn't need to buy an
"optional" part so that it will work.
I haven't noticed much of a problem with receiving when I am on the ground.
It also seems better when I get close to the airport and contact the tower.
At first, I thought the problem was with approach/departure freq because
that was where I had the most trouble.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
The adapter you describe is simply a NO (normally open) momentary switch
connected to a 1/8 in mono jack. Both mikes only open if you push the PTT
switch on the radio.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: January 22, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Bob,
I have borrowed an ICOM A6 handheld that I could use to do the sniffing you
are describing, but I cant use it to transmit in the plane. It seems that
the A6 comes with a headset adapter, but if you don't also buy the optional
PTT adapter as well, both mics will be open at the same time.
Do you suggest a good value handheld radio? I need to buy one, but I am
concerned with the type of "gotchas" that ICOM seems to have. It also will
not transmit they tell me if the external power is plugged in.
During this probing you describe, I should have everything in the panel
turned on for the first pass, then if I get a response, start turning
everything off one at a time till I find what causes the response??
This includes the radio??
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my
radio
>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far)
and
>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grand rapids cs02 / cs01 amp sensor |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
bob
what size wire did you use??
and was it a CS01 or a 02?
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364553#364553
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
The momentary switch is actually a remote PTT for the headset and doesn't
activate the built in mic.
What I was thinking is that you may have being having a problem with heat on
the spark plugs, voltage reg or rectifier. I had it happen once with a
R-582 when the seal for the water jacked perforated and allowed the plugs to
foul at anything less than WOT. What was happening was water from the
cooling system was getting into the cylinders and fouling the resistor
plugs. At one point I was flying literally feet from the tower's antenna and
still had major TX/RX problems.
Now assuming that your problem is not heat originated what I would try is
unloading your buss in flight to see if any particular circuit could be
interfering with your radio. The last test I would try is to use the
portable radio and shut down the master switch and the gen switch.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: January 22, 2012 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
I wonder why the handheld mike is not turned off when the headset adapter is
plugged in? That would solve the problem and you wouldn't need to buy an
"optional" part so that it will work.
I haven't noticed much of a problem with receiving when I am on the ground.
It also seems better when I get close to the airport and contact the tower.
At first, I thought the problem was with approach/departure freq because
that was where I had the most trouble.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
The adapter you describe is simply a NO (normally open) momentary switch
connected to a 1/8 in mono jack. Both mikes only open if you push the PTT
switch on the radio.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: January 22, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Bob,
I have borrowed an ICOM A6 handheld that I could use to do the sniffing you
are describing, but I cant use it to transmit in the plane. It seems that
the A6 comes with a headset adapter, but if you don't also buy the optional
PTT adapter as well, both mics will be open at the same time.
Do you suggest a good value handheld radio? I need to buy one, but I am
concerned with the type of "gotchas" that ICOM seems to have. It also will
not transmit they tell me if the external power is plugged in.
During this probing you describe, I should have everything in the panel
turned on for the first pass, then if I get a response, start turning
everything off one at a time till I find what causes the response??
This includes the radio??
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my
radio
>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far)
and
>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12, Z-13/8 or a bit of both! |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
The basics are as follows:
I need to use the section of Z-12 that encompasses the Primary alternator section
(Alternator and the B&C LR-3 controller), then use the section for Z-13/8 that
encompasses the secondary alternator (B&C SD-8).
I have a single copper tube being used as an earth conduit, this tube has copper
tabs wrapped around, clamped and soldered at each end ready for appropriate
earth cabling. Inside the copper tube I have a high quality welding cable (equivalent
to AWN #2).
Further questions:
Can anyone see a downside of mixing the Z-12 and Z-13/8 like above.
What is the minimum size cable can I use from the front earth rail tab to the instrument
earth bus (approx 18-20 inches in length)
MikeD (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364587#364587
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Two Speed Controller and Relay Deck for Ray-Allen actuators |
At 01:08 PM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>The same ebay company had this:
><http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250975404341#ht_4310wt_1398>http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250975404341#ht_4310wt_1398
>
>Looks like it would be an economical alternative to the high dollar
>relay decks used with stick grip switches, etc. The relay coils are
>5V, but a handful of dropping resistors or a 5V supply feeding the
>control switches would solve that.
If your talking about Ray-Allen actuators, this would be
horrible overkill. These actuators need about 100 mA for
operation. The relays needed are simple one-pole, double-
throw devices available in 12 or 24 volts for under $4.
The bill of materials to build an adjustable, two-speed
controller is under $10. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Two_Speed_Trim_2.pdf
Except for the selection of relay (12/24) the bill of
materials is the same for installing a 2-speed Ray-Allen
trim actuator in either a 14 or 28v airplane.
With a tad more head scratching, the relays can be replaced
with transistors and a circuit could be evolved that would
work in either 14/28 volt airplanes.
One COULD use a big honk'n down converter and use it to
run all trim systems and power cockpit accessories.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 28 to 12v down-converter |
At 02:19 PM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>Seems like isolating the input ground and output ground could be
>difficult in some situations... manageable to isolate the lighter
>socket, but if, for instance, you're running an audio device that
>you want to connect to music-in on the intercom, oh oh!
>
>Paul
Not sure of the issue. The input and output for this
device share common ground . . . which in this case
would be the instrument panel avionics ground. Not sure
why one would find it necessary to 'isolate' the lighter
socket.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12, Z-13/8 or a bit of both! |
At 01:20 PM 1/23/2012, you wrote:
>
>The basics are as follows:
>I need to use the section of Z-12 that encompasses the Primary
>alternator section (Alternator and the B&C LR-3 controller), then
>use the section for Z-13/8 that encompasses the secondary alternator
>(B&C SD-8).
These are ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS not wiring diagrams for
any particular airplane. You seem to want the features of
Z-13/8 which can accept ANY main alternator/regulator combination
of ANY pedigree.
>
>I have a single copper tube being used as an earth conduit, this
>tube has copper tabs wrapped around, clamped and soldered at each
>end ready for appropriate earth cabling. Inside the copper tube I
>have a high quality welding cable (equivalent to AWN #2).
Do I presume that you're building a canard pusher?
>Can anyone see a downside of mixing the Z-12 and Z-13/8 like above.
No 'mixing' required. Your suite of preferred hardware is
easily integrated into a Z-13/8 architecture.
>What is the minimum size cable can I use from the front earth rail
>tab to the instrument earth bus (approx 18-20 inches in length)
Where is the battery? Do cranking currents flow in the
copper tube?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding - 28 to 12v down-converter |
>> Not sure of the issue. The input and output for this device share
common ground .
Oh? Where is that specified? I was going by this note in the spec:
*Note:*
-Input/output negative cannot be mixed with or together
Maybe my "Chinglish" is not up to the task of translating that?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12, Z-13/8 or a bit of both! |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
Now I understand, I will be using the Z-13/8 architecture.
Let me try and be more informative about how I envisage the earth conduit setup.
I'm building a Long-EZ with a Odyssey PC925 battery in the nose section.
The positive cables will run from the battery to the master switch in the nose
section (6 to 7 inches), from the master switch through the earth conduit to the
starter solenoid way back on the firewall (about 10 ft), then from solenoid
to starter.
The earth cable will run from the battery to the copper tab on the front of the
earth conduit, just behind the nose section (30 inches). The earth is then picked
up from the rear copper tab of the earth conduit, on the engine side of
the firewall, by a copper braided strap between conduit and engine. So I presume
(dangerous thing to do!) the cranking current runs through the copper conduit.
My question was:
What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the FRONT of the
earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the instrument earth bus
(approx 18-20 inches in length)
MikeD (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364653#364653
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding - 28 to 12v down-converter |
Note:
-Input/output negative cannot be mixed with or together
Maybe my "Chinglish" is not up to the task of translating
that?
Paul
I'm not schooled in "Chinglish" either but
perhaps this means that you cannot stack this power supply on top of
another
to get a higher voltage out. In other words the ground is not floating.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding - 28 to 12v down-converter |
At 08:07 AM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
> Note:
> -Input/output negative cannot be mixed with or together
> Maybe my "Chinglish" is not up to the task of translating
>that?
> Paul
> I'm not schooled in "Chinglish" either but
>perhaps this means that you cannot stack this power supply on top of another
>to get a higher voltage out. In other words the ground is not floating.
> Roger
Understand . . . I wonder if I could hire out to this
eBay seller as an editor for their marketing literature.
I read the line you cited and couldn't make any sense
of it. On the other hand, there's another line.
"-Module properties:non-isolated,auto switch
in Booster and step-down voltage,Constant
pressure and current."
It's that "non-isolated" thing that sticks. A strong
anecdotal point is the arrangement of terminals . . .
Emacs!
The IN- and VO- are immediately adjacent which
offers a probability that they are common to each
other on the ECB.
My bet is that this is an example of the common
buck down converter but with some additional
electronics that offers BOTH regulation set
points for both current and voltage.
I'm thinking about ordering one just to
check it out. It appears to offer a lot of
performance for the money.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Fuses instead of breakers |
I really like the idea of using fuses rather than breakers. The ATC
style fuses look like a excellent product.
However, I cannot find any "slo-blow" versions. Do they exist ? How
do I decide on the size of the fuse when manufacturers of products
recommend a breaker or slow-blo fuse ?
For example, the Lightspeed ignition instructions suggest a 5A breaker
with an 18AWG wire. So a 7.5A or 10A fuse could easily be used with
that wire.
An ATC fuse typically blows at 125% of rating within a second, much
faster than a breaker. How do I know what the peak current is on
various devices to know that there will not be a nuisance trip (a
really bad thing for electronic ignitions) with a fast blow fuse ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 01:16 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
I really like the idea of using fuses rather than breakers. The ATC
style fuses look like a excellent product.
They are . . .
However, I cannot find any "slo-blow" versions. Do they exist ? How
do I decide on the size of the fuse when manufacturers of products
recommend a breaker or slow-blo fuse ?
Excellent question. It's not always clear to me why
any given installation instruction calls for a "slow-blow"
fuse. WAAaayyy back when, one could purchase fuses for a
given current rating that offered different time constants.
In automobiles I've found that many fuses are way 'oversized'
to the task while still appropriate to protection of the
wire. I don't think there are any fuses in my mini-van under
10A and most are over 10A.
For example, the Lightspeed ignition instructions suggest a 5A breaker
with an 18AWG wire. So a 7.5A or 10A fuse could easily be used with
that wire.
The Lightspeed ignition draws about 2.8A max (full increase
RPM and highest operating temperature) so a 5A fuse is
quite adequate to the load. Heavier wire is sometimes called
out just for mechanical robustness even when the current levels
are low. I think I heard one ol' greybeard at Beech speak
to a policy of "no wires under 20AWG in the engine compartment."
Magneto's were wired with 18AWG shielded even tho much smaller
wire would have provided proper electrical function.
An ATC fuse typically blows at 125% of rating within a second, much
faster than a breaker. How do I know what the peak current is on
various devices to know that there will not be a nuisance trip (a
really bad thing for electronic ignitions) with a fast blow fuse ?
There was a rule of thumb years ago for always-hot battery
feeders not to be protected at levels above 5A. But that
rule of thumb got codified later:
---------------------------
Sec. 23.1361 Master switch arrangement.
(a) There must be a master switch arrangement to allow ready disconnection
of each electric power source from power distribution systems, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The point of disconnection must be
adjacent to the sources controlled by the switch arrangement. If separate
switches are incorporated into the master switch arrangement, a means must be
provided for the switch arrangement to be operated by one hand with a single
movement.
(b) Load circuits may be connected so that they remain energized when the
master switch is open, if the circuits are isolated, or physically shielded,
to prevent their igniting flammable fluids or vapors that might be liberated
by the leakage or rupture of any flammable fluid system; and
(1) The circuits are required for continued operation of the
engine; or
(2) The circuits are protected by circuit protective devices
with a rating
of five amperes or less adjacent to the electric power source.
(3) In addition, two or more circuits installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section must not be
used to supply a
load of more than five amperes.
(c) The master switch or its controls must be so installed that the switch
is easily discernible and accessible to a crewmember.
--------------
Now interestingly enough . . . one can do an experiment where
a 5A breaker and a 10A ATC fuse are connected in series. Dead fault
the circuit on a 12v battery and the fuse always blows before the
breaker trips. From this I would deduce that a 5A breaker of the battery
bus which is compliant with the FAR cited above can be replaced by a
10A fuse in the same location and still be satisfy the design goal.
The 10A fuse is faster than a 5A breaker and dumps less energy into
the fault than a the breaker.
High inrush devices are generally limited to motors and incandescent
lamps. For those circuits, fatter fuses and commensurate increases in
wire size are not without reasonable justification.
Input to the Lightspeed ignition has, at most, a filter capacitor
preceding the switchmode power supply. A 5A fuse is fine. But given
the fatter-wire recommendations for installation, then a 7.5 or
10A FUSE PROTECTED feeder can be brought from the battery bus
without insulting design goals for crash safety cited in 23.1361(b)(2)
above.
For all other systems (not critical to keeping the engine running!)
the experiment is low risk. If you get nuisance trips, upsize the
fuse. You need not necessarily upsize the wire too. Keep in mind that
20A through a 22AWG wire will not burn the wire. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
While your concerns are noteworthy, they can be addressed with
a very broad brush applying common sense. If I were building
an airplane today, I'd protect the electronic ignition battery
feeders at 10A and wire with 20AWG wire that still fits in
the smaller pins for fire wall penetration and/or interface to
the electronics. This offers a mechanically and electrically
robust feeder to the ignition that does not argue with crash
safety design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Fuses instead of breakers |
I used a lot of fuses (4 fuse blocks) and about a dozen breakers (for things
that I need/want control of in flight or during maintenance. I like to have
each on it's own circuit. I don't know of any Slo-blo fuses, but there may
be. It may be that you would simply use a higher value fuse. Something
that protects the wire against hard faults.
I was going to use Lightspeed but changed my mind to P-mags partially for
this reason, they are self powered once flying, therefore do not depend on
ship's power for normal operation.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuses instead of breakers
I really like the idea of using fuses rather than breakers. The ATC style
fuses look like a excellent product.
However, I cannot find any "slo-blow" versions. Do they exist ? How do I
decide on the size of the fuse when manufacturers of products recommend a
breaker or slow-blo fuse ?
For example, the Lightspeed ignition instructions suggest a 5A breaker with
an 18AWG wire. So a 7.5A or 10A fuse could easily be used with that wire.
An ATC fuse typically blows at 125% of rating within a second, much faster
than a breaker. How do I know what the peak current is on various devices
to know that there will not be a nuisance trip (a really bad thing for
electronic ignitions) with a fast blow fuse ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna Installation Question |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Hi,
Comant instructions for a comm antenna installation says to mount the antenna base
directly to the skin for proper electrical bonding. Makes sense to me. Then
they include a cork gasket with the antenna. Any suggestions?
I was planning to alodine the skin under the antenna base. Should I put dielectric
grease or anything else between the base and the skin?
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364738#364738
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Installation Question |
On 01/24/2012 06:26 PM, tomcostanza wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "tomcostanza"
>
> Hi,
>
> Comant instructions for a comm antenna installation says to mount the antenna
base directly to the skin for proper electrical bonding. Makes sense to me.
Then they include a cork gasket with the antenna. Any suggestions?
>
> I was planning to alodine the skin under the antenna base. Should I put dielectric
grease or anything else between the base and the skin?
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
There should be contact between the base & the heads of the mounting
screws, and contact inside the fuselage from the screws through the nuts
and lock washers to the inside of the skin. the teeth of the lock
washers should bite through any paint/primer into the surface of the skin.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Antenna Installation Question |
The cork gasket goes directly under the antenna, between the antenna and the
skin to prevent water from penetrating the skin under the base. The antenna
grounds through the washer and mounting nut inside the skin. This is
important as this is a ground plane for the antenna. Clean off the alodine,
or zinc chromate from inside the skin around where the mounting nut and
washer grip the inside of the skin.
>From here I'm assuming that you have a cloth plane...
Cloth planes usually have a frame structure under the cloth physically
strong enough to hold a com. ant. but you may need to install you own foil
ground plane. If this is your case then make sure your ground plane is well
grounded through the outside of the antenna connector or preferably the
mounting nut.
Small planes generally have their com antenna on top of the plane... away
from landing gear and other parasitic elements like landing gear. Being on
top is adequate to talk with towers and a good location to communicate with
other aircraft. If you expect to fly above FL2.0 you may need a com Ant on
the bottom of your plane to contact ATC.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tomcostanza
Sent: January 24, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Installation Question
Hi,
Comant instructions for a comm antenna installation says to mount the
antenna base directly to the skin for proper electrical bonding. Makes
sense to me. Then they include a cork gasket with the antenna. Any
suggestions?
I was planning to alodine the skin under the antenna base. Should I put
dielectric grease or anything else between the base and the skin?
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364738#364738
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Installation Question |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
> the teeth of the lock washers should bite through any paint/primer into the surface
of the skin.
Thanks Charlie. I know this makes a good D.C. ground, but I'm not sure how well
it grounds at 100+ MHz. Maybe Bob could speak to that.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364763#364763
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding - 28 to 12v down-converter |
On 1/24/2012 6:07 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> Note:
> -Input/output negative cannot be mixed with or together
> Maybe my "Chinglish" is not up to the task of translating
> that?
> Paul
> I'm not schooled in "Chinglish" either but
> perhaps this means that you cannot stack this power supply on top of another
> to get a higher voltage out. In other words the ground is not floating.
> Roger
>
Hmmm... takes a lot of creativity to get there, since they're talking
about input/output, not output/output... and they're talking about
negative, not positive/negative. We'll see what Bob's field trial
determines!
Paul
--
Please note my new email address!
millner(at)me.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Installation Question |
At 08:36 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>
> > the teeth of the lock washers should bite through any
> paint/primer into the surface of the skin.
>
>
>Thanks Charlie. I know this makes a good D.C. ground, but I'm not
>sure how well it grounds at 100+ MHz. Maybe Bob could speak to that.
It's nigh on to impossible to get the 'ideal' bond
between antenna base and skin without welding it. Further,
adding a cork gasket under the base puts a 'resilient'
material in the stack-up of parts under 'crush'. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Comm_Antenna_Installation.gif
Since all electrical connections MUST come though the mounting
hardware, getting the highest practical make up forces
goes directly to gas-tightness of the connections at
interfaces marked with (*). All this happens within a few
tenths of an inch of the center of each screw. Taking all
the paint off skin under the antenna adds nothing.
I'd pitch the cork. Drill out the base holes to take at least
a #10 screw (if not already that large). Clean the mate up
surfaces marked (*) to bright. Run a thin bead of RTV around the
perimeter of the base before pressing it into place on the aircraft.
Tighten the screws to spec limits. Using grade 8 hardware
will let you get some real, lasting pressure in the joints.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
| From: | Bill Watson <mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
You could use a breaker for this particular circuit. I haven't thought about electronic
ignitions specifically but I too like fuses over breakers. But convinced
myself to use 4 breakers anyway, 2 for the 2 voltage regulators, 1 for the
AP, and one for the flaps. Not sure I would have used all 4 now that I've
flown it a bit but it made sense to me at the time. So I still have 2 dozen fuses...
Just a thought.
Bil
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jeff Page wrote:
>
> I really like the idea of using fuses rather than breakers. The ATC style fuses
look like a excellent product.
>
> However, I cannot find any "slo-blow" versions. Do they exist ? How do I decide
on the size of the fuse when manufacturers of products recommend a breaker
or slow-blo fuse ?
>
> For example, the Lightspeed ignition instructions suggest a 5A breaker with an
18AWG wire. So a 7.5A or 10A fuse could easily be used with that wire.
>
> An ATC fuse typically blows at 125% of rating within a second, much faster than
a breaker. How do I know what the peak current is on various devices to know
that there will not be a nuisance trip (a really bad thing for electronic ignitions)
with a fast blow fuse ?
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
What kind of engine, if 2-stroke and using a voltage regular what
brand is it, also what brand/model hand held radio are you using? I
have almost the same identical problem.
When I first flying my new home built airplane it was fine, crystal
clear both transmission and receiving. However, something changed,
now I can hardly understand transmissions. I haven't yet been able
to put my finger on what's changed and causing it.
jerryb
At 09:51 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
>>ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
>>reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
>>approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
>>loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
>>have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
>>back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
>>below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
>>am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
>>have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
>>continues.
>
> This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
> problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
> listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
> audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
> I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
> manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
> ground.
>
> Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
> the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
> open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
> no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
> the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
> hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
> in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
> change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
> see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
> in noise from the hand-held.
>
> You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
> sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
> to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
> antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
> receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
> listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
> Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
>
> In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
> return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
> of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
> for any flights:
>
>www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
>
> It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
> I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
> top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
> the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
>
> But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
> and received signals personally takes ATC and others
> out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
> they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
> offer their own observations/insights.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
G'day all,
Has anyone found a convenient after-market supplier for the D-Sub pins with
an oversize butt that Garmin include in some installation kits? The Garmin
part number is 336-00023-00 and they're physically longer with a larger
crimp cup to fit 18 AWG wire ...
I want to parallel looms into a single connector ... and it seems that
paired 22 (and perhaps 20) AWG wires will fit in these pins. Sadly I only
have three of them :)
Kind regards, Stu
F1 Rocket VH-FLY http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY
www.teamrocketaircraft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antenna Installation Question
-->
At 08:36 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>
> > the teeth of the lock washers should bite through any
> paint/primer into the surface of the skin.
>
>
>Thanks Charlie. I know this makes a good D.C. ground, but I'm not sure
>how well it grounds at 100+ MHz. Maybe Bob could speak to that.
It's nigh on to impossible to get the 'ideal' bond between antenna base and
skin without welding it. Further, adding a cork gasket under the base puts a
'resilient'
material in the stack-up of parts under 'crush'. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Comm_Antenna_Installation.gif
Since all electrical connections MUST come though the mounting hardware,
getting the highest practical make up forces goes directly to gas-tightness
of the connections at interfaces marked with (*). All this happens within a
few tenths of an inch of the center of each screw. Taking all the paint off
skin under the antenna adds nothing.
I'd pitch the cork. Drill out the base holes to take at least a #10 screw
(if not already that large). Clean the mate up surfaces marked (*) to
bright. Run a thin bead of RTV around the perimeter of the base before
pressing it into place on the aircraft.
Tighten the screws to spec limits. Using grade 8 hardware will let you get
some real, lasting pressure in the joints.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Installation Question |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
I fly airplanes in the high flight levels and even there we use the top antenna
primarily. I've thought about it before, and I think a "to scale" diagram would
explain why. Even though 5-6 miles seems high by altitude standards, it's
not very far laterally. If the rco or tower is 20 or even 100 miles away, the
acute angle in the triangle is small. To visualize more easily, think of the distance
in feet instead of miles. The angles are the same regardless of the units
of course. If you stood 5 feet below your antenna's base and 100 feet away,
would the antenna be visible? Likewise at 20 and even 5 feet, it is probably
visible from most angles. If it is blocked by the wing or some other piece of
airplane, then it will likely not be for long in flight.
On Jan 24, 2012, at 21:29, "Noel Loveys" wrote:
>
> The cork gasket goes directly under the antenna, between the antenna and the
> skin to prevent water from penetrating the skin under the base. The antenna
> grounds through the washer and mounting nut inside the skin. This is
> important as this is a ground plane for the antenna. Clean off the alodine,
> or zinc chromate from inside the skin around where the mounting nut and
> washer grip the inside of the skin.
>
>> From here I'm assuming that you have a cloth plane...
> Cloth planes usually have a frame structure under the cloth physically
> strong enough to hold a com. ant. but you may need to install you own foil
> ground plane. If this is your case then make sure your ground plane is well
> grounded through the outside of the antenna connector or preferably the
> mounting nut.
>
> Small planes generally have their com antenna on top of the plane... away
> from landing gear and other parasitic elements like landing gear. Being on
> top is adequate to talk with towers and a good location to communicate with
> other aircraft. If you expect to fly above FL2.0 you may need a com Ant on
> the bottom of your plane to contact ATC.
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tomcostanza
> Sent: January 24, 2012 8:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Installation Question
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Comant instructions for a comm antenna installation says to mount the
> antenna base directly to the skin for proper electrical bonding. Makes
> sense to me. Then they include a cork gasket with the antenna. Any
> suggestions?
>
> I was planning to alodine the skin under the antenna base. Should I put
> dielectric grease or anything else between the base and the skin?
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364738#364738
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
Starting a new topic to avoid confusion with previous attempts at a simple explanation.
I'm building a Long-EZ with a Odyssey PC925 battery in the nose section, there
is one 0.5 inch copper tube conduit that runs from the nose section to the firewall
at the rear.
The positive cables (# 2 welding cable) will run from the battery to the master
switch in the nose section (6 to 7 inches), from the master switch through the
earth conduit to the starter solenoid way back on the firewall (about 10 ft),
then from solenoid to starter.
The earth cable (# 2 welding cable) will run from the battery to the copper tab
on the front of the earth conduit, just behind the nose section (20 inches).
The earth is then picked up from the rear copper tab of the earth conduit, on
the engine side of the firewall, by means of a copper braided strap between conduit
and engine. So I presume (dangerous thing to do!) the cranking current runs
through the copper conduit.
My question is:
What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the FRONT of the
earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the instrument earth bus
(approx 18-20 inches in length). I'm trying to avoid using the very heavy welding
cable.
Copper Tube Conduit
-----------------------------
Bat Pos ++++++++ # 2 welding cable ++++++++++
-----------------------------
Bat Neg ---------|Tab| |Tab|----- Neg (firewall side)
|
|#?
|
Instrument
Earth Bus
MikeD (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364793#364793
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> My question is:
> What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the FRONT of
the earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the instrument earth bus
(approx 18-20 inches in length).
Use the same size wire for the negative as is used for the positive supply to the
instrument panel.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364795#364795
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> When I first flying my new home built airplane it was fine, crystal clear both
transmission and receiving. However, something changed, now I can hardly understand
transmissions. I haven't yet been able to put my finger on what's changed
and causing it. jerryb
The vast majority of electrical problems are caused by bad connections. I suggest
that each connection be disassembled, mating surfaces cleaned, and fasteners
tightened.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364796#364796
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
| From: | "George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Mike -
It depends. Have you worked a load analysis for the equipment that
would be serviced by the panel ground?
Referring to the wire chart in The AeroElectric Connection, Chapter 8, a
length of #8 copper wire is expected to carry about 22 amps continuous
with less than 10-deg C rise in the wire temp.
neal
-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of MikeDunlop
My question is:
What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the
FRONT of the earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the
instrument earth bus (approx 18-20 inches in length). I'm trying to
avoid using the very heavy welding cable.
MikeD (U.K.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
My question is:
What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the
FRONT of
the earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the instrument
earth
bus (approx 18-20 inches in length). I'm trying to avoid using the very
heavy welding cable.
Mike,
It appears that the current running through this wire is
only that used in the instrument panel. You really need to add up all
the
loads from the avionics, lights, and other electrical devices that
connect
through this ground, then calculate the conductor size. Your + feed
wire
should be of the same gauge.
Once you know the total load you can see Bob's Wire size
calculator here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf
Hope this helps.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Jerryb,
The engine is a Mazda Renesis rotary. It is a 4 stroke engine but has no
valves, so it is somewhat like a two stroke. The voltage regulator is a
Transpo V1200. I am trying to use a ICOM IC-A6 handheld radio with little
or no success.
My problems are evolving as well. I was previously getting "5 by 5"
responses from the tower on radio checks. Now it is "weak but usable". The
first flights were uneventful as far as radio communications go. I could
hear them and they could hear me. Not so much now. As far as what has
changed.well, I have been building on this plane for years!
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jerb
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
What kind of engine, if 2-stroke and using a voltage regular what brand is
it, also what brand/model hand held radio are you using? I have almost the
same identical problem.
When I first flying my new home built airplane it was fine, crystal clear
both transmission and receiving. However, something changed, now I can
hardly understand transmissions. I haven't yet been able to put my finger
on what's changed and causing it.
jerryb
At 09:51 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
At 07:38 AM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
continues.
This is the first time I've been aware that you were having
problems both with hearing and talking. While the ground
listeners complain of "static" you have described the extraneous
audio as a "hiss". We may be talking of two different problems.
I'm having trouble resolving a single noise source that would
manifest in both what you hear and what is transmitted to the
ground.
Get a hand-held transceiver and use it to 'probe' around
the airplane. Use tune the hand-held to an unused frequency,
open the squelch and open the volume to get a low level of
no-signal hiss common to all receivers. Then probe around
the panel mounted goodies and wire harnesses with the
hand-held's antenna. See if the no-signal hiss changes
in level with the master switch on versus off. If it does
change, turn off accessories and/or pull breakers/fuses to
see if any one accessory produces a noticeable change
in noise from the hand-held.
You can use the hand-held as an airborne signal quality
sniffer too. Use a headset with the hand held to listen
to your own transmitted signals. You may have to take the
antenna off the hand-held to avoid overloading the hand-held
receiver. You don't need to talk on the ship's radio, just
listen to your transmitted signal to characterize the noise.
Is it the same "hiss" you hear in your received signals?
In any case, carry the hand held to avoid the no-radio
return to the airport. In fact, having the 'three musketeers
of dark-panel ops' in your flight bag is good insurance
for any flights:
www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
It was also suggested that you try a substitute antenna.
I've fabricated test antennas that could be taped to the
top or bottom surface of a wing and coax brought into
the cockpit through the door gasket or some other pathway.
But using the hand-held to characterize your transmitted
and received signals personally takes ATC and others
out of the loop. This is an especially good thing when
they're unable/unwilling to join the discussion and
offer their own observations/insights.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Larger D-Sub pins |
I searched for them a few years ago and had almost no success. The only
source I found wanted $5 each. You could try getting them from Garmin
through one of their approved avionics shops.
John Grosse
Stuart Hutchison wrote:
> G'day all,
>
> Has anyone found a convenient after-market supplier for the D-Sub pins with
> an oversize butt that Garmin include in some installation kits? The Garmin
> part number is 336-00023-00 and they're physically longer with a larger
> crimp cup to fit 18 AWG wire ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
Most every shop has extras laying around because they almost never use all
of them supplied. Gimme a call if you need a few.
BTW, unless the runs are long an AWG20 wire will work fine in place of an
AWG18.
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Larger D-Sub pins
-->
I searched for them a few years ago and had almost no success. The only
source I found wanted $5 each. You could try getting them from Garmin
through one of their approved avionics shops.
John Grosse
Stuart Hutchison wrote:
> G'day all,
>
> Has anyone found a convenient after-market supplier for the D-Sub pins
> with an oversize butt that Garmin include in some installation kits?
> The Garmin part number is 336-00023-00 and they're physically longer
> with a larger crimp cup to fit 18 AWG wire ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 10:33 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
You could use a breaker for this particular circuit. I haven't
thought about electronic ignitions specifically but I too like fuses
over breakers. But convinced myself to use 4 breakers anyway, 2 for
the 2 voltage regulators, 1 for the AP, and one for the flaps. Not
sure I would have used all 4 now that I've flown it a bit but it made
sense to me at the time. So I still have 2 dozen fuses...
As long as your wiring is adequately protected then
what you've installed is not "wrong" . . . just different.
If the voltage regulators are fitted with crowbar
ov protection, then panel mounted breakers are
indicated. If you believe that the AP and flaps
have failure modes for which you desire a crew
driven mitigation, then in-reach breakers are also
indicated. Some folks may find justification for
debating the rationale for your design but the
bottom line is this. What you've done does not
increase risk. It MIGHT drive some small risk to
a yet smaller value. But everybody hopes that you'll
fly this airplane throughout it's useful lifetime
never having encountered an urge to touch any of
those breakers in flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Larger D-Sub pins |
OBTW depending on the crimper you have, you may need a different
positioner to crimp the special pins. Another option for your
application might be to join your two wires into a "Y" either with a
soldered joint or a pidg fastener then connecting the single end to your
DB-X. It would be bulkier but easier.
John
Stein Bruch wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
>
> Most every shop has extras laying around because they almost never use all
> of them supplied. Gimme a call if you need a few.
>
> BTW, unless the runs are long an AWG20 wire will work fine in place of an
> AWG18.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stein
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Fuses instead of breakers |
Hi Jeff,
Regarding what size fuse to use, I have a Lightspeed electronic ignition
with a 5 amp fuse. In about 500 hours of flying, I've blown the fuse
once. Don't know why it blew, and the engine kept running on the
magneto. On the ground, I replaced the fuse and it's been fine since.
Next time I have convenient access to the battery bus, I might put a 7.5
amp fuse instead.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Installation Question |
At 04:29 AM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
I fly airplanes in the high flight levels and even there we use the
top antenna primarily. I've thought about it before, and I think a
"to scale" diagram would explain why. Even though 5-6 miles seems
high by altitude standards, it's not very far laterally. If the rco
or tower is 20 or even 100 miles away, the acute angle in the
triangle is small. To visualize more easily, think of the distance in
feet instead of miles. The angles are the same regardless of the
units of course. If you stood 5 feet below your antenna's base and
100 feet away, would the antenna be visible? Likewise at 20 and even
5 feet, it is probably visible from most angles. If it is blocked by
the wing or some other piece of airplane, then it will likely not be
for long in flight.
If the antenna's radiation angle were parallel
with the ground plane, your analogy would be
valid. The driving principal for this discussion
is "radiation angle". See:
http://www.hamradio.in/circuits/radiation_pattern.php
The short story is that an ideal 1/4 wave radiator's
angle of greatest sensitivity points up from the
ground plane by some substantial angle. For many
decades, ham radio operators have know that increasing
the mechanical length of an antenna to 5/8 wavelength
produces a much lower radiation angle. This antenna
is NOT resonant at the frequency of operation. That
deficiency is easily offset by a matching network at
the base of the antenna.
Antennas that long on airplanes would raise some
eyebrows if not elicit a few giggles/snickers.
Nevertheless, radiation angle variations in performance
between top and bottom mounted antennas can be
demonstrated. Large aircraft flying at high altitudes
will always get a stronger measured signal from the
bottom mounted antenna for stations having approximately
45 degree depression angle below the plane of flight.
However, given the line-of-sight performance of VHF/UHF
communications, the loss of performance from a top
mounted antenna may not be noticed from the pilot's seat.
The telling test would be to make contact with
a station that is barely readable on a top antenna
and then compare quality of communication with
a bottom mounted antenna.
A friend of mine (who is also an electron herder/
ham radio operator) has flown many of the heavy
iron birds. He has observed this effect many times.
At the same time, he has noted that when parked at
the gate, a top mounted antenna will talk to some
ground facilities that are degraded for the bottom
antenna when surrounded by jetways, baggage carts
and fuel trucks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Just one more thing to think about if you are doing this with a
Lightspeed ignition. From what I've read, there is some sort of crowbar
inside the ignition module to protect it from an overvoltage event. If a
fuse is fitted and the crowbar kicks it, you'll not be able to reset it
as easily as with a breaker - if you can reach the fuse at all. I've
heard of at least one case where an airplane was brought down because it
was wired differently than the installation instructions in that regard.
Ed Holyoke
On 1/25/2012 8:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:33 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> You could use a breaker for this particular circuit. I haven't
> thought about electronic ignitions specifically but I too like fuses
> over breakers. But convinced myself to use 4 breakers anyway, 2 for
> the 2 voltage regulators, 1 for the AP, and one for the flaps. Not
> sure I would have used all 4 now that I've flown it a bit but it made
> sense to me at the time. So I still have 2 dozen fuses...
>
> As long as your wiring is adequately protected then
> what you've installed is not "wrong" . . . just different.
> If the voltage regulators are fitted with crowbar
> ov protection, then panel mounted breakers are
> indicated. If you believe that the AP and flaps
> have failure modes for which you desire a crew
> driven mitigation, then in-reach breakers are also
> indicated. Some folks may find justification for
> debating the rationale for your design but the
> bottom line is this. What you've done does not
> increase risk. It MIGHT drive some small risk to
> a yet smaller value. But everybody hopes that you'll
> fly this airplane throughout it's useful lifetime
> never having encountered an urge to touch any of
> those breakers in flight.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
At 10:31 AM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
>
>Most every shop has extras laying around because they almost never use all
>of them supplied. Gimme a call if you need a few.
>
>BTW, unless the runs are long an AWG20 wire will work fine in place of an
>AWG18.
You beat me to it my friend. I will also suggest that it's
perfectly okay to peel a few strands out of the "too large"
wire to get them all into the 20AWG crimp cup of a standard
pin. You'll have to leave the bare strands exposed over a
greater length because the insulation will not go down
into the wire opening of the connector. Experiment with
an extra pin and a chunk of wire to establish the new strip
dimensions.
When somebody calls for putting overweight wires into
a d-sub connector, the design goal is to REDUCE WIRE
PATHWAY IMPEDANCE. Putting the larger wire into the
pin does not increase the pin's current handling
ability. Hence my suggestion for peeling out extraneous
strands is not a technically 'evil' thing to do in
terms of the physics. It would have an immeasurable
impact on design goals that called for the larger wire.
I think this is preferable to the FAT pin. It adds
no bulk to wiring immediately behind the connector
and leaves less exposed conductor.
However, pulling this trick in an ISO/FAA/PP driven
TC aircraft shop would probably get you fired or
at least a 'ding' in your employment record.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
>My question is:
>What is the minimum size cable can I use from the copper tab on the
>FRONT of the earth conduit tab (just behind the nose section) to the
>instrument earth bus (approx 18-20 inches in length). I'm trying to
>avoid using the very heavy welding cable.
See VIEW -B- in this drawing:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15K1.pdf
In your case, the 2AWG ground wire is a piece of copper tube.
Your design does not call for a firewall ground bus so the
engine ground strap goes right to the copper tube. Your design
does not mention the use of a forward high-power ground bus
so the battery (-) wire goes right to a tab on the copper
tube. An instrument panel ground bus could be fabricated per
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
Figure Z15 suggests that a parallel bundle of 5,
20AWG wires be run from the avionics ground to the
tab on the end of your copper tube. Landing
light and position lights could also ground to the
bolt in the copper tube tab.
If you're fabricating your own d-sub panel ground
bus, you could solder a couple of 14AWG wires to
the commoning conductor at the back of the
connector. This is described in
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9031/IM9031-700A.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
>Next time I have convenient access to the battery bus, I might put a
>7.5 amp fuse instead.
Good idea.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 11:24 AM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
Just one more thing to think about if you are doing this with a
Lightspeed ignition. From what I've read, there is some sort of
crowbar inside the ignition module to protect it from an overvoltage
event. If a fuse is fitted and the crowbar kicks it, you'll not be
able to reset it as easily as with a breaker - if you can reach the
fuse at all. I've heard of at least one case where an airplane was
brought down because it was wired differently than the installation
instructions in that regard.
Can you elaborate on what you've read and give us sources?
I'm unaware of any crowbar ov protection built into the
LSE system. Is this called out in any of their published
literature? I found this on the Lightspeed site:
------------------------
Electrical System Requirements
All Plasma CDI systems can be used with 12 or 24 volt electrical
systems. Input voltages above 35 volts or reversed polarity can
cause system damage.
For this reason it is mandatory that all aircraft using Plasma CD
Ignitions are equipped with over-voltage protection in their
alternator charging system(s). Over-voltage protection is a
requirement for certified aircraft. Power connection must be
directly to the battery terminals to avoid voltage spikes and
electrical noise. Aluminum should never be used as an electrical
conductor for the Plasma CDI. Use only the supplied aircraft quality
stranded wire.
Minimum supply voltage for starting is 6.5 Volts.
Minimum operating voltage is 5.5 Volts.
--------------------------
This statement argues against any built-in ov
protection. At the same time, the very wide operating
voltage for the system guarantees that a properly
designed 14v system will NEVER offer a threat to
the LSE system.
I am presently participating in an analysis of
cause and effect for simultaneous failure of
dual LSE systems. Root cause for that event
was a failure to craft a failure tolerant
architecture . . . a design goal which is foundation
for all efforts here on the AeroElectric-List.
It's a certainty that no builder who participates
here on the List will suffer such an event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
Many thanks to everyone. Very informative and helpful replies, I will be studying
the resources.
MikeD (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364843#364843
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
I appreciate everyone's comments regarding sizing fuses.
The reference to the FARs regarding battery bus circuits was useful.
My design doesn't exceed those specifications. Fortunately, with an
amateur-built aircraft, no bureaucrat can claim that a 5A circuit
protective device would be the size of both the fuse and the circuit
breaker.
So a 10A fuse will probably work reliably with a Lightspeed ignition. Thanks.
How about another example ? The popular approach is to use a pullable
breaker for the hydralic pump for the amphibious landing gear. If I
use a switch and a fuse, what size fuse ? I appreciate that I can
always install a bigger fuse if nuisance pops occur, but it seems more
professional to do the initial design with a good idea that the
correct fuse was chosen in the first place ;-)
So, does this logic work ?
The pressure switch deactivates the pump at 500psi, but there will
likely be short term pressure spikes above that. So, pick 1000psi.
The current versus pressure chart for the motor, shows 3A at 500psi
and 5A at 1000psi, as well as 23A at 3000psi, which is probably almost
stalling the motor. So assume a typical current of 3A and spikes of
less than a half second to 10A.
Since a 10A fuse should blow after 1 second with 12.5A, that should be
sufficient to avoid a nuisance pop ?
During that half second, I want full power to the motor, so I will use
10A for the gauge versus wire length calculation. To drop 5% power
through wire resistance, that gives me 18' for 16AWG wire. I should
be able to get to the pump and back in less than 18', so 16AWG should
be sufficient.
A 30 degree rise for 16AWG wire requires 19A, so I could safely upsize
to a 15A or 20A fuse.
With your experience, should I start with a 10A or 15A fuse and expect
it not to nuisance trip ?
Are there any other reasons why a pullable circuit breaker would be
preferred for this situation ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
I'll second the earlier comment on LSE ignitions having a crowbar setup. I had
initially installed fuses to power a dual Plasma III setup. During a discussion
with Klaus he quickly took exception to this and told me verbally that they
DID have a crowbar setup (but I did not get into a discussion with him about
the triggering criteria). Since it's a pretty long wire run in an RV-10 from
the standard battery location to where the ignition boxes are located, he recommended
having 7.5 amp CBs on the panel and if I felt the need to protect the
feeders (he didn't) from the batteries to use 10 amp CBs back there, guaranteeing
that the 7.5s would be what tripped during whatever event trips the crowbar.
His very clear preference is to simply run the shielded, #18 (I think) wire all
the way back and direct connect to the battery. I couldn't in good conscience
live with a pair of always hot, unprotected wires for a run of that long and
replaced the fuses near the batteries with 10 amp CBs and put 7.5 amp CBs on
the panel as he recommended.
Above conversation took place with him about 3-4 years ago but I remember it very
clearly.
Bob C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364852#364852
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 04:27 PM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
I appreciate everyone's comments regarding sizing fuses.
The reference to the FARs regarding battery bus circuits was useful.
My design doesn't exceed those specifications. Fortunately, with an
amateur-built aircraft, no bureaucrat can claim that a 5A circuit
protective device would be the size of both the fuse and the circuit
breaker.
Who said anything about regulations? Just because it's
in a holy-watered book doesn't mean it's not a
valuable ingredient in a recipe for success.
So a 10A fuse will probably work reliably with a Lightspeed ignition. Thanks.
Absolutely.
How about another example ? The popular approach is to use a pullable
breaker for the hydraulic pump for the amphibious landing gear. If I
use a switch and a fuse, what size fuse ?
BIG and beefy . . . in fact for things like hydraulic pump
motors you would consider ANL style current limiters. That's
what we used on the Beech products.
I appreciate that I can
always install a bigger fuse if nuisance pops occur, but it seems more
professional to do the initial design with a good idea that the
correct fuse was chosen in the first place ;-)
Absolutely!!!!! Which is why we have the List. There are
fuses, then there are Fuses and then FUSES. Circuit breakers
come in many flavors of operating speed too. The differences
can be significant in crafting a trip-free system. Recall
years back we discussed the fact that there are tens of
thousands of TC aircraft flying with an alternator b-lead
breaker designed to nuisance trip? 60A circuit breakers
on 60A alternators. An alternator that will put out MORE
than 60A under some conditions.
So, does this logic work ?
The pressure switch deactivates the pump at 500psi, but there will
likely be short term pressure spikes above that. So, pick 1000psi.
The current versus pressure chart for the motor, shows 3A at 500psi
and 5A at 1000psi, as well as 23A at 3000psi, which is probably almost
stalling the motor. So assume a typical current of 3A and spikes of
less than a half second to 10A.
Since a 10A fuse should blow after 1 second with 12.5A, that should be
sufficient to avoid a nuisance pop ?
Don't agonize over it. You're wanting to protect what size wire?
Scratch that. Wire with 10 AWG and use an ANL35 or equal. 10AWG
is plenty heavy and will reduce voltage drop in the system. It's
the 10x inrush current of what is probably a PM motor that drives
the selection of protection . . .
During that half second, I want full power to the motor, so I will use
10A for the gauge versus wire length calculation. To drop 5% power
through wire resistance, that gives me 18' for 16AWG wire. I should
be able to get to the pump and back in less than 18', so 16AWG should
be sufficient.
I'd go with the 10AWG. If 23A and 5000 PSI is a data point, then
its doubtful that the motor is anywhere near stall. I'll bet inrush
is 2 to 3 times that amount.
A 30 degree rise for 16AWG wire requires 19A, so I could safely upsize
to a 15A or 20A fuse.
With your experience, should I start with a 10A or 15A fuse and expect
it not to nuisance trip ?
Are there any other reasons why a pullable circuit breaker would be
preferred for this situation ?
What controls the pump motor . . . a contactor?
Is it tailored for intermittent duty, hi-inrush
service like a starter-contactor? Sticking of this
device might pose an in-flight concern. However,
if you have a dual path e-bus, you can kill the
main bus and shut down a runaway pump motor while
retaining the electro-whizzies needed for comfortable
completion of flight.
Your question goes to exactly the kind of exercise
every electrical system benefits . . . failure mode
effects analysis, "What if . . . and how do I deal
with it as a maintenance event as opposed to an
emergency?" If an FMEA calls for a second disconnect
such as a pullable breaker, then by all means.
Worrying about poorly considered failures tends to
stack redundancy on top of redundancy. It drives up
parts count, cost of ownership and adds to system
complexity. Complexity makes the pilot's job more
difficult and risky. Well considered FMEA tends
to produce the elegant solution: Just enough hardware
with minimum risk and simpler to operate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
>During a discussion with Klaus he quickly took exception to
>this and told me verbally that they DID have a crowbar setup
>(but I did not get into a discussion with him about the
>triggering criteria).
Hmmmm . . . I'll be seeing Klaus in the not too distant
future. I'll inquire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, please do. In the meantime, for those of us just getting to wiring,
would this be reasonable, or overkill?
Battery Bus Input terminal (not fused) ---> Fusible Link ---> Panel Breaker
---> Switch ---> LSE box?
I'm not sure how ground would best get there since Klaus calls out shielded
wire and it might be a little bit of a run to the FW ground or battery
ground.
Thoughts? (Or am I overthinking this?)
-Jeff-
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> During a discussion with Klaus he quickly took exception to
>> this and told me verbally that they DID have a crowbar setup
>> (but I did not get into a discussion with him about the
>> triggering criteria).
>>
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'll be seeing Klaus in the not too distant
> future. I'll inquire.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 09:47 PM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
Bob, please do. In the meantime, for those of us just getting to
wiring, would this be reasonable, or overkill?
Battery Bus Input terminal (not fused) ---> Fusible Link ---> Panel
Breaker ---> Switch ---> LSE box?
At the moment, I see no reason to treat the LSE
ignition system any differently than any similar
system offered to the TC aircraft world.
If based on what I know now, I'd go 10A fuse at
the battery bus driving a 20AWG non-shielded wire
to an ON/OFF switch on the panel and then to the
ignition system.
I'm not sure how ground would best get there since Klaus calls out
shielded wire and it might be a little bit of a run to the FW ground
or battery ground.
Shielded wire for this application is completely
unwarranted. There is no potential antagonist/
victim scenario which would capacitively couple
into our out of the LSE product. Grounding of the
LSE ignition module should be no more complex
than to take a 20AWG wire to the firewall ground
bus.
Thoughts? (Or am I overthinking this?)
I don't think so. Klaus worries about some things
that are either insignificant or non existent. "Noise"
on the bus is NOT mitigated by connecting to the
battery. I think I explain this in the battery
chapter of the book. Batteries are simply not
filters of any small excursions of bus voltage
at any frequency.
This is precisely why DO-160 and Mil-STD-704
tell the TC aircraft designer to EXPECT certain
kinds of noise on the ship's DC bus. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_Noise.jpg
That flat top in the plot between 1 and 5 Khz
is 1 volt RMS or about 3 volts peak to peak
on a 28 volt system. Cut those numbers in half
on a 14 volt system. The amplitude for expected
noise falls off on either side . . . but the
point is, NOTHING . . . especially the battery
will mitigate this noise. Hence the admonition,
"It's there son, learn to live with it."
Indeed we who have run the gauntlet on qualification
for TC aircraft have learned to live with it . . .
in face, it's such a benign stress that "dealing
with it" is not even much of a technically intellectual
exercise.
It makes no sense to build crowbar ov protection
into a product when it's so easy to build passive
shutdown protection. I did this little fast-disconnect
switch to qualify an automotive seat warmer onto
a 28v aircraft.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/80v_Surge_Protection.jpg
this circuit simply 'disconnects' the vulnerable
device from the bus during the transient and reconnects
when the event is over.
But more important is the fact that in a 14 volt
airplane, the maximum alternator-runaway event is
limited to 20 volts . . . which is well inside the
LSE's NORMAL operating voltage.
Finally, you could treat a robust feeder from
battery to ignition system just like a fat feeder
to the e-bus. It might look something like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Battery_Feed_for_Ignition.pdf
This satisfies the design goals for crash safety
by having a pilot operated disconnect at the battery.
The relay only draws about 100 mA so it's not a big
budget energy consumer for battery only operations.
Modern relays are quite reliable . . . and this one
gets pre-flight tested.
Point is there's a lot of ways to skin cats-of-
legitimate-worry. The task is to separate real worries
from bogus worries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
Thanks for your help everyone.
The current-carrying capacity of the wires isn't a factor in my installation
... they're only carrying signals or minor currents off to relays. The
Infinity grips have a mix of 17 different 22AWG and 20AWG wires each, but I
have already terminated each of those wires at a 25-pin D-Sub connector. The
two grip functions are wired in parallel for the most part, so my aim is to
connect both FWD and AFT grips via a "Y" loom terminating at one 25 or
37-pin D-Sub connector to mate with a main central loom. The "Y" loom will
be fabricated entirely of 22AWG wires (disgregard the AWG ratings in my
pic), but I thought it would be more convenient to use 18AWG pins where the
wires come together at the top connector, rather than trim or fold away
strands so that 2 x 22AWG wires fit into 20AWG pins. As Bob said, 2 x 22AWG
wire insulation won't fit in the connector and makes pin removal difficult,
so I thought it would also be more convenient to use 18AWG pins for this
reason (but I haven't tried removing them).
I found 18AWG pins at this site (bottom of the page), but they're asking $2
each ... http://www.aircraftelectronicssupply.com/garmin_install_supp.htm
Cheers, Stu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Larger D-Sub pins
-->
At 10:31 AM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
>-->
>
>Most every shop has extras laying around because they almost never use
>all of them supplied. Gimme a call if you need a few.
>
>BTW, unless the runs are long an AWG20 wire will work fine in place of
>an AWG18.
You beat me to it my friend. I will also suggest that it's
perfectly okay to peel a few strands out of the "too large"
wire to get them all into the 20AWG crimp cup of a standard
pin. You'll have to leave the bare strands exposed over a
greater length because the insulation will not go down
into the wire opening of the connector. Experiment with
an extra pin and a chunk of wire to establish the new strip
dimensions.
When somebody calls for putting overweight wires into
a d-sub connector, the design goal is to REDUCE WIRE
PATHWAY IMPEDANCE. Putting the larger wire into the
pin does not increase the pin's current handling
ability. Hence my suggestion for peeling out extraneous
strands is not a technically 'evil' thing to do in
terms of the physics. It would have an immeasurable
impact on design goals that called for the larger wire.
I think this is preferable to the FAT pin. It adds
no bulk to wiring immediately behind the connector
and leaves less exposed conductor.
However, pulling this trick in an ISO/FAA/PP driven
TC aircraft shop would probably get you fired or
at least a 'ding' in your employment record.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 09:47 PM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
Bob, please do. In the meantime, for those of us just getting to
wiring, would this be reasonable, or overkill?
P.S. to previous post.
I too would like to see an ignition system power from
the battery bus. NOT for reasons of noise but for
reasons of risk mitigation. When I have smoke in the
cockpit, I'd like to KILL the entire electrical system
without causing the engine to stop. This is why I've
advocated that ANY electrically dependent engine get
power directly from battery busses. This philosophy
is illustrated in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Earth Bus cable size |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
(partial repost) I sell lots of Copper-Clad Aluminum cable to 300 mph fuel dragster
and racecar builders, and weird groups doing strange things where the weight
is important. I even sell the stuff to the companies building remote-controlled
drones. Predator drones and the more advance secret stuff...
Airbus and Boeing use similar CCA configurations, and they won't sell you any.
I sell Super-2-CCA, Super-4-CCA, AWG-6-CCA (same dimensions as AWG-6 but CCA with
Tefzel insulation), and Super-CCA RG+142
See my website. CCA is 60% the weight of copper for the same conductivity.
If you have the battery on the firewall, you are okay. Otherwise, use CCA.
Also see Bob's most excellent article, http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
and on my website: http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Coppercables.pdf
--------
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=364872#364872
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
I built my RV-8A referencing Z13/8: forward mounted battery, one LSI, one m
ag. Three fuze blocks in fwd baggage compartment inaccessible in flight. Th
ree panel mounted CBs - Alt Field, Aux Alt Field and LSI.
I do not feel that a fuze-blowing event for most circuits would benefit fro
m restable CBs - something caused the initial overvoltage and chances that
the fix is a reset CB are very slim. Design redundant systems, include inte
rnal avionics batteries where it makes sense, execute proper failure proced
ures, land as soon as practicable - or as soon as possible - and sort it ou
t on the ground.
For the normal and backup alternators - and LSI - I felt that there was ben
efit from a reset capability. Nuisance trips, one time spikes, intermittent
short, etc. I just might need the few minutes (perhaps) between trigger ev
ents to land.
140 hours of trouble-free electrons so far.
Paul Valovich
N192NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | fuses, breakers, and hydraulic pumps |
Hi Jeff-
With regard to:
>How about another example ? The popular approach is to use a pullable
>breaker for the hydralic pump for the amphibious landing gear. If I
>use a switch and a fuse, what size fuse ? I appreciate that I can
>always install a bigger fuse if nuisance pops occur, .....
......Are there any other reasons why a pullable circuit breaker would be
>preferred for this situation ?
There are two seperate potential issues here. First, is there an alternate source
of hydraulic pressure? If you have a practical hand pump available, then
the nuisance trip issue is just that. If the electric pump is your only practical
source of hydraulic power, then things are a little different. I could envision
a scenario where the motor for the hydraulic pump has degraded such that
the current draw trips the circuit protection, leaving you with a gear up landing,
or potentially worse, a partial gear landing. Personally, I would prefer
resettable circuit protection in that scenario.
FYI, YMMV, ETC, ETC
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses, breakers, and hydraulic pumps |
There are two separate potential issues here. First, is there an
alternate source of hydraulic pressure? If you have a practical hand
pump available, then the nuisance trip issue is just that. If the
electric pump is your only practical source of hydraulic power, then
things are a little different. I could envision a scenario where the
motor for the hydraulic pump has degraded such that the current draw
trips the circuit protection, leaving you with a gear up landing, or
potentially worse, a partial gear landing. Personally, I would
prefer resettable circuit protection in that scenario.
Cogent thoughts my friend. In spite of the fact that
a Beech Sierra was a pig with wings, I appreciated the
fact that the standby-gear extension system was a simple
valve on the floor that allowed gear-up pressure to be
relieved allowing the wheels to fall free.
Personally, I would prefer resettable circuit protection in that scenario.
I would offer the notion that if power to the motor
is sufficiently robust (current limiter style
protection) then a nuisance trip is entirely out
of the picture. Any time you open a current limiter,
something is REALLY BAD WRONG and being able to
"give 'er one more try" is an incalculable long
shot.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
At 06:24 AM 1/26/2012, you wrote:
>Thanks for your help everyone.
>
>I thought it would also be more convenient to use 18AWG pins for this
>reason (but I haven't tried removing them).
Hmmm . . . hadn't thought about that. I'm not sure they
CAN be removed with the legacy extraction tools.
Given the complexity of your stick grip wiring I think
I would give serious thought to building an etched
circuit board for the relay-deck and stick-grip-junction-
box.
Your mating connectors then solder to the board. The
board can mount the relays and perhaps a speed adjustment
system. the mating connectors get 'really clean' with
respect to materials and techniques.
Express PCB has free software and really reasonable
prices on double-sided, plated-thru boards laid
up and ordered via your computer.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
Stu,
On a personal preference note, it's generally not a good idea to put any
function on a control stick that, if inadvertently activated, would in
danger the aircraft. In your particular application, I would put engine
start and flaps in that category.
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
Stuart Hutchison
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Larger D-Sub pins
Thanks for your help everyone.
The current-carrying capacity of the wires isn't a factor in my
installation
... they're only carrying signals or minor currents off to relays. The
Infinity grips have a mix of 17 different 22AWG and 20AWG wires each,
but I
have already terminated each of those wires at a 25-pin D-Sub connector.
The
two grip functions are wired in parallel for the most part, so my aim is
to
connect both FWD and AFT grips via a "Y" loom terminating at one 25 or
37-pin D-Sub connector to mate with a main central loom. The "Y" loom
will
be fabricated entirely of 22AWG wires (disgregard the AWG ratings in my
pic), but I thought it would be more convenient to use 18AWG pins where
the
wires come together at the top connector, rather than trim or fold away
strands so that 2 x 22AWG wires fit into 20AWG pins. As Bob said, 2 x
22AWG
wire insulation won't fit in the connector and makes pin removal
difficult,
so I thought it would also be more convenient to use 18AWG pins for this
reason (but I haven't tried removing them).
I found 18AWG pins at this site (bottom of the page), but they're asking
$2
each ...
http://www.aircraftelectronicssupply.com/garmin_install_supp.htm
Cheers, Stu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
FWIW, this subject has been discussed before on the AeroElectric list. Use the
search function for the words "Klaus" and "crowbar" and you'll find a couple
threads from early 2009. Turns out that it's not just over-voltage events that
will cause them to crowbar but apparently over-temp. This was posted on Feb
1, 2009:
"I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault
was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in
an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling
while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp
was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to
the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation
port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that
compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The
point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset and
provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. "
Without getting into the discussion of whether the design should or shouldn't be
modified, my purpose on posting (now and back in early 2009) is simply to make
those with dual LSE ignition setups aware that fuses can't be arbitrarily substituted
for CBs in this case.
Bob C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364895#364895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 04:27 PM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
> The reference to the FARs regarding battery bus circuits was useful.
> My design doesn't exceed those specifications. Fortunately, with an
> amateur-built aircraft, no bureaucrat can claim that a 5A circuit
> protective device would be the size of both the fuse and the circuit
> breaker.
> Who said anything about regulations? Just because it's
> in a holy-watered book doesn't mean it's not a
> valuable ingredient in a recipe for success.
I merely meant that a 5A fuse and a 5A breaker behave differently, but since
the protection type is not specified, the rule could be interpreted as
a maximum
of a 5A fuse.
> Are there any other reasons why a pullable circuit breaker would be
> preferred for this situation ?
> What controls the pump motor . . . a contactor?
> Is it tailored for intermittent duty, hi-inrush
> service like a starter-contactor? Sticking of this
> device might pose an in-flight concern. However,
> if you have a dual path e-bus, you can kill the
> main bus and shut down a runaway pump motor while
> retaining the electro-whizzies needed for comfortable
> completion of flight.
The float manufacturer (Montana) supplies the pump and control circuitry
already mounted. The relays are Bosch 12V/20A 0 332 209 137
The diagram shows a 25A pullable breaker feeding the relays. A 1A fuse
protects the relay control wiring. So a pullable breaker would be a
convenient
way to deal with a stuck relay or a defective pressure switch. That
is perhaps
what I should do.
I will be interested in the results of your discussions with Klaus
about powering the Lightspeed ignition. I know two people who are
about to install these.
Thanks again for all the great advice. Even while lurking, I learn
something new
and useful every week !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
I tried the "fuse" test once. The test was to install the P-III with a fuse and
see if I could guess where I might be when it fails. Mine failed on the run-up
pad. I promptly pulled up to the hangar and wired it directly to the battery
per Klaus's instructions. I always figured he wrote them for a reason. Been working
ever since. I mounted mine upside down on the bottom of the avionics panel
where they get plenty of fresh air.
Best Wishes,
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
FWIW, this subject has been discussed before on the AeroElectric list. Use the
search function for the words "Klaus" and "crowbar" and you'll find a couple
threads from early 2009. Turns out that it's not just over-voltage events that
will cause them to crowbar but apparently over-temp. This was posted on Feb
1, 2009:
"I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault
was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in
an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling
while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp
was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to
the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation
port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that
compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The
point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset and
provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. "
Without getting into the discussion of whether the design should or shouldn't be
modified, my purpose on posting (now and back in early 2009) is simply to make
those with dual LSE ignition setups aware that fuses can't be arbitrarily substituted
for CBs in this case.
Bob C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364895#364895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
I'll try and find it. I know that Klaus is adamant about having a
breaker and not a fuse.
Ed
On 1/25/2012 9:56 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 11:24 AM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
> Just one more thing to think about if you are doing this with a
> Lightspeed ignition. From what I've read, there is some sort of
> crowbar inside the ignition module to protect it from an overvoltage
> event. If a fuse is fitted and the crowbar kicks it, you'll not be
> able to reset it as easily as with a breaker - if you can reach the
> fuse at all. I've heard of at least one case where an airplane was
> brought down because it was wired differently than the installation
> instructions in that regard.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you've read and give us sources?
> I'm unaware of any crowbar ov protection built into the
> LSE system. Is this called out in any of their published
> literature? I found this on the Lightspeed site:
> ------------------------
> Electrical System Requirements
>
> All Plasma CDI systems can be used with 12 or 24 volt electrical
> systems. Input voltages above 35 volts or reversed polarity can cause
> system damage.
>
> For this reason it is mandatory that all aircraft using Plasma CD
> Ignitions are equipped with over-voltage protection in their
> alternator charging system(s). Over-voltage protection is a
> requirement for certified aircraft. Power connection must be directly
> to the battery terminals to avoid voltage spikes and electrical
> noise. Aluminum should never be used as an electrical conductor for
> the Plasma CDI. Use only the supplied aircraft quality stranded wire.
>
> Minimum supply voltage for starting is 6.5 Volts.
>
> Minimum operating voltage is 5.5 Volts.
> --------------------------
> This statement argues against any built-in ov
> protection. At the same time, the very wide operating
> voltage for the system guarantees that a properly
> designed 14v system will NEVER offer a threat to
> the LSE system.
>
> I am presently participating in an analysis of
> cause and effect for simultaneous failure of
> dual LSE systems. Root cause for that event
> was a failure to craft a failure tolerant
> architecture . . . a design goal which is foundation
> for all efforts here on the AeroElectric-List.
>
> It's a certainty that no builder who participates
> here on the List will suffer such an event.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 02:43 PM 1/26/2012, you wrote:
At 04:27 PM 1/25/2012, you wrote:
I merely meant that a 5A fuse and a 5A breaker behave differently, but since
the protection type is not specified, the rule could be interpreted as
a maximum of a 5A fuse.
Oh absolutely. The fact that such a level was
given without an accompanying I(squared)T time
constant goes to suggest the arbitrary nature
of the value. As we've discussed here before,
seeing a 5A number on a protective device
is a small bit of knowledge about how the
device performs. I'd have to go arm-wrestle with
dragons to get a 10A fuse attached to a battery
bus in a TC aircraft . . . but you and I know
that a 10A ATC fuse is faster than a miniature
5A breaker and is . . . therefore . . . a
rational crash safety substitute for always-hot
feeders.
What controls the pump motor . . . a contactor?
The float manufacturer (Montana) supplies the pump and control circuitry
already mounted. The relays are Bosch 12V/20A 0 332 209 137
The diagram shows a 25A pullable breaker feeding the relays. A 1A fuse
protects the relay control wiring. So a pullable breaker would be a
convenient way to deal with a stuck relay or a defective pressure
switch. That
is perhaps what I should do.
Agreed. Those relays are not specifically
crafted for motor control service. Having
a crew-operated means by which a runaway
can be controlled seems prudent.
I will be interested in the results of your discussions with Klaus
about powering the Lightspeed ignition. I know two people who are
about to install these.
There are no doubt many hundreds if not
thousands of these flying. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not "special" devices
deserving of extra-ordinary attention.
Discussions not withstanding, the published
current draw values for LSE products say that
the greatest current draw for a 6-cylinder
system is 2.1A at 13.8 volts.
Emacs!
Given that the device features a switchmode power
supply with a wide range of operating voltages,
we know that this is a constant-power mode of
operation. So 2.1 x 13.8 sez the critter needs
right at 30 watts for operation at MAX RPM. One
can expect the current to climb as voltage goes
down . . . so if you're operating battery only
and the battery is down on that 11-volt-slide-
to-darkness, the ignition system current will
have risen to something around 2.7 amps.
Likewise, operating current on a 29 volt bus
will be down around 1.0 amps. The 4-Cylinder
systems are still more frugal in their demands
on the electrical system.
Thanks again for all the great advice. Even while lurking, I learn
something new and useful every week !
Thanks for getting involved and asking. It's
through EXCHANGES of observation and events that
I learn useful things too. Folks have often
asked why the 'Connection is up to Revision 12
in "just 23 years of publication". I tell
them that my education came from a collaboration
with colleagues who spoke engineereze. And we
hammered on a different class of airplane. When I
sat down to do the first chapters of the
'Connection, I realized that I could not answer
questions without knowing what the questions
are. Further, they needed to be written in
OBAMeze.
It's the collective participation of all
the builders on the List/emails/telephone/
seminars that drive what goes into the
next revision. It's truly a work in progress
that would not have happened without this
join venture arena.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
>Without getting into the discussion of whether the design should or
>shouldn't be modified, my purpose on posting (now and back in early
>2009) is simply to make those with dual LSE ignition setups aware
>that fuses can't be arbitrarily substituted for CBs in this case.
I would agree that when the installed system is
at risk for an event triggered by conditions
of installation and/or manufacturing mod levels
then the system is indeed still 'experimental'.
Now that the 'student installer' has graduated
from the lab to the working environment, I'll
suggest that the risk for substitution is
microscopically low.
This is something that we must always keep in
mind. Instructions and ratings are important.
When in doubt, go measure it. It's entirely
possible that the builder who experienced this
event might not have survived to give us his
particular dark-n-stormy-night narrative.
We wouldn't be having this discussion about that
particular event . . . indeed we wouldn't even
know the details.
But the fact is that he DID experience a trip in
a critical system power feeder which prompted further
investigation and he shared his discovery with
the rest of us. That information goes to making
us MORE confident, not less.
I recall a discussion here on the list a some
time back where wires in the wreckage were found
pulled out of the terminal crimps. Hmmm . . .
we'll never know if this failure-to-follow the
instructions precipitated the event . . . but
the overt evidence of failure in craftsmanship
does raise valid questions.
So if one chooses to explore departures from
published instructions, any such departure needs
to be considered carefully. It's not difficult,
just rigorous. Get on the List and let's talk
about it. Bundle all the concerns together and
develop a plan to morph an experiment into a
recipe for success.
But if you don't want to be an explorer or
crafter of new recipes, that's fine too. The
vast majority of our brothers building OBAM
aircraft are not explorers and the last thing
they want to do is experiment. This venue for
acquiring a personally owned aircraft recognizes
that too. Most never frequent this List and
don't need to . . . their relationship with
their airplane's electrical system is no
different than the average spam can driver
in a 172 . . . and that's okay.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Larger D-Sub pins |
Thanks Bob,
Good idea. I think I'll go ahead and make a parallel wire loom now, then
replace it with a PCB later (when I have more time) ... after all, we never
really stop working on our boys toys do we !! :)
Thanks Bruce,
My circuit tracks out to a TCW Safety Trim and TCW Intelligent Flap
Controller, so the flaps can't be oversped (i.e. they can't be extended
above 95kts) and my stick grip start button is off to the right where it's
out of the way of my fat fingers A taildragger F1 Rocket is capable of
dragging itself across the ground (braked) at about 2000 RPM and is
relatively easy to tip over, so I want one hand on the throttle and one hand
holding the stick right back during start. All of the copilot stick
functions can be turned off by the pilot to avoid back seat embarrassments.
Cheers, Stu
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Larger D-Sub pins
At 06:24 AM 1/26/2012, you wrote:
Thanks for your help everyone.
I thought it would also be more convenient to use 18AWG pins for this
reason (but I haven't tried removing them).
Hmmm . . . hadn't thought about that. I'm not sure they
CAN be removed with the legacy extraction tools.
Given the complexity of your stick grip wiring I think
I would give serious thought to building an etched
circuit board for the relay-deck and stick-grip-junction-
box.
Your mating connectors then solder to the board. The
board can mount the relays and perhaps a speed adjustment
system. the mating connectors get 'really clean' with
respect to materials and techniques.
Express PCB has free software and really reasonable
prices on double-sided, plated-thru boards laid
up and ordered via your computer.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
> >......Are there any other reasons why a pullable circuit breaker
> would be >preferred for this situation ?
> There are two seperate potential issues here. First, is there an
> alternate source
> of hydraulic pressure? If you have a practical hand pump available, then
> the nuisance trip issue is just that. If the electric pump is your
> only practical
> source of hydraulic power, then things are a little different. I
> could envision
> a scenario where the motor for the hydraulic pump has degraded such that
> the current draw trips the circuit protection, leaving you with a
> gear up landing,
> or potentially worse, a partial gear landing. Personally, I would prefer
> resettable circuit protection in that scenario.
There is a manual hand pump, so no emergency is created.
> "I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
> once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
> removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault
> was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in
> an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling
> while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp
> was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to
> the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation
> port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that
> compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The
> point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset
> and provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. "
Hmmm. If it immediately resumed functioning after resetting the
breaker, perhaps
the ignition never failed, but the heat (and probably higher currents
operating at
high temperatures) caused the breaker to nuisance trip.
> I will be interested in the results of your discussions with Klaus
> about powering the Lightspeed ignition. I know two people who are
> about to install these.
> There are no doubt many hundreds if not
> thousands of these flying. To the best of my
> knowledge, they are not "special" devices
< deserving of extra-ordinary attention.
They just get extra attention since pilots are more concerned with their
ignition failing than say their nav lights going out ;-)
> The relays are Bosch 12V/20A 0 332 209 137
> Those relays are not specifically
> crafted for motor control service. Having
> a crew-operated means by which a runaway
> can be controlled seems prudent.
A pullable breaker would stop current flow caused by a stuck relay,
and the manual pump could be used to operate the gear, so there is
no significant flight risk.
Those relays do look undersized to me.
Better relays might reduce long term maintenance however. Or perhaps
just carry a spare along might be the most practical approach. I think
the latter ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
There is a manual hand pump, so no emergency is created.
Then a robust fuse solution goes toward a cleaner
panel and possibly a cleaner plan B. When THIS
happens, do THAT . . . every time.
>"I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
>once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
>removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection.
> . . .
>The point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset
>and provided service throughout the remainder of that flight."
Hmmm. If it immediately resumed functioning after resetting the
breaker, perhaps the ignition never failed, but the heat (and probably
higher currents operating at high temperatures) caused the breaker
to nuisance trip.
The keyword here is "nuisance". I've had to cut the
TC guys some slack for being somewhat submissive to
nuisance trips . . . to strive for the elegant solution
can sometimes be very time consuming and expensive.
One is well advised to trade off cost/benefit ratios.
In the OBAM aircraft world, we're not only able, we are
encouraged to refine any system's configuration in way
that increases the displacement between it's experimental
roots and an enduring recipe for success.
But when one gets a 'nuisance trip' with current protection
that is nearly 2.5 times the published draw numbers . . .
there are reasons to seek answers to some serious questions.
There is a clash of postulates which beg resolution.
They just get extra attention since pilots are more concerned with their
ignition failing than say their nav lights going out ;-)
ABSOLUTELY! Which is why I've recommended that electrically
dependent engine accessories drive from always hot battery
bus with totally independent power paths. If two ignition
systems require power and two batteries are available, then
split the systems between the batteries.
But when a 2A device trips a 5A breaker . . . well . . .
A pullable breaker would stop current flow caused by a stuck relay,
and the manual pump could be used to operate the gear, so there is
no significant flight risk.
Great.
Those relays do look undersized to me.
Better relays might reduce long term maintenance however. Or perhaps
just carry a spare along might be the most practical approach. I think
the latter ?
I thought we were talking about a much larger
hydraulic system. The amount of snort needed to
operate the gear in floats is much smaller than
that used on a GlasAir or Lancair. I think these
relays will be fine and since you have a backup
hand pump, your risks are quite low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Hi Bob=0AI built a cold air induction for my glasair and will have an alter
nate filtered air when on the ground.- I take off with 10 deg of flaps.
- Could there be a way to sequence this alternate air door with the flaps
?- When the flaps come up the the door opens to allow ram air and when th
e flaps come down it closes the ram air.- Am I getting to complicated?=0A
Jim=0A=0A-=0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT U77=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASen
t: Friday, January 27, 2012 1:40 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: F
bert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AThere is a manu
al hand pump, so no emergency is created.=0A=0A- - Then a robust fuse s
olution goes toward a cleaner=0A- - panel and possibly a cleaner plan B
. When THIS=0A- - happens, do THAT . . . every time.=0A=0A>"I have had
to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system=0A>once. The reset
was successful and power was restored to the unit. I=0A>removed the unit a
nd sent it back to Klaus for inspection.=0A> . . .=0A>The- point, w
hen the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset=0A>and provided s
ervice throughout the remainder of that flight."=0A=0AHmmm.- If it immedi
ately resumed functioning after resetting the=0Abreaker, perhaps the igniti
on never failed, but the heat (and probably=0Ahigher currents operating at
high temperatures) caused the breaker=0Ato nuisance trip.=0A=0A- - The
keyword here is "nuisance". I've had to cut the=0A- - TC guys some slac
k for being somewhat submissive to=0A- - nuisance trips . . . to strive
for the elegant solution=0A- - can sometimes be very time consuming an
d expensive.=0A- - One is well advised to trade off cost/benefit ratios
.=0A=0A- - In the OBAM aircraft world, we're not only able, we are=0A
- - encouraged to refine any system's configuration in way=0A- - th
at increases the displacement between it's experimental=0A- - roots and
an enduring recipe for success.=0A=0A- - But when one gets a 'nuisance
trip' with current protection=0A- - that is nearly 2.5 times the publi
shed draw numbers . . .=0A- - there are reasons to seek answers to some
serious questions.=0A- - There is a clash of postulates which beg reso
lution.=0A=0AThey just get extra attention since pilots are more concerned
with their=0Aignition failing than say their nav lights going out ;-)=0A=0A
- - ABSOLUTELY! Which is why I've recommended that electrically=0A-
- dependent engine accessories drive from always hot battery=0A- - bu
s with totally independent power paths. If two ignition=0A- - systems r
equire power and two batteries are available, then=0A- - split the syst
ems between the batteries.=0A=0A- - But when a 2A device trips a 5A bre
aker . . . well . . .=0A=0AA pullable breaker would stop current flow cause
d by a stuck relay,=0Aand the manual pump could be used to operate the gear
, so there is=0Ano significant flight risk.=0A=0A- - Great.=0A=0AThose
relays do look undersized to me.=0A=0ABetter relays might reduce long term
maintenance however.- Or perhaps=0Ajust carry a spare along might be the
most practical approach.- I think=0Athe latter ?=0A=0A- - I thought w
e were talking about a much larger=0A- - hydraulic system. The amount o
f snort needed to=0A- - operate the gear in floats is much smaller than
=0A- - that used on a GlasAir or Lancair. I think these=0A- - relay
s will be fine and since you have a backup=0A- - hand pump, your risks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Hi Bob
I built a cold air induction for my glasair and will have an
alternate filtered air when on the ground. I take off with 10 deg of
flaps.
Could there be a way to sequence this alternate air door with the flaps?
When the flaps come up the the door opens to allow ram air and when the
flaps come down it closes the ram air. Am I getting to complicated?
Jim
Is your alternate air door electrically
operated? If so, you can use a switch, activated by the flaps, to open
the
door when flaps are up, and close as soon as flaps are cycled down.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers - too complicated |
James,
The short answer is: yes, you are getting too complicated.
When you try to do something like that, you must view the situation from
every conceivable angle to determine if there is some scenario, however
weird or un-likely, that those automatic actions can actually get you into
trouble.
Airliners have many systems that interact so that when you do A, B & C
happen automatically - however - Airline pilots receive a LOT of systems
training and recurrent training.
Having issued that caveat, I have to say (just like I tell my clients - I'm
and IT consultant) "we can do (absolutely) anything you want, it just takes
time and money".
-Jeff Luckey
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Robinson
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 15:34
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
Hi Bob
I built a cold air induction for my glasair and will have an alternate
filtered air when on the ground. I take off with 10 deg of flaps. Could
there be a way to sequence this alternate air door with the flaps? When the
flaps come up the the door opens to allow ram air and when the flaps come
down it closes the ram air. Am I getting to complicated?
Jim
James Robinson Glasair lll N79R Spanish Fork UT U77
_____
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
There is a manual hand pump, so no emergency is created.
Then a robust fuse solution goes toward a cleaner
panel and possibly a cleaner plan B. When THIS
happens, do THAT . . . every time.
>"I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
>once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
>removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection.
> . . .
>The point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset
>and provided service throughout the remainder of that flight."
Hmmm. If it immediately resumed functioning after resetting the
breaker, perhaps the ignition never failed, but the heat (and probably
higher currents operating at high temperatures) caused the breaker
to nuisance trip.
The keyword here is "nuisance". I've had to cut the
TC guys some slack for being somewhat submissive to
nuisance trips . . . to strive for the elegant solution
can sometimes be very time consuming and expensive.
One is well advised to trade off cost/benefit ratios.
In the OBAM aircraft world, we're not only able, we are
encouraged to refine any system's configuration in way
that increases the displacement between it's experimental
roots and an enduring recipe for success.
But when one gets a 'nuisance trip' with current protection
that is nearly 2.5 times the published draw numbers . . .
there are reasons to seek answers to some serious questions.
There is a clash of postulates which beg resolution.
They just get extra attention since pilots are more concerned with their
ignition failing than say their nav lights going out ;-)
ABSOLUTELY! Which is why I've recommended that electrically
dependent engine accessories drive from always hot battery
bus with totally independent power paths. If two ignition
systems require power and two batteries are available, then
split the systems between the batteries.
But when a 2A device trips a 5A breaker . . . well . . .
A pullable breaker would stop current flow caused by a stuck relay,
and the manual pump could be used to operate the gear, so there is
no significant flight risk.
Great.
Those relays do look undersized to me.
Better relays might reduce long term maintenance however. Or perhaps
just carry a spare along might be the most practical approach. I think
the latter ?
I thought we were talking about a much larger
hydraulic system. The amount of snort needed to
operate the gear in floats is much smaller than
that used on a GlasAir or Lancair. I think these
relays will be fine and since you have a backup
hand pump, your risks
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
_; &nb===================
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
much much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Thanks Roger=0AIt was going to be a simple cable operation, but I thought I
would explore other alternatives before making a final decision.=0AJim=0A
=0A-=0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT U77=0A=0A=0A
________________________________=0A From: ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <mrspudandco
mpany(at)verizon.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Friday, J
anuary 27, 2012 5:53 PM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuses instead
of breakers=0A =0A=0A--- --- Hi Bob=0A--- --- I bu
ilt a cold air induction for my glasair and will have an=0Aalternate filter
ed air when on the ground.- I take off with 10 deg of flaps.=0ACould ther
e be a way to sequence this alternate air door with the flaps?=0AWhen the f
laps come up the the door opens to allow ram air and when the=0Aflaps come
down it closes the ram air.- Am I getting to complicated?=0A--- -
-- Jim=0A=0A--- --- --- --- Is your alternate a
ir door electrically=0Aoperated?- If so, you can use a switch, activated
by the flaps, to open the=0Adoor when flaps are up, and close as soon as fl
aps are cycled down.=0A=0A--- --- --- --- Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Back when this came up a couple years ago, and Bob C and I discussed possible
solutions to this, I did some testing with a 10amp breaker and a 7.5 amp breaker
switch. Klaus calls out for power to always be hot from the battery which
is not something I am fond of so I figured a switch breaker would be a better
choice than two breakers and a switch. In running these two devices in series
with the approx length of wire needed, I was able to repeatedly get the breaker
switch to "blow" without tripping the 10amp. I know this is a bit of a given
but I wanted to see it for myself.
I have a dual LSE3 config and I'm now considering simplifying this by having
one off of my vp200 and the other direct to the battery with just a 7.5 amp fuse
or breaker. This way if there is a nuisance trip, I can reset via the vp200
and run off a single lse if needed until I land. Of course that still does
leave a potential failure mode should both trip and the vp200 connected one not
come back online.
Michael
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:21 PM, "bcondrey" wrote:
>
> FWIW, this subject has been discussed before on the AeroElectric list. Use the
search function for the words "Klaus" and "crowbar" and you'll find a couple
threads from early 2009. Turns out that it's not just over-voltage events that
will cause them to crowbar but apparently over-temp. This was posted on Feb
1, 2009:
>
> "I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system
> once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I
> removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault
> was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in
> an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling
> while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp
> was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to
> the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation
> port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that
> compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The
> point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset and
> provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. "
>
> Without getting into the discussion of whether the design should or shouldn't
be modified, my purpose on posting (now and back in early 2009) is simply to
make those with dual LSE ignition setups aware that fuses can't be arbitrarily
substituted for CBs in this case.
>
> Bob C
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364895#364895
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
In the spirit of trying to move the ball forward I'll suggest that fusible links
to protect the battery feeders are probably the best way to go in a cost/weight/reliability
trade. They provide protection of the feeder wires, have a slow
time constant so a panel CB will trip first, are inexpensive and lightweight.
A larger CB would does the job also but with more weight and cost.
If you've only got a single LSE then maybe no issue since you'll always have a
mag to fall back on. If you're running a pair of them however, you need to fully
understand failure modes and mitigate the risks. This thread started with
the question of whether a fuse would be an adequate substitute for a CB in this
application. Given what I believe to be true about the ignitions, the answer
is a qualified NO. Qualified because it's only a REAL issue if you don't have
a mag to fall back on. Installing as recommended by the manufacturer using
a panel mounted CB gives you a solid install. Just make sure you don't do something
that compromises that by putting a fuse upstream or substituting a fuse
for the panel CB. If you want to protect the feeder use a slightly larger
CB or fusible link. You can do a very simple experiment as Michael did to validate
the fuse issue (when upstream of a CB).
Bob C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365024#365024
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 07:49 AM 1/28/2012, you wrote:
Sausen)"
Back when this came up a couple years ago, and Bob C and I
discussed possible solutions to this, I did some testing with a 10amp
breaker and a 7.5 amp breaker switch. Klaus calls out for power to
always be hot from the battery which is not something I am fond of so
I figured a switch breaker would be a better choice than two breakers
and a switch. In running these two devices in series with the approx
length of wire needed, I was able to repeatedly get the breaker
switch to "blow" without tripping the 10amp. I know this is a bit of
a given but I wanted to see it for myself.
It's not always a 'given'. Thermally operated feeder protection
have what is called and I(squared)*T constant. Meaning that if
you plot trip times versus fault current, you find that doubling
the fault current produces a trip in 1/4th the time.
Combine this knowledge with the manufacturer's specs for I(squared)*T
for any given device and you can deduce the probability that one
device will trip before the other. But understand too that thermally
activated circuit protection are not "calibrated devices". Look at
the response curves for an exemplar miniature breaker . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Exemplar_Circuit-Breaker_Trip_Response.pdf
For any given fault current combined with ambient temperature
the trip times can vary widely. On top of that variation you
can add "preheat" influences and manufacturing tolerances.
Bottom line is that one should be very cautious about putting
two protective devices in series with any notions about one
tripping before the other.
Your power company has done these studies. As you travel
up the energy-chain from a hair dryer plugged into the
wall to the alternator that provides watt-seconds to dry
your hair, each protective device upstream of any
other protective device is many times more robust.
You don't want the protective device in hair dryer
being over stressed but the whole neighborhood goes
dark instead.
Let's talk design goals:
(1) It's a GOOD thing to be able to cut all power to
every other accessory in the airplane and NOT have
the engine stop. Solution - electronic ignitions
and fuel pumps should power from an always hot
battery bus.
(2) It's a GOOD thing to have always hot wires in
the airplane limited in their ability to produce
fault currents likely to ignite post crash fires.
Solution - protect such feeders at the battery bus
with I(squared)*T constants that reduce such risk
to acceptable levels. Question - what's an acceptable
level? Answer - Don't know from first hand knowledge.
However, folks-who-claim-to-know-more-about-airplanes-
than-we-do have declared that 5A circuit protection
is the golden number.
Exceptions - They did not specify an I(squared)*T
constant for that protection.
What's the prudent system integrator to do? Well,
for starters we can deduce that the exemplar 5A
breaker common to GA, AT, and Military aircraft
is "blessed" so we are on reasonably sound foundation
using that performance for a baseline. What's good
for 100,000 airplanes is good for my RV.
Okay, it's easily demonstrated that a miniature 5A
breaker in series with a 10A ATC fuse will not
open before the fuse does. But what are the risks
for raising the always hot feeder protection to
say 15 or 20A ATC fuse? Who knows? It's a certainty
that some agency would love to have a $million$ budget
to research an answer and then write rules about
it.
So what's a reasonable approach for standing off
the worries amongst those in our numbers who do
worry about it a lot?
I suggest that it is quite simple:
But a bigger fuse in at the battery bus. I don't
care if you go to 20A. 20A wire too? No. We already
KNOW that a 20A steady state current will not burn
a 22AWG wire.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
So wire with 20AWG or even 18AWG. Remember, we're
talking about crash safety. What is the likelihood
that your 20A/18AWG, always-hot feeder will be
placed in a potential position for setting you
on fire? Very low. Further, keep in mind that an
always hot wire in a wreck may not get hard-faulted
in a way that would open even the 5A breaker. A
soft-fault on a 12 volt battery feeder protected
at 5A is VERY capable of starting fires. So that
5A number goes more to setting rules and stopping
arguments than it does to any scientific hedge
against conflagration.
The rational solution:
(1) I suggest that agonizing over fuse sizes
is a waste of intellectual and emotional
capital. Make the fuse BIG in comparison to system
DEMAND. Make the wire mechanically robust which
makes it QUITE capable of meeting system demands
but not necessarily capable of meeting AC43-13
temperature rise recommendations - you're never going
to load the wire that hard. This is a special
case that does not fit the legacy design goals
for wire/breaker/fuse sizing.
(2) Don't get wrapped around the axle of crash safety.
That problem has been painted with a VERY broad
brush. Better that you crash for reasons
beyond your control than because ignition or fuel
pump supply feeders protection were too light
and the engine quit.
I have a dual LSE3 config and I'm now considering simplifying this by
having one off of my vp200 and the other direct to the battery with
just a 7.5 amp fuse or breaker. This way if there is a nuisance
trip, I can reset via the vp200 and run off a single lse if needed
until I land. Of course that still does leave a potential failure
mode should both trip and the vp200 connected one not come back online.
It's my considered recommendation that the LSE
system not depend on ANY other features in your
power distribution beyond a fuse at the battery
bus (not a breaker . . . we want it to be FAST)
and a switch on the panel. You want to be able
to shut the MASTER off without having the engine
quit. Same thing for your fuel pumps if you have
them.
Remove the term NUISANCE TRIP from the lexicon
of talking about your airplane's electrical systems.
The only circuits that EVER nuisance trip are those
not properly crafted to design goals . . . like
those stated above.
ANY time you hear a hangar-tale or ramp-rumor
about somebody's system tripping but the day was
saved by pushing a breaker back in, then thank
your stars for the fact that you participate
on the AeroElectric-List and folks have helped
you design for robustness. YOUR airplane is not
going to suffer nuisance trips. If it EVER does,
you'll find out why and make appropriate changes
to see that it never happens again. Then you'll
share that event with the rest of us on the List
just in case you've discovered some new condition
that others need to be aware of.
Further, if we do find that an LSE product is
fitted with any sort of CROWBAR ov protection
(which I doubt) then I think it is prudent
to ask that your devices be delivered with that
feature disabled. There is no good reason to
build such a feature into any accessory. Even
LSE says it's mandatory that your SHIP'S SYSTEM
be fitted with ov protection.
Finally, if the foregoing does not give you sufficient
confidence based upon understanding the potential effects
of departing from the manufacturer's recipe for
success, then please follow the manufacture's
recommendations TO THE LETTER. Keeping the engine
running should be the LEAST of your worries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
At 09:36 AM 1/28/2012, you wrote:
In the spirit of trying to move the ball forward I'll suggest that
fusible links to protect the battery feeders are probably the best
way to go in a cost/weight/reliability trade. They provide protection
of the feeder wires, have a slow time constant so a panel CB will
trip first, are inexpensive and lightweight. A larger CB would does
the job also but with more weight and cost.
Except that they are overly robust and do not even
come close to addressing concerns for crash safety.
A 20A ATC fuse is an excellent middle ground that
offers approximately 10X operational robustness
factor and still reacts quickly to crash induced
hard faults.
There is no good reason to "double up" with breakers
on the panel. Fuses/breaker/limiters/links are to protect
wires. Only ONE is needed between the ignition system's
power source and the electronics. So the up-sized fuse
makes the most sense.
If you've only got a single LSE then maybe no issue since you'll
always have a mag to fall back on. If you're running a pair of them
however, you need to fully understand failure modes and mitigate the risks.
That's what the List is all about . . .
This thread started with the question of whether a fuse would be an
adequate substitute for a CB in this application. Given what I
believe to be true about the ignitions, the answer is a qualified
NO. Qualified because it's only a REAL issue if you don't have a mag
to fall back on.
Are you offered a dual failure hypothesis?
Installing as recommended by the manufacturer using a panel mounted
CB gives you a solid install.
Operationally correct but no consideration
for crash-safety.
Just make sure you don't do something that compromises that by
putting a fuse upstream or substituting a fuse for the panel CB. If
you want to protect the feeder use a slightly larger CB or fusible
link. You can do a very simple experiment as Michael did to validate
the fuse issue (when upstream of a CB).
Don't over-simply such experiments. The devil is
in the details. Better you have ONE protective
device crafted for robustness while not seriously
disregarding crash safety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
> I thought we were talking about a much larger
> hydraulic system. The amount of snort needed to
> operate the gear in floats is much smaller than
> that used on a GlasAir or Lancair. I think these
> relays will be fine and since you have a backup
> hand pump, your risks are quite low.
So perhaps 10AWG wire is not required ?
The installation instructions show 12AWG with a 25A pullable breaker.
Many builders are happily flying with this installation.
The hydralic pump motor is a Parker-Oildyne series 108 12VDC permanent
magnet motor code AE 0.327".
The pressure switches are 500psi. I assume this means that there will
be brief spikes above
this pressure at the motor when it first starts up, but after the
fluid is moving, it must be less than 500psi.
Based on the small graph, the current at 500psi is 17A to produce a
flow of 51 cubic inches per minute, but I have no method to estimate
the inrush current as the motor starts up. The graph stops at 2000psi
at 48A continuous (but not for long according to the intermittent use
temperature graph). The successful use of small relays would indicate
the inrush current is not significant ?
I don't know how to estimate the inrush current, nor the amount of
voltage sag that would negatively impact the motor at startup.
So I can't calculate any possible advantages of heavier wire :-(
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
So perhaps 10AWG wire is not required ?
The installation instructions show 12AWG with a 25A pullable breaker.
Many builders are happily flying with this installation.
Well, let's run the numbers and see . . .
The hydralic pump motor is a Parker-Oildyne series 108 12VDC permanent
magnet motor code AE 0.327".
AHA! REAL stick-to-your-grey-matter data. It's amazing
what you can discover if given a few numbers. In this case:
Emacs!
Okay. The critical numbers here are the cubic inch displacement
per revolution (0.0321). The current at any two flow points which
gives you the slope of the line in PSI/AMP. The point where
pressure goes to zero but flow is max. This point establishes
the internal energy dissipation in motor and pump. We could
develop all the torque and CEMF constants for the motor
in numbers . . . but the questions yield nicely to a
pencil and straight-edge solution too.
I've extended the curves to the point where flow goes to
zero (stall) and current goes to zero (which provides
the anchor point for zero load RPM of the motor. But to
get to THE question of the moment, I deduce that stall
current for this motor is on the order of 70 amps. This
current is EQUAL to that demanded of a 3200 PSI condition
which can never be achieved because of the relief valves.
The pressure switches are 500psi. I assume this means that there will
be brief spikes above this pressure at the motor when it first starts
up, but after the fluid is moving, it must be less than 500psi.
Actually no. Pressure induced motor current is dominant only
after the motor is stable at some speed. During start up, the
flows can be no greater than what the system back pressure
allows and is probably quite low. Motor current is high because
the armature is accelerating to a stable operating point. If
pressure reliefs are set for 500 psi then the maximum operating
current for the motor will be 17A and probably achieved only
when all cylinders reach their limits causing flow resistance
to spike. Only then would we expect the pressure to climb
rapidly for the moon . . . and were it NOT for relief valves,
the current would approach stall or a hose will blow off.
Now, if you started the motor up to FURTHER extend/retract
the gear against hard stops, you get the same 70A inrush
which would fall only to 17A and stay there as the relief valves
cracked. System pressure would never exceed 500 PSI.
Based on the small graph, the current at 500psi is 17A to produce a
flow of 51 cubic inches per minute, but I have no method to estimate
the inrush current as the motor starts up. The graph stops at 2000psi
at 48A continuous (but not for long according to the intermittent use
temperature graph).
Now you know how to do it.
The successful use of small relays would indicate the inrush
current is not significant ?
No, it's always significant.
Keep in mind that system wiring can have a profound
effect on inrush currents. 70A at 12v implies a motor
resistance of 12/70 or 0.17 ohms. 10AWG wire is one
millohm per foot. So adding say 10' of 10AWG in the total
loop resistance takes your motor + wire up to 180
milliohms for a new inrush of 12/.180 or 66 amps. Of
course, this doesn't account for any sag in electrical
system voltage during inrush. 12AWG wire is 1.6 milliohms
per foot so inrush comes down some more.
Since the running current cannot exceed 17A due to
action of relief valves, you COULD consider a 14AWG
or even 16AWG feeder for the purpose of limiting
inrush . . . assuming that becomes a design goal.
This would have no effect on available system pressure
because that is set by relief valves. It WOULD reduce
available flow at that pressure because motor voltage
hence RPM is slightly reduced. Wired per the instructions,
it seems that your inrush will be on the order of 50-65
amps which is no big deal on a 30A relay.
I don't know how to estimate the inrush current, nor the amount of
voltage sag that would negatively impact the motor at startup.
So I can't calculate any possible advantages of heavier wire :-(
The 'advantages' if any are murky. The system you're installing
has a successful track record with components specified
by the manufacturer. I can see no compelling reason
to alter that recipe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
Our credit card processing company of some 15 years
has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've
just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
enrollment in a "security validation program" for
yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't
support such burdens.
The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their
mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network'
(one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is
vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well.
I'm sorry to have to announce that effective
immediately, the AEC website catalog orders
will have to be paid through PayPal.
I've been thinking about getting a PayPal
friendly shopping cart program . . . the
problem is the assumption that everything
in the catalog is in stock for shipment now
. . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't
want to ding folks for cash until their
order is ready to ship. Easy with the old
system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP
invoices as the orders come together.
All CC orders pending will be shipped by
the end of this month under the old system.
All remittance for new orders will have to
flow through PayPal.
Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
| From: | Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz(at)gmail.com> |
No problem, Bob. I actually prefer PayPal as a means of sending and receiving
payments, and I agree with the PayPal objectives of providing an unburdened means
for conducting worldwide commerce. I'm sure most participants on this forum
will find PayPal a superior service.
Paul Kuntz
http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> Our credit card processing company of some 15 years
> has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've
> just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
> enrollment in a "security validation program" for
> yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't
> support such burdens.
>
> The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their
> mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network'
> (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is
> vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well.
>
> I'm sorry to have to announce that effective
> immediately, the AEC website catalog orders
> will have to be paid through PayPal.
>
> I've been thinking about getting a PayPal
> friendly shopping cart program . . . the
> problem is the assumption that everything
> in the catalog is in stock for shipment now
> . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't
> want to ding folks for cash until their
> order is ready to ship. Easy with the old
> system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP
> invoices as the orders come together.
>
> All CC orders pending will be shipped by
> the end of this month under the old system.
> All remittance for new orders will have to
> flow through PayPal.
>
> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Barber <cbarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
Bob,
If you have a smart phone, there is a product called "Square" that allows you to
use an smart phone to take charges. They have a little square dongle that plugs
into the phone and you can swipe the card. Yes, that is more for POS sales
but IIRC they also allow other charges and the fees are damned near non existence
compared to the old line guys.
They send you the dongle free and it is free to set up.
It may not work, but I think it would be worth your time to take a look by just
Googling "Square".
Chris Barber
Houston
________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III [nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:58 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times
Our credit card processing company of some 15 years
has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've
just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
enrollment in a "security validation program" for
yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't
support such burdens.
The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their
mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network'
(one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is
vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well.
I'm sorry to have to announce that effective
immediately, the AEC website catalog orders
will have to be paid through PayPal.
I've been thinking about getting a PayPal
friendly shopping cart program . . . the
problem is the assumption that everything
in the catalog is in stock for shipment now
. . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't
want to ding folks for cash until their
order is ready to ship. Easy with the old
system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP
invoices as the orders come together.
All CC orders pending will be shipped by
the end of this month under the old system.
All remittance for new orders will have to
flow through PayPal.
Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
That part is true, however, PayPal's fees are usurious.
David
Paul Kuntz wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Kuntz
>
> No problem, Bob. I actually prefer PayPal as a means of sending and receiving
payments, and I agree with the PayPal objectives of providing an unburdened
means for conducting worldwide commerce. I'm sure most participants on this forum
will find PayPal a superior service.
>
> Paul Kuntz
> http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>> Our credit card processing company of some 15 years
>> has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've
>> just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
>> enrollment in a "security validation program" for
>> yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't
>> support such burdens.
>>
>> The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their
>> mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network'
>> (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is
>> vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well.
>>
>> I'm sorry to have to announce that effective
>> immediately, the AEC website catalog orders
>> will have to be paid through PayPal.
>>
>> I've been thinking about getting a PayPal
>> friendly shopping cart program . . . the
>> problem is the assumption that everything
>> in the catalog is in stock for shipment now
>> . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't
>> want to ding folks for cash until their
>> order is ready to ship. Easy with the old
>> system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP
>> invoices as the orders come together.
>>
>> All CC orders pending will be shipped by
>> the end of this month under the old system.
>> All remittance for new orders will have to
>> flow through PayPal.
>>
>> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
Bob . . .
I actually prefer PayPal. It offers very easy convenient on
line ordering and payment plus it offers another layer of protection for
your credit card account.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
On 01/28/2012 07:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Our credit card processing company of some 15 years
> has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've
> just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
> enrollment in a "security validation program" for
> yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't
> support such burdens.
>
> The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their
> mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network'
> (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is
> vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well.
>
> I'm sorry to have to announce that effective
> immediately, the AEC website catalog orders
> will have to be paid through PayPal.
>
> I've been thinking about getting a PayPal
> friendly shopping cart program . . . the
> problem is the assumption that everything
> in the catalog is in stock for shipment now
> . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't
> want to ding folks for cash until their
> order is ready to ship. Easy with the old
> system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP
> invoices as the orders come together.
>
> All CC orders pending will be shipped by
> the end of this month under the old system.
> All remittance for new orders will have to
> flow through PayPal.
>
> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
I feel your pain. For me, PayPal is actually much easier to use, but the
transaction fees are pretty extreme for the seller.
I'm fired up about all the various incarnations of 'open source', from
Linux operating systems to no-charge software to groups like this, which
offer minimal cost assistance with the confidence someone will be
helping us in the future.
I saw this a few months ago.
http://drupal.org/project/dwolla
It's apparently a pretty small company at this point, but it's gotten
coverage from some major media outlets. This movement to provide needed
services at a truly fair cost has the potential to change our culture.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
Too bad, but I understand. I have a Pay-Pal account which I actually use once
in a while. Not an inconvenience, if I can just remember the password
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> All remittance for new orders will have to
> flow through PayPal.
>
> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
At 12:14 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>
>That part is true, however, PayPal's fees are usurious.
Except that it is proportional to cash flow. The
CC processing company was hitting me for by
the month fees whether I moved any funds or
not.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
I've used PayPal since it started up and was actually free. It's
certainly not that anymore. Generally it works well for the buyer, at
least. One caution though: if you ever have a dispute over anything
you're pretty much on your own. I had a problem with a seller and had a
terrible time even getting through to a human being in customer service
and got absolutely no help from PayPal to resolve my problem. I would
suggest that you set up a special bank account to link to your PayPal
account in a different bank than your primary accounts so that they
can't freeze all your accounts if there's a dispute. If you google
"paypal sucks" you'll find a website that details some of the cautions
in using the service. I don't mean to scare you off, but just beware!
John Grosse
PS: I don't know if your credit card problem is with your bank or what,
but I recently switched from a big bank to a credit union and am SO
happy. Better rates, better service, real people when you call, and no
BS. Everyone I know who has switched has had a similar experience.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
I run a vacation rental for two vacation home and I found PayPal to be more
reasonable than most other credit card processing companies.
Lynn Riggs
riggs_la(at)yahoo.com
http://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/p352107
http://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/p293990
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times
At 12:14 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>
>That part is true, however, PayPal's fees are usurious.
Except that it is proportional to cash flow. The
CC processing company was hitting me for by
the month fees whether I moved any funds or
not.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
At 08:31 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Too bad, but I understand. I have a Pay-Pal
>account which I actually use once in a
>while. Not an inconvenience, if I can just remember the password
I've had a PP account for years. Since I live out
in the hinterlands, EVERYTHING is 100 miles away.
When a project comes to a crawl (or dead in the water)
for lack of some item, the first place I look is eBay.
Probably 80% of the time I can find what I need there
even if it's a week or more away . . . just move on
to another project until the stuff arrives.
PP is exceedingly buyer friendly. I've even considered
going to an eBay Store format as opposed to my website
catalog page, but then I pay listing fees on top of
seller fees. Of course those can be compensate for
in my pricing but for now, I'd rather keep everything
humming on Matt's servers. Perhaps not practical from
a business sense but it preserves the fraternity.
There's something to be said for doing business with
the folks you KNOW.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
>
>I saw this a few months ago.
><http://drupal.org/project/dwolla>http://drupal.org/project/dwolla
>
>It's apparently a pretty small company at this point, but it's
>gotten coverage from some major media outlets. This movement to
>provide needed services at a truly fair cost has the potential to
>change our culture.
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll watch these
guys. What we're witnessing is the effect of
entrepreneur's creativity when some "need" or
competitive opportunity is perceived. I think
there are several PayPal-like activities operating
now.
Just as entrepreneur-driven experimental aviation
has offered an alternative to TC aircraft, folks
with Internet, computers, and big ideas will
at least make things more convenient and economical
for our grandkids!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
At 09:38 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
If you google "paypal sucks" you'll find a website that details some
of the cautions in using the service. I don't mean to scare you off,
but just beware!
This is offset by buying on eBay. Their buyer protection
service (applies only to purchases on eBay) is pretty
effective. Had a dispute with a seller a couple of years
ago that eBay resolved.
Given the underlying foundation of honorable behavior
amongst our fellow aviators, I don't anticipate any
risks. If anyone wants their money back from me . . .
all they gotta do is say so.
John Grosse
PS: I don't know if your credit card problem is with your bank or what
The problem is with the company that processes
credit card sales for business and transfers
money to the bank. They're 'like' PayPal but
apparently don't have the security sophistication
offered by PayPal (or price structures friendly
to small volume merchants).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
Bob,
Thank you ever so much for your analysis, and your time that you
obviously took to teach it. I was looking at that graph, thinking it
appeared they were providing lots of information, yet it seemed
insufficient.
Now that you have taught me how easy it is to extend the lines, I am
disappointed I didn't think of that myself, but now I can use that
technique to great benefit in the future.
Also very important, is that I can wire my aircraft, _knowing_ that
the installation is the best possible compromise of all the factors,
rather than blindly following the installation instructions of a
company who's expertise is building floats, rather than electrical
design.
In this case, your analysis confirms their installation instructions
are excellent, providing confidence that they offer a solid product.
Thanks !!
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Shop Note: Soldering iron tip cleaner |
There have been many tools offered for the purpose
of keeping your soldering iron tip "shinny" during
your labors at the workbench. The one I've used most
over the years is a CELLULOSE, not plastic sponge
damp with water. You can wipe the tip on this surface
and get corrosion and flux-gunk off the tip along
with most of the excess solder.
Over the years I've tried a couple of tip cleaners
that looked like that Chore Boy dish scrubber you
find at the grocery store. The made-for-workbench
tip cleaner came with a cup stuffed with the cleaning
medium that you could poke the tip into before approaching
a new joining. The things were pretty expensive compared
to the wet sponge and just didn't catch on with
me.
A couple days ago, I spotted some stainless steel
clones of the aforementioned dish scrubber in a
Dollar General store. Two of the biscuit-sized
critters for $1. Hmmmmm . . .
In the days since, I've found it handy to stuff
a wad of this material into the center of a spool
of solder. This keeps the tip cleaner handy when you're
off-bench. My Metcal iron-rest has a cavity at the
rear which seemed to beg for a stuffing of "stainless
steel flat-wire". I'm pleased to report that the mis-
application of this product has proven satisfactory
and preferable to the wet-sponge. You don't need to
keep a water bottle handy. You can have a cleaner built
into every spool of solder. You can build your own
clone of the $high$ soldering accessory for
under a buck. The tool seems to offer a much longer
service life than a sponge and it does a better
job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Interesting data point |
I've built a court-room demonstrator for an
upcoming trial wherein it was useful to show
the relative speed with which fuses and breakers
react to the same level of stress.
I elected to try a 6v alkaline lantern battery
to power the handy-dandy fuse-blower and breaker-
popper but had never investigated the internal
impedance of these devices. I can report that
the hard-fault current of these devices is on
the order of 20 amps.
This means that the internal impedance of a new
battery is approximately 6/20 = 300 milliohms.
So if one sets a wasted energy limit of 10% for
loading this battery, you will want your load
to be no greater than 9 x 300 = 2.7 ohms. This
translates into a 2.2 amp load.
I think most lantern bulbs are on the order of
.5 amps for 3 watts. This suggests a usage
efficiency on a new battery of about 97%.
Not bad. I'll cap-check one of those batteries
one day and report the findings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
I have a Z14 architecture (dual independent busses). On one bus I have a B&C 20A
alternator (LR3 external regulator) and an 8 AH Odyssey 310 battery. On the
other bus I have a B&C 40A alternator (LR3 external regulator) and a 17 AH Odyssey
680 battery.
Between the two busses I have a Crossfeed Contactor.
OK, so if one of my alternators malfunctions I can cut off its field supply and
kill it. Then I can switch on my Crossfeed Contactor and all should be well.
But maybe not.
Is it possible that because I would then have two batteries of different capacity/resistance
on line that the smaller battery might get fried over time. If so,
would it make sense in those circumstances to switch off the master contactor
for the smaller battery to protect the battery.
Regards Bob Barrow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365185#365185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
Personally I despise Paypal and I refuse to use their service. I've had
very poor service from them and their fees are too high.
I understand the problem with CC fees and I'm glad to see you are being
proactive to find another means to sell your products. But, some of us will
want to pay by check rather than enrich Paypal.
Stan Sutterfield
Port Orange, FL
In a message dated 1/29/2012 3:03:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
I actually prefer PayPal as a means of sending and receiving
payments, and I agree with the PayPal objectives of providing an
unburdened means
for conducting worldwide commerce. I'm sure most participants on this
forum
will find PayPal a superior service.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Not trying to be a "glass half empty" guy here, but just a realist.
You can't escape human greed wherever you turn. Even new startups that promise
this almost philanthropic view of better value for the customer often gradually
slide into the "hey we can make heaps more money out of this if we tie them
into this contract and....(insert means of screwing customer here)"'. That's the
double-edge sword of the free market coupled with our human nature.
I don't mind PayPal, however the comments above regarding disputes with the seller
are quite true. You're on your own (as I found out). The major cards (M/C,
Visa etc) are much better for that in my experience, and if I don't know the
seller, I won't touch PayPal.
--------
Mike
Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365190#365190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
Back when I did credit cards through Novus, I paid 0.4 to 1.4% per
transaction (never went over .65) and $30, then $40 month minimum. If I
had enough flow, then the $30/40 was taken care of. Those were the only
fees after initial setup and equipment purchase. Wonder if they're
still in business?
David
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 12:14 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> That part is true, however, PayPal's fees are usurious.
>
> Except that it is proportional to cash flow. The
> CC processing company was hitting me for by
> the month fees whether I moved any funds or
> not.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
Aren't PayPal and Ebay the same company?
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:38 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> If you google "paypal sucks" you'll find a website that details some
> of the cautions in using the service. I don't mean to scare you off,
> but just beware!
>
> This is offset by buying on eBay. Their buyer protection
> service (applies only to purchases on eBay) is pretty
> effective. Had a dispute with a seller a couple of years
> ago that eBay resolved.
>
> Given the underlying foundation of honorable behavior
> amongst our fellow aviators, I don't anticipate any
> risks. If anyone wants their money back from me . . .
> all they gotta do is say so.
>
> John Grosse
>
> PS: I don't know if your credit card problem is with your bank or what
>
> The problem is with the company that processes
> credit card sales for business and transfers
> money to the bank. They're 'like' PayPal but
> apparently don't have the security sophistication
> offered by PayPal (or price structures friendly
> to small volume merchants).
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon McLin <jon.mclin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fastons and Ground Bus |
Bob,
Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found is at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part, but it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The only prefab
bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big, heavy, and sparse.
Seems like the options are to rivet a series of 6-32 nutplates to an aluminum
or copper strip, or drill and tap a brass or copper bar. The nutplates are
typically locking, and plated steel, whereas the threaded bar may not be robust
(eg, easy to strip the threads). Opinions?
Finally, I ran across this faston distribution strip on the web:
http://www.eagleconnector.com/fseries.html
Cessna used a faston distribution for the light dimming bus. In the Cessna case,
it was hand-assembled: screw terminal strip; jumpers to bridge adjacent rows;
and straight and angled fastons attached to the screws. (Cessna used 0.187
fastons for this, and .250 for everything else).
Anyway, prefabricated faston distribution strips like this might be useful - ever
run across a retail source of such?
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Jon,
You can get them from B&C:
http://www.bandc.biz/grounding-supplies-battery-cables.aspx
I've bought one and it's just the job.
James
On 30 January 2012 14:04, Jon McLin wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we see
> a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found is at
> Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part, but it
> is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
>
> Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The only
> prefab bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big, heavy, and
> sparse. Seems like the options are to rivet a series of 6-32 nutplates to
> an aluminum or copper strip, or drill and tap a brass or copper bar. The
> nutplates are typically locking, and plated steel, whereas the threaded bar
> may not be robust (eg, easy to strip the threads). Opinions?
>
> Finally, I ran across this faston distribution strip on the web:
> http://www.eagleconnector.com/fseries.html
>
> Cessna used a faston distribution for the light dimming bus. In the
> Cessna case, it was hand-assembled: screw terminal strip; jumpers to bridge
> adjacent rows; and straight and angled fastons attached to the screws.
> (Cessna used 0.187 fastons for this, and .250 for everything else).
>
> Anyway, prefabricated faston distribution strips like this might be useful
> - ever run across a retail source of such?
>
> Jon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
Ebay owns PayPal, but technically they are different companies and they
started out independently.
John Grosse
David wrote:
>
> Aren't PayPal and Ebay the same company?
>
> David M.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Depending on your time/money balance and application, another option is to
make one. I used brass terminal strips from Stein and a piece of thin
brass stock from the hobby store:
http://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IMG_0262.jpg
Here's the link for Stein:
http://www.steinair.com/storedetail.cfm?productid=14
I have about $14 ($8 for tabs, $3 for brass, and $3 for hardware) invested
in mine, so in my case it was worth an hour or so of work to save the cost
of the B&C. This strategy could also be useful if you want a special shape
or layout, since you can make it exactly as you want.
Stein also has some options that may answer question 2:
http://www.steinair.com/store.cfm?tlcatid=27
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:22 AM, James Kilford wrote:
> Jon,
>
> You can get them from B&C:
>
> http://www.bandc.biz/grounding-supplies-battery-cables.aspx
>
> I've bought one and it's just the job.
>
> James
>
>
> On 30 January 2012 14:04, Jon McLin wrote:
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we
>> see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found is
>> at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part, but
>> it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
>>
>> Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The only
>> prefab bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big, heavy, and
>> sparse. Seems like the options are to rivet a series of 6-32 nutplates to
>> an aluminum or copper strip, or drill and tap a brass or copper bar. The
>> nutplates are typically locking, and plated steel, whereas the threaded bar
>> may not be robust (eg, easy to strip the threads). Opinions?
>>
>> Finally, I ran across this faston distribution strip on the web:
>> http://www.eagleconnector.com/fseries.html
>>
>> Cessna used a faston distribution for the light dimming bus. In the
>> Cessna case, it was hand-assembled: screw terminal strip; jumpers to bridge
>> adjacent rows; and straight and angled fastons attached to the screws.
>> (Cessna used 0.187 fastons for this, and .250 for everything else).
>>
>> Anyway, prefabricated faston distribution strips like this might be
>> useful - ever run across a retail source of such?
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> ric-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
I used a sheet of brass, drilled holes at appropriate spacing for my
studs then inserted brass machine screws from the rear and tightened
down a brass nut from the front. I used liquid flux under the head, nut,
and threads then applied solder using a torch to get sufficient heat to
the whole assembly. I completed the assembly with two flat washers, a
star washer, and a nut (all brass). It worked great and I was able to
have different sizes of studs for different purposes.
John Grosse
Jon McLin wrote:
> Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The only prefab
bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big, heavy, and sparse.
Seems like the options are to rivet a series of 6-32 nutplates to an aluminum
or copper strip, or drill and tap a brass or copper bar. The nutplates are
typically locking, and plated steel, whereas the threaded bar may not be robust
(eg, easy to strip the threads). Opinions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
> Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
Jon,
Steinair sells a "10 Tab Ground Strip" for a dollar
(http://www.steinair.net/storedetail.cfm?productid=14). A few dollars
worth of these, a piece of hobby store 0.040-inch brass sheet, and a bit
of soldering (with a torch) will give you any size ground block you need.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
RV-8A finish kit phase
Long-EZ flying
Jon McLin wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found is at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part, but it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
[message trimmed]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I made mine, too. A strip of .032" brass from the hobby shop, a little time
with a digital caliper to lay out, punch and drill and then band saw to the
holes. I got just what I wanted for $3 and part of an evening.
Rick Girard
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:24 AM, John Grosse wrote:
> grosseair(at)comcast.net>
>
> I used a sheet of brass, drilled holes at appropriate spacing for my studs
> then inserted brass machine screws from the rear and tightened down a brass
> nut from the front. I used liquid flux under the head, nut, and threads
> then applied solder using a torch to get sufficient heat to the whole
> assembly. I completed the assembly with two flat washers, a star washer,
> and a nut (all brass). It worked great and I was able to have different
> sizes of studs for different purposes.
> John Grosse
>
>
> Jon McLin wrote:
>
>> Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The only
>> prefab bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big, heavy, and
>> sparse. Seems like the options are to rivet a series of 6-32 nutplates to
>> an aluminum or copper strip, or drill and tap a brass or copper bar. The
>> nutplates are typically locking, and plated steel, whereas the threaded bar
>> may not be robust (eg, easy to strip the threads). Opinions?
>>
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
| From: | Dennis Ramsey <doramsey(at)gmail.com> |
B&C sells both a 24 and a 48 fast on ground bus.
On Jan 30, 2012 10:34 AM, "Joe Dubner" wrote:
>
> > Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
>
> Jon,
>
> Steinair sells a "10 Tab Ground Strip" for a dollar (
> http://www.steinair.net/**storedetail.cfm?productid=14>).
> A few dollars worth of these, a piece of hobby store 0.040-inch brass
> sheet, and a bit of soldering (with a torch) will give you any size ground
> block you need.
>
> --
> Joe
> Independence, OR
> RV-8A finish kit phase
> Long-EZ flying
>
>
> Jon McLin wrote:
>
>>
>> Bob,
>> Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/**Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg> we see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found
>> is at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part,
>> but it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston
>> strips?
>>
>
> [message trimmed]
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
At 08:04 AM 1/30/2012, you wrote:
Bob,
Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we
see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've
found is at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an
8-tab part, but it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for
high-count faston strips?
Not easy to find in the constellation of suppliers
to the commercial-off-the-shelf market. I designed
the B&C ground tabs product about 15 years ago . . . back
then we were getting continuous spools of 2-row, tab-stock
which was cut to length and then sweat-soldered to a brass
base.
Sometimes we could exploit the offerings of a new-old-stock
surplus house for cut-pieces suited to the task but rarely.
The reason I turned that idea into a B&C product was because
of the difficulty of finding long strings of tabs and the
somewhat labor intensive techniques for acquiring all the
materials and the assembling the critters.
It's my humble opinion that you're way ahead in the value
of your $time$ to get these pre-assembled.
On the other hand, if you've got an itch to build on, use
the stock parts from Digikey, pop rivet them to a brass
base (one rivet in the center is good) for fixturing.
Heat up with a torch from the under side while flowing
63/37 electronic solder into the joint between the base
and tabs.
Second: suppose I wanted a similar bus for some ring terminals. The
only prefab bars I can find are for 19" equipment racks, and are big,
heavy, and sparse. Seems like the options are to rivet a series of
6-32 nutplates to an aluminum or copper strip, or drill and tap a
brass or copper bar. The nutplates are typically locking, and plated
steel, whereas the threaded bar may not be robust (eg, easy to strip
the threads). Opinions?
Please don't drill and tap holes into anything for
the purpose of crafting a bus bar. Use the same brass
stock (.06 or thicker) base plate (square is better than single
row, rectangular is better than single row). Install 10-32
brass screws and brass nuts in an array of ground studs.
Solder screws and nuts to the brass plate.
Use metallic lock-nuts to put your terminals down on
the studs. If you're rolling your own, perhaps the
tabs and studs can be on the same base.
Finally, I ran across this faston distribution strip on the web:
http://www.eagleconnector.com/fseries.html
Cessna used a faston distribution for the light dimming bus. In the
Cessna case, it was hand-assembled: screw terminal strip; jumpers to
bridge adjacent rows; and straight and angled fastons attached to the
screws. (Cessna used 0.187 fastons for this, and .250 for everything else).
Many moons ago, I gave several copies of the 'Connection
to the electrical group responsible for the single engine
line in Independence KS. A short time later, I heard that
they incorporated a single point ground into the product
line. I'd like to believe the 'Connection planted the seeds
of an attractive idea . . .
Anyway, prefabricated faston distribution strips like this might be
useful - ever run across a retail source of such?
Try Eagle Connector. Their phone number is at the
bottom of the data sheet:
http://www.eagleconnector.com/images/F-series%20specs.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fastons and Ground Bus |
This was exactly what I did, custom size and layout for a fraction of the price.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe Dubner
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fastons and Ground Bus
> Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
Jon,
Steinair sells a "10 Tab Ground Strip" for a dollar (http://www.steinair.net/storedetail.cfm?productid=14). A few dollars worth of these, a piece of hobby store 0.040-inch brass sheet, and a bit of soldering (with a torch) will give you any size ground block you need.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
RV-8A finish kit phase
Long-EZ flying
Jon McLin wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/gnd_bus.jpg we see a lovely ganged faston with about 24 tabs. The biggest I've found is at Digikey, where they stock a 6-tab part (and they list an 8-tab part, but it is non-stock). Can you identify a source for high-count faston strips?
[message trimmed]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rasmussen, Robert CAPT USFF, N3 OTRC" <robert.rasmussen(at)navy.mil> |
Hi y'all.
First post, so be gentle.
I'm wiring an RV8 (mostly vfr/xc) using Figure Z-11.
I'll have a single aft mounted battery.
2 Questions:
-does the Battery Bus have to be at/near the battery? I note the * = 6 inches
or less in length notation, but I'd prefer to have it in the panel if possible.
This would require an in-line fuse or fusible link on that wire at the battery.
-what are the benefits of Schottky diode vs Bridge Rectifier (Radio Shack 276-1185;
like on 'Connection page 1-9) between Main Bus and Battery Bus?
-is a completed AEC9005 low voltage warning module available for sale? All I see
on the AE product page is a Bare Etched Circuit Board.
Ok, that's 3 questions - I'll pay back later :-)
Thanks.
raz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
At 10:32 PM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
I have a Z14 architecture (dual independent busses). On one bus I
have a B&C 20A alternator (LR3 external regulator) and an 8 AH
Odyssey 310 battery. On the other bus I have a B&C 40A alternator
(LR3 external regulator) and a 17 AH Odyssey 680 battery.
Between the two busses I have a Crossfeed Contactor.
OK, so if one of my alternators malfunctions I can cut off its field
supply and kill it. Then I can switch on my Crossfeed Contactor and
all should be well. But maybe not.
Is it possible that because I would then have two batteries of
different capacity/resistance on line that the smaller battery might
get fried over time. If so, would it make sense in those
circumstances to switch off the master contactor for the smaller
battery to protect the battery.
This scenario offers no special issues. First,
just because one alternator has failed may
not call for an immediate closure of the cross-
feed contactor.
Assume the big alternator fails:
Depending on how you've distributed loads on the
two buses, it may be both possible and prudent to shut
down the main bus completely and hold the main battery
state of charge in reserve for descent and approach
to landing. Since the aux battery is so small, you might
as well just leave the main bus disconnected but power
up the main battery master as you enter the airport
traffic area. Then use that energy as needed for comfortable
completion of flight.
If the small alternator fails then closing the cross-feed
contactor only puts your fully charged small battery in
parallel with the main battery . . . no big deal.
The only RISK to the small battery is to CHARGE it heavily
from either alternator. If you KNOW that the little battery
has been heavily discharged, better that you bring it up
on a current limited charger before you go flying. Alternatively,
charge in flight on the little alternator with as many aux
bus accessories turned on as possible thus limiting the
energy "left over" to charge the battery.
But connecting dissimilar batteries in parallel presents
no special risks to either battery. Both will deliver what
ever energy they contain in an orderly manner. You just
need to be careful not to stuff energy back into the little
guy at a rate which will heat it up pretty good.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder antenna |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Should I be concerned about mounting a transponder antenna near fuel lines/fittings?
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365267#365267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 03:10 PM 1/30/2012, you wrote:
Hi y'all.
First post, so be gentle.
We're all friends here . . .
2 Questions:
-does the Battery Bus have to be at/near the battery? I note the * =
6 inches or less in length notation, but I'd prefer to have it in the
panel if possible. This would require an in-line fuse or fusible
link on that wire at the battery.
If it's not at the battery, it's not a battery bus.
Fuses in the battery bus block are best limited to
10A or less, breakers at 5A or less. Always hot
wires (wires over which the crew has no control) are
protected with very limited ability to create high
energy fault currents. The legacy rules in TC aircraft
talk about about limiting heavy feeders to 6" and
longer wires are protected at 5A or less (in breakers).
-what are the benefits of Schottky diode vs Bridge Rectifier (Radio
Shack 276-1185; like on 'Connection page 1-9) between Main Bus and Battery Bus?
Slightly less voltage drop. But the differences
are so small you'll never notice them from the
pilot's seat.
-is a completed AEC9005 low voltage warning module available for
sale? All I see on the AE product page is a Bare Etched Circuit Board.
Just the bare board. It's not hard to put together.
Maybe this would be a good way to "dip your soldering
iron in the waters of hand crafted electronics."
Ok, that's 3 questions - I'll pay back later :-)
Thanks.
raz
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna |
Good question.
Don't have an answer but would also like to know if the transponder needs
some backing reinforcement or just mount it to the belly skin?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tomcostanza
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
-->
Should I be concerned about mounting a transponder antenna near fuel
lines/fittings?
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365267#365267
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna |
| From: | Stein Bruch <stein(at)steinair.com> |
No worry about where you mount it, but re-enforcement is dependent on which antenna
you use, where it is at, skin thickness, etc...
Cheers,
Stein
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:37 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>
> Good question.
>
> Don't have an answer but would also like to know if the transponder needs
> some backing reinforcement or just mount it to the belly skin?
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tomcostanza
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
>
> -->
>
> Should I be concerned about mounting a transponder antenna near fuel
> lines/fittings?
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365267#365267
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna |
TED transponder on bottom belly skin of RV7. Probably 032 thick, maybe 040.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
-->
No worry about where you mount it, but re-enforcement is dependent on which
antenna you use, where it is at, skin thickness, etc...
Cheers,
Stein
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:37 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
> -->
>
> Good question.
>
> Don't have an answer but would also like to know if the transponder
> needs some backing reinforcement or just mount it to the belly skin?
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tomcostanza
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
>
> -->
>
> Should I be concerned about mounting a transponder antenna near fuel
> lines/fittings?
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365267#365267
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
Hi Bob,
I don't often comment on the list, been lurking for a long time though.
My wife and I run a small company and went through a similar issue some
months ago. In our case we accepted credit card orders by phone and
processed them on a separate terminal we've used for years and also took
website orders using PayPal. We eventually stopped accepting credit card
phone orders simply because the fixed fees were exorbitant. I see others
have commented on PayPal's fees, they seem fairly reasonable to me and there
is no fixed fee. Basically we're paying 30 cents plus 2.9% of the order
total. Roughly it's about 3% of most orders which is similar, I believe, to
what much bigger merchants pay MC and Visa.
My .02c
Tony.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:58 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times
-->
Our credit card processing company of some 15 years has been slowing driving
up the fixed fees. I've just received a letter informing me of my mandatory
enrollment in a "security validation program" for yet another fixed fee. My
gross sales simply won't support such burdens.
The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their mandated 'service' might
well find that my 'network'
(one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is vulnerable and needs more
$upgrading$ as well.
I'm sorry to have to announce that effective immediately, the AEC website
catalog orders will have to be paid through PayPal.
I've been thinking about getting a PayPal friendly shopping cart program . .
. the problem is the assumption that everything in the catalog is in stock
for shipment now
. . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't want to ding folks for cash
until their order is ready to ship. Easy with the old system. But for the
time being, we'll issue PP invoices as the orders come together.
All CC orders pending will be shipped by the end of this month under the old
system.
All remittance for new orders will have to flow through PayPal.
Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Sign of the times |
Bob B,
Just fyi, you don't need a PayPal account to pay for something, you just use
your credit card - although PP tries to get you to use a PP account you
don't have to.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Borger
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times
-->
Bob,
Too bad, but I understand. I have a Pay-Pal account which I actually use
once in a while. Not an inconvenience, if I can just remember the password.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> -->
>
> All remittance for new orders will have to flow through PayPal.
>
> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
And, I might as well add my 2 cents here...now there is no fee
charged to either the sender or the recipient if the payment is
within the US and you pay from either a Paypal balance or
directly from your bank account. There is a fee charged for use
of credit or debit cards or international payments.
Quoting Paypal: "*New! Free* for sender and recipient in the US
when you send using your bank account or PayPal balance."
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/31/2012 4:42 AM, Tony Babb wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb"
>
> Bob B,
>
> Just fyi, you don't need a PayPal account to pay for something, you just use
> your credit card - although PP tries to get you to use a PP account you
> don't have to.
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> Borger
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:32 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Borger
> -->
>
> Bob,
>
> Too bad, but I understand. I have a Pay-Pal account which I actually use
> once in a while. Not an inconvenience, if I can just remember the password.
>
> Blue skies& tailwinds,
> Bob Borger
> Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
> Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
> Corinth, TX 76208-5331
> Cel: 817-992-1117
> rlborger(at)mac.com
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> -->
>>
>> All remittance for new orders will have to flow through PayPal.
>>
>> Sorry for the inconveniences folks.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob,
paypal is *HIGHLY* biased towards the consumer vs the seller. Please google
the horror stories. There are many examples of people/companies that
basically had to suspend their businesses for weeks or months while they
lined up alternatives to paypal (after paypal unilaterally made
unacceptable changes).
If it isn't too rude. How large of a monthly fixed charge is too much ?
There are payment/ecommerce sites geared towards lower volume businesses
(the catch is you pay a bigger percentage of the sale to them).
Thanks,
Michael
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 08:31 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Too bad, but I understand. I have a Pay-Pal account which I actually us
e
>> once in a while. Not an inconvenience, if I can just remember the passw
ord=85
>>
>
> I've had a PP account for years. Since I live out
> in the hinterlands, EVERYTHING is 100 miles away.
> When a project comes to a crawl (or dead in the water)
> for lack of some item, the first place I look is eBay.
> Probably 80% of the time I can find what I need there
> even if it's a week or more away . . . just move on
> to another project until the stuff arrives.
>
> PP is exceedingly buyer friendly. I've even considered
> going to an eBay Store format as opposed to my website
> catalog page, but then I pay listing fees on top of
> seller fees. Of course those can be compensate for
> in my pricing but for now, I'd rather keep everything
> humming on Matt's servers. Perhaps not practical from
> a business sense but it preserves the fraternity.
>
> There's something to be said for doing business with
> the folks you KNOW.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
=====**===================
===========**=
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MLE <rv6awingman(at)gmail.com> |
Is anyone else getting messages like these from Paypal? I do not have a
Paypal account!
I believe, the folks sending me this are "phishing". Be careful!
Marty RV-6A
o Member,
You sent a payment of 60.00 USD to Kaspersky Lab .
This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL *
KASPERSKYINC
Description
Unit price
Qty
Amount
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012
60.00 USD
1
60.00 USD
Shipping and handling
0.00 USD
Insurance - optional
0.00 USD
Tax
0.00 USD
Total
60.00 USD
------------------------------
Do you confirm this payment?
If this payment was not made by you please immediately take the following
steps:
* Login to your account by clicking on the link below :
* Provide requested information to ensure you are the owner of the
account
* After you did the previous steps the order will be cancelled.
* We will refund your money to you and the payment will deleted from
transactions history.
CANCEL
TRANSACTION!<http://madarbaste.com/links/img/endnga6.php>
Please do not reply to this email because we are not monitoring this inbox.
PayPal Email ID PP513
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
looks like SPAM
send it to the S[AM file
In a message dated 1/31/2012 12:13:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rv6awingman(at)gmail.com writes:
Is anyone else getting messages like these from Paypal? I do not have a
Paypal account!
I believe, the folks sending me this are "phishing". Be careful!
Marty RV-6A
o Member,
You sent a payment of 60.00 USD to Kaspersky Lab .
This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL
*KASPERSKYINC
Description
Unit price
Qty
Amount
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012
60.00 USD
1
60.00 USD
Shipping and handling
0.00 USD
Insurance - optional
0.00 USD
Tax
0.00 USD
Total
60.00 USD
____________________________________
Do you confirm this payment?
If this payment was not made by you please immediately take the following
steps:
* Login to your account by clicking on the link below :
* Provide requested information to ensure you are the owner of the account
* After you did the previous steps the order will be cancelled.
* We will refund your money to you and the payment will deleted from
transactions history.
_CANCEL TRANSACTION!_ (http://madarbaste.com/links/img/endnga6.php)
Please do not reply to this email because we are not monitoring this
inbox.
PayPal Email ID PP513
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
This is much worse than SPAM!
It is a phishing attack, just as the original poster observed.
It is very dangerous! And is some email clients (like Outlook), even a
seemingly safe operation like forwarding an email like this can be
dangerous!
The safest thing is to not click on anything in the email and is just delete
it. (then empty your recycle bin)
Jeff Luckey (IT Consultant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
looks like SPAM
send it to the S[AM file
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL
*KASPERSKYINC
Description
Unit price
Qty
Amount
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012
60.00 USD
1
60.00 USD
Shipping and handling
0.00 USD
Insurance - optional
0.00 USD
Tax
0.00 USD
Total
60.00 USD
_____
Do you confirm this payment?
If this payment was not made by you please immediately take the following
steps:
* Login to your account by clicking on the link below :
* Provide requested information to ensure you are the owner of the
account
* After you did the previous steps the order will be cancelled.
* We will refund your money to you and the payment will deleted from
transactions history.
<http://madarbaste.com/links/img/endnga6.php> CANCEL TRANSACTION!
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook
prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Please do not reply to this email because we are not monitoring this inbox.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook
prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
PayPal Email ID PP513
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Luckey
Direct Connection Systems
www.DCSIT.com
949-645-8832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
| From: | "jerrytex" <jery230(at)tconline.net> |
I have a DM C63-1 antenna that I need to relocate on my kitfox. It is inside the
fuselage (done by another builder) and it will not transmit since it is basically
in a cage of tubing. My fuselage has been modified with the factory mounting
plates removed. I have an idea about making a clamping type plate that I
can slip under the fabric and mount to the tubes but the top of the fuselage has
a "Spline" and is not flat so the antenna would be off to one side. I am thinking
about a belly mount and was curious to know if anyone has ever bent the
DM antennas? I know they make a bent one (DM C63-2) but I am wondering if I could
just bend the one I have I have to meet the clearance needed for a belly
mount.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365323#365323
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
>I am wondering if I could just bend the one I have I have to meet
>the clearance needed for a belly mount.
The pictures I see for this antenna appear to show
a painted antenna rod. Is this a solid metal rod
or is it some kind of conductor stuck inside a fiberglas
sheath?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna |
Assuming you have a metal plane mount it to the skin on the bottom of the
fuselage. Remember as with all antennae cleanliness counts! Lock washers do
help make a good connection to the skin but it is always better to have the
area directly under the antenna, on both sides shiny clean before
installing.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: January 31, 2012 12:08 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
Good question.
Don't have an answer but would also like to know if the transponder needs
some backing reinforcement or just mount it to the belly skin?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tomcostanza
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder antenna
-->
Should I be concerned about mounting a transponder antenna near fuel
lines/fittings?
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365267#365267
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
| From: | "jerrytex" <jery230(at)tconline.net> |
I am not sure if its metal or not. I am not near the plane and was wondering if
anyone knew. I was trying to get my gameplan down before I go back to the hangar
an hour away. This also got me to thinking... I was looking at the DIY CB
antenna and I was thinking this might be the best route for me if I could bend
it. Will mounting it on the belly and bending it back cause problems?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365337#365337
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Thermocouple leads |
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
I had to increase the length of the thermocouple leads to reach the data processing
unit. All six cylinders show abnormally high temps. Could the increase in
resistance cause the temperature increase?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365340#365340
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
EGT or CHT?
How were they "extended"?
What type of thermocouple? (K, J, Resistive)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Jones
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple leads
I had to increase the length of the thermocouple leads to reach the data
processing unit. All six cylinders show abnormally high temps. Could the
increase in resistance cause the temperature increase?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365340#365340
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple leads |
I had to increase the length of the thermocouple leads to reach the data
processing unit. All six cylinders show abnormally high temps. Could the
increase in resistance cause the temperature increase?
Dennis,
Did you use thermocouple wire for the extension?
Thermocouples generate a potential depending upon the temperature
difference
from one end to the other. You must use proper procedure when extending
these wires.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
Both CHT and EGT. They are thermocouple wire. I used the exact same wire as the
equipment came with. I silver soldered the new lead extensions as shown by Bob.
I do have a multimeter that will test thermocouple wire however I have not
used that feature as of yet. The one test I have not attempted is the check of
the indication without the engine running. My studies show that they should indicate
ambient temperature.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365354#365354
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
At 06:20 PM 1/31/2012, you wrote:
I am not sure if its metal or not. I am not near the plane and was
wondering if anyone knew. I was trying to get my gameplan down before
I go back to the hangar an hour away. This also got me to thinking...
I was looking at the DIY CB antenna and I was thinking this might be
the best route for me if I could bend it. Will mounting it on the
belly and bending it back cause problems?
Bending the antenna has very little effect on performance.
The "business section" of a vertical antenna is in the
bottom 1/3rd or so, bending the upper 2/3rds has the effect
of electrically lengthening or lowering it's resonant frequency
but even that effect is minimal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
| From: | Jason Beaver <jason(at)jasonbeaver.com> |
Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT thermocouple wires
along side the coax ignition leads from a Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines
between the ignition box and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could
be a source of inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
thanks,
jason
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
>
> Both CHT and EGT. They are thermocouple wire. I used the exact same wire as the
equipment came with. I silver soldered the new lead extensions as shown by
Bob. I do have a multimeter that will test thermocouple wire however I have not
used that feature as of yet. The one test I have not attempted is the check
of the indication without the engine running. My studies show that they should
indicate ambient temperature.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365354#365354
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
Bob, thank you for your expert advice.
My sole battery bus (which runs my one Plasma 11 electronic ignition...magneto
on other side) sources its power from the smaller battery ie. it's on the aux
bus. I set things up this way so that the voltage drop on the main bus during
starting would not affect the electronic igniton and perhaps cause a damaging
engine backfire (which has been known to happen).
You seem to be suggesting that it is possible that the small 8AH battery could
be overheated during normal operations by the 20A B&C alternator if the battery
is heavily discharged. Is that correct. In normal cruise operations I am only
drawing about 5 amps on the aux bus.
I guess my concern is that if the small battery overheats it could fail internally
and therefore I would lose my electronic ignition. Am I over thinking this.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> If the small alternator fails then closing the cross-feed
> contactor only puts your fully charged small battery in
> parallel with the main battery . . . no big deal.
>
> The only RISK to the small battery is to CHARGE it heavily
> from either alternator. If you KNOW that the little battery
> has been heavily discharged, better that you bring it up
> on a current limited charger before you go flying. Alternatively,
> charge in flight on the little alternator with as many aux
> bus accessories turned on as possible thus limiting the
> energy "left over" to charge the battery.
>
> But connecting dissimilar batteries in parallel presents
> no special risks to either battery. Both will deliver what
> ever energy they contain in an orderly manner. You just
> need to be careful not to stuff energy back into the little
> guy at a rate which will heat it up pretty good.
> Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365363#365363
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
There is no doubt that this is phishing. If you hover the pointer over
the cancel link, you can see where it is going. DO NOT click =93
it is not associated with PayPal
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
From: Jeff Luckey
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Paypal
This is much worse than SPAM!
It is a phishing attack, just as the original poster observed.
It is very dangerous! And is some email clients (like Outlook), even a
seemingly safe operation like forwarding an email like this can be
dangerous!
The safest thing is to not click on anything in the email and is just
delete it. (then empty your recycle bin)
Jeff Luckey (IT Consultant)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
looks like SPAM
send it to the S[AM file
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment
to PAYPAL *KASPERSKYINC
Description
Unit price
Qty
Amount
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012
60.00 USD
1
60.00 USD
Shipping and handling
0.00 USD
Insurance - optional
0.00 USD
Tax
0.00 USD
Total
60.00 USD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Do you confirm this payment?
If this payment was not made by you please immediately take the
following steps:
* Login to your account by clicking on the link below :
* Provide requested information to ensure you are the owner
of the account
* After you did the previous steps the order will be
cancelled.
* We will refund your money to you and the payment will
deleted from transactions history.
CANCEL
TRANSACTION!
Please do not reply to this email because we are not monitoring
this inbox.
PayPal Email ID PP513
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Luckey
Direct Connection Systems
www.DCSIT.com
949-645-8832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
| From: | "jerrytex" <jery230(at)tconline.net> |
Thanks Bob for the info.
I checked Radio Shack and found this CB mount.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102429
It looks like the one in your DIY article. If my thinking is correct, I could use
this mount and this antenna:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102428
And cut it down to the 22" that you mention in the article, mount it with a ground
plane to the belly of the plane and bend the top 2/3's back for clearance.
What do you think?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365374#365374
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 10:57 PM 1/31/2012, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box
>and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
(electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
from engine ground or do they both electrically and
thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
with the largest possibible load.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
>
>Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box
>and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
(electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
from engine ground or do they both electrically and
thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
with the largest possibible load.
Bob . . .
I believe you are combining 2 questions from different
listers. One extended thermocouple wires and has a high reading and the
other is questioning if running thermocouple next to ignition wires causes
incorrect readings.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
At 01:28 AM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
Bob, thank you for your expert advice.
My sole battery bus (which runs my one Plasma 11 electronic
ignition...magneto on other side) sources its power from the smaller
battery ie. it's on the aux bus. I set things up this way so that the
voltage drop on the main bus during starting would not affect the
electronic igniton and perhaps cause a damaging engine backfire
(which has been known to happen).
Sure. I presume then that your cross-feed is OPEN during
starting which is good. The only time cross-feed can/should
be closed for starting is IF BOTH batteries are sized for
engine cranking duties.
You seem to be suggesting that it is possible that the small 8AH
battery could be overheated during normal operations by the 20A B&C
alternator if the battery is heavily discharged. Is that correct. In
normal cruise operations I am only drawing about 5 amps on the aux bus.
The only time any battery TAKES ON a significant charge
is when it is connected to a constant voltage bus in a badly
discharged state, If you read the manufacturer's data
on ANY of our favorite batteries, their RECOMMENDED recharge
rates is pretty pedestrian. If you check out the data sheet
on this 32AH beast from Panasonic, they RECOMMEND a cyclic
recharge rate of only 13 amps.
We KNOW that after a hard start on an engine, the alternator
will stuff electrons back into the battery with gusto.
99.9% of all system integrators putting batteries onto
vehicular DC power systems don't give that recommended
recharge rate a second thought. Too much trouble for the
purpose of offsetting (1) the propensity of some users to
badly discharge a battery and then jump-start the vehicle
or (2) a small but measurable increase in battery service
life to be secured by pampering the battery.
I guess my concern is that if the small battery overheats it could
fail internally and therefore I would lose my electronic
ignition. Am I over thinking this.
You are understandably worrying about a lot of anecdotal
information. Info perhaps stirred together with hangar-tales,
ramp-rumors and dark-n-stormy-night stories without
benefit of the simple-ideas that go into understanding
the nature of these critters.
An 8 a.h. battery is connected to a 100A alternator
is of little significance if the battery is never
badly discharged when the connection is made. Even
if partially discharged, the recharge interval (while
grossly exceeding the factory recommended pamper-my-
product recharge rate) is short and has little effect
on the battery's service life.
At the same time, know that guys who fly the $high$
G.A. aircraft are advised never to recharge a badly
discharged battery in the airplane. Remove for proper
recharge and if the battery has been flat for long,
a cap check too.
This admonition gives lip service to (1) the elevated
potential for hazard by jump-starting and airplane and
then turning a pair of 400A generators loose on the
relatively fragile 44 A.H. battery (30 minute rate
for FAA compliance . . . about 2x that value for
the 20 hour rate given to batteries we buy).
The short answer is that your choice of Z-14 and
the relatively small battery on the aux side is
probably overkill but in no way will it present
an increase in operating risk as long as you strive
to be confident of the state of charge of both batteries
before you close the masters and hit the starter button.
If you do suffer an alternator failure and comfortable
return to the earth requires a heavy discharge of the
ship's batteries, spend as much time thinking about
bringing the batteries up to normal, flight-ready
condition as you spend on fixing the crapped out
alternator.
Finally, it is difficult to start a battery-fire by
injudicious recharge at normal system voltages.
The SLVA battery tests for putting them into vehicles
usually includes a 16v Abusive Charge Test wherein
the battery is EXPECTED to get hot, vent some gasses,
maybe puff up a little and die a graceful death without
becoming the central concern of an expanded hazard.
If you have any reason to believe that either battery
is seriously discharged, some investigation of the reason
combined with a well considered recharge protocol is more
prudent than cranking on ground power, flipping all the
switches ON and launching into the blue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dorne & Margolin DM C63-1 antenna |
At 07:53 AM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
Thanks Bob for the info.
I checked Radio Shack and found this CB mount.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102429
It looks like the one in your DIY article. If my thinking is correct,
I could use this mount and this antenna:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102428
And cut it down to the 22" that you mention in the article, mount it
with a ground plane to the belly of the plane and bend the top 2/3's
back for clearance.
What do you think?
I think you have a useful command of the simple
ideas behind a solution of your antenna problem.
You're cleared for 'take-off'.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
I wrote:
If you check out the data sheet on this 32AH beast
from Panasonic, they RECOMMEND a cyclic recharge
rate of only 13 amps.
. . . and then forgot to paste the link in.
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/LC-LA1233P.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Beaver <jason(at)jasonbeaver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
I'm not flying yet, so I have no way of testing. The tech counselor was just speculating
that this could be a source of inaccurate readings.
Thanks,
Jason
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS"
wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>> thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>> Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box
>> and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>> inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
>
> I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
> (electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
> flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
> compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
>
> How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
> read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
> from engine ground or do they both electrically and
> thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
> alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
> EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
> with the largest possibible load.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> I believe you are combining 2 questions from different
> listers. One extended thermocouple wires and has a high reading and the
> other is questioning if running thermocouple next to ignition wires causes
> incorrect readings.
>
> Roger
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Beaver <jason(at)jasonbeaver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
I'm not flying yet, so I have no way of testing. The tech counselor was just speculating
that this could be a source of inaccurate readings.
Thanks,
Jason
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS"
wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>> thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>> Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box
>> and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>> inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
>
> I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
> (electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
> flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
> compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
>
> How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
> read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
> from engine ground or do they both electrically and
> thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
> alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
> EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
> with the largest possibible load.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> I believe you are combining 2 questions from different
> listers. One extended thermocouple wires and has a high reading and the
> other is questioning if running thermocouple next to ignition wires causes
> incorrect readings.
>
> Roger
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 10:25 AM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'm not flying yet, so I have no way of testing. The tech counselor
>was just speculating that this could be a source of inaccurate readings.
Okay, thanks for getting me back on track! Don't
worry about your wire routing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
On 2/1/2012 8:25 AM, Jason Beaver wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jason Beaver
>
> I'm not flying yet, so I have no way of testing. The tech counselor was just
speculating that this could be a source of inaccurate readings.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
Even if its off so what? You don't really care what the temps are, you
want to know the peak and then turn to your own set of beliefs re: LOP
or ROP operations.
You will be the one to drill the hole in your exhaust and where you put
it makes a tremendous difference in the actual temp.
CHTs different story of course.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Perry <tperry(at)lvtofly.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
If it a jpi, I have seen an improper ground cause all to read high. Make sure
your instrument is grounded to the engine and not a ground bus inside.
Tim Perry
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:33 PM, "Dennis Jones" wrote:
>
> Both CHT and EGT. They are thermocouple wire. I used the exact same wire as the
equipment came with. I silver soldered the new lead extensions as shown by
Bob. I do have a multimeter that will test thermocouple wire however I have not
used that feature as of yet. The one test I have not attempted is the check
of the indication without the engine running. My studies show that they should
indicate ambient temperature.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365354#365354
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
I'll second that. On the Dynon an improper ground on 1 device/sensor can/will impact
the reading on another. I used to have an old Cadillac which when you moved
the electric seat the high beams flashed. They called it a feature.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Perry
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Thermocouple leads
If it a jpi, I have seen an improper ground cause all to read high. Make sure
your instrument is grounded to the engine and not a ground bus inside.
Tim Perry
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:33 PM, "Dennis Jones" wrote:
>
> Both CHT and EGT. They are thermocouple wire. I used the exact same wire as the
equipment came with. I silver soldered the new lead extensions as shown by
Bob. I do have a multimeter that will test thermocouple wire however I have not
used that feature as of yet. The one test I have not attempted is the check
of the indication without the engine running. My studies show that they should
indicate ambient temperature.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365354#365354
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Right-angle adapter |
Is it any less efficient for RF to use a right-angle adapter with a
straight BNC on the end of an RG-400 cable, as opposed to right-angle
connector crimped to the cable? An adapter plus straight connector is
about half the cost of a right-angle crimp connector.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Right-angle adapter |
On 02/01/2012 05:29 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> Is it any less efficient for RF to use a right-angle adapter with a
> straight BNC on the end of an RG-400 cable, as opposed to right-angle
> connector crimped to the cable? An adapter plus straight connector is
> about half the cost of a right-angle crimp connector.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
Short answer: it's less efficient.
Less Short answer: You'll never be able to tell the difference without
multi-kilobuck test gear.
I know what I'd do.
:-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 01:20 PM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'll second that. On the Dynon an improper ground on 1 device/sensor
>can/will impact the reading on another. I used to have an old
>Cadillac which when you moved the electric seat the high beams
>flashed. They called it a feature.
>
>Glenn
Kudos Tim and Glenn. If the thermocouples are physically
welded to the bottoms of their thermowells . . . and they
often are . . . then what ever voltage difference that
exists between the crankcase and the instrument's ground
will ride on top of the thermocouple signals as a common
mode voltage.
All of thermocouple conditioning chips I've worked with
for the last 20 years have a considerable tolerance to
DC common mode interference but if the interference has
alternator ripple on it, it might be another matter. Hence
the questions about effects of alternator ON versus OFF.
It would also be a good experiment to run a temporary
instrument ground to the crankcase just to see if it
makes any difference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Right-angle adapter |
At 05:29 PM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
>Is it any less efficient for RF to use a
>right-angle adapter with a straight BNC on the
>end of an RG-400 cable, as opposed to
>right-angle connector crimped to the cable?=C2 An
>adapter plus straight connector is about half
>the cost of a right-angle crimp connector.
Either technique is fine. In fact, I published
the po' boy's rt-angle bnc cable male ploy
here a few years ago:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
but then I found an economical source for
one piece right angle connectors:
http://tinyurl.com/76jdnua
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Right-angle adapter |
Hmm...does trying to transmit 20 or 30 miles count as test gear? I think I
have the multi-kilobuck part covered ;-) Seriously, if it doesn't make any
noticeable difference for voice quality in and out, I know what to do too.
Thanks!
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> On 02/01/2012 05:29 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
>
>> Is it any less efficient for RF to use a right-angle adapter with a
>> straight BNC on the end of an RG-400 cable, as opposed to right-angle
>> connector crimped to the cable? An adapter plus straight connector is
>> about half the cost of a right-angle crimp connector.
>>
>> Dave Saylor
>> AirCrafters
>> 140 Aviation Way
>> Watsonville, CA 95076
>> 831-722-9141 Shop
>> 831-750-0284 Cell
>>
> Short answer: it's less efficient.
>
> Less Short answer: You'll never be able to tell the difference without
> multi-kilobuck test gear.
>
> I know what I'd do.
>
> :-)
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Another "lightbulb" reply, thank you. I know I've read this in the
Connection, but still, a reminder doesn't go amiss.
Is this effect mitigated by having a common ground on the firewall, with a
braided strap to the engine? If the instruments are grounded to the forest
of tabs, and that's only a short distance along a fat piece of copper to
the engine...
James
On 1 February 2012 22:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 01:20 PM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll second that. On the Dynon an improper ground on 1 device/sensor
>> can/will impact the reading on another. I used to have an old Cadillac
>> which when you moved the electric seat the high beams flashed. They called
>> it a feature.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>
>
> Kudos Tim and Glenn. If the thermocouples are physically
> welded to the bottoms of their thermowells . . . and they
> often are . . . then what ever voltage difference that
> exists between the crankcase and the instrument's ground
> will ride on top of the thermocouple signals as a common
> mode voltage.
>
> All of thermocouple conditioning chips I've worked with
> for the last 20 years have a considerable tolerance to
> DC common mode interference but if the interference has
> alternator ripple on it, it might be another matter. Hence
> the questions about effects of alternator ON versus OFF.
>
> It would also be a good experiment to run a temporary
> instrument ground to the crankcase just to see if it
> makes any difference.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
>
> Sure. I presume then that your cross-feed is OPEN during
> starting which is good. The only time cross-feed can/should
> be closed for starting is IF BOTH batteries are sized for
> engine cranking duties.
>
Correct, the Xfeed would be open during all normal starting. That would prevent
a significant voltage drop during starting on Bus 1 from affecting my electronic
ignition and engine management system on Bus 2.
However if I was at some dark, remote and inhospitable place and I sensed that
the Odyssey 680 was struggling to light the fire I would be tempted to bring the
Odyssey 310 on line as well to see if the two batteries together would get
me going.
The Odyssey 310 is no slouch. It's used in a Kawasaki 1000 motorcycle.
The Odyssey 680 has an internal resistance of 7 milli-ohms and the Odyssey 310
is 27 milli-ohms. I am imaging that what that means is that the 680 will donate
any residual power it has to the bus more readily than the 310.
Apart from the potential re-charging problem associated with deep discharging the
Odyssey 310 is there any other reason that it should not be called on to act
in parallel in a tight situation.
Regards Bob Barrow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365442#365442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
At 06:55 AM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> > Sure. I presume then that your cross-feed is OPEN during
> starting which is good. The only time cross-feed can/should
> be closed for starting is IF BOTH batteries are sized for
> engine cranking duties.
>
Correct, the Xfeed would be open during all normal starting. That
would prevent a significant voltage drop during starting on Bus 1
from affecting my electronic ignition and engine management system on Bus 2.
However if I was at some dark, remote and inhospitable place and I
sensed that the Odyssey 680 was struggling to light the fire I would
be tempted to bring the Odyssey 310 on line as well to see if the two
batteries together would get me going.
The Odyssey 310 is no slouch. It's used in a Kawasaki 1000 motorcycle.
The Odyssey 680 has an internal resistance of 7 milli-ohms and the
Odyssey 310 is 27 milli-ohms. I am imaging that what that means is
that the 680 will donate any residual power it has to the bus more
readily than the 310.
Apart from the potential re-charging problem associated with deep
discharging the Odyssey 310 is there any other reason that it should
not be called on to act in parallel in a tight situation.
No . . . risks to the battery for a single-event are
small. But it's difference in off-the-shelf internal
resistance suggests that it won't contribute much to
the effort of rotating the engine.
If the 680 is turning the engine at all, having a
robust spark probably contributes more to a successful
start than turning the engine faster. When I was studying
the Shower-of-Sparks magneto system I read that an
engine that was ready to run in terms of mixture
could be started by the slowest of hand-propping
motions to take one cylinder through TDC whereupon
the continuous stream of sparks would do the rest.
In any case, I've never encountered two airplanes
that enjoyed the same smooth talks and gentle strokes
when working at the corner of the cranking envelope.
After a time you will have discovered what works
best under adverse circumstances and that my include
tapping the 310 for assistance.
But I'd be willing to bet that if your batteries
are skillfully maintained and of sufficient capacity
to be useful as standby power, then probability
of an "adverse condition" due to battery limitations
is very low.
Having a Z-14 system installed should not quash your
curiosity about battery load and cap checks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | WTB dead Narco CP 135/136 or similar |
I have a 1" (actually 1.1") slot on my radio stack that I want to fill with
some homebrew electronics and need a tray and whatever was in the tray. A
depth between 6 and 10 inches (the longer the better).
Anybody have anything clogging up the shop?
Send offers to johnl(at)loram.org
thanks, -john-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
That brings up a q that you might have answered in the original post:
Does each TC have it's own ground connected to it's own gauge? That is,
does each thermocouple supply two distinct lines to it's gauge? You
cannot use a common ground for each TC and only tie the signal wire to
the instrument.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:57 PM 1/31/2012, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>> thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>> Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box and
>> the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>> inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
>
> I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
> (electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
> flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
> compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
>
> How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
> read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
> from engine ground or do they both electrically and
> thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
> alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
> EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
> with the largest possibible load.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you calibrate
with the total installation.
David M.
Jason Beaver wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jason Beaver
>
> I'm not flying yet, so I have no way of testing. The tech counselor was just
speculating that this could be a source of inaccurate readings.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "ROGER& JEAN CURTIS"
wrote:
>
>
>>> Does anyone know if there are any issues in running EGT/CHT
>>> thermocouple wires along side the coax ignition leads from a
>>> Lightspeed Plasma II ignition (the lines between the ignition box
>>> and the coils)? My tech counselor said this could be a source of
>>> inaccuracy in the temperature reading.
>>>
>> I doubt it very much. The coax is double shielded
>> (electro-static coupling ZERO) and the currents
>> flowing in the center-conductor (outbound) exactly
>> compliment return currents flowing in the shield.
>>
>> How much inaccuracy? You said they read high? All
>> read high by the same amount? Are your probes isolated
>> from engine ground or do they both electrically and
>> thermally connect to the engine? Does turning the
>> alternator on/off make any difference? Try turning
>> EVERYTHING on to make this test. Present the alternator
>> with the largest possibible load.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> I believe you are combining 2 questions from different
>> listers. One extended thermocouple wires and has a high reading and the
>> other is questioning if running thermocouple next to ignition wires causes
>> incorrect readings.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 06:01 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you
>calibrate with the total installation.
>
>David M.
>
A set of thermocouple leads can have quite a few
extraneous junctions without affecting accuracy
as long as (1) current in the leads is very low
indeed approaching zero. Such is the case with most
modern thermocouple instruments using specialized
integrated circuits for thermocouple signal
conditioning. And (2) EACH junction needs to be
repeated in number and kind on both sides of the
thermocouple pair.
This is described in more detail here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
Not exactly grue, David... if it's a chromel/chromel junction and a
alumel/alumel junction, there's no potential developed across it, so
nothing to calibrate out. If, for instance, someone inserts some
copper wire, you'll have chromel/copper and copper chromel junctions,
and assuming they're separated, and at different temperatures, that
temperature difference CANNOT be assumed to be constant... so there's no
way to calibrate it out.
So... either it doesn't matter, or it can't be known. No middle ground.
Paul
On 2/2/2012 4:01 PM, David wrote:
>
> Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you
> calibrate with the total installation.
>
> David M.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
Hmmm, Bob... the physics doesn't support your assertion, unless you
(mistakenly I'd think) assume that all those junctions are somehow held
at the same temperature. And how would you accomplish that?
With the relatively common high impedance measuring devices, resistance
in the leads isn't really the issue... but adding uncontrolled junctions
at different temperatures can sure play havoc with accuracy.
Paul
On 2/2/2012 5:27 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> A set of thermocouple leads can have quite a few
> extraneous junctions without affecting accuracy
> as long as (1) current in the leads is very low
> indeed approaching zero. Such is the case with most
> modern thermocouple instruments using specialized
> integrated circuits for thermocouple signal
> conditioning. And (2) EACH junction needs to be
> repeated in number and kind on both sides of the
> thermocouple pair.
--
Please note my new email address!
millner(at)me.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
The OP didn't say whether he was using old style instruments or newer,
(more digital) ones.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 06:01 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you
>> calibrate with the total installation.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>
> A set of thermocouple leads can have quite a few
> extraneous junctions without affecting accuracy
> as long as (1) current in the leads is very low
> indeed approaching zero. Such is the case with most
> modern thermocouple instruments using specialized
> integrated circuits for thermocouple signal
> conditioning. And (2) EACH junction needs to be
> repeated in number and kind on both sides of the
> thermocouple pair.
>
> This is described in more detail here:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
I have the book, Bob. I must say, you are Ohminous!
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 06:01 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you
>> calibrate with the total installation.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>
> A set of thermocouple leads can have quite a few
> extraneous junctions without affecting accuracy
> as long as (1) current in the leads is very low
> indeed approaching zero. Such is the case with most
> modern thermocouple instruments using specialized
> integrated circuits for thermocouple signal
> conditioning. And (2) EACH junction needs to be
> repeated in number and kind on both sides of the
> thermocouple pair.
>
> This is described in more detail here:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WTB dead Narco CP 135/136 or similar |
At 03:18 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>I have a 1" (actually 1.1") slot on my radio stack that I want to fill with
>some homebrew electronics and need a tray and whatever was in the tray. A
>depth between 6 and 10 inches (the longer the better).
>
>Anybody have anything clogging up the shop?
>
>Send offers to johnl(at)loram.org
I've built custom trays and inserts to fit from
copper clad fiberglas sheets. Some careful work
with a shear and soldering iron will let you assemble
this material into about any practical size enclosure.
Here's a box I built up in a few hours to house
a 20 channel data acquisition system I needed
at Beech.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Data_Acquisition/Weeder_Module_DAS_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Data_Acquisition/Weeder_Module_DAS_2.jpg
This construction is quite sturdy. You can make
any practical size enclosure with a minimum of tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
That runs contrary to my initial training (early 80's), but new things
are discovered all the time! Thanks, Paul.
David
Paul Millner wrote:
>
> Not exactly grue, David... if it's a chromel/chromel junction and a
> alumel/alumel junction, there's no potential developed across it, so
> nothing to calibrate out. If, for instance, someone inserts some
> copper wire, you'll have chromel/copper and copper chromel junctions,
> and assuming they're separated, and at different temperatures, that
> temperature difference CANNOT be assumed to be constant... so there's
> no way to calibrate it out.
>
> So... either it doesn't matter, or it can't be known. No middle ground.
>
> Paul
>
> On 2/2/2012 4:01 PM, David wrote:
>>
>> Also, any (new) junction will create an inaccuracy unless you
>> calibrate with the total installation.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
Bob, thank you very much for your assistance. I now feel that I am up to speed
on this issue. The dark gray clouds of doubt have been lifted. :)
Cheers Bob Barrow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365513#365513
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
It is an EPI-800 electronic system with a DPU.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365514#365514
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
As Bob has shared, some really old systems (through, say, the 1950's)
heavily loaded the junction, so the apparent voltage was much less than
the theoretical voltage. But, as long as those systems were calibrated,
they were repeatable and accurate. Splicing a wire, even with J or K
wire, could increase resistance, and due to the relatively heavy current
flow, could affect the voltage and hence calibration. And at least in
my industry, we were still using those dinosaurs into the 1980's, so ya
gotta train to work with what you have, not what's being built today.
The predominance int he industry today, though, is high impedance
devices that don't load the T/C junction... which has the side benefit
of allowing multiple devices to share a junction. A good thing. A
splice resistance is unimportant, as current flow is nearly nil.
Dissimilar wire, especially with junctions at dissimilar temperatures,
really plays havoc with even the open circuit voltage, and there's no
way to calibrate that out, as the temperature of those splice junctions
into the future typically can't be known.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 09:39 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>Hmmm, Bob... the physics doesn't support your assertion, unless you
>(mistakenly I'd think) assume that all those junctions are somehow
>held at the same temperature. And how would you accomplish that?
The PAIRS have to be adjacent. For example, ordinary
gold over brass pins used to bring a t/c pair through a
connector adds negligible effect to calibration because
equal and opposite effects are inserted into each lead
and in close thermal proximity to each other and they
cancel each other out.
A tech told me of a case where he found an overheated
wire going through a connector because it was adjacent
to a non-compensated thermocouple lead . . . the other
lead in the thermocouple pair was not adjacent in the
connector housing and, therefor, was running cooler.
The warm-wire caused significant difference in temperature
reading for the afflicted pair as compared to other
t/c pairs in the same connector.
So putting 'foreign materials' into the t/c system is
not without risk . . . but easily managed with some
planning and attention to details.
>With the relatively common high impedance measuring devices,
>resistance in the leads isn't really the issue... but adding
>uncontrolled junctions at different temperatures can sure play havoc
>with accuracy.
Absolutely. For example, a silver soldered joint adds
two foreign junctions in immediate proximity. T/C-alloy
to-solder offset by a solder-to-T/C-alloy right next
to it. Two equal but opposite effects that cancel because
while not 'controlled' they are at the same temperature.
So my condition (2) was not completely explained. The
foreign junctions must be in close proximity as in the
soldered joint described above, or the t/c selector switch
box described in Figure 14-7B.
Splicing into t/c pairs to extend them will add loop
resistance. UNPOWERED temperature readout instruments
are still offered by manufacturers like ALCOR, Westach,
and others in the automotive world (see Figure 14-10C in the
'Connection). These meters must be capable of reading
thermocouple voltages directly . . . on the order
of 10 to 20 millivolts FULL SCALE. Hence they are wound
with few turns of heavier wire and draw considerable
current (like 10-50 milliamps). In these cases, the
termocouple wire tends to be heavy gauge just to get
low resistance. If you check out the range of sizes
available from Omega on type K wire:
http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=XC_K_TC_WIRE&Nav=temh06
. . . we see everything from 14AWG to 36AWG. To be sure,
any gauge wire would work with a modern engine management
system with internally conditioned inputs. But if you
were driving an unpowered instrument over some distance
in a refinery or smelting operation, the fatter wires would
offer some options.
When unpowered gauges were used on large piston aircraft,
identical gauges and CHT/EGT thermocouples had to be individually
compensated using an external resistor so that effects
of lead length between instrument and engine could be
calibrated out.
This presupposes that the actual temperature value is of
interest. In many airplanes, one uses such an instrument
only to find "peak" on the mixture and then adjust in
25F incremental departure from peak. So whether the peak
occurs at 1/3rd scale or 3/4ths scale is not critical.
Hence, no calibration needed.
But if you've got a TIT limit to be observed, THAT system begs
for calibration. When such instruments are supplied without
provisions for exernal calibration, installation instructions
will generally include an admonition not to change the length
of the thermocouple lead.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Xfeed damage smaller battery. |
At 10:50 PM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
Bob, thank you very much for your assistance. I now feel that I am up
to speed on this issue. The dark gray clouds of doubt have been lifted. :)
Cheers Bob Barrow
Pleased to hear it. Minimizing risk
begins with understanding.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
Group,
Although it's made clear enough in the book, I don't think it's come
through clear enough yet in this thread that when using dissimilar
junctions you ALSO have to worry that you don't inadvertently move the
reference (i.e. "cold") junction(s).
As an illustration, my Long-EZ, when received, had a short pigtail on
the under-sparkplug CHT T-couple. It was transitioned to copper pretty
much adjacent to the neighboring cylinder. The copper ran all the way
to a powered (i.e. high impedance) Westach gauge. The Westach is
designed (best I can tell) so that the cold junction(s) (i.e. the final
terminations to non-T-couple wire) are actually made by the junctions
that result from the crimps between what is supposed to be T-couple wire
and fast-on connectors right at the back of the gauge. This allows a
temp sensor in the gauge to compensate for the voltages at the cold
junctions.
By running copper from the T-couple wire pig-tails all the way to the
gauge, there would usually be a significant temperature difference
between the actual cold junctions (next to a cylinder) and the intended
cold junctions (behind the panel) which would show up directly in error
on the reading of the gauge. That's all fixed now...
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07) and flying again (8/11!): N45FC O235 Longeze
Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Johnson <kjohnsondds(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | alternator wiring |
Bob and All,=0AI have appreciated all the information received during the l
ast year or two as I have been preparing to wire my panel.- The time has
come.- I have a question regarding the wiring of my alternator, a Bosch A
L394X.- I have tried to find wiring schemes on the internet, but have not
been able to download what I need.- I have included a picture to help.
-- At about 12 o'clock, I assume the large, black connecter goes to the
battery.- What should be done with the connector plug at about 10 o'cloc
k above the center hub and the two connector plug at about 6 o'clock below
the center hub?- Thanks for your help!!!- Ken Johnson=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 07:15 AM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
Group,
Although it's made clear enough in the book, I don't think it's come
through clear enough yet in this thread that when using dissimilar
junctions you ALSO have to worry that you don't inadvertently move
the reference (i.e. "cold") junction(s).
As an illustration, my Long-EZ, when received, had a short pigtail on
the under-sparkplug CHT T-couple. It was transitioned to copper
pretty much adjacent to the neighboring cylinder. The copper ran all
the way to a powered (i.e. high impedance) Westach gauge. The
Westach is designed (best I can tell) so that the cold junction(s)
(i.e. the final terminations to non-T-couple wire) are actually made
by the junctions that result from the crimps between what is supposed
to be T-couple wire and fast-on connectors right at the back of the
gauge. This allows a temp sensor in the gauge to compensate for the
voltages at the cold junctions.
By running copper from the T-couple wire pig-tails all the way to the
gauge, there would usually be a significant temperature difference
between the actual cold junctions (next to a cylinder) and the
intended cold junctions (behind the panel) which would show up
directly in error on the reading of the gauge. That's all fixed now...
Exactly. I've often thought that we should perhaps
forsake the term "cold junction" for "reference junction".
Classically, the reference junction was any point in the
system where the transition from thermocouple alloys
and instrumentation was known with accuracy. It could
be hotter or colder than the temperature of interest.
I recall the first thermocouple array I ever saw installed on
a flight test airplane at Cessna. The reference junction
for perhaps a dozen switched thermocouples was submerged
in a Thermos bottle filled with crushed ice made with
distilled water. Pretty durn close to 0 degrees C.
But the self powered instruments couldn't be fitted with
ice baths so an alternative reference junction compensation
scheme had to be crafted. I've been meaning to dig through
the old patents someday and see what the popular techniques
were 70 years ago. In that test setup, a flight test technician
had to measure each thermocouple one at a time using a precision
potentiometer bridge in his lap. The millivolt readings were
written to a test data sheet and converted to temperatures
later when he wrote his test report.
Tedious . . .
Emacs!
A modern incarnation for implementing a reference junction
is illustrated here:
Emacs!
I think this is out of an analog devices AppNote illustrating how
an AD592 temperature sensor is situated in thermal proximity to a
T/C-to-Copper
reference junction. Thus, while the "reference" can be wandering around
with ambient temperature, it's effect on output is known and
compensated for. Even this technique is outdated since Analog Devices
and others have created thermocouple conditioner chips that feature
built in reference junction sensing features and offer user friendly
10 mv/degree output signals.
The situation in your airplane as-received could be illustrated
like this:
Emacs!
The indiscriminate insertion of a "rogue" junction added new but
unknown effects that the instrument would not be able to resolve
resulting in wildly inaccurate readings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 03:53 AM 2/2/2012, you wrote:
Another "lightbulb" reply, thank you. I know I've
read this in the Connection, but still, a reminder doesn't go amiss.
Is this effect mitigated by having a common
ground on the firewall, with a braided strap to
the engine? If the instruments are grounded to
the forest of tabs, and that's only a short
distance along a fat piece of copper to the engine...
Yes. If you're using a forest of tabs firewall
ground and have the fat braid to the crankcase,
I'd be surprised if you have a ground loop issue
with the thermocouples.
At 01:20 PM 2/1/2012, you wrote:
I'll second that. On the Dynon an improper ground
on 1 device/sensor can/will impact the reading on
another. I used to have an old Cadillac which
when you moved the electric seat the high beams
flashed. They called it a feature.
Hmmmm . . . how do you mean "improper ground" on a
sensor? Are we talking thermocouples here? In the
case of a thermocouple welded down to it's thermowell,
the installer has no control over the existence or
quality of that ground.
When considering devices like temperature or pressure
sensors, if they're fitted with ground wires, then
that wire should be brought back to the point where
the instrument grounds . . . either the forest of
tabs on the firewall or the instrument panel ground.
If the sensor gets grounded by virtue of it's being
attached to the engine (common with automotive devices)
then again, the installer has little control over
any voltage differentials that the the sensor ground
verus the instrument ground . . . except to bring
the two a close together as possible (forest of tabs)
and use a fat bonding jumper.
If improper delivery of signal to one channel of
the instrument can upset readings of other channels,
then the instrument at least suspected of poor
design. I'd find that hard to believe of Dynon.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
The second image got hosed during a cut-n-paste. Here's
how the message SHOULD have looked. -BN-
-
At 07:15 AM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
Group,
Although it's made clear enough in the book, I don't think it's come
through clear enough yet in this thread that when using dissimilar
junctions you ALSO have to worry that you don't inadvertently move
the reference (i.e. "cold") junction(s).
As an illustration, my Long-EZ, when received, had a short pigtail on
the under-sparkplug CHT T-couple. It was transitioned to copper
pretty much adjacent to the neighboring cylinder. The copper ran all
the way to a powered (i.e. high impedance) Westach gauge. The
Westach is designed (best I can tell) so that the cold junction(s)
(i.e. the final terminations to non-T-couple wire) are actually made
by the junctions that result from the crimps between what is supposed
to be T-couple wire and fast-on connectors right at the back of the
gauge. This allows a temp sensor in the gauge to compensate for the
voltages at the cold junctions.
By running copper from the T-couple wire pig-tails all the way to the
gauge, there would usually be a significant temperature difference
between the actual cold junctions (next to a cylinder) and the
intended cold junctions (behind the panel) which would show up
directly in error on the reading of the gauge. That's all fixed now...
Exactly. I've often thought that we should perhaps
forsake the term "cold junction" for "reference junction".
Classically, the reference junction was any point in the
system where the transition from thermocouple alloys
and instrumentation was known with accuracy. It could
be hotter or colder than the temperature of interest.
I recall the first thermocouple array I ever saw installed on
a flight test airplane at Cessna. The reference junction
for perhaps a dozen switched thermocouples was submerged
in a Thermos bottle filled with crushed ice made with
distilled water. Pretty durn close to 0 degrees C.
But the self powered instruments couldn't be fitted with
ice baths so an alternative reference junction compensation
scheme had to be crafted. I've been meaning to dig through
the old patents someday and see what the popular techniques
were 70 years ago. In that test setup, a flight test technician
had to measure each thermocouple one at a time using a precision
potentiometer bridge in his lap. The millivolt readings were
written to a test data sheet and converted to temperatures
later when he wrote his test report.
Tedious . . .
Emacs!
A modern incarnation for implementing a reference junction
is illustrated here:
Emacs!
I think this is out of an analog devices AppNote illustrating how
an AD592 temperature sensor is situated in thermal proximity to a
T/C-to-Copper
reference junction. Thus, while the "reference" can be wandering around
with ambient temperature, it's effect on output is known and
compensated for. Even this technique is outdated since Analog Devices
and others have created thermocouple conditioner chips that feature
built in reference junction sensing features and offer user friendly
10 mv/degree output signals.
The situation in your airplane as-received could be illustrated
like this:
Emacs!
The indiscriminate insertion of a "rogue" junction added new but
unknown effects that the instrument would not be able to resolve
resulting in wildly inaccurate readings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator wiring |
At 09:23 AM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
Bob and All,
I have appreciated all the information received during the last year
or two as I have been preparing to wire my panel. The time has
come. I have a question regarding the wiring of my alternator, a
Bosch AL394X. I have tried to find wiring schemes on the internet,
but have not been able to download what I need. I have included a
picture to help. At about 12 o'clock, I assume the large, black
connecter goes to the battery.
Yes
What should be done with the connector plug at about 10 o'clock
above the center hub . . .
Leave it open
and the two connector plug at about 6 o'clock below the center
hub? Thanks for your help!!! Ken Johnson
Ignore the "lamp" connection. Connect your control
input wire to "IGN". Do you have a plan for dealing with
an OV condition?
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
Bob, I'm using the AD594/595 and it is my understanding that even with
all the magic inside the chip, one has to compensate for the extra cold
junctions aka reference junctions.
David
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 07:15 AM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> Group,
>
> Although it's made clear enough in the book, I don't think it's come
> through clear enough yet in this thread that when using dissimilar
> junctions you ALSO have to worry that you don't inadvertently move the
> reference (i.e. "cold") junction(s).
>
> As an illustration, my Long-EZ, when received, had a short pigtail on
> the under-sparkplug CHT T-couple. It was transitioned to copper
> pretty much adjacent to the neighboring cylinder. The copper ran all
> the way to a powered (i.e. high impedance) Westach gauge. The Westach
> is designed (best I can tell) so that the cold junction(s) (i.e. the
> final terminations to non-T-couple wire) are actually made by the
> junctions that result from the crimps between what is supposed to be
> T-couple wire and fast-on connectors right at the back of the gauge.
> This allows a temp sensor in the gauge to compensate for the voltages
> at the cold junctions.
>
> By running copper from the T-couple wire pig-tails all the way to the
> gauge, there would usually be a significant temperature difference
> between the actual cold junctions (next to a cylinder) and the
> intended cold junctions (behind the panel) which would show up
> directly in error on the reading of the gauge. That's all fixed now...
>
> Exactly. I've often thought that we should perhaps
> forsake the term "cold junction" for "reference junction".
> Classically, the reference junction was any point in the
> system where the transition from thermocouple alloys
> and instrumentation was known with accuracy. It could
> be hotter or colder than the temperature of interest.
> I recall the first thermocouple array I ever saw installed on
> a flight test airplane at Cessna. The reference junction
> for perhaps a dozen switched thermocouples was submerged
> in a Thermos bottle filled with crushed ice made with
> distilled water. Pretty durn close to 0 degrees C.
>
> But the self powered instruments couldn't be fitted with
> ice baths so an alternative reference junction compensation
> scheme had to be crafted. I've been meaning to dig through
> the old patents someday and see what the popular techniques
> were 70 years ago. In that test setup, a flight test technician
> had to measure each thermocouple one at a time using a precision
> potentiometer bridge in his lap. The millivolt readings were
> written to a test data sheet and converted to temperatures
> later when he wrote his test report.
>
> Tedious . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
> A modern incarnation for implementing a reference junction
> is illustrated here:
>
> Emacs!
>
> I think this is out of an analog devices AppNote illustrating how
> an AD592 temperature sensor is situated in thermal proximity to a
> T/C-to-Copper
> reference junction. Thus, while the "reference" can be wandering around
> with ambient temperature, it's effect on output is known and
> compensated for. Even this technique is outdated since Analog Devices
> and others have created thermocouple conditioner chips that feature
> built in reference junction sensing features and offer user friendly
> 10 mv/degree output signals.
>
> The situation in your airplane as-received could be illustrated
> like this:
>
> Emacs!
>
> The indiscriminate insertion of a "rogue" junction added new but
> unknown effects that the instrument would not be able to resolve
> resulting in wildly inaccurate readings.
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
We want our freedoms back. Strike the illegal legislations called: 1) obamacare,
2) "Patriot (HA!) Act", and 3) 'presidential orders' that affect anyone besides
gubmnt worker bees.
Hate crime laws? Really? Thought police? Orwell would be proud.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Shrink tubing shrinker. |
Greetings listers,
I have been using a heat gun type thing that I got at a g-sale and the
results are consistently satisfactory so I thought I'd share the info
with the list. The tool is called an "embossing heat tool". They are
sold at fabric craft stores and are used to heat embossing ink that is
applied to fabric and then heated to create embossed patterns. The one
I have is 360 watts. It's hot enough to melt the glue inside and shrink
the tubing but you would have to work really hard to melt even PVC
insulation. I find I can apply the heat for as long as I need to get
the max shrink without really worrying about burning it.
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple leads |
At 01:48 PM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob, I'm using the AD594/595 and it is my understanding that even
>with all the magic inside the chip, one has to compensate for the
>extra cold junctions aka reference junctions.
No. See
http://tinyurl.com/6xp4xc
In the features list right on the front cover we see
the statement "Built-In Ice Point Compensation".
In Figure 13 we see an interesting use of the 594/595
as a Celsius thermometer. Just short the t/c pins together
and the chip reports it's own internal temperature (very
close to ambient).
In the data acquisition signal conditioner I illustrated
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Data_Acquisition/Weeder_Module_DAS_4.jpg
. . . one of those thermocouple conditioner chips was used
for just that purpose. This gizmo was installed in the nose
of a Beechjet for some pitot temperature studies at high
altitude. Some of the integrated circuits were qualified
down only to 0 degrees C. If you look at the picture
you can see a power resistor peeking out from under the
perf-board. That resistor and three others were used as
heaters controlled by one of the T/C chips to maintain
10C inside the box.
So, I'm happy to report that these critters are very complete
and require no ice-point reference junctions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shrink tubing shrinker. |
At 03:33 PM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
>
>Greetings listers,
>
>I have been using a heat gun type thing that I got at a g-sale and
>the results are consistently satisfactory so I thought I'd share the
>info with the list. The tool is called an "embossing heat tool".
Cool find sir! I'll pick one up when I'm in Wichita
this weekend and see what they're like. Years ago
I was pretty attached to my Weller "Princess" model
heat guns. They were something on the order of 250W
and delivered heat out a very compact nozzle. Nice
for close quarters work. They were not very robust
and the two I had eventually died but I was loath to
spend the $100+ to replace them.
These look like they might be an attractive, low cost
alternative. Thanks for the heads-up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Com and Nav Radio and Antenna Questions |
Bob and Listers
When taking a standing wave ratio reading is it necessary to key the
transmit button?
If the above is correct how does one match nav radios to coax and antennas?
I am trying to help a friend with a Pitts that has radio problems. He flew
today and could not hear the attis at KWHP on the ground or in the air. The
attis was functioning . Frequency 132,1
On the downwind departure leg he lost contact with the tower at less than a
mile from the airport frequency 135.0
He also lost ground at the same time frequency 125.0
He was able to hear KBUR attis and tower frequencies 135.125 and 134-5
tower 118.7 even though Burbank is in a straight line with Whitman and
further away.
He was able to hear KVNY attis and tower frequencies 118.45 tower 1193 and
continued to hear them for at least 10 miles further away. Burkank also
continued to be heard. Radio is an Icom and there have been two antennas
tried a Rami bent whip mounted on the only piece of flat plate in the
aircraft and an archer mounted inside the wooden turtle deck. It was
suggested that the arched was having problems because of the anti UV coating
on the fabric so the Rami was installed and does not seem to work any
better.
Any ideas on where to start would be appreciated
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Com and Nav Radio and Antenna Questions |
Additional information on the Pitts setup.
The ground plane that the Rami antenna is mounted on is well under 44 by 44
inches. This aircraft is flown in acro mode and to place foil across the
bottom of the fuse would cause vision problems while inverted. This is due
to floor windows an either side of the existing ground plane. I believe
that this is the major problem.
Bob, after sending the last post I re-read the connection chapter on
antennas base my belief on what I read. Comments? I am interested in the
test set you talked about in the antenna chapter. Thanks in advance.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shrink tubing shrinker. |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
I use an attachment that came with my portable gas soldering iron. You
take the normal soldering bit out, and insert a special hot air nozzle.
Works a treat and of course because it's not much bigger than a marker pen
you can get right into small areas under the panel with it.
James
On 5 February 2012 00:59, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> At 03:33 PM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings listers,
>>
>> I have been using a heat gun type thing that I got at a g-sale and the
>> results are consistently satisfactory so I thought I'd share the info with
>> the list. The tool is called an "embossing heat tool".
>>
>
> Cool find sir! I'll pick one up when I'm in Wichita
> this weekend and see what they're like. Years ago
> I was pretty attached to my Weller "Princess" model
> heat guns. They were something on the order of 250W
> and delivered heat out a very compact nozzle. Nice
> for close quarters work. They were not very robust
> and the two I had eventually died but I was loath to
> spend the $100+ to replace them.
>
> These look like they might be an attractive, low cost
> alternative. Thanks for the heads-up.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com and Nav Radio and Antenna Questions |
At 09:31 PM 2/4/2012, you wrote:
Bob and Listers
When taking a standing wave ratio reading is it necessary to key the
transmit button?
Generally, yes. Most 'stand alone' swr instruments need some
form of stimulation at the frequency of interest.
If the above is correct how does one match nav radios to coax and antennas
You find another signal source that will excite the
feedline and antenna at the frequency of interest -OR-
you use an instrument that features a built-in signal
source like . . .
Emacs!
I am trying to help a friend with a Pitts that has radio
problems. He flew today and could not hear the attis at KWHP on the
ground or in the air.
It was suggested that the arched was having problems because of the
anti UV coating on the fabric so the Rami was installed and does not
seem to work any better.
Any ideas on where to start would be appreciated
What you've described suggests a profound problem . . .
some sort of disconnect or perhaps radio failure.
Communications over distances you've suggested can
usually be covered the most rudimentary of antennas.
Certainly, an SWR test of the comm antenna AT THE
RADIO END of the feedline is indicated. Get a
hand-held transceiver and a short piece of coax
to connect it to the ship's antenna. See if communications
can be maintained on the alternate radio.
Has the ICOM been bench checked? You can ramp check
the radio by standing off a mile or so from the airplane
with a hand held. See if you can talk to each other
on the 122.750 (air-to-air, private aircraft) Unicom
frequency. Use cell phones to know that the individual
in the airplane is talking when indeed you can't hear
him on the hand-held.
The ground plane that the Rami antenna is mounted on is well under 44
by 44 inches. This aircraft is flown in acro mode and to place foil
across the bottom of the fuse would cause vision problems while
inverted. This is due to floor windows an either side of the existing
ground plane. I believe that this is the major problem.
Probably not. The size or shape of the ground
plane will not have so profound an effect on
antenna performance.
Bob, after sending the last post I re-read the connection chapter on
antennas base my belief on what I read. Comments? I am interested in
the test set you talked about in the antenna chapter. Thanks in advance.
The MFJ-259 pictured above is the grand-daddy of
antenna analyzers. It will tell you everything you
need to know about the antenna system. Proble is,
they're kind of pricey. I think I bought my first
one about 10 years ago for under $200. They're pushing
$300 new
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=MFJ-259B
You can find them for a little less on eBay but
not much.
Another possibility is this little gem offered
on eBay and elsewhere:
http://tinyurl.com/7cl4bba
I've got one on order for evaluation. If
you don't have access to a capable VHF antenna
analyzer or swr bridge, these two options are
worth considering.
But you can do a lot with a hand-held and some
cell phones too. My guess is that the receive in
the Icom has gone to sleep . . . or the antenna
connector in the tray is open. The swr/pwr meter
test at both ends of the feedline will verify
continuity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Z11 with rear battery in a Cub |
A friend of mine is building a Smith Cub and has just decided he wants
to put the battery in the rear due to weight and balance considerations.
Wiring architecture is Z11. This is what I think he has to do. Please
correct any misunderstandings I have !
Main contactor at the rear as close as possible to the battery.
This feeds a heavy conductor to the firewall.
This conductor cannot be practically circuit protected, so should be
contained in a conduit.
This cable is connected to the main bus at the firewall, and continues
from there to the starter contactor.
The main bus has the usual stuff, plus an amphib gear hydralic pump.
A 4AWG wire does not easily connect to the Bussman fuse panel.
Perhaps a junction at the firewall where the starter cable goes
through and a 10AWG wire to the main bus which can now be more
conveniently located under the panel ?
Concern: this is a lot of wire running around without circuit
protection. An ANL would probably be useful at the firewall junction
if we take a 10AWG to the main bus fuseblock, but the main feed from
the back to the starter must be installed with good physical
protection. Turning off the master switch before a forced landing is
extremely important.
The battery bus as near as practical to the battery. This has a
connection for the single Lightspeed ignition (other is a mag) and an
always hot cigarette lighter socket on the instrument panel, fed with
a 5A fuse.
An endurance bus relay also fed from the battery bus and located there.
I expect that running starter currents through the aircraft frame is
not a good idea. So run a second heavy feed wire up to the firewall
where a forest of tabs will be, including a strap to the engine for
the starter current.
This works out to two fat wires, one 12AWG, two 18AWG and two 22AWG
wires running from the back to the front. Those should all run inside
the same conduit. Should anything be done to prevent them chaffing
against each other, or the conduit ?
It is probably about 7 feet from the firewall to the battery, which
needs to start an Aero Sport Power O-375. Will 4AWG be sufficient ?
Or too much resistance, and he should upgrade to 2AWG ?
Anything else I should have thought of ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 with rear battery in a Cub |
At 11:15 AM 2/5/2012, you wrote:
A friend of mine is building a Smith Cub and has just decided he wants
to put the battery in the rear due to weight and balance considerations.
Wiring architecture is Z11. This is what I think he has to do. Please
correct any misunderstandings I have !
Main contactor at the rear as close as possible to the battery.
This feeds a heavy conductor to the firewall.
Yes . . .
This conductor cannot be practically circuit protected, so should be
contained in a conduit.
No . . . fat wires require no special protection.
Support the wire to avoid abrasion due to motion
and keep away from moving parts.
This cable is connected to the main bus at the firewall, and continues
from there to the starter contactor.
I'd take it to the starter contactor. Bring a smaller,
probably 6AWG wire from contactor to the main bus.
The main bus has the usual stuff, plus an amphib gear hydralic pump.
A 4AWG wire does not easily connect to the Bussman fuse panel.
Why not? First it can probably be a 6AWG wire. 4AWG terminals
for #10 stud are easy. Use welding cable to get soft, flexible
and user-friendly routing and installation.
Perhaps a junction at the firewall where the starter cable goes
through and a 10AWG wire to the main bus which can now be more
conveniently located under the panel ?
Use hot side of starter contatctor for junction point.
Concern: this is a lot of wire running around without circuit
protection. An ANL would probably be useful at the firewall junction
if we take a 10AWG to the main bus fuseblock, but the main feed from
the back to the starter must be installed with good physical
protection. Turning off the master switch before a forced landing is
extremely important.
Wires that carry cranking and/or major power distribution
don't need 'protection' beyond making them cold by turning
the master switch off. This is consistent with the FARs which
guide the design and assembly of all part 23 and 25 airplanes.
The battery bus as near as practical to the battery. This has a
connection for the single Lightspeed ignition (other is a mag) and an
always hot cigarette lighter socket on the instrument panel, fed with
a 5A fuse.
This can be a 10A fuse. As we've discussed earlier, the
I(squared)x t constant for a fuse is still much smaller
than the exemplar 5A breaker. Hence, it is no greater
risk for post crash fire ignition than the 5A breaker.
An endurance bus relay also fed from the battery bus and located there.
Yes, since you disconnect adjacent to the battery bus,
that fuse may be any practical size needed.
I expect that running starter currents through the aircraft frame is
not a good idea. So run a second heavy feed wire up to the firewall
where a forest of tabs will be, including a strap to the engine for
the starter current.
That would be ideal.
This works out to two fat wires, one 12AWG, two 18AWG and two 22AWG
wires running from the back to the front. Those should all run inside
the same conduit. Should anything be done to prevent them chaffing
against each other, or the conduit ?
No conduit. Just bundle them up and support on chafe-free
clamps.
It is probably about 7 feet from the firewall to the battery, which
needs to start an Aero Sport Power O-375. Will 4AWG be sufficient ?
Or too much resistance, and he should upgrade to 2AWG ?
Lots of variables here. The delta-weight for 2 versus 4
on 14 feet seems a reasonable 'sacrifice'. But depending
on starter, engine cranking requirements, battery condition,
local ambient temperatures, etc. . . . 4AWG MIGHT be lighter
than the owner would like . . . but he'll have to discover
that for himself.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Johnson <kjohnsondds(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator wiring |
Bob, thanks again for your help. I have an EXP-Bus that I am using and in w
hich I can connect- for OV protection.- Does the 10 o'clock connection
go to this bus?=0AKen Johnson=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________
=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: a
eroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 12:14 PM
=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator wiring=0A =0A=0AAt 09:23 AM 2
/4/2012, you wrote:=0ABob and All,=0AI have appreciated all the information
received during the last year or=0Atwo as I have been preparing to wire my
panel.- The time has=0Acome.- I have a question regarding the wiring o
f my alternator, a=0ABosch AL394X.- I have tried to find wiring schemes o
n the internet,=0Abut have not been able to download what I need.- I have
included a=0Apicture to help.-- At about 12 o'clock, I assume the larg
e,=0Ablack connecter goes to the battery. =0A=0A-- Yes=0A=0A=0A-What
should be done with the connector plug at about 10 o'clock=0Aabove the cent
er hub . . .=0A=0A-- Leave it open=0A=0A-and the two connector plug a
t about 6 o'clock below the center=0Ahub?- Thanks for your help!!!- Ken
Johnson=0A=0A-- Ignore the "lamp" connection. Connect your=0Acontrol
=0A-- input wire to "IGN". Do you have a plan for=0Adealing with=0A-
- an OV condition?=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator wiring |
At 12:23 PM 2/5/2012, you wrote:
>Bob, thanks again for your help. I have an EXP-Bus that I am using
>and in which I can connect for OV protection. Does the 10 o'clock
>connection go to this bus?
The data was not helpful about the upper-left terminal . . .
given that it's an internally regulated alternator, I
haven't even got a good guess as to what that terminal
is for.
At 70A, it's certainly a robust alternator. But without
adding a b-lead disconnect contactor, this style
of alternator many not be controllable from outside
during a runaway OV event. Suggest you consider modifying
it for use with an external regulator, ov protection system
friendlier to airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 with rear battery in a Cub |
Thanks for your answers Bob.
It will be easier to install the wires without a conduit.
6AWG direct from the starter contactor to the main bus is a good approach.
Yes, the cigarette lighter could have up to a 10A fuse, but not needed
for probably a 2A load. Wiring will be sufficient to upsize later if
needed.
It is important to able to start a float plane. Changing 4AWG to 2AWG
after the build would be a challenge, so I expect we will install 2AWG
to begin with if there is any possibility of 4AWG being too small.
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 with rear battery in a Cub |
>
>It is important to able to start a float plane. Changing 4AWG to 2AWG
>after the build would be a challenge, so I expect we will install 2AWG
>to begin with if there is any possibility of 4AWG being too small.
Sounds like a Plan!
Bob . . .
January 21, 2012 - February 05, 2012
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kv