AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-lo

January 04, 2013 - February 07, 2013



      
      Some airframers do not want corrosion inhibitors between the antenna and the airframe.
      
      Conversely,  I worked for a MRO that requires Pentrox Type 2 (grey) for every antanna
      installation. (conductive paste, feels like toothpaste, non-hardening)
      
      My anecdotal experience tells me that antenna footprints are the first and worst
      hideouts for corrosion on many aircraft. Particularly lower antennas.  My experience
      is 1 to 1 without exception. If a removed antenna has Pentrox under the
      foot print, it has no corrosion. I come down as a strong advocate for adding
      Penetrox.
      
      I have two theories: one is that Airframers live in perfectly clean factories with
      brand new airplanes that never corrode. Antennas are installed on perfectly
      clean ground planes, and that thinking is inviolate. MRO's live with 30 year
      old airplanes, thus the difference between the two.
      
      Theory number 2 is that the clamp up force of an antenna is very low because of
      the large size of the footprint. Use of some type of "magic goo" seems more reasonable,
      because one can never achieve a  vapor tight fit up over the entire
      footprint of the antenna.
      
      I doubt there is a wooden stake for this vampire, but I would like Bob's thoughts
      related to HBC background vs. OBAM background.
      
      I come from a maintenance background , not a build background, so ....grain of
      salt....
      
      Todd
      
      --------
      WWW.toddheffley.com
      www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
      AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391595#391595
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant
on contacts At 07:06 AM 1/4/2013, you wrote: > > >Wow....Talk about the subject that will not die! Not sure why anyone would want it to 'die' . . . >I have watched this controversy in my industry (large cabin >executive jet maintenance) for some time now, and much like the >discussion here, it will not die. > >Some airframers do not want corrosion inhibitors between the antenna >and the airframe. > >Conversely, I worked for a MRO that requires Pentrox Type 2 (grey) >for every antanna installation. (conductive paste, feels like >toothpaste, non-hardening) There's a BIG difference between the situation you are citing and the conversations we've had here on the list. >My anecdotal experience tells me that antenna footprints are the >first and worst hideouts for corrosion on many aircraft. >Particularly lower antennas. My experience is 1 to 1 without >exception. If a removed antenna has Pentrox under the foot print, it >has no corrosion. I come down as a strong advocate for adding Penetrox. Absolutely. But the identification of successful remedies for specific issues does not translate into a general applicability as a prophylactic measure. I.e. using Penetrox to offset a specific vulnerability does not suggest that dipping the whole airplane into Penetrox is a good idea. >I have two theories: one is that Airframers live in perfectly clean >factories with brand new airplanes that never corrode. Antennas are >installed on perfectly clean ground planes, and that thinking is >inviolate. MRO's live with 30 year old airplanes, thus the >difference between the two. > >Theory number 2 is that the clamp up force of an antenna is very low >because of the large size of the footprint. Use of some type of >"magic goo" seems more reasonable, because one can never achieve >a vapor tight fit up over the entire footprint of the antenna. > >I doubt there is a wooden stake for this vampire, but I would like >Bob's thoughts related to HBC background vs. OBAM background. Some years ago I published this drawing http://tinyurl.com/6rwodso that spoke to the value of high mate-up forces in the vicinity of mounting hardware along with a suggestion that paint be removed from skin ONLY around the holes. It was a toss-up then as to how moisture might be prevented from taking up long term residence under the antenna. THIS is a problem. I suggested a bead of RTV on the outside because it can be inspected and renewed as needed. A gasket is NOT called for because it upsets the design goal for gas-tight bonding at the bolt holes. Silicon grease would be good for protecting the bonds and is probably the preferred technique . . . but that stuff is a high viscosity liquid with very good wetting properties. This means that the stuff migrates out from under the antenna base and stains surrounding surface while adding dust collection. Looks like @#$@#. >I come from a maintenance background , not a build background, so >....grain of salt.... So you're quite right that there's a unique and challenging problem to seek the elegant process by which long-lived antenna installations can be made . . . certainly more than a 'grain of salt'. In retrospect, given that electronic grade RTV in the uncured state has no significant compression strength, It would be interesting to try an overall, liquid gasket approach under the antenna using the silicone sealant. I think it would extrude out of the gas-tight contact areas as the bolts are torqued up. Squeeze- out around the base is easily cleaned after the bolts are tightened. Overall water tightness should be quite good. I'll put that into my list of experiments to try . . . One could overlap 3" wide strips of say 1/8" and equivalent thicknesses for skin and doubler. Do the 'bonding' thing around 4 holes with 10-32 hardware in them. Dope the interface between 1/8" and 'skin' with rtv and clamp it up. Do a test on bonding integrity of the two surfaces after the RTV has cured. Repeat without RTV and compare. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant
on contacts Greetings Bob, May I suggest that you try "3M Marine Adhesive Sealant 5200" instead of RTV for your tests. I have used it undermany fittingsabove and below the waterline on boatswith excellent results. They also make a 4200 that is easier to remove which might be more appropriate for antenna installations. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 01/04/2013 09:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 07:06 AM 1/4/2013, you wrote: >> >> >> Wow....Talk about the subject that will not die! > > Not sure why anyone would want it to 'die' . . . > >> I have watched this controversy in my industry (large cabin executive >> jet maintenance) for some time now, and much like the discussion >> here, it will not die. >> >> Some airframers do not want corrosion inhibitors between the antenna >> and the airframe. >> >> Conversely, I worked for a MRO that requires Pentrox Type 2 (grey) >> for every antanna installation. (conductive paste, feels like >> toothpaste, non-hardening) > > There's a BIG difference between the situation you > are citing and the conversations we've had here on > the list. > >> My anecdotal experience tells me that antenna footprints are the >> first and worst hideouts for corrosion on many aircraft. Particularly >> lower antennas. My experience is 1 to 1 without exception. If a >> removed antenna has Pentrox under the foot print, it has no >> corrosion. I come down as a strong advocate for adding Penetrox. > > Absolutely. But the identification of successful > remedies for specific issues does not translate > into a general applicability as a prophylactic > measure. I.e. using Penetrox to offset a specific > vulnerability does not suggest that dipping the > whole airplane into Penetrox is a good idea. > > >> I have two theories: one is that Airframers live in perfectly clean >> factories with brand new airplanes that never corrode. Antennas are >> installed on perfectly clean ground planes, and that thinking is >> inviolate. MRO's live with 30 year old airplanes, thus the difference >> between the two. >> >> Theory number 2 is that the clamp up force of an antenna is very low >> because of the large size of the footprint. Use of some type of >> "magic goo" seems more reasonable, because one can never achieve a >> vapor tight fit up over the entire footprint of the antenna. >> >> I doubt there is a wooden stake for this vampire, but I would like >> Bob's thoughts related to HBC background vs. OBAM background. > > Some years ago I published this drawing > > http://tinyurl.com/6rwodso > > that spoke to the value of high mate-up forces > in the vicinity of mounting hardware along > with a suggestion that paint be removed from > skin ONLY around the holes. It was a toss-up > then as to how moisture might be prevented from > taking up long term residence under the antenna. > > THIS is a problem. I suggested a bead of RTV on > the outside because it can be inspected and renewed > as needed. A gasket is NOT called for because it upsets > the design goal for gas-tight bonding at the bolt holes. > Silicon grease would be good for protecting the bonds > and is probably the preferred technique . . . but that > stuff is a high viscosity liquid with very good wetting > properties. This means that the stuff migrates out from > under the antenna base and stains surrounding surface > while adding dust collection. Looks like @#$@#. > >> I come from a maintenance background , not a build background, so >> ....grain of salt.... > > > So you're quite right that there's a unique and > challenging problem to seek the elegant process > by which long-lived antenna installations can > be made . . . certainly more than a 'grain of salt'. > > In retrospect, given that electronic grade > RTV in the uncured state has no significant > compression strength, It would be interesting > to try an overall, liquid gasket approach > under the antenna using the silicone sealant. > I think it would extrude out of the gas-tight > contact areas as the bolts are torqued up. Squeeze- > out around the base is easily cleaned after > the bolts are tightened. Overall water tightness > should be quite good. > > I'll put that into my list of experiments to > try . . . One could overlap 3" wide strips of > say 1/8" and equivalent thicknesses for skin > and doubler. Do the 'bonding' thing around 4 > holes with 10-32 hardware in them. Dope the > interface between 1/8" and 'skin' with rtv > and clamp it up. > > Do a test on bonding integrity of the two > surfaces after the RTV has cured. Repeat > without RTV and compare. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant
on contacts At 10:06 AM 1/4/2013, you wrote: >Greetings Bob, > >May I suggest that you try "3M Marine Adhesive Sealant 5200" instead >of RTV for your tests. I have used it under many fittings above and >below the waterline on boats with excellent results. They also make >a 4200 that is easier to remove which might be more appropriate for >antenna installations. Good info. Actually, there are a host of suitable sealants. In this case, cured sealant exposed to the environment is a very thin 'gasket edge' that is quite protected. I rather suspect that any quality caulking compound would suffice. I thought of EGRTV only because it's stuff I have around and I KNOW it to be non-corrosive . . . unlike similar products with the smell of acetic acid. What ever we test should be something that a builder can readily acquire at low cost. Hardware store acrylic caulk seems an attractive alternative. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2013
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Mike, Sorry to hear you've got a problem. I'm assuming you used the shielded, 3 conductor 20 ga wire that Aeroled recommends? Did you run the wire separately or in wire bundles and/or with any coax antennae cable? Any help is appreciated. Regards, Rick On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > I have the AeroLeds (two of the combined nav light/white strobe units) > installed on my trike (Z19 RB). I wired up as per their instructions but > they exhibit a small 'three click' noise in my headsets every time they > flash. Not very loud but frustrating since all the other electrics work > just fine. > > I've not had time to do further debugging since early last year/2012 but > I tried their suggestions of ferrite wraps. This did not help. > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > >> At 07:43 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: >> >> Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated radios. >> The "antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at Aeroled, and I >> remember him talking about these lights not having a capacitor discharge, >> therfore the noise characteristics were different than "Whelan" type >> strobes. How the shielding breaks the propagation of noise, I have no idea. >> >> It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios powered >> up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been installed, but no >> connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun & Fun so hopefully the >> Aeroled people are there and I will have a talk with them again. >> ** >> >> >> Yes, the noise is very different. While >> h.v. strobe systems are replete with fast-rise >> current/voltage waveforms at the flash rate >> of the strobes, the LED supply noise is >> an artifact of the switchmode, constant >> current power supply typically used to >> drive leds. >> >> If the AEROLED product generates noises at >> unacceptable levels, it's likely to be >> CONDUCTED noise that will propagate right >> down the power lines, shielded or not. >> >> Have Dean give me a call any time. My mobile >> phone is 316-209-7528. I'd like to explore >> his perceptions of noise issues for his product. >> I think we can be of service and perhaps save >> future customers from jumping unnecessary >> hoops. >> >> I'm 99% sure that shielding these wires is >> of no value. If there are noise problems to >> be addressed, then filters located at the >> source are called for. >> >> >> ** >> >> ** Bob . . . >> >> * >> >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> >> -- >> Mike >> >> ====== >> Mike Fontenot >> Apex Consulting & Services LLC >> Lakewood, Colorado >> 303 / 731-6645 >> >> mikef AT apexconsultingservices DOT com >> =============================== >> * >> >> * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring
Date: Jan 06, 2013
I am beginning a wiring diagram for a Searey Amphibian Rotax 914, needing redundant fuel pumps. Manuf. recommends each pump gets its own wiring, and I agree. The plan is single battery and internal charging coil only. I like the idea of battery buss, endurance bus and main buss. Where to source the electric for each is less clear. Seems to me that connecting as close to the battery as possible is best (least points of failure), but do I source them both from the same place? Anywhere else just adds points of failure, and for what good? Alan Hasbrouck SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Redundant Fuel pump wiring
At 02:48 PM 1/6/2013, you wrote: >I am beginning a wiring diagram for a Searey Amphibian Rotax 914, >needing redundant fuel pumps. Manuf. recommends each pump gets its >own wiring, and I agree. > >The plan is single battery and internal charging coil only. I like >the idea of battery buss, endurance bus and main buss. > >Where to source the electric for each is less clear. Seems to me >that connecting as close to the battery as possible is best (least >points of failure), but do I source them both from the same place? >Anywhere else just adds points of failure, and for what good? I'd run them both from the battery bus. Include indicator lights to show when one is ON. Make sure that they are included in the shutdown checklist to insure OFF for parking. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Redundant Fuel pump wiring
>>Where to source the electric for each is less clear. Seems to me >>that connecting as close to the battery as possible is best (least >>points of failure), but do I source them both from the same place? >>Anywhere else just adds points of failure, and for what good? > > I'd run them both from the battery bus. Include > indicator lights to show when one is ON. Make > sure that they are included in the shutdown > checklist to insure OFF for parking. ON FURTHER REFLECTION . . . run one from the battery bus, the other from the main bus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2013
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
From: Mike Fontenot <mikef(at)apexconsultingservices.com>
>>I'm assuming you used the shielded, 3 conductor 20 ga wire that Aeroled recommends? No, at the time of my installation they simply specified regular 18ga wire. I did install it with a twist the entire length. Like I said, I've just been too busy and unable to address this. When I get the time I will go back and review their latest suggestions. I would just suggest that people considering LEDs should not assume they will be noise free (because they are LEDs!). I like mine a lot, they are low amp usage, very bright, easy to configure as sync'd lights, but the actual noise-free install is somewhat more complicated than I appreciated. Two+ years ago we were all a bit less educated on this (I certainly was), but it seems these issues are better understood. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Rick Lark wrote: > > Mike, Sorry to hear you've got a problem. > > I'm assuming you used the shielded, 3 conductor 20 ga wire that Aeroled > recommends? Did you run the wire separately or in wire bundles and/or with > any coax antennae cable? > > Any help is appreciated. > > Regards, Rick > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >> I have the AeroLeds (two of the combined nav light/white strobe units) >> installed on my trike (Z19 RB). I wired up as per their instructions but >> they exhibit a small 'three click' noise in my headsets every time they >> flash. Not very loud but frustrating since all the other electrics work >> just fine. >> >> I've not had time to do further debugging since early last year/2012 but >> I tried their suggestions of ferrite wraps. This did not help. >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < >> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: >> >>> At 07:43 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: >>> >>> Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated radios. >>> The "antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at Aeroled, and I >>> remember him talking about these lights not having a capacitor discharge, >>> therfore the noise characteristics were different than "Whelan" type >>> strobes. How the shielding breaks the propagation of noise, I have no idea. >>> >>> It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios >>> powered up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been >>> installed, but no connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun & Fun so >>> hopefully the Aeroled people are there and I will have a talk with them >>> again. >>> ** >>> >>> >>> Yes, the noise is very different. While >>> h.v. strobe systems are replete with fast-rise >>> current/voltage waveforms at the flash rate >>> of the strobes, the LED supply noise is >>> an artifact of the switchmode, constant >>> current power supply typically used to >>> drive leds. >>> >>> If the AEROLED product generates noises at >>> unacceptable levels, it's likely to be >>> CONDUCTED noise that will propagate right >>> down the power lines, shielded or not. >>> >>> Have Dean give me a call any time. My mobile >>> phone is 316-209-7528. I'd like to explore >>> his perceptions of noise issues for his product. >>> I think we can be of service and perhaps save >>> future customers from jumping unnecessary >>> hoops. >>> >>> I'm 99% sure that shielding these wires is >>> of no value. If there are noise problems to >>> be addressed, then filters located at the >>> source are called for. >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> ** Bob . . . >>> >>> * >>> >>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com >>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >>> tp://forums.matronics.com >>> ========== >>> >>> -- >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> * >> >> >> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> * >> >> > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring
Date: Jan 07, 2013
Bob, Care to describe what you are thinking. What advantage is there to having one on the Main Bus? Alan , HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! -----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: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:04 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Fuel pump wiring Where to source the electric for each is less clear. Seems to me that connecting as close to the battery as possible is best (least points of failure), but do I source them both from the same place? Anywhere else just adds points of failure, and for what good? I'd run them both from the battery bus. Include indicator lights to show when one is ON. Make sure that they are included in the shutdown checklist to insure OFF for parking. ON FURTHER REFLECTION . . . run one from the battery bus, the other from the main bus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring
At 10:42 AM 1/7/2013, you wrote: >Bob, Care to describe what you are thinking. What advantage is there >to having one on the Main Bus? Independent power paths with no common failure points. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
At 10:31 AM 1/7/2013, you wrote: >>I'm assuming you used the shielded, 3 conductor 20 ga wire that Aeroled recommends? No, at the time of my installation they simply specified regular 18ga wire. I did install it with a twist the entire length. Like I said, I've just been too busy and unable to address this. When I get the time I will go back and review their latest suggestions. I would just suggest that people considering LEDs should not assume they will be noise free (because they are LEDs!). I like mine a lot, they are low amp usage, very bright, easy to configure as sync'd lights, but the actual noise-free install is somewhat more complicated than I appreciated. Two+ years ago we were all a bit less educated on this (I certainly was), but it seems these issues are better understood. LED lamps are, like their incandescent predecessors are quite noise free. Problem is that they are low voltage (2-4 volt) devices best driven as series parallel arrays by constant current power supplies. The power supplies are POWER OSCILLATORS with high probability of harmonic content that extends into the range of interest for radios. There may also be switching transients generated by wig-wag flashing that propagate mainly on the power supply lines. Here's the problem. These devices are advertised with claims to having been awarded PMA for use aboard type certificated airplanes. This implies that they've been tested to the legacy electro-magnetic compatability issues common to thousands of other products presently sold into the TC aircraft industry. When you're jumping the DO-160 EMC hoops, the product is treated as a stand-alone 'black box'. It must meet emissions standards without regard to installation issues. A requirement for shielded power/control wiring or a suggestion for avoiding wire bundles carrying other airframe wires is not allowed. I've written to AEROLED asking to have some conversation with one or more of their techno-wienies with a goal for understanding more about (1) installation recommendations and (2) noise experiences articulated here on the List. There's a BIG disconnect here. I'll continue to pursue a better understanding. ASSUMING we discover that AEROLED recommendations for installation are VALID, then the quality of their PMA is in doubt . . . which is really immaterial to our task. It may be that a simple set of filter components located at the power and control terminals of the device will eliminate the noises. In any case, shielded wire or selective routing of wires is a band-aid that admits to less than optimum design of the product. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Substitute Midi Fuse instead of ANL Fuse
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2013
A friend of mine, Larry, wants to use a Midi Fuse instead of an ANL to protect the battery and wires from a possible shorted alternator. His Viking engine comes with a 40 amp alternator. The Midi Fuse is physically smaller than the ANL and will take up less room on his crowded firewall. Question 1: Is it OK to use a Midi Fuse for this application? Question 2: Should a 40 or a 50 amp fuse be used? Midi fuse data sheet: http://tinyurl.com/axeza2t Thanks, Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391773#391773 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 08, 2013
Being completely ignorant of the Aeroled system and wiring.... Noise in Electrical Circuits 101: 1) Saving a dollar in pcb design often generates problems that take thousands of dollars to solve in the field. (Hard-won wisdom.) 2) In my opinion, using a two layer PCB in a low-noise design is insane, unless it can be proven that it works as well as a 4-or-more layer board. 3) Sharp-edged signals have their place in extremely small, extremely low-power logic, but not in power supplies beyond what is needed to keep the thermal issues under control and the parts' size and cost manageable. 4) Minimize clock traces and clock trace power, and clock signal edges. 5) Control noise at the source. Always. Noise in strobes: Whelen designed their venerable strobe units long ago. The strobe energy was stored in caps right at the beefy master-supply-strobe-sync unit. Today, especially for LEDs the strobe energy is best accumulated right at the discharge point (Supercaps?) to reduce noise issues and wiring size. Power to the strobes should be entirely DC with the sync signal generated by any number of simple means that won't generate an audio tick. -------- 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=391799#391799 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Lithium batteries redux
This morning's news included a bit concerning a battery fire in a B787 on the ramp at Boston airport. http://tinyurl.com/bx3ww23 According to Skip Koss (and unlike the Cessna ramp fire in the Citation) this fire appears to have been controlled by individuals both trained and equipped for dealing with a lithium fire. A123 (manufacturer of the cells in the Cessna battery) is shut down in bankruptcy although I understand they've been purchased by a Chinese interest. Folks. I think it's pretty clear that the large energy storage lithium products are not ready for prime time on airplanes. There's a lot of ground based history being made and new product development being conducted which may ultimately evolve into products with aviation-grade failure modes and risks . . . let us wait and see. Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer and the best way to carry a reserve of electrons is with lead-acid. http://tinyurl.com/3atma44 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
At 08:35 AM 1/8/2013, you wrote: Being completely ignorant of the Aeroled system and wiring.... Noise in Electrical Circuits 101: 1) Saving a dollar in pcb design often generates problems that take thousands of dollars to solve in the field. (Hard-won wisdom.) 2) In my opinion, using a two layer PCB in a low-noise design is insane, unless it can be proven that it works as well as a 4-or-more layer board. . . . . or has been proven adequate by DO-170/Mil-STD-462 testing. 3) Sharp-edged signals have their place in extremely small, extremely low-power logic, but not in power supplies beyond what is needed to keep the thermal issues under control and the parts' size and cost manageable. 4) Minimize clock traces and clock trace power, and clock signal edges. 5) Control noise at the source. Always. Noise in strobes: Whelen designed their venerable strobe units long ago. The strobe energy was stored in caps right at the beefy master-supply-strobe-sync unit. Today, especially for LEDs the strobe energy is best accumulated right at the discharge point (Supercaps?) to reduce noise issues and wiring size. Power to the strobes should be entirely DC with the sync signal generated by any number of simple means that won't generate an audio tick. It's not yet clear as to the nature of the offending emission. The filter needed for integrating the Luxdrive products addressed a poorly managed radio frequency issue. This spectrum of potential interference IS covered by DO-160, Paragraph 21.3 The 'tick' cited by several writers is probably a conducted, fast rise current transient coming out on the power lines. This is a very low energy event at an audio rate and with imperceptible radio frequency components. DO-160 DOES have a test for SUSCEPTIBILITY to low energy spikes (used to be called the chattering relay test . . . in fact, early bench test fixtures did indeed use a 'buzzing' relay as a noise generator). But it doesn't speak to kind of noise EMISSION that might generate the 'tick'. There are LOTS of devices that generate transients that might 'tick' . . . landing light turn on, pitot heat turn on, landing gear motor inrush, etc. Folks tend to ignore these due to their intermittent, one-time occurrence. But when it happens continuously in sync with repetitive operations like wig-wag or strobe, it's another matter. This is a new condition that has not yet be addressed by codification . . . the manufacturers of guilty product would do well to jump on this and fix it before the bureaucrats decide to step in and help. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2013
From: <r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject: Narco 11 connector source
Does anyone have the part number or a source for the 15 pin connectors on the back of a Narco 11A? I am planning on putting a TKM in the tray but the current connector has broken into pieces. I am hoping I can get one cheaply from Mouser or Digikey or someplace similar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Substitute Midi Fuse instead of ANL Fuse
At 04:12 PM 1/7/2013, you wrote: A friend of mine, Larry, wants to use a Midi Fuse instead of an ANL to protect the battery and wires from a possible shorted alternator. His Viking engine comes with a 40 amp alternator. The Midi Fuse is physically smaller than the ANL and will take up less room on his crowded firewall. Question 1: Is it OK to use a Midi Fuse for this application? Absolutely. There are several variations on the ANL theme found in all manner of DC power systems that range from the 'fusible link' up to and including the legacy ANL/ANN style current limiters. This would included devices like the Littlefuse MIDI The data sheet you linked was for the BF1 which is closer to a fuse than a current limiter. Compare the specs found here and you'll see that operating times versus current for the BF1 fuse is asymptotic to a value close to its rating while the MIDI is more like a current limiter where the asymptote is much greater than the device rating. http://tinyurl.com/by5qnop None the less all variations on this them are suitable to your task. Question 2: Should a 40 or a 50 amp fuse be used? Keep in mind that the rating of an alternator is for worst case conditions. A cold alternator is capable of significantly more than rated output until it warms up. Hence the condition known as the "B-lead breaker designed to nuisance trip" which describes the use of 60A breakers on 60A alternators on thousands of TC aircraft. You'll notice that the fusing specs for these these Littlefuse BF1 are not as robust as the legacy current limiter. I note that Littlefuse calls these devices 'fuses' as opposed to 'current limiters'. You will note too that the BF1 has a few parts tagged with "Note 3" suggesting that these parts should be used for short circuit protection only . . . more like their MIDI cousins. The short answer is that one would do well to use a substantially larger BF1 FUSE on the 40A machine . . . 70A would not be out of line. A MIDI-50 (almost a current limiter) would be okay too. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Narco 11 connector source
At 12:49 PM 1/8/2013, you wrote: > >Does anyone have the part number or a source for the 15 pin >connectors on the back of a Narco 11A? I am planning on putting a >TKM in the tray but the current connector has broken into pieces. I >am hoping I can get one cheaply from Mouser or Digikey or someplace similar. Do you have the pieces? Can you send me a photo of the pieces and a view looking into the back of the radio? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Substitute Midi Fuse instead of ANL Fuse
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2013
Thanks for the info, Bob. I will pass it on to Larry. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391840#391840 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2013
Bob, You may very well be correct, but I've gone out on a limb that I trust will support me and the aircraft. I have purchased and installed an Aerovoltz 12 Cell EV02 LiFePo battery in my Europa. The LiFePo battery is not supposed to be the fire hazard that the LiFe battery is. It is amazingly small and light. About 12 lbs lighter than the Odyssey it replaces. I would not have done this had my Rotax 914 still been electric dependent with two electric fuel pumps. about 2 years ago I replaced one of the electric pumps with an engine driven, mechanical pump so the engine will continue to operate should the electrics go totally dead. So far, in 2 hours of testing on the ground and 1 hour in the air, all seems well. It spins the Rotax on startup just like the Odyessy. I purchased the special charger that will do fast, 5A, charge; slow. 2A, charge; maintenance, .1A, charge/float and cell balancing. I have not done any time/power testing. I need to see how long it will run the radio, transponder and GRT EIS 4000 and then test with only the radio and EIS. When this is done, I will report the results. The seller of the battery did warn not to discharge below 9v as that would probably permanently damage the battery. And if discharged to below 11 volts, it must be recharged in the cell balance mode. Isn't this one reason why we call it Experimental? 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 8, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: This morning's news included a bit concerning a battery fire in a B787 on the ramp at Boston airport. http://tinyurl.com/bx3ww23 According to Skip Koss (and unlike the Cessna ramp fire in the Citation) this fire appears to have been controlled by individuals both trained and equipped for dealing with a lithium fire. A123 (manufacturer of the cells in the Cessna battery) is shut down in bankruptcy although I understand they've been purchased by a Chinese interest. Folks. I think it's pretty clear that the large energy storage lithium products are not ready for prime time on airplanes. There's a lot of ground based history being made and new product development being conducted which may ultimately evolve into products with aviation-grade failure modes and risks . . . let us wait and see. Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer and the best way to carry a reserve of electrons is with lead-acid. http://tinyurl.com/3atma44 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
My assessment sofar (FWIW). The problem with LiFePO4 batteries is that they do not self-balance well. And the 4 cells are not reliably identical. The result is as follows. You can either keep the cells balanced in the charged state, meaning that none of the four will ever go over 4 volts when the battery is charged at 14.4 V or so. Or you can keep them balanced in the discharged state, meaning that none of the four will ever be driven below 2 volts when the battery is discharged to below 12 volts. You cannot have both without sophisticated power electronics. In our type of use we keep the battery balanced in the charged state. The danger then lies in deep discharging. I will only use LiFePO4 if I can have a battery alarm that goes off when any one of the 4 cells goes below 2 volts (when discharging) or above 4 volts (when charging). And an alternative source of backup energy if either occurs. I would like to know in the meantime what level of battery monitoring is done on the accident Cessnas and Dreamliners... Jan de Jong On 1/8/2013 11:20 PM, Robert Borger wrote: > > Bob, > > You may very well be correct, but I've gone out on a limb that I trust will support me and the aircraft. > > I have purchased and installed an Aerovoltz 12 Cell EV02 LiFePo battery in my Europa. The LiFePo battery is not supposed to be the fire hazard that the LiFe battery is. It is amazingly small and light. About 12 lbs lighter than the Odyssey it replaces. > > I would not have done this had my Rotax 914 still been electric dependent with two electric fuel pumps. about 2 years ago I replaced one of the electric pumps with an engine driven, mechanical pump so the engine will continue to operate should the electrics go totally dead. > > So far, in 2 hours of testing on the ground and 1 hour in the air, all seems well. It spins the Rotax on startup just like the Odyessy. I purchased the special charger that will do fast, 5A, charge; slow. 2A, charge; maintenance, .1A, charge/float and cell balancing. I have not done any time/power testing. I need to see how long it will run the radio, transponder and GRT EIS 4000 and then test with only the radio and EIS. When this is done, I will report the results. > > The seller of the battery did warn not to discharge below 9v as that would probably permanently damage the battery. And if discharged to below 11 volts, it must be recharged in the cell balance mode. > > Isn't this one reason why we call it Experimental? > > 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 8, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > This morning's news included a bit concerning > a battery fire in a B787 on the ramp at Boston > airport. > > http://tinyurl.com/bx3ww23 > > According to Skip Koss (and unlike the > Cessna ramp fire in the Citation) this fire appears > to have been controlled by individuals both trained > and equipped for dealing with a lithium fire. > > A123 (manufacturer of the cells in the Cessna > battery) is shut down in bankruptcy although > I understand they've been purchased by a Chinese > interest. > > Folks. I think it's pretty clear that the large > energy storage lithium products are not ready for > prime time on airplanes. There's a lot of ground > based history being made and new product development > being conducted which may ultimately evolve into > products with aviation-grade failure modes and risks . . . > let us wait and see. > > Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with > a hammer and the best way to carry a reserve of > electrons is with lead-acid. > > http://tinyurl.com/3atma44 > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
Quote from PPRuNe forum: "The APU and main batteries are quoted as a Lithium Manganese in my 787 gen fam course notes. " May not be LiFePO4 at all... Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please...
From: "idleup" <matt(at)mattandmel.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2013
Peter (and others), Peter, It has taken me a while to address the items in your post. Thanks for reviewing my load analysis so thoroughly I appreciate it I ended up moving the compass light completely since it should be connected through the lighting controller and I moved the controller to the endurance bus. I understand what you are saying about the peak vs. transient loads. The loads that I used were based on other load analysis worksheets that others have posted and the documentation that I can find. When you said that a PC-680 would not meet the requirement of 30 minutes you said that 22Ah would be be required, where on my loan analysis did you get the 22Ah number from? As for the fuse loads, I agree that it seems inconsistent. The 3A on a 2.5A load seems too low to me as well, I was using the manufacturer recommended fuse size in the worksheet. The EFIS's are AF-4500's and in the manual (v7.4) on page 69 it states to use a 3A fuse. Should I disregard this and go with say a 5A fuse instead? maybe someone with these same EFIS's can tell me what they did? The reason the strobe fuse is 10A is because the manual states that each strobe uses 2.25A at peak for 0.33 seconds. Now, I remember reading about how quick peaks do not require larger fuses but I guess this case I was being cautious because I did not know. Based on this specification, what do you believe is a sufficiently sized fuse for the strobe circuit if not 10A? As for the wire sizes for the SL-40, Audio Panel, and CO Monitor, what size would you recommend? I realize they are not consistent. Should I always use the same size wire for a given fuse size on the circuit? if so, is there a chart somewhere that says which size wire to always use for 5A or 1A fuses? The 4AWG wire on the battery is in fact the main feed. I am using Bob's Figure Z-13/8 as a reference which states that "All wires marked 2AWG may be downsized to 4AWG depending on the size of engine and location of batteries". Should I instead keep this at 2AWG based on my loads in your opinion? Also, on my wiring schematic I have a 22AWG wire going from panel ground to the Master Switch and then to the battery contractor, do you think this should be 18AWG instead based on your comment? If I understand your question correctly then yes, the starter contractor takes a different load than the battery contactor. The two contractors are wired together with a 4AWG wire for the main load, but the starter contactor has a 3A load coming off the main power bus to the switch. So I guess the starter contractor has two power sources and the one off the bus is protected with a 7A fuse. Is this what you were asking? The audio panel is a PMA-8000B and the only current it shows in the specifications is the maximum current of 2.5A on page 1-2. I have no idea what the transient load is. I am not sure what you mean by the flap motor load is not consistent. Are you saying I should use the 3A for all phases of flight instead of using 1.5A? I figured that it was not going to use peak load all the time but maybe I am wrong? The landing light is a PAR-36 style Duckworks light. In the manual on page 7 it says if you use a 100W bulb then use at least 10A fuse with 16AWG wire. However, I bumped it up to 14AWG since I already will be using 14 elsewhere and do not want to buy 16 just for this run. I changed the load to 7.5A per your recommendation. In all reality, I may change this before I am done to a lower drawing landing light (like 55W) but I want to plan it for what I purchased and what I know is the worst case. I do not currently have a back-up battery for either of my EFIS's. I know this is an option that I can purchase from AFS but I believe it hooks directly into the back of the EFIS and would not affect my load analysis worksheet at all. Again, thank you for taking the time to review this. I would appreciate if you also took the time to respond to my questions above. Thanks. - Matt peter(at)sportingaero.com wrote: > Hi Matt, > > The only issue that might cause you a problem is the equipment on the > battery buss - if you cannot switch most of those items off with the > master switch you will drain the battery quickly. Are you sure the EI > should not be switched? Are you sure you will always turn off the > instrument & compass lights? The remaining comments are details. > > When I construct a loading table I use the steady state load as the > value I'm interested in for load assessment, and the max draw to size > the fuse and wire. A wiring diagram showing the feeds to the busbars > (not to the individual loads) would also be useful. You appear to have > listed the peak load only, for example you have listed an SL-40 taking > 2A and a 430 taking 6A, these are probably transmit currents and would > be pulled for only short periods. I would use the steady state figure > for all the devices for load calculation, but use the peak load to size > fuse and wire size. It is usually assumed that the battery will handle > any transient loads, such as radio transmit, flap motor, trim or gear > motor (if you had one), otherwise the alternator becomes huge. When > calculating the size of the battery for alternator out purposes the > increase in draw of large loads at the reduced battery voltage can be > significant (landing/taxi light, pitot heat) so may be worth listing > separately - your battery at 72% charge should be able to support the > endurance & battery loads for 30 minutes. As written a PC-680 would not > meet this requirement (12Ah available, 22Ah required). > Some of your fuse sizes seem low (3A fuse on a 2.5A load, for example > EFIS). Fuses protect the wire, double the load at least. Some also seem > high (10A fuse on a 2.4A load on the strobes). Wire sizes seem > inconsistent, the SL-40, a 2A load, has an 18g wire, but the audio > panel, a 2.5A load, has a 22g wire, CO monitor, a 0.1A load, has a 20g > wire. > > Some specific points, > - Why 4ga wire of the battery connector, it only pulls 1 amp? If that is > the main battery feed is 4ga large enough (2 or 0 is common)? There > should be a switch to pull in the battery contactor, often wired with 18ga. > - Starter, does that starter contactor take a different load from the > battery contactor? > - Does the audio panel really pull 2.5A continuously? > - Flap motor load is not consistent > - Landing light load is high, are you sure it is 100W? If so it will > draw 7A on the alternator or 8A on the battery. > - Do you not have a back-up battery on at least one of your EFISs? > > Hope this helps, > > Peter > > > On 29/12/2012 06:08, idleup wrote: > > > > > > > Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet and tell me if you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to make it better? I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some peer review... Thanks. > > > > > > > > Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf > > > > Thank you much. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391129#391129 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391926#391926 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please...
From: "idleup" <matt(at)mattandmel.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2013
Jeff, I did end up moving the lighting off the battery bus and onto the endurance bus. I also moved the landing light and flaps to the main bus as per your suggestions. I was thinking in an electrical emergency at night I would need the landing light and flaps, but you are correct that those really are not needed during the "endurance" phase of flight, just the landing. Hopefully there would not be a problem that turning back on the master switch would aggrevate when I do need them. The main reason I used the maximum currents is because I was trying to plan for worst case scenarios. As per Peter's recommendation I really should have two sheets (or multiple columns) so one set of loads can be used to determine battery endurance and the other for fuse and wire sizing. I have not seen this however in any of the templates I used for the load analysis so I did not do it that way. Also, my architecture is using Bobs Z-13/8. Thanks, Matt Tundra10 wrote: > Matt, > > You definitely put a lot of work into this :-) > > You have used maximum currents, although in many cases, actual runtime > currents will be much lower. The radios are a good example. The > SL-40 is about 0.4A during receive. The Garmin 430 is about 2A for > receive + nav. The audio panel probably uses less than 2A too. > > You decide what really needs to be on the endurance buss, but I would > suggest moving the flap motor and landing light to the main buss. > Once you have successfully arrived at the airport, you can turn the > main buss back on and use the battery reserve to lower the flaps and > maybe use the landing light (or just land without it). > > I would put the lighting controller and compass light on the endurance > buss. You are less likely to leave them on accidentally draining the > battery. More importantly, if you have an electrical fire, you want > to be able to disconnect everything (except the ignition) by turning > off the master switch. > > Using more typical currents, your endurance buss will be below 18A, > allowing extended flight with a 20A backup alternator. You didn't > mention what your architecture is. > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > > > > > From: "idleup" > > > > > > Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet > > and tell me if > > you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to > > make it better? > > I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still > > question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some > > peer review... > > Thanks. > > > > > > Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: > > http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf > > > > Thank you much. > > > > Matt > > > > > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391928#391928 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please...
Hi Matt, > where on my loan analysis did you get the 22Ah number from? I simply added the total loads on the Endurance and Battery busses (40.83 + 3.42), which in retrospect is probably pessimistic. I should have used any of the night descent numbers - but they are all significantly above that is available. If you look at the steady state currents for night IFR cruise and then 10 minutes of descent I wonder what the number is? There are many people using a PC680 as their only battery, so I would guess it is possible. >The EFIS's are AF-4500's and in the manual (v7.4) on page 69 it states to use a 3A fuse. Should I disregard this and go with say a 5A fuse instead? maybe someone with these same EFIS's can tell me what they did? I have an AF-4500 in my aeroplane and used a 5A fuse. Bear in mind the fuses protect the wiring more than anything. >As for the wire sizes for the SL-40, Audio Panel, and CO Monitor, what size would you recommend? I realize they are not consistent. Should I always use the same size wire for a given fuse size on the circuit? if so, is there a chart somewhere that says which size wire to always use for 5A or 1A fuses? Wire sizes are the subject of much debate (I'm sure others will chime in), but there are really only 4 or 5 choices 22, 20, 18, 16 or 14g for most runs. The only penalty in using 14g everywhere is weight (you would be surprised just how much) and cost. You're right, there is no point in buying 20' of one size for just one run. I use 22g everywhere I can - particularly for radio and avionics feeds where the current draw is low and the wire length (from fuse panel) is short. There is a chart which equates current draw and wire length to gauge size - I think its in AC43.13 > The 4AWG wire on the battery is in fact the main feed. ... Should I instead keep this at 2AWG based on my loads in your opinion? Either will work, I tend to go for the larger diameter to ensure the are no starting problems, particularly are a couple of years in service. If you planning a permanent magnet starter the larger wire may be more desirable as they take 2x current of slightly heavier starters. >Also, on my wiring schematic I have a 22AWG wire going from panel ground to the Master Switch and then to the battery contractor, do you think this should be 18AWG instead based on your comment? I was only pointing out you plan was inconsistent, it does not really matter for short runs. For the last panel I wired up I bought 100' of black 20g and used that for all the panel grounds. >If I understand your question correctly then yes, the starter contractor takes a different load than the battery contactor. OK >The two contractors are wired together with a 4AWG wire for the main load, but the starter contactor has a 3A load coming off the main power bus to the switch. Could I suggest you look into the main contactor wiring in more detail - what kind of OV protection are you using? > The audio panel is a PMA-8000B and the only current it shows in the specifications is the maximum current of 2.5A on page 1-2. I have no idea what the transient load is. 2.5A is the transient load, as a guess the steady state load is probably around 0.5A (no external speaker). >I am not sure what you mean by the flap motor load is not consistent. Are you saying I should use the 3A for all phases of flight instead of using 1.5A? Yes, if the flap motor takes 3A then use that - you could possibly use 1.5A for retract (wind is helping) and 3 for extension. However, I would use 3A for fuse and wire sizing, but ignore from the rest of the load sheet as the duration is very short. In my AF-4500 the battery is internal and was fitted when I bought it. As a further level of redundancy when something you haven't thought of has stolen all of your electrons I think its worthwhile. Hope this helps, Peter On 09/01/2013 19:15, idleup wrote: > > Peter (and others), > > Peter, > > It has taken me a while to address the items in your post. Thanks for reviewing my load analysis so thoroughly I appreciate it I ended up moving the compass light completely since it should be connected through the lighting controller and I moved the controller to the endurance bus. > > I understand what you are saying about the peak vs. transient loads. The loads that I used were based on other load analysis worksheets that others have posted and the documentation that I can find. When you said that a PC-680 would not meet the requirement of 30 minutes you said that 22Ah would be be required, where on my loan analysis did you get the 22Ah number from? > > As for the fuse loads, I agree that it seems inconsistent. The 3A on a 2.5A load seems too low to me as well, I was using the manufacturer recommended fuse size in the worksheet. The EFIS's are AF-4500's and in the manual (v7.4) on page 69 it states to use a 3A fuse. Should I disregard this and go with say a 5A fuse instead? maybe someone with these same EFIS's can tell me what they did? > > The reason the strobe fuse is 10A is because the manual states that each strobe uses 2.25A at peak for 0.33 seconds. Now, I remember reading about how quick peaks do not require larger fuses but I guess this case I was being cautious because I did not know. Based on this specification, what do you believe is a sufficiently sized fuse for the strobe circuit if not 10A? > > As for the wire sizes for the SL-40, Audio Panel, and CO Monitor, what size would you recommend? I realize they are not consistent. Should I always use the same size wire for a given fuse size on the circuit? if so, is there a chart somewhere that says which size wire to always use for 5A or 1A fuses? > > The 4AWG wire on the battery is in fact the main feed. I am using Bob's Figure Z-13/8 as a reference which states that "All wires marked 2AWG may be downsized to 4AWG depending on the size of engine and location of batteries". Should I instead keep this at 2AWG based on my loads in your opinion? > > Also, on my wiring schematic I have a 22AWG wire going from panel ground to the Master Switch and then to the battery contractor, do you think this should be 18AWG instead based on your comment? > > If I understand your question correctly then yes, the starter contractor takes a different load than the battery contactor. The two contractors are wired together with a 4AWG wire for the main load, but the starter contactor has a 3A load coming off the main power bus to the switch. So I guess the starter contractor has two power sources and the one off the bus is protected with a 7A fuse. Is this what you were asking? > > The audio panel is a PMA-8000B and the only current it shows in the specifications is the maximum current of 2.5A on page 1-2. I have no idea what the transient load is. > > I am not sure what you mean by the flap motor load is not consistent. Are you saying I should use the 3A for all phases of flight instead of using 1.5A? I figured that it was not going to use peak load all the time but maybe I am wrong? > > The landing light is a PAR-36 style Duckworks light. In the manual on page 7 it says if you use a 100W bulb then use at least 10A fuse with 16AWG wire. However, I bumped it up to 14AWG since I already will be using 14 elsewhere and do not want to buy 16 just for this run. I changed the load to 7.5A per your recommendation. In all reality, I may change this before I am done to a lower drawing landing light (like 55W) but I want to plan it for what I purchased and what I know is the worst case. > > I do not currently have a back-up battery for either of my EFIS's. I know this is an option that I can purchase from AFS but I believe it hooks directly into the back of the EFIS and would not affect my load analysis worksheet at all. > > Again, thank you for taking the time to review this. I would appreciate if you also took the time to respond to my questions above. Thanks. > > - Matt > > > peter(at)sportingaero.com wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> >> The only issue that might cause you a problem is the equipment on the >> battery buss - if you cannot switch most of those items off with the >> master switch you will drain the battery quickly. Are you sure the EI >> should not be switched? Are you sure you will always turn off the >> instrument & compass lights? The remaining comments are details. >> >> When I construct a loading table I use the steady state load as the >> value I'm interested in for load assessment, and the max draw to size >> the fuse and wire. A wiring diagram showing the feeds to the busbars >> (not to the individual loads) would also be useful. You appear to have >> listed the peak load only, for example you have listed an SL-40 taking >> 2A and a 430 taking 6A, these are probably transmit currents and would >> be pulled for only short periods. I would use the steady state figure >> for all the devices for load calculation, but use the peak load to size >> fuse and wire size. It is usually assumed that the battery will handle >> any transient loads, such as radio transmit, flap motor, trim or gear >> motor (if you had one), otherwise the alternator becomes huge. When >> calculating the size of the battery for alternator out purposes the >> increase in draw of large loads at the reduced battery voltage can be >> significant (landing/taxi light, pitot heat) so may be worth listing >> separately - your battery at 72% charge should be able to support the >> endurance & battery loads for 30 minutes. As written a PC-680 would not >> meet this requirement (12Ah available, 22Ah required). >> Some of your fuse sizes seem low (3A fuse on a 2.5A load, for example >> EFIS). Fuses protect the wire, double the load at least. Some also seem >> high (10A fuse on a 2.4A load on the strobes). Wire sizes seem >> inconsistent, the SL-40, a 2A load, has an 18g wire, but the audio >> panel, a 2.5A load, has a 22g wire, CO monitor, a 0.1A load, has a 20g >> wire. >> >> Some specific points, >> - Why 4ga wire of the battery connector, it only pulls 1 amp? If that is >> the main battery feed is 4ga large enough (2 or 0 is common)? There >> should be a switch to pull in the battery contactor, often wired with 18ga. >> - Starter, does that starter contactor take a different load from the >> battery contactor? >> - Does the audio panel really pull 2.5A continuously? >> - Flap motor load is not consistent >> - Landing light load is high, are you sure it is 100W? If so it will >> draw 7A on the alternator or 8A on the battery. >> - Do you not have a back-up battery on at least one of your EFISs? >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Peter >> >> >> On 29/12/2012 06:08, idleup wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet and tell me if you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to make it better? I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some peer review... Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf >>> >>> Thank you much. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391129#391129 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391926#391926 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 11, 2013
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please...
Matt, I am also using the Z13-8 architecture as the basis for my design. From a load analysis perspective, the interesting value is the longer term average load. This tells you whether the backup alternator (eg. SD-20 on the vacuum pad) is sufficient to carry the reduced load for the remainder of the flight, or to predict the discharge time of the battery with that load. So realistic current consumption is of interest, and is often much less than brief surge currents, such as when you activate the transmitter to talk with ATC. If necessary, try to measure your devices, if the specifications provide only maximum ratings. If you have a backup alternator, then the battery discharge time is of less concern, since it will not be discharged during the remainder of the flight and should have lots of juice for gear or landing lights when you arrive at the destination. If you don't plan a backup alternator, then selecting a battery and a test/maintenance schedule for it is important, so when the main alternator dies, you can switch to endurance loads only and start your stopwatch, knowing how long you have electrical functions before landing. If you rely on your EFIS for flight instruments, and perhaps electronic ignition, those can be powered by the standby alternator if you have one. If not, the battery sizing, test and maintenance schedule become critically important. Since you have many electrical goodies, I am assuming you are planning on a 20A standby alternator. So My load analysis was based on what was on which bus, and did not go into detail for phases of flight. With everything working, the alternator can meet the load in any phase of flight. I consider the failure of the main alternator an emergency situation if I am flying IFR. I have enough equipment on the endurance bus to finish the flight, although in hard IMC I would elect to land at a much earlier time, since the pilot workload is higher with less equipment (eg. autopilot). A low voltage indicator will warn me if the standby alternator is not keeping up. You can look at my load analysis here: http://www.qenesis.com/tundra/Electrical/Load_Analysis.pdf Sizing wiring and fuses is done differently. Average loads indicate how much heat might be created in the wires during use. Wires are sized to be well below melting the insulation. For a surge current, such as running a flap motor, it won't be run long enough to be expected to overheat a wire (expect perhaps in the event of a fault). However, the resistance of the wire factors into it as well, since sufficient size the wire is necessary to ensure that sufficient voltage arrives at the motor. The wasted drop along the wire is based on the current and the resistance of the wire. You can't change the current draw (expect perhaps by purchasing a more efficient motor), but you can reduce the resistance of the wire by changing to a thicker one. This is discussed in The Aero-Electric Connection chapter 8. Rather than recalculate for every circuit, I created a little table that listed the currents for 5 degree temperature rise (for continuous loads) and 10 degree rise (for intermittent loads), and what the maximum wire lengths are for that size wire for a 5% voltage drop. This is the chart I used: http://www.qenesis.com/tundra/Electrical/WireSizes.pdf I looked at the current in each circuit and what the length of the wire was expected to be and selected the size from my chart. Most of the wires were going very short distances, so size was related only to temperature for the current. In a few cases (HID lights at the ends of the wing and hydraulic gear pump) the size of the wire was related to the voltage drop instead. Once the appropriate wire size has been selected, then selecting the appropriate rating for the circuit protection is straightforward, since it is based on the size of the wire that is being protected (not the load). People worry about fuses blowing at inappropriate times. However, with sufficient size wire, the fuse rating can be easily high enough that this is very unlikely to be a problem, even using conservative currents to produce 10 degree rise temperatures. I used the current for a 35 degree rise to select my fuses. Jeff > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please... > From: "idleup" <matt(at)mattandmel.com> > > > Jeff, > > I did end up moving the lighting off the battery bus and onto the > endurance bus. > I also moved the landing light and flaps to the main bus as per your > suggestions. > I was thinking in an electrical emergency at night I would need the landing > light and flaps, but you are correct that those really are not needed during > the "endurance" phase of flight, just the landing. Hopefully there would not > be a problem that turning back on the master switch would aggrevate when I do > need them. > > The main reason I used the maximum currents is because I was trying > to plan for > worst case scenarios. As per Peter's recommendation I really should have two > sheets (or multiple columns) so one set of loads can be used to > determine battery > endurance and the other for fuse and wire sizing. I have not seen > this however > in any of the templates I used for the load analysis so I did not do it that > way. > > Also, my architecture is using Bobs Z-13/8. > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > Tundra10 wrote: >> Matt, >> >> You definitely put a lot of work into this :-) >> >> You have used maximum currents, although in many cases, actual runtime >> currents will be much lower. The radios are a good example. The >> SL-40 is about 0.4A during receive. The Garmin 430 is about 2A for >> receive + nav. The audio panel probably uses less than 2A too. >> >> You decide what really needs to be on the endurance buss, but I would >> suggest moving the flap motor and landing light to the main buss. >> Once you have successfully arrived at the airport, you can turn the >> main buss back on and use the battery reserve to lower the flaps and >> maybe use the landing light (or just land without it). >> >> I would put the lighting controller and compass light on the endurance >> buss. You are less likely to leave them on accidentally draining the >> battery. More importantly, if you have an electrical fire, you want >> to be able to disconnect everything (except the ignition) by turning >> off the master switch. >> >> Using more typical currents, your endurance buss will be below 18A, >> allowing extended flight with a 20A backup alternator. You didn't >> mention what your architecture is. >> >> Jeff Page >> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 >> >> > From: "idleup" >> > >> > Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet >> > and tell me if >> > you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to >> > make it better? >> > I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still >> > question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some >> > peer review... >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: >> > http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf >> > >> > Thank you much. >> > >> > Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
Subject: Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please...
Date: Jan 12, 2013
I spent a lot of time analyzing electrical requirements during my -8A build , and initially seemed to apply overkill to every requirement. A few points that led me to Z 13/8 and a 40 amp B&C alternator and an SD8 backup: * It really is steady state loads - not transients * Endurance bus is just that - something to comfortably get you on the ground after a main alternator gliche; it doesn't need to include all t he nice to haves: strobes, #2 radio, most interior lighting, pitot heat, ( if required turn it on for short periods), aux power plug. Again, you can wire these to the endurance bus but turn them on only when required * Backup batteries in the Garmin and AFS 4500 relieve a lot of the requirements * Minimize equipment on Battery Bus 280 hours and 20 months later, the electrical system has worked flawlessly. Normal load - strobes, 496, SL30, PMA7000B, GTX 327, AFS 4500 - is 15 amps . The extra $ for B&C products - and attention to detail in wiring the Z13/ 8 architecture - does instill confidence. Two switches to get the SD8 and E ndurance Bus online; turn off the Batt/Alt switch and it's mostly business as usual. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Anderson PowerPole connectors
I don't know if we've talked about these folks on the List before . . . but I ran across an current application where these connectors appear a great alternative to knife-splices and perhaps even the Molex/Tyco-Amp white nylon connectors. I've uploaded a data package for the Anderson PowerPole connectors to this page on my website: http://tinyurl.com/cbe2t87 On that page you will also find installation instructions, tools, and a link to the factory outlet where you can buy any quantity of housings, pins and accessories at reasonable prices. Do a Google on Anderson Powerpole and you'll no doubt discover many other sources for this unique product line. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff B <loboflyer(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2013
Subject: Anderson PowerPole connectors
We ham radio guys love them. If you put a set on your radios you can pretty much show up anywhere and plug in and get power for your gear! -Jeff- *From:* Robert L. Nuckolls, III *Sent:* January 12, 2013 12:48 PM *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Anderson PowerPole connectors nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> I don't know if we've talked about these folks on the List before . . . but I ran across an current application where these connectors appear a great alternative to knife-splices and perhaps even the Molex/Tyco-Amp white nylon connectors. I've uploaded a data package for the Anderson PowerPole connectors to this page on my website: http://tinyurl.com/cbe2t87 On that page you will also find installation instructions, tools, and a link to the factory outlet where you can buy any quantity of housings, pins and accessories at reasonable prices. Do a Google on Anderson Powerpole and you'll no doubt discover many other sources for this unique product line. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Anderson PowerPole connectors
At 02:10 PM 1/12/2013, you wrote: > > >We ham radio guys love them. If you put a set on your radios you >can pretty much show up anywhere and plug in and get power for your gear! > > -Jeff- Yeah, I've been seeing them for years but never really sat down and studied the products and their technology. Pretty slick. I think B&C has been using them in their SD-8 installation kits for years. In fact, it was a ham radio application that prompted me to revisit this product. I inherited a Kenwood TS440 in great shape from a old friend who was upgrading his station. Got a longwire with tuner put up which is marginally serviceable. Planning an off-center-fed dipole as soon as the weather warms up and roof-crawling is not so unfriendly. Been honing up the CW skills. Haven't been on HF in over 40 years but I've got some grand-children who should see what this ham radio stuff is all about. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2013
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit : > > Yeah, I've been seeing them for years but never > really sat down and studied the products and their > technology. Pretty slick. Bob and all, Your messages about PowerPole connectors prompted a question : What type of ground connector would you recommend to easily connect our Optimate charger to the ship's batteries through the aircraft skin (without opening the baggage door) ? Among goals we are aiming at : - Lightweight - Small footprint - Resistance/protection from water, mud, etc. - As aerodynamically clean as possible Any ideas ? Thanks for any input, Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2013
Subject: Anderson PowerPole connectors
From: rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us
Hi Group I've been using Anderson Power pole connectors since the late 90s on electric models. I really like them and have been using them here and there on my Europa project. One note, when drawing more than half of the rated capacity, even though contacts are clean and there is good tension, every once in a while they go higher than desired resistance and will melt down. These failures were on high amp draw model use. I got tired of losing power just at the wrong time and decided to parallel two connectors. Never had another problem. Here's an emergency run at least one electric fuel pump on my 914 Rotax battery that has two paralleled connectors: http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=27335&g2_imageViewsIndex=1 McMaster sells them called "modul;ar connectors: http://www.mcmaster.com/#modular-connectors/=l09xlv Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Low Cost ELT Antenna
Date: Jan 12, 2013
I'm several weeks away from completing my Cygnet project. The aircraft has no electrical system, and I've installed an older Narco ELT 10 as it is theoretically a two seat aircraft. However, I don't have an antenna or a plan for one. What would be the simplest and least expensive way to go? The Cygnet is steel tube and fabric with a wood/fabric covered wing. Thanks, Jerry Folkerts ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
Hate to tell you this, but it is illegal to install an original type ELT in any aircraft as a new install. If it had a Narco about 20 years ago, before they were made obsolete by regulation, you could still replace with same model legally, but you can't use one as a new install. The ELT10 is a first generation, designed in the early 70's, and does not meet current requirements, so only old installations are grandfathered. You are going to need a second generation ELT, such as the Artex, ACK, or Ameriking. The cheapest new are a little under 200. You also have to use the antenna it comes with. If your aircraft requires an ELT, it must be a TSO ELT of the second generation or newer, and the TSO requires using the antenna with which TSO was granted On 1/12/2013 8:48 PM, Jerald Folkerts wrote: > > Im several weeks away from completing my Cygnet project. The aircraft > has no electrical system, and Ive installed an older Narco ELT 10 as > it is theoretically a two seat aircraft. However, I dont have an > antenna or a plan for one. What would be the simplest and least > expensive way to go? The Cygnet is steel tube and fabric with a > wood/fabric covered wing. > > Thanks, > > Jerry Folkerts > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Scott Klemptner <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 01/12/13
piper meridians come from the factory with an anderson connector for chargi ng the main battery =0A=0A=0Abatteryminder sells a model of their charger s pecifically for the meridian with a mating anderson connector=0A=0Ai have u sed the meridian as data to get the faa to approve similar installations on type certified aircraft, =0A=0A=0Asimilarly, i have used beech a36s using anl current limiters as data to install anls in type certified aircraft, el iminating the expensive and large alternator circuit breaker from the instr ument panel when rewiring older aircraft or replacing a failed alternator c ircuit breaker=0A=0A=0Ascott=0A=0A-=0AScott A Klemptner=0Abmwr606 on Yaho o IM=0A=0AThe difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it s limits- Anonymous=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________ ls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anderson PowerPole connectors=0A>=0A>=0A>I don't know if we've talked about these folks=0A>on the List before . . . but I ran across an current=0A>application where thes e connectors appear a great=0A>alternative to knife-splices and perhaps eve n the=0A>Molex/Tyco-Amp white nylon connectors.=0A>=0A>I've uploaded a data package for the Anderson PowerPole=0A>connectors to this page on my websit e:=0A>=0A>http://tinyurl.com/cbe2t87=0A>=0A>On that page you will also find installation instructions,=0A>tools, and a link to the factory outlet wher e you can=0A>buy any quantity of housings, pins and accessories=0A>at reaso nable prices.=0A>=0A>Do a Google on Anderson Powerpole and you'll no doubt =0A>discover many other sources for this unique product=0A>line.=0A>=0A>=0A >- Bob . . . =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Linda Walker <l.p(at)talk21.com>
Subject: Bob's HF off-center-fed dipole
Bob. I'd be interested in reading more about your off-center-fed dipole when you get around to doing it, please. Good luck with some fair weather! Patrick Elliott. G-LGEZ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Anderson PowerPole connectors At 02:10 PM 1/12/2013, you wrote: > > >We ham radio guys love them.- If you put a set on your radios you >can pretty much show up anywhere and plug in and get power for your gear! > >----Jeff- - - Yeah, I've been seeing them for years but never - - really sat down and studied the products and their - - technology. Pretty slick. - - I think B&C has been using them in their SD-8 - - installation kits for years. In fact, it was - - a ham radio application that prompted me to revisit - - this product. - - I inherited a Kenwood TS440 in great shape from - - a old friend who was upgrading his station. Got - - a longwire with tuner put up which is marginally - - serviceable. Planning an off-center-fed dipole - - as soon as the weather warms up and roof-crawling - - is not so unfriendly. - - Been honing up the CW skills. Haven't been on HF - - in over 40 years but I've got some grand-children - - who should see what this ham radio stuff is all - - about. ---Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
Date: Jan 13, 2013
The Cygnet is an experimental homebuilt - I don't believe there is any restrictions as to what he installs. There used to be do-it-yourself plans in several places including the aeroelectric site if you wanted to do that. There are also (in my opinion) affordable stub antennas you can buy. You'll probably have to mount it on an aluminum panel or equivalent ground plane. On my Tailwind I mounted my xpdr antenna on a belly pan. Dave On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:04 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > > Hate to tell you this, but it is illegal to install an original type > ELT in any aircraft as a new install. If it had a Narco about 20 > years ago, before they were made obsolete by regulation, you could > still replace with same model legally, but you can't use one as a > new install. The ELT10 is a first generation, designed in the early > 70's, and does not meet current requirements, so only old > installations are grandfathered. You are going to need a second > generation ELT, such as the Artex, ACK, or Ameriking. The cheapest > new are a little under 200. You also have to use the antenna it > comes with. > If your aircraft requires an ELT, it must be a TSO ELT of the second > generation or newer, and the TSO requires using the antenna with > which TSO was granted > > On 1/12/2013 8:48 PM, Jerald Folkerts wrote: >> >> Im several weeks away from completing my Cygnet project. The >> aircraft has no electrical system, and Ive installed an older >> Narco ELT 10 as it is theoretically a two seat aircraft. However, I >> dont have an antenna or a plan for one. What would be the simplest >> and least expensive way to go? The Cygnet is steel tube and fabric >> with a wood/fabric covered wing. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jerry Folkerts >> >> * >> >> >> * > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Gilles, I went for the Piper style connector for my Jodel D150 project. Unfortunately, it's not very light, nor, I suppose, aerodynamically clean, but it does have a sprung cover to keep mud, etc. out. As for small, that's subjective. It needs a 2" hole, with two 21/64" holes at 2-15/16" centres. See http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/2013Individual/Cat13519.pdf for details. Despite its downsides, I'm hoping that its ubiquity will be its saving grace. James On 12 January 2013 20:53, Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>wrote : > Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III a =C3=A9crit : > >> >> Yeah, I've been seeing them for years but never >> really sat down and studied the products and their >> technology. Pretty slick. >> > > Bob and all, > > Your messages about PowerPole connectors prompted a question : > What type of ground connector would you recommend to easily connect our > Optimate charger to the ship's batteries through the aircraft skin (witho ut > opening the baggage door) ? > Among goals we are aiming at : > - Lightweight > - Small footprint > - Resistance/protection from water, mud, etc. > - As aerodynamically clean as possible > > Any ideas ? > Thanks for any input, > Best regards, > -- > Gilles > http://contrails.free.fr > > =====**=================== ===========**= /www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> =====**=================== ===========**= =====**=================== ===========**= com/contribution> =====**=================== ===========**= > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Bob's HF off-center-fed dipole
At 04:02 AM 1/13/2013, you wrote: >Bob. >I'd be interested in reading more about your off-center-fed dipole >when you get around to doing it, please. >Good luck with some fair weather! >Patrick Elliott. >G-LGEZ Do a google search on OCF dipole You will get a bunch of hits that speak to this class of antenna. Here's one example http://tinyurl.com/cjb4tlj I purchased a 4:1 balun off ebay for $30 postage paid Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
Bob and all, Your messages about PowerPole connectors prompted a question : What type of ground connector would you recommend to easily connect our Optimate charger to the ship's batteries through the aircraft skin (without opening the baggage door) ? Among goals we are aiming at : - Lightweight - Small footprint - Resistance/protection from water, mud, etc. - As aerodynamically clean as possible Any ideas ? Thanks for any input, Best regards, -- Gilles How much current does your charger produce? Is the airplane metal or composite? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
> >I would like to know in the meantime what level of battery >monitoring is done on the accident Cessnas and Dreamliners... I cannot speak to specifics of the battery controls and monitoring systems in either airplane. However, I can speak to the qualification process for getting these batteries approved for installation. A number of AIRPLANE companies, not battery companies, have launched into breathtakingly expensive programs to gain some form of approval for use of lithium batteries on their products. These include Cessna, Boeing, Grumman and others. All players in the lithium game are intently aware of the unique risks offered by lithium batteries. They are also aware of the widely publicized litany of events involving lithium battery catastrophic failures. The testing of batteries is a legacy skill finely honed by over a century of field experience and lessons learned. See: http://tinyurl.com/akvhxv6 also http://tinyurl.com/b4f89jh The two airplanes you asked about enjoy a very high degrees of electronic systems management not the least of which are the batteries. Given the intense scrutiny and qualification expense associated with getting Li-Ion products onto both airplanes, it's a pretty sure bet that everyone believed that they'd touched all the bases. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
The ELT requirement applies to ALL aircraft that have to have one. Experimental have to use an ELT meeting the TSO requirements, which you are unlikely to be able to meet without actual testing. It is not an area to go cheap. The first generation ELTs had rampant false alarms and frequent failure to activate in crashes. Given the under $200 price of a new, compliant ELT, trying to go cheap with a non-compliant ELT is pennywise, pound foolish, as well as being illegal. You have a different situation with a transponder antenna, in that there is test equipment, used in your certification and bi-annual tests that shows your transponder system, including antenna meets the TSO requirement. On 1/13/2013 3:09 AM, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote: > > > The Cygnet is an experimental homebuilt - I don't believe there is any > restrictions as to what he installs. > > There used to be do-it-yourself plans in several places including the > aeroelectric site if you wanted to do that. There are also (in my > opinion) affordable stub antennas you can buy. You'll probably have to > mount it on an aluminum panel or equivalent ground plane. On my > Tailwind I mounted my xpdr antenna on a belly pan. > > Dave > > On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:04 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > >> >> >> Hate to tell you this, but it is illegal to install an original type >> ELT in any aircraft as a new install. If it had a Narco about 20 >> years ago, before they were made obsolete by regulation, you could >> still replace with same model legally, but you can't use one as a new >> install. The ELT10 is a first generation, designed in the early 70's, >> and does not meet current requirements, so only old installations are >> grandfathered. You are going to need a second generation ELT, such as >> the Artex, ACK, or Ameriking. The cheapest new are a little under >> 200. You also have to use the antenna it comes with. >> If your aircraft requires an ELT, it must be a TSO ELT of the second >> generation or newer, and the TSO requires using the antenna with >> which TSO was granted >> >> On 1/12/2013 8:48 PM, Jerald Folkerts wrote: >>> >>> Im several weeks away from completing my Cygnet project. The >>> aircraft has no electrical system, and Ive installed an older Narco >>> ELT 10 as it is theoretically a two seat aircraft. However, I dont >>> have an antenna or a plan for one. What would be the simplest and >>> least expensive way to go? The Cygnet is steel tube and fabric with >>> a wood/fabric covered wing. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jerry Folkerts >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> >> >> >> > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
Haven't seen another point addressed yet. Or else I missed it. But, these new multi frequency ELTs that go for around $200-$300 are usually portable units and don't trigger automatically in a crash situation. Are these allowable in experimental aircraft? Do we need to install something that triggers by itself if need be, or are those that have to be manually activated after the "landing" sufficient for the FAA? Harley ----------------------------------------------------------------- On 1/13/2013 10:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > The ELT requirement applies to ALL aircraft that have to have > one. Experimental have to use an ELT meeting the TSO > requirements, which you are unlikely to be able to meet without > actual testing. It is not an area to go cheap. The first > generation ELTs had rampant false alarms and frequent failure > to activate in crashes. > Given the under $200 price of a new, compliant ELT, trying to > go cheap with a non-compliant ELT is pennywise, pound foolish, > as well as being illegal. > You have a different situation with a transponder antenna, in > that there is test equipment, used in your certification and > bi-annual tests that shows your transponder system, including > antenna meets the TSO requirement. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
The second generation ELTs are TSO-C91A compliant. They must be "installed", but some are removable for portable use. Example Ameri-king AK-450 for ~$190. They are Not PLBs, and they are only 121.5/243.0mhz units. To get a legal 406mhz ELT you are looking at ~$600 minimum such as ACK E-04. On 1/13/2013 9:05 AM, Harley wrote: > Haven't seen another point addressed yet. Or else I missed it. But, > these new multi frequency ELTs that go for around $200-$300 are > usually portable units and don't trigger automatically in a crash > situation. Are these allowable in experimental aircraft? Do we need > to install something that triggers by itself if need be, or are those > that have to be manually activated after the "landing" sufficient for > the FAA? > > Harley > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
James Kilford a crit : > > I went for the Piper style connector for my Jodel D150 project. > Unfortunately, it's not very light, nor, I suppose, aerodynamically > clean, but it does have a sprung cover to keep mud, etc. out. As for > small, that's subjective. It needs a 2" hole, with two 21/64" holes > at 2-15/16" centres. James, Thank you for responding. Unfortunately the Piper style ground connector is way too bulky, heavy etc. for our airplane. We only need a 0.8-1 amp capacity, and our four-seater empty weight and dimensions are less than those of your Jodel Mascaret, so we're trying to keep weight and drag under strict control. Thanks anyway for the input. Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit : > > How much current does your charger > produce? Is the airplane metal or > composite? Bob, Thank you for your response. The current needed is only that supplied by our little charger, of the order of 0.8-1 amp. The aircraft skin and structure are carbon fiber. The idea is to facilitate recharging when in a 'foreign' hangar, without having to leave the door/canopy ajar. Thank you, Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
Thank you Bob, very interesting. As a follow-on I found this: http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/aviation-lithium-ion-markets with this: http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/SpecSheets/LVP10-65.pdf So - not LiFePO4, not LMO either but LCO - the cathode type for the high energy density but with the bad reputation: http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm (sorry about the graph without numbers or provenance). I am still not sure whether in operation they do monitor each individual cell (volts, temperature?) before aggregating the result into a status for a whole series chain. The 787 APU starter battery uses 8 cells in series for 32 V no-load (nominal cell voltage 3.7 V vs. about 3.2 V for LiFePO4). Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Is there an air inlet at the bottom of the cowling? I wonder if you could use a pigtail of wire with a 2-pin connector like the one that comes on most trickle chargers. You could make a fastening system out of velcro to hold it up out of the breeze when you don't need it. I suppose this strategy could apply to any number of other air outlets, depending on which is closest to your battery. On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote: > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit : >> >> >> How much current does your charger >> produce? Is the airplane metal or >> composite? > > > Bob, > > Thank you for your response. > The current needed is only that supplied by our little charger, of the order > of 0.8-1 amp. > The aircraft skin and structure are carbon fiber. > The idea is to facilitate recharging when in a 'foreign' hangar, without > having to leave the door/canopy ajar. > > Thank you, > > Best regards, > -- > Gilles > http://contrails.free.fr > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Low Cost ELT Antenna
Date: Jan 13, 2013
Yes, the ELT has to meet requirements - I was talking about the Transponder antenna - don't know why I didn't see "ELT" - Oh well... I agree <$200 is a reason to go with a new ELT. Not to mention, the new ones can used multiple "D" cell batteries - a big cost savings over time. Dave On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > > The ELT requirement applies to ALL aircraft that have to have one. > Experimental have to use an ELT meeting the TSO requirements, which > you are unlikely to be able to meet without actual testing. It is > not an area to go cheap. The first generation ELTs had rampant false > alarms and frequent failure to activate in crashes. > Given the under $200 price of a new, compliant ELT, trying to go > cheap with a non-compliant ELT is pennywise, pound foolish, as well > as being illegal. > You have a different situation with a transponder antenna, in that > there is test equipment, used in your certification and bi-annual > tests that shows your transponder system, including antenna meets > the TSO requirement. > > On 1/13/2013 3:09 AM, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote: >> > >> >> The Cygnet is an experimental homebuilt - I don't believe there is >> any restrictions as to what he installs. >> >> There used to be do-it-yourself plans in several places including >> the aeroelectric site if you wanted to do that. There are also (in >> my opinion) affordable stub antennas you can buy. You'll probably >> have to mount it on an aluminum panel or equivalent ground plane. >> On my Tailwind I mounted my xpdr antenna on a belly pan. >> >> Dave >> >> On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:04 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >>> > >>> >>> Hate to tell you this, but it is illegal to install an original >>> type ELT in any aircraft as a new install. If it had a Narco about >>> 20 years ago, before they were made obsolete by regulation, you >>> could still replace with same model legally, but you can't use one >>> as a new install. The ELT10 is a first generation, designed in the >>> early 70's, and does not meet current requirements, so only old >>> installations are grandfathered. You are going to need a second >>> generation ELT, such as the Artex, ACK, or Ameriking. The cheapest >>> new are a little under 200. You also have to use the antenna it >>> comes with. >>> If your aircraft requires an ELT, it must be a TSO ELT of the >>> second generation or newer, and the TSO requires using the antenna >>> with which TSO was granted >>> >>> On 1/12/2013 8:48 PM, Jerald Folkerts wrote: >>>> >>>> Im several weeks away from completing my Cygnet project. The >>>> aircraft has no electrical system, and Ive installed an older >>>> Narco ELT 10 as it is theoretically a two seat aircraft. However, >>>> I dont have an antenna or a plan for one. What would be the >>>> simplest and least expensive way to go? The Cygnet is steel tube >>>> and fabric with a wood/fabric covered wing. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jerry Folkerts >>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
Subject: Re: Ground connector (was Anderson PowerPole connectors)
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Yes, or could be a socket fixed near to the bottom edge of the firewall. That would be accessible as you suggest. How about Anderson connectors? Nice and small, waterproof covers available. There is some info about them here: http://www.4wdadventurers.com/archive/index.php/t-568.html Not too expensive, and there are grab handle accessories, which might make it easier to connect / disconnect under the cowling. On 13 January 2013 18:36, Jared Yates wrote: m > > > > Is there an air inlet at the bottom of the cowling? I wonder if you > could use a pigtail of wire with a 2-pin connector like the one that > comes on most trickle chargers. You could make a fastening system out > of velcro to hold it up out of the breeze when you don't need it. I > suppose this strategy could apply to any number of other air outlets, > depending on which is closest to your battery. > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Gilles Thesee > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote: > > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III a =C3=A9crit : > >> > >> > >> How much current does your charger > >> produce? Is the airplane metal or > >> composite? > > > > > > Bob, > > > > Thank you for your response. > > The current needed is only that supplied by our little charger, of the > order > > of 0.8-1 amp. > > The aircraft skin and structure are carbon fiber. > > The idea is to facilitate recharging when in a 'foreign' hangar, withou t > > having to leave the door/canopy ajar. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Gilles > > http://contrails.free.fr > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
From: "rwtalbot" <richard(at)talbots.net.au>
Date: Jan 13, 2013
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > At 08:35 AM 1/8/2013, you wrote: > > The 'tick' cited by several writers is probably > a conducted, fast rise current transient coming > out on the power lines. This is a very low energy > event at an audio rate and with imperceptible > radio frequency components. > > Bob, forgive me for coming into this thread late. I also have been having issues with an Aeroleds setup in my RV-7A. I used to have the Whelen System 7 that Vans sold, but the powerpack failed and I decided to install these instead. The noise I have is characterised by: 1.Noticeable dead spot from signals to the rear (at least prior to sorting out a ground as indicated below) 2.Noise on all comm frequencies caused by the NAV lights. It does not break squelch but can be heard when the squelch is disengaged and the navs turned on 3.Reduction in effective range of the Comms over my Whelen System 7. I used to be able to get the ATIS on my home field from 50nm and 7000. I still can with the aeroleds turned off. If they are on I get nothing until I turn the lights off. 4.I can hear Nav and strobe noise in weak comm signals. 5.Navs + Strobe is even worse 6.The whole setup does not compair favourably to Whelen. I use my aircraft for IFR/night etc and have over 500 hours in four years or so, so probably fairly aware of how the systems should work. I spent a few hours in the hanger looking at my Aeroleds on the weekend and some more yesterday. I came to a few conclusions: 1.I have/had wired them as per the instructions. 2.I did find that the tail light was not properly grounded between the case and the black ground wire so I fixed that and it did reduce the noise but still not to where I am happy. (took for a test flight) 3.The wiring scheme suggested by Aeroleds actually looks like it would causes a ground loop between the airframe and the shield (when grounding both ends of the shield) . When connected on the Left wing it reduces the pop from the strobe on right and tail it appears to make no difference. 4.The tail nav is by far the noisiest and virtually impossible to quiet down. I assume because it has a lot more LEDs in it. I reduced noise by disconnecting the ground wire entirely (runs to my aft fuselage bulkhead). This seems to imply that local grounding is required. I may need to look at how I can achieve that with my rudder. 5.The Green (RHS) nav light is the next noisiest, followed by the red one (LHS). Both of these are very quiet in comparison. 6.Shortening the ground lead at the light end is not only impractical it makes little difference. 7.One of these lights causes minimal noise, the combined effect adds up. Worst case is all three plugged in and nav + strobe. 8.Noise can be heard using a portable Airband radio with the squelch disabled. In some cases the lights will break squelch but not often and not with the wiring as per the instructions 9.Noise is still present and can be clearly heard in weak signals (like listening to Sydney Centre on the ground). 10.My tail light gets extremely hot in operation. (burn your hands hot) I had been of the opinion that the noise was most likely caused by a poorly filtered switch mode power supply injecting noise back into the power system. That coupled with the very fast rise time from the strobes when they are turned on leads to the issues. What surprised me was that with my handheld radio I could easily receive the signal when I placed the antenna near the lights, and also when the antenna was placed near my belly mounted Comm antennas. Getting the wiring correct seems to virtually eliminate the emitted RFI. You must be very close to the wing light fixtures with the portable antenna. The tail light is worse but noticably better when grounded. Being IFR I have a few other issues: What about VOR, MKR, GPS etc? How much of this noise could cause issues in electronics such as EFIS? What are these things doing to the airframe ground and could it play havoc with my WX-500 storm scope? I have not noticed any strikes detected but it could perhaps reduce its range or accuracy - especially as the antenna is in the return path from the tail strobe. What happens when the grounds become ineffective due to corrosion under the screws etc? Richard Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392225#392225 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com>
Subject: Anderson PowerPole connectors
Thanks, Bob. I've looked at these before. I'm planning to install, from time to time, an electric air conditioner into the aft baggage compartment. It has a maximum draw, the manufacturer says, of 50 amps. I was considering the 75 amp Anderson PowerPole connector, but then saw mention here that 100% lagniappe above expected current flow is best for long connector/crimp connection life. Should I be concerned about my app, or simply accept that, perhaps, I may need to renew these connectors from time to time... hopefully before they start an inflight fire? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Resurrecting a battery
Greetings, Here's my report on trying to resurrect "killed" lead acid batteries. No success. After 48 hours on the high voltage/current limited setup neither of the lead acid open batteries or a couple of old sealed lead acid batteries I was experimenting with showed any life.I tested them for voltage about 24 hrs after the charge attempts and none read as high as 12V. I used 75W bulb instead of 100 'cause it was the only incandescent bulb I had and I figured a compact fluorescent wasn't going to work:>). I assume that that lowered the current limit but still provided the voltage I was looking for. Bottomline. It was educational and I have one more trick to try on marginal batteries. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. Sorry I didn't have any success to share. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 09/28/2012 04:42 PM, rayj wrote: > > On 09/28/2012 01:12 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> You can put a 100w light bulb in series with a diode >> bridge rectifier and use this as a current limited source of >> high voltage to hook to your battery(ies). Watch the voltage across >> the battery. If the chemistry is coming awake, the voltage >> should begin to drop and ultimately level off at normal >> levels expected for a 1 amp constant current charge. > Here's where my ignorance starts showing. Is this setup using mains > voltage? Rectified and current limited? 120+ volts DC, current limited > to 1-2 amps? > > 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
At 10:46 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote: >I am set up to use 1 maintainer to keep 4-5 or >more batteries charged over the winter. How can >I tell if I've exceeded the capacity of the maintainer? Not possible to do with batteries that are capable of being maintained. A smart charger-maintainer (SCM) has two phases of operation (1) top off the battery's state of charge and (2) support the battery at a voltage just above the open-terminal voltage for the battery in storage. The 'effort' required to do (1) has some battery size issues associated with it. Obviously, a maintainer with a 1 amp charge rate will take longer to top off a 32 a.h. battery than for a 17 a.h. battery. Once top-off is achieved, the SCM will switch output voltage to some level too LOW to deliver a practical charge to a battery but just HIGHER than the battery's normal open circuit resting voltage. For the SVLA battery, OCV is on the order of 12.8 to 13.1 volts depending on room temperature. So a MAINTENANCE voltage on the order of 13.2 to 13.5 volts is called for. See: http://tinyurl.com/b4td78b In the maintenance mode, the LOAD on the SCM is equal to the SELF DISCHARGE current built into the battery itself. Given the very long self life of SVLA batteries, this means that self discharge currents are very low. >Will the voltage drop? How much of the total >amperage of the charger is available for >maintaining the batteries? One of my >charger/maintainers is rated 6amps. I can't >imagine any reasonable number of batteries >needing that much current to be kept topped >up. The batteries are at outside temp >(currently below 0deg F). Is this a factor I need to consider? No and no. At lower temperatures the OCV of the battery goes down but the self discharge rate goes down too. Here is an excerpt from an essay on battery management I found at: http://tinyurl.com/bys7ty6 --------------------------- Few batteries do not die a natural death =AD most batteries are murdered. They are murdered by owners that charge them improperly, cycle them too deeply, let them sit discharged for too long, or store them at too high a temperature. Since our UPS units have built-in controllers and the units are rarely deeply discharged, the primary battery killer is heat. Batteries are electrochemical machines. Chemical reactions govern how they work and chemical reactions govern how they fail. Chemical reactions exist within a battery that cause them to discharge just sitting in storage. Other chemical reactions cause them to form crystalline lead sulfate. Both of these reactions are accelerated by temperature according to the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation>Arrhenius equation, which I state in Equation 1. Eq. 1 k=A \cdot {{e}^{-{{E}_{a}}/R \cdot T}} Emacs! where * k is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_constant>rate of the chemical reaction * Ea is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_energy>activation energy. * R is the R is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gas_constant>universal gas constant. * T is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin>absolute temperature in =B0K. * A is a constant. Equation 1 tells us that increasing temperature produces an exponential increase in reaction rate. Let=92s examine how this reaction rate affects a battery that appears to just be sitting there =AD it actually is experiencing an internal chemical reaction that is discharging the battery. I also want to examine a common rule of thumb for electrical engineers. A battery at a temperature of T+10 =B0C self-discharges twice as fast as the same battery at a temperature of T. Is this rule true? If it is true, the customer that I mentioned earlier who stored his batteries at 50 =B0C would see his batteries discharged in his warehouse within about two and half months. At that point, the sulphation process begins. His batteries were dying right before his eyes. ----------------- end of excerpt ----------------- So the short answer to your question is first place each battery in turn on the SCM and allow it to top off. Then place the array of batteries in parallel with each other and connected to the SCM. Storing the batteries in a cold location is beneficial to the general health and well being of the battery's chemistry. The number of batteries in the storage array has no practical limit. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
At 06:35 AM 1/14/2013, you wrote: my experience in my cild barn last winter is that it works poorly or not at all. i think it is because one marginal battery always calls for power and the others don't get the right voltage. anyway, this year i bought a bunch of harbor frt. maintainers and every battery gets its own. bob noffs The bit I just posted on the use of a single maintainer for an array of batteries assumes that the batteries are capable and worthy of maintenance. In other words, the candidates for storage are reasonably well known for their state of useful capacity. A battery that is damaged and in need of recovery (suffers from light, short term sulphation) needs to be attended to and tested for useful capacity before adding it to an array of batteries already know to be worthy of retention in anticipation of future service. A battery badly sulphated is not recoverable. Placing crippled batteries in parallel with topped-off, good batteries will degrade if not negate the benefits of the maintenance mode. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Anderson PowerPole connectors
At 09:07 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote: Thanks, Bob. I've looked at these before. I'm planning to install, from time to time, an electric air conditioner into the aft baggage compartment. It has a maximum draw, the manufacturer says, of 50 amps. I was considering the 75 amp Anderson PowerPole connector, but then saw mention here that 100% lagniappe above expected current flow is best for long connector/crimp connection life. Should I be concerned about my app, or simply accept that, perhaps, I may need to renew these connectors from time to time... hopefully before they start an inflight fire? Your concerns are not without foundation in practical experience and physics. As mentioned in my post of a few minutes ago on the chemistry of battery self discharge rates, I'll suggest that the chemistry of ohmic joints between current carrying conductors is similarly if not identically influenced by the temperature of the reactants where the two contacts come together. I(squared)R dissipation in the joint elevates temperatures above existing ambient. De-rating a joint by 50% drops rise by 75% for a profound benefit to chemical degradation of contact surfaces over time. This contactor was being used well within it's ratings . . . http://tinyurl.com/qmk6gm but located in an area of the airplane that was already hot. It performed as advertised for many hours but ultimately succumbed to the sum total of physics arrayed against it. This is the 'magic' of the gas-tight union between two conductors. Keeping the air and moisture out of the joint prevents the influences of chemistry driven by the Arrhenius equation cited a few minutes ago with reference to chemical reactions in batteries. The gas-tight joint takes chemistry completely out of the picture. Mated connectors have CHEMISTRY in common with contactors, switches and relays. Joint make-up forces for crimps and mated PIDG terminal suffer no such influences. The fact that PowerPole connectors are silver plated certainly goes to improved performance at 'ordinary' temperatures. At the same time, silver is not known for resistance to chemical reaction. I'm thinking that mated contacts of the PowerPoles used in highly stressed situation (current induced rise + ambients) would benefit from some silicone grease applied to mating surfaces of the contacts. A google search for silicone and powerpole yielded these two of many paired references on the 'net. http://tinyurl.com/b45y7da By ed from Louisiana I started using regular hand crimpers which was a disaster, then I started soldering all my Andersons, which isn't bad but takes time and is inconvenient in the field. I finally broke down and bought this crimper and I'm still kicking myself in the rear for not doing it earlier. This crimper will make a very reliable and firm crimp along the full length of the wire insertion barrel. Just make sure to insert the pin so that it rolls into and digs into the stripped wire that was inserted. Great low resistance connection. Just add a little silicon grease when you're done and it is good to go almost anywhere. Im converting my whole operation over to Anderson connectors. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Aeroled wiring
At 09:04 PM 1/13/2013, you wrote: The noise I have is characterised by: 1.Noticeable dead spot from signals to the rear (at least prior to sorting out a ground as indicated below) 2.Noise on all comm frequencies caused by the NAV lights. It does not break squelch but can be heard when the squelch is disengaged and the navs turned on 3.Reduction in effective range of the Comms over my Whelen System 7. I used to be able to get the ATIS on my home field from 50nm and 7000=99. I still can with the aeroleds turned off. If they are on I get nothing until I turn the lights off. 4.I can hear Nav and strobe noise in weak comm signals. 5.Navs + Strobe is even worse 6.The whole setup does not compair favourably to Whelen. I use my aircraft for IFR/night etc and have over 500 hours in four years or so, so probably fairly aware of how the systems should work. Richard, Thanks for the detailed and concise description of your experience and observations. You've confirmed my skepticism as to the validity of their DO-160/TSO qualification. Looking at the installation manual for one of their nav/strobe combo products we find this wiring diagram: Emacs! This 'smells' . . . If I had proposed a product that REQUIRED such accommodation by the system integrator/installer, I would have been summoned to the boss' office for a come-to-jesus-meeting. More importantly, I'm not sure just how I could take such a product to the EMC lab for testing with shielded hookup wires. If one places a conducted emissions probe over a shielded wire, it is EXPECTED that measured energies will be attenuated with respect to that which flows on the wires. I'd really like to read their EMC report. If the system just barely passed conducted EMC emissions with a shield, what would they have measured without the shield or at the end of the shield where the wire break out to hook up to the rest of the airplane? I've written, observed and/or orchestrated hundreds of DO-160 EMC qualification programs . . . the experiences of List members combined with AEROLED's published installation requirements suggests that somebody dropped the ball for getting this product to market. I spent a few hours in the hanger looking at my Aeroleds on the weekend and some more yesterday. I came to a few conclusions: 1.I have/had wired them as per the instructions. 2.I did find that the tail light was not properly grounded between the case and the black ground wire so I fixed that and it did reduce the noise but still not to where I am happy. (took for a test flight) 3.The wiring scheme suggested by Aeroleds actually looks like it would causes a ground loop between the airframe and the shield (when grounding both ends of the shield) . When connected on the Left wing it reduces the pop from the strobe on right and tail it appears to make no difference. 4.The tail nav is by far the noisiest and virtually impossible to quiet down. I assume because it has a lot more LEDs in it. I reduced noise by disconnecting the ground wire entirely (runs to my aft fuselage bulkhead). This seems to imply that local grounding is required. I may need to look at how I can achieve that with my rudder. 5.The Green (RHS) nav light is the next noisiest, followed by the red one (LHS). Both of these are very quiet in comparison. 6.Shortening the ground lead at the light end is not only impractical it makes little difference. 7.One of these lights causes minimal noise, the combined effect adds up. Worst case is all three plugged in and nav + strobe. 8.Noise can be heard using a portable Airband radio with the squelch disabled. In some cases the lights will break squelch but not often and not with the wiring as per the instructions 9.Noise is still present and can be clearly heard in weak signals (like listening to Sydney Centre on the ground). 10.My tail light gets extremely hot in operation. (burn your hands hot) I had been of the opinion that the noise was most likely caused by a poorly filtered switch mode power supply injecting noise back into the power system. That coupled with the very fast rise time from the strobes when they are turned on leads to the issues. What surprised me was that with my handheld radio I could easily receive the signal when I placed the antenna near the lights, and also when the antenna was placed near my belly mounted Comm antennas. Getting the wiring correct seems to virtually eliminate the emitted RFI. You must be very close to the wing light fixtures with the portable antenna. The tail light is worse but noticably better when grounded. Interesting observations. I wonder how they might have been different in a Glasair or a Pulsar? Being IFR I have a few other issues: What about VOR, MKR, GPS etc? The noises you've wrestle with are VHF RF in nature and probably represent a similar threat to VOR. Not so much Marker Beacons which are VERY weak receivers an STRONG signals. GPS . . . dunno . . . like I wrote, I'd REALLY like to see their EMC lab test report. How much of this noise could cause issues in electronics such as EFIS? Less likely but again, without a the blessing of a golden test report by a qualified EMC lab, we're not sure that other manifestations of emitted energy DO NOT exist. What are these things doing to the airframe ground and could it play havoc with my WX-500 storm scope? I have not noticed any strikes detected but it could perhaps reduce its range or accuracy - especially as the antenna is in the return path from the tail strobe. Good question. Don't know. If ONE aspect of the DO-160 qualification protocols are suspect, we have no basis for assuming that other protocols are not similarly compromised. What happens when the grounds become ineffective due to corrosion under the screws etc? Gas tight original installation should preclude drifts of performance with age. I think these products need to be looked at again for a second opinion as to the validity of their TSO. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
At 11:39 AM 1/14/2013, you wrote: Greetings Bob Noffs, I bought 6+ of the HF battery maintainers and was planning on doing the same thing. In the process I started looking at the voltage provided by them and was surprised to find that NONE of the units I had provided more than about 12.75 volts. Some were as low as 12.4. As I understand the process it is necessary to provide a voltage higher than the OCV to the battery in order to offset the internal process. My conclusion is that the maintainers would only keep the batteries charged to a level which would result in an OCV lower that the maintainer voltage and less then 100% charge. Given that the maintainer I'm now using is at 13.5 volts in maintenance mode I don't think 12.75 or less is acceptable for maintaining my batteries. Just my experience, hope you find it useful. I tried a couple of HF devices about 5 years ago that purported to be smart-charger-maintainers but found their performance disappointing. Don't recall the details now. I've not tried them again since. Your note prompted me to take a peek at the two Battery Tenders and one Schumacher 1562A charger maintainers currently plugged into walls around here. Batteries not connected but recently topped off were running 12.7 to 13.1 at 55F in the wood-shop with two other batteries on SCMs were being held at 13.4 (Battery Tender) and 13.58 (1562A). In the house I have two batteries sitting open 12.95 and 13.01 and one on a Battery Tender at 13.45 volts. For the moment, my peronal stable of battery maintenance tools seem to be functioning as advertised. There's a handful of Schumacher products here and perhaps another one coming. I put a 12 a.h. battery on the cap meter for discharge. I'll use the discharged battery to stroke one of these chargers and see if they purr, snarl or just lay there. Thanks for the narrative. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
Bob, Thanks for the very educational reply. Always appreciate having myplans reviewed, rather than waiting 'till spring to find out I'm wrong. Understand the prohibition on including crippled batteries in the process. I will be chargingthe batteries on anon maintainer capable chargerthen checking the OCV 24 hrs after the end of charging and will not try to maintain batteries which don't show at least 12.9V. Thanks again. 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 P.S. Matronics doesn't like something in your email when I try to include it in a reply. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
>Understand the prohibition on including crippled batteries in the >process. I will be charging the batteries on a non maintainer >capable charger then checking the OCV 24 hrs after the end of >charging and will not try to maintain batteries which don't show at >least 12.9V. Sounds like a plan . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative. The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and react to changes over time. Went to the bench and clipped these parts together: Emacs! In my case, a 5W 100 ohm resistor was used for a load. A convenient alternative would be a 35 or 55w halogen lamp from Walmart. You need two meters and a bench supply capable of carrying the lamp load at 15 volts or more. The lamp load total (along with ratings on your bench supply) needs to be some value greater than the output current rating for the SCM under test. First, hook up the power supply, voltmeter, and load. See power supply for say 10 volts (depleted battery level). Clip SCM to the load while monitoring the charger's output on the ammeter. You should see a current reading that is in the ball park for the SCM under test. I just did this test with a Battery Tender. Got an initial charge current of 0.9A. Put on your "battery spoofer's" hat and slowly increase the voltage while watching the ammeter reading. Somewhere north of 14 volts you should see a sharp drop in current. That voltage reading will be the top-off termination point for your particular SCM. Slowly decrease the power supply and watch for the amperage to increase from zero. Adjust the voltage so that you get current reading on the order of 10 milliamps. This voltage will be the maintenance float voltage for your SCM under test. I just tested the two SCMs that Bob Noffs sent me some weeks ago. Both tested a zero output. So one couldn't do a comparative looksee for voltage switching levels or maintenance protocols. You were right Bob. These critters just laid there. If anyone has a relatively new SCM that seems not to function, this test will confirm/deny your suspicions. Further, the results of the testing will offer concrete justification for warranty claims for either gross failures like I just described . . . or failure to demonstrate recharge rates and voltages commensurate with expected performance. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: parallel batteries on maintainer
At 01:21 PM 1/14/2013, you wrote: Hi Ray, I also have used the HF cheapie maintainers...maybe a dozen or so. I also found that some were either floating at too high or too low of a voltage. I believe the ideal is about 13.1 - 13.3 volts in the maintenance mode. What I found, at lease in the older units, that the back plastic plate could be carefully cut loose using an exacto knife or similar to pop the glue joints. The simple circuit board contained a small potentiometer that had a dab of RTV on the pots center wiper. The glue could be picked off to the point that the wiper could be adjusted a small amount. I found that rotating the center wiper CCW a very small amount would increase the float voltage & CW to lower. The final setting of the center wiper can be only determined after the load battery has stabilized, so it is a bit of a trial and error. You could use a load that has a fixed resistance and determine the final setting much quicker. Later, I decide to drill a hole in the plastic case that lined up with the pot. However, I suspect these Chinese designs change over time and I do not know if the above steps will work on later versions of the HF unit....David Good data. One could also hook the device to the SCM test rig I just posted. cycle the charger into the maintenance mode, drop the bench supply to 13.2 volts then adjust the pot for 10 mA of current flow into the load. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
(CORRECTION) While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative. The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and react to changes over time. Went to the bench and clipped these parts together: Emacs! In my case, a 5 ohm resistor was used for a load (about 2.2A). A convenient alternative would be a 35 or 55w halogen lamp from Walmart. You need two meters and a bench supply capable of carrying the lamp load at 15 volts or more. The lamp load total (along with ratings on your bench supply) needs to be some value greater than the output current rating for the SCM under test. First, hook up the power supply, voltmeter, and load. See power supply for say 10 volts (depleted battery level). Clip SCM to the load while monitoring the charger's output on the ammeter. You should see a current reading that is in the ball park for the SCM under test. I just did this test with a Battery Tender. Got an initial charge current of 0.9A. Put on your "battery spoofer's" hat and slowly increase the voltage while watching the ammeter reading. Somewhere north of 14 volts you should see a sharp drop in current. That voltage reading will be the top-off termination point for your particular SCM. Slowly decrease the power supply and watch for the amperage to increase from zero. Adjust the voltage so that you get current reading on the order of 10 milliamps. This voltage will be the maintenance float voltage for your SCM under test. I just tested the two SCMs that Bob Noffs sent me some weeks ago. Both tested a zero output. So one couldn't do a comparative looksee for voltage switching levels or maintenance protocols. You were right Bob. These critters just laid there. If anyone has a relatively new SCM that seems not to function, this test will confirm/deny your suspicions. Further, the results of the testing will offer concrete justification for warranty claims for either gross failures like I just described . . . or failure to demonstrate recharge rates and voltages commensurate with expected performance. Bob . . . No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
(CORRECTION) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Starting my build.
Greetings, BIG NEWS... for me anyway. I started building a Zenith 750at the beginning of this month. I'll be submitting my wiring schematic for review/ridicule when I get to that point. Until then I will be doing more lurking and less participating. Thanks again to everyone for their input on all the questions I've brought to this list. Later, -- 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
(CORRECTION) Bob, Any reason the power supply couldn't be replaced with a couple of batteries (maybe a 6V and a 12V) and a rheostat of sufficient capacity? For those of us who don't have a large enough bench power supply. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 01/14/2013 06:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > While contemplating a series of tests to investigate the > condition of a couple of Bob Noffs' chargers, I suffered one > of those epiphany moments that suggest the legacy test > protocols were exceedingly slow, clumsy and not very creative. > > The smart charger maintainer has no way to KNOW what kind > of device is connected to its output terminals. All it can do > is output energy under some protocol (probably semi-constant > current), watch how the 'battery' responds to that output and > react to changes over time. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
At 07:04 PM 1/14/2013, you wrote: >Bob, > >Any reason the power supply couldn't be replaced with a couple of >batteries (maybe a 6V and a 12V) and a rheostat of sufficient >capacity? For those of us who don't have a large enough bench power supply. Sure. The goal is to provide an adjustable current 'sink' that can be made to look like a battery that's accepting a charge. The resistor-lamps 'load' needs to draw only a tad more current than the rating of the SCM. What ever source of power you use to drag it over a 10-15 volt range is up for grabs. There are dozens of ways to do it. I would encourage everyone to acquire some form of bench test power supply . . . 3A is sort of a minimum 10A is really capable of running everything but pitot heaters. Marlin P Jones has a nice selection which you can view at mpja.com and doing a search on 'bench power supply'. eBay has some attractive options in new and used power supplies. If anyone is attracted to an eBay offering and considering a bid, I'd be pleased to review the offering if you'll email me directly so as to avoid creating a bidding war amongst members of the List. An adjustable, current limited power supply is a real asset during the design, construction and maintenance of your airplanes electro-whizzies. I own a half dozen of various sizes . . . couldn't do what I do without them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Anderson PowerPole connectors
From: "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2013
"I finally broke down and bought this crimper and I'm still kicking myself in the rear for not doing it earlier. This crimper will make a very reliable and firm crimp along the full length of the wire insertion barrel." What crimper are you/he talking about? I can't see a crimper if there's one there. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392375#392375 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Anderson PowerPole connectors
At 03:13 PM 1/15/2013, you wrote: > > "I finally broke down and bought this crimper and I'm still > kicking myself in the rear for not doing it earlier. This crimper > will make a very reliable and firm crimp along the full length of > the wire insertion barrel." > >What crimper are you/he talking about? I can't see a crimper if >there's one there. Probably this one http://tinyurl.com/89zqkub It's a b-crimp tool for use with the open barrel terminals from Powerpole and others . . . . Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2013
Subject: Re: Battery spoofer for testing smart charger maintainers
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
I would encourage everyone to acquire some form of bench test power supply . . . 3A is sort of a minimum 10A is really capable of running everything but pitot heaters. Amen to that! I bought a bench PSU for the first time a couple of years ago, and it has been invaluable. It's just a little 0-3A, 0-20V unit. It was a bit cheaper back then, but even at today's price I'd buy it just to save messing about with batteries, mains adapters, etc. http://www.maplin.co.uk/bench-power-supply-with-lcd-screen-219129 Well, it was the best thing I've bought, and it's more than repaid me in time saved. I use it all the time, at home and in the hangar. Case in point, tonight, I've been tweaking the brightness of 12V self-adhesive LED strips. This would have been a tedious task without one, but took 30secs to give me the valuable data that the optimum voltage is about 7.6V and draws less than 0.01A. On 15 January 2013 17:20, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 07:04 PM 1/14/2013, you wrote: > > Bob, > > Any reason the power supply couldn't be replaced with a couple of > batteries (maybe a 6V and a 12V) and a rheostat of sufficient capacity? > For those of us who don't have a large enough bench power supply. > > > Sure. The goal is to provide an adjustable current 'sink' > that can be made to look like a battery that's accepting > a charge. The resistor-lamps 'load' needs to draw only > a tad more current than the rating of the SCM. What > ever source of power you use to drag it over a 10-15 > volt range is up for grabs. There are dozens of ways > to do it. > > I would encourage everyone to acquire some form of > bench test power supply . . . 3A is sort of a minimum > 10A is really capable of running everything but pitot > heaters. > > Marlin P Jones has a nice selection which you can view > at mpja.com and doing a search on 'bench power supply'. > > eBay has some attractive options in new and used > power supplies. If anyone is attracted to an eBay > offering and considering a bid, I'd be pleased > to review the offering if you'll email me directly > so as to avoid creating a bidding war amongst members > of the List. > > An adjustable, current limited power supply is a > real asset during the design, construction and maintenance > of your airplanes electro-whizzies. I own a half > dozen of various sizes . . . couldn't do what I do > without them. > > > ** > > ** Bob . . . > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2013
From: "Kent Ogden" <ogdenk(at)upstate.edu>
Subject: Crimping Question
Hi All, I am building an RV-10 and getting to the point where I need to think about electrical components and systems. I have a question about crimped connections: Is it a good (or bad) idea to put some electrical grease on the wire and/or connector before making the crimp? I have found that this helps the trailer light connections in my vehicle to survive the road salt over the winter, but that is a completely different environment. Any thoughts/comments appreciated. More questions to follow as I move forward . . . Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Crimping Question
Date: Jan 16, 2013
Hi Kent, On airplanes there is no need to do that extra step (in fact it could create some un-wanted gremlins later on). Just do a good job crimping and you'll be fine. A solid crimp will be excellent and will be as good as any other type of connection. Just my 2 cents as usual! Cheers, Stein From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent Ogden Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:29 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crimping Question Hi All, I am building an RV-10 and getting to the point where I need to think about electrical components and systems. I have a question about crimped connections: Is it a good (or bad) idea to put some electrical grease on the wire and/or connector before making the crimp? I have found that this helps the trailer light connections in my vehicle to survive the road salt over the winter, but that is a completely different environment. Any thoughts/comments appreciated. More questions to follow as I move forward . . . Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Crimping Question
I'm not an authority here but I'd like to compare my answer to others so here goes; it's unnecessary and therefore may just complicate your work. The crimping specs and procedures don't require dielectric grease to perform as designed so don't bother. Doing the electrical and panel work on mine was probably the most satisfying part of my build. Partly because it required some design and integration work that wasn't "CNC'd and pre-drilled". Partly because it was fun to learn the right ways to do things like crimping and wire bundling after having hacked away at various trailer harnesses, auto wiring and even some certified glider wiring (whoops!). You have all the resources you need between Vans plans and these lists... Enjoy! Bill "missing the build but enjoying the '10" Watson On 1/16/2013 9:29 AM, Kent Ogden wrote: > > Hi All, > > I am building an RV-10 and getting to the point where I need to think > about electrical components and systems. I have a question about > crimped connections: Is it a good (or bad) idea to put some > electrical grease on the wire and/or connector before making the > crimp? I have found that this helps the trailer light connections in > my vehicle to survive the road salt over the winter, but that is a > completely different environment. Any thoughts/comments appreciated. > > More questions to follow as I move forward . . . > > Kent Ogden > > RV-10 #40710 > > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Crimping Question
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2013
One big difference between trailers and planes is the quality of the wire. I f you use airplane wiring on your trailer, you probably wouldn't have much p roblems with your trailer either. Not to mention the goldplated contacts on m any aircraft parts. Tim On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > I'm not an authority here but I'd like to compare my answer to others so h ere goes; it's unnecessary and therefore may just complicate your work. The crimping specs and procedures don't require dielectric grease to perform as designed so don't bother. > > Doing the electrical and panel work on mine was probably the most satisfyi ng part of my build. Partly because it required some design and integration work that wasn't "CNC'd and pre-drilled". Partly because it was fun to lea rn the right ways to do things like crimping and wire bundling after having h acked away at various trailer harnesses, auto wiring and even some certified glider wiring (whoops!). > > You have all the resources you need between Vans plans and these lists... E njoy! > > Bill "missing the build but enjoying the '10" Watson > > On 1/16/2013 9:29 AM, Kent Ogden wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I am building an RV-10 and getting to the point where I need to think abo ut electrical components and systems. I have a question about crimped conne ctions: Is it a good (or bad) idea to put some electrical grease on the wir e and/or connector before making the crimp? I have found that this helps th e trailer light connections in my vehicle to survive the road salt over the w inter, but that is a completely different environment. Any thoughts/comment s appreciated. >> >> More questions to follow as I move forward . . . >> >> Kent Ogden >> >> RV-10 #40710 >> >> >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2013
Gents, With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner being grounded till their Li batteries can be checked, I figure it's a good time to report on my new AeroVoltz LiFePo battery. I said that I'd report on any testing I did on the AeroVoltz battery. Today I turned on the master which powered up the, Turbo Control Unit (Rotax 914), the GRT EIS4000 Engine Information System and the Airmaster AC200 prop controller. I then turned on the MicroAir 760 Comm radio and MicroAir T2000 transponder. With the comm radio tuned between ASOS, Ground Control & Tower (I swapped between them) and the transponder set on ALT DISPLAY (so the encoder was fired up as well), the voltage started at 12.4 Volts. It took almost exactly 20 minutes for the voltage to sag down to 11 Volts. When the voltage went to 10.9 Volts, I terminated the test and put the battery on cell balance charge. So there you have it. 20 minutes on what I would consider the minimum load. If for any reason I needed to be in the air longer than that to make it to the closest airport and that airport had a tower, I would probably shut down the radio and, maybe, the transponder till they were needed. Maybe even pull the breaker on the prop controller till needed. That would leave the only load as the EIS and TCU which should extend the battery life further. 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 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Robert Borger wrote: Bob, You may very well be correct, but I've gone out on a limb that I trust will support me and the aircraft. I have purchased and installed an Aerovoltz 12 Cell EV02 LiFePo battery in my Europa. The LiFePo battery is not supposed to be the fire hazard that the LiFe battery is. It is amazingly small and light. About 12 lbs lighter than the Odyssey it replaces. I would not have done this had my Rotax 914 still been electric dependent with two electric fuel pumps. about 2 years ago I replaced one of the electric pumps with an engine driven, mechanical pump so the engine will continue to operate should the electrics go totally dead. So far, in 2 hours of testing on the ground and 1 hour in the air, all seems well. It spins the Rotax on startup just like the Odyessy. I purchased the special charger that will do fast, 5A, charge; slow. 2A, charge; maintenance, .1A, charge/float and cell balancing. I have not done any time/power testing. I need to see how long it will run the radio, transponder and GRT EIS 4000 and then test with only the radio and EIS. When this is done, I will report the results. The seller of the battery did warn not to discharge below 9v as that would probably permanently damage the battery. And if discharged to below 11 volts, it must be recharged in the cell balance mode. Isn't this one reason why we call it Experimental? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: vhf transponder interference
From: "jappie" <jappie(at)videotron.ca>
Date: Jan 16, 2013
hello Went to my hangar last week, started to remove radio equipment. Took the coax cable and brought it to work to show to the "experts", Electronic Dept. One BNC connector is a twist (screw-in) type, I find that cheap to use on aircraft (personal opinion). Anyway, we started un-twisting the connector and wow, no crimp with the middle pin, is that normal ? and shield was almost gone !! see picture. Coax is (was) RG58C/U and will be replaced by RG142. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392472#392472 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/coax_455.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: SEO Management
From: "georgetrichal" <georgetrichal(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2013
SEO Management Company. SEO Management (http://lotusofgoogle.com/) , search engine optimization management, SEO Management Company You Can Trust .. Absolutely Dominate is an SEO Management Company that you can trust to handle all of your SEO needs. Our team can help figure a method that will help you manage unethical competitors, unhappy employees, absurd clients, Anonymous records and so forth. Unlike a lot of other companies that require you to commit to a long term contract, we are so confident in the services we provide that we are willing to work with you on a month-to-month basis. Plus, our SEO pricing is designed so that even small companies that are on a limited budget can easily afford our SEO services. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392481#392481 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
Robert, This is a disappointing endurance.. The battery is advertised as 20 PbEq Ah - a meaningless number introduced by Shorai for marketing reasons. The actual maximum energy content should be about 6.5 Ah (Shorai applied a factor 3, Aerovoltz/Ballistic probably do the same). At a 1 to 2C discharge rate from 12.4 (under load) to 11 V you should get about 90% of that out of a fully charged battery. That is 60 minutes at 6 A, 40 minutes at 9 A, 30 minutes at 12 A. I would have expected at least twice as long as 20 minutes... Jan de Jong On 1/17/2013 1:35 AM, Robert Borger wrote: > > Gents, > > With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner being grounded till their Li batteries can be checked, I figure it's a good time to report on my new AeroVoltz LiFePo battery. > > I said that I'd report on any testing I did on the AeroVoltz battery. Today I turned on the master which powered up the, Turbo Control Unit (Rotax 914), the GRT EIS4000 Engine Information System and the Airmaster AC200 prop controller. I then turned on the MicroAir 760 Comm radio and MicroAir T2000 transponder. With the comm radio tuned between ASOS, Ground Control & Tower (I swapped between them) and the transponder set on ALT DISPLAY (so the encoder was fired up as well), the voltage started at 12.4 Volts. It took almost exactly 20 minutes for the voltage to sag down to 11 Volts. When the voltage went to 10.9 Volts, I terminated the test and put the battery on cell balance charge. > > So there you have it. 20 minutes on what I would consider the minimum load. If for any reason I needed to be in the air longer than that to make it to the closest airport and that airport had a tower, I would probably shut down the radio and, maybe, the transponder till they were needed. Maybe even pull the breaker on the prop controller till needed. That would leave the only load as the EIS and TCU which should extend the battery life further. > > 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 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Robert Borger wrote: > > Bob, > > You may very well be correct, but I've gone out on a limb that I trust will support me and the aircraft. > > I have purchased and installed an Aerovoltz 12 Cell EV02 LiFePo battery in my Europa. The LiFePo battery is not supposed to be the fire hazard that the LiFe battery is. It is amazingly small and light. About 12 lbs lighter than the Odyssey it replaces. > > I would not have done this had my Rotax 914 still been electric dependent with two electric fuel pumps. about 2 years ago I replaced one of the electric pumps with an engine driven, mechanical pump so the engine will continue to operate should the electrics go totally dead. > > So far, in 2 hours of testing on the ground and 1 hour in the air, all seems well. It spins the Rotax on startup just like the Odyessy. I purchased the special charger that will do fast, 5A, charge; slow. 2A, charge; maintenance, .1A, charge/float and cell balancing. I have not done any time/power testing. I need to see how long it will run the radio, transponder and GRT EIS 4000 and then test with only the radio and EIS. When this is done, I will report the results. > > The seller of the battery did warn not to discharge below 9v as that would probably permanently damage the battery. And if discharged to below 11 volts, it must be recharged in the cell balance mode. > > Isn't this one reason why we call it Experimental? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2013
Jan, I agree. It is disappointing. I had hoped for at least 30 minutes on the tested load. The battery works fine for cranking the engine but does not have the endurance I would have liked under a small load. I don't think there is any way this battery would work for an electrically dependent aircraft. 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 17, 2013, at 5:06 AM, Jan de Jong wrote: Robert, This is a disappointing endurance.. The battery is advertised as 20 PbEq Ah - a meaningless number introduced by Shorai for marketing reasons. The actual maximum energy content should be about 6.5 Ah (Shorai applied a factor 3, Aerovoltz/Ballistic probably do the same). At a 1 to 2C discharge rate from 12.4 (under load) to 11 V you should get about 90% of that out of a fully charged battery. That is 60 minutes at 6 A, 40 minutes at 9 A, 30 minutes at 12 A. I would have expected at least twice as long as 20 minutes... Jan de Jong On 1/17/2013 1:35 AM, Robert Borger wrote: > > Gents, > > With the Boeing 787 Dreamliner being grounded till their Li batteries can be checked, I figure it's a good time to report on my new AeroVoltz LiFePo battery. > > I said that I'd report on any testing I did on the AeroVoltz battery. Today I turned on the master which powered up the, Turbo Control Unit (Rotax 914), the GRT EIS4000 Engine Information System and the Airmaster AC200 prop controller. I then turned on the MicroAir 760 Comm radio and MicroAir T2000 transponder. With the comm radio tuned between ASOS, Ground Control & Tower (I swapped between them) and the transponder set on ALT DISPLAY (so the encoder was fired up as well), the voltage started at 12.4 Volts. It took almost exactly 20 minutes for the voltage to sag down to 11 Volts. When the voltage went to 10.9 Volts, I terminated the test and put the battery on cell balance charge. > > So there you have it. 20 minutes on what I would consider the minimum load. If for any reason I needed to be in the air longer than that to make it to the closest airport and that airport had a tower, I would probably shut down the radio and, maybe, the transponder till they were needed. Maybe even pull the breaker on the prop controller till needed. That would leave the only load as the EIS and TCU which should extend the battery life further. > > Blue skies & tailwinds, > Bob Borger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Crimping Question
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2013
I'd go with using grease used sparingly and selectively. Grease keeps out all sort of environmental contaminants. What seems wrong about this is that grease certainly is an insulator, but so is any space that it fills, and filling up any empty spaces with grease prevents water, air and nervous sweat from getting in there. In electronics, thermally conductive grease serves the same purpose but adds high thermal conductivity to the joint. The caveat "thin layer" always appears in the instructions, since a thick layer reduces both the thermal and electrical properties. I heard a story of one particularly brilliant electronic engineer who finished each prototype with a dollop of grease in the corner of the box. He said if a loose piece of solder or cut wire showed up, that's where it would wind up. But yeah, grease attracts dirt too, so use sparingly. -------- 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=392491#392491 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
At 07:35 AM 1/17/2013, you wrote: > >Jan, > >I agree. It is disappointing. I had hoped for at least 30 minutes >on the tested load. > >The battery works fine for cranking the engine but does not have the >endurance I would have liked under a small load. I don't think >there is any way this battery would work for an electrically >dependent aircraft. Are there any data packages available for these batteries? Discharge curves, engineering data? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: vhf transponder interference
At 07:56 PM 1/16/2013, you wrote: > >hello > >Went to my hangar last week, started to remove radio equipment. Took >the coax cable and brought it to work to show to the "experts", >Electronic Dept. > >One BNC connector is a twist (screw-in) type, I find that cheap to >use on aircraft (personal opinion). Anyway, we started un-twisting >the connector and wow, no crimp with the middle pin, is that normal >? and shield was almost gone !! see picture. >Coax is (was) RG58C/U and will be replaced by RG142. > > It was time to replace that connector before it flew for the first time! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
Not that I know. But, FWIW, I believe the Ballistic and Aerovoltz batteries (among other) are constituted from A123 ANR26650 cells: http://www.a123systems.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/A123%20Systems%20ANR26650%20Data%20Sheet.pdf The 12 cell item (4 x 3) should then have capacity of at least 7.2 Ah and internal resistance of 8 mOhm. Discharge voltage degradation at low temperatures to be noted. Jan de Jong On 1/17/2013 4:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 07:35 AM 1/17/2013, you wrote: >> >> >> Jan, >> >> I agree. It is disappointing. I had hoped for at least 30 minutes >> on the tested load. >> >> The battery works fine for cranking the engine but does not have the >> endurance I would have liked under a small load. I don't think there >> is any way this battery would work for an electrically dependent >> aircraft. > > Are there any data packages available for these > batteries? Discharge curves, engineering data? > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2013
From: "Kent Ogden" <ogdenk(at)upstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Crimping Question
Thanks for all the responses on the dielectric grease question. I guess I will ponder it a bit more, but I probably won't use it on connectors that will be hard to get to in the future or are in a protected area. I was initially thinking about the stall warning switch in the wing leading edge (I did install it, I believe not everyone does). If you were in the clouds or light rain, I'm sure moisture will enter the notch in the leading edge and probably soak the switch/connectors. There's an access plate though, so if there's a problem it's easy to get to. I will have AOA as well so this shouldn't be a critical component to lose. For really nasty environments like on my trailer, I also coat any butt splices with this stuff: http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID= 1076 This stuff is great at sealing a connection, also says it's fire resistant so maybe safe to use in a plane. It's kind of like a thin RTV when you put it on without the RTV smell. Dries pretty hard but still a little flexible. My trailer lights used to give me fits because the mounting studs were also the ground connection to the frame, and when they rusted it was lights out. After installing new lights and coating the studs with this stuff the problems were all cured. Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 >>> "Eric M. Jones" 1/17/2013 9:21 AM >>> et> I'd go with using grease used sparingly and selectively. Grease keeps out all sort of environmental contaminants. What seems wrong about this is that grease certainly is an insulator, but so is any space that it fills, and filling up any empty spaces with grease prevents water, air and nervous sweat from getting in there. In electronics, thermally conductive grease serves the same purpose but adds high thermal conductivity to the joint. The caveat "thin layer" always appears in the instructions, since a thick layer reduces both the thermal and electrical properties. I heard a story of one particularly brilliant electronic engineer who finished each prototype with a dollop of grease in the corner of the box. He said if a loose piece of solder or cut wire showed up, that's where it would wind up. But yeah, grease attracts dirt too, so use sparingly. -------- 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=392491#392491 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Crimping Question
Date: Jan 18, 2013
Hi Kent What I think you need is ACF-50 anti corrosion spray - fantastic stuff, I've seen a TV coated with this, and placed in a fish tank - TV still worked John ----- Original Message ----- From: Kent Ogden To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Question Thanks for all the responses on the dielectric grease question. I guess I will ponder it a bit more, but I probably won't use it on connectors that will be hard to get to in the future or are in a protected area. I was initially thinking about the stall warning switch in the wing leading edge (I did install it, I believe not everyone does). If you were in the clouds or light rain, I'm sure moisture will enter the notch in the leading edge and probably soak the switch/connectors. There's an access plate though, so if there's a problem it's easy to get to. I will have AOA as well so this shouldn't be a critical component to lose. For really nasty environments like on my trailer, I also coat any butt splices with this stuff: http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID=1076 This stuff is great at sealing a connection, also says it's fire resistant so maybe safe to use in a plane. It's kind of like a thin RTV when you put it on without the RTV smell. Dries pretty hard but still a little flexible. My trailer lights used to give me fits because the mounting studs were also the ground connection to the frame, and when they rusted it was lights out. After installing new lights and coating the studs with this stuff the problems were all cured. Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 >>> "Eric M. Jones" 1/17/2013 9:21 AM >>> I'd go with using grease used sparingly and selectively. Grease keeps out all sort of environmental contaminants. What seems wrong about this is that grease certainly is an insulator, but so is any space that it fills, and filling up any empty spaces with grease prevents water, air and nervous sweat from getting in there. In electronics, thermally conductive grease serves the same purpose but adds high thermal conductivity to the joint. The caveat "thin layer" always appears in the instructions, since a thick layer reduces both the thermal and electrical properties. I heard a story of one particularly brilliant electronic engineer who finished each prototype with a dollop of grease in the corner of the box. He said if a loose piece of solder or cut wire showed up, that's where it would wind up. But yeah, grease attracts dirt too, so use sparingly. -------- 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.matronicscom/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matron ics.com/Navigator?AeroEle &nbp; .matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2013
Subject: Corrosion prevention, WAS: Crimping Question
Good Morning John, Just as a small point of possible interest, the gentleman who developed the ACF-50 material has branched out on his own and developed what he calls Corrosion X. He claims it will do everything ACF-50 will do and do it better. I have seen the TV set playing in ACF-50 and talked to the developer about both products. I have been using Corrosion X as he suggests for many years. Works great! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator In a message dated 1/18/2013 10:07:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com writes: Hi Kent What I think you need is ACF-50 anti corrosion spray - fantastic stuff, I've seen a TV coated with this, and placed in a fish tank - TV still worked John ----- Original Message ----- From: _Kent Ogden_ (mailto:ogdenk(at)upstate.edu) (mailto:aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Question Thanks for all the responses on the dielectric grease question. I guess I will ponder it a bit more, but I probably won't use it on connectors that will be hard to get to in the future or are in a protected area. I was initially thinking about the stall warning switch in the wing leading edge (I did install it, I believe not everyone does). If you were in the clouds or light rain, I'm sure moisture will enter the notch in the leading edge and probably soak the switch/connectors. There's an access plate though, so if there's a problem it's easy to get to. I will have AOA as well so this shouldn't be a critical component to lose. For really nasty environments like on my trailer, I also coat any butt splices with this stuff: _http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID=1076_ (http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID=1076) This stuff is great at sealing a connection, also says it's fire resistant so maybe safe to use in a plane. It's kind of like a thin RTV when you put it on without the RTV smell. Dries pretty hard but still a little flexible. My trailer lights used to give me fits because the mounting studs were also the ground connection to the frame, and when they rusted it was lights out. After installing new lights and coating the studs with this stuff the problems were all cured. Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: vhf transponder interference
From: "jappie" <jappie(at)videotron.ca>
Date: Jan 18, 2013
ha ! I've just learned that Twist Type BNC connectors should be use with solid center conductor only.... JP Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392588#392588 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: vhf transponder interference
At 11:26 AM 1/18/2013, you wrote: > >ha ! > >I've just learned that Twist Type BNC connectors should be use with >solid center conductor only.... I would argue further that twist on connectors should not be used for any connector. Well, with one exception. Those 'wire nuts' favored by electrical contractors for the wiring of buildings are very interesting examples for the achievement of high-pressure, gas-tight contact with wires using low force, solderless techniques. Emacs! This type of twist-on connector brings a number of circular cross-sections into contact with each other. Two circles contact each other with zero-area . . . i.e. relatively small forces can produce very high pressures that will offer good electrical connection as long as there are no extra-ordinary environmental effects. This is why wire-nuts are not recommended for any vehicular application. Twist-on connectors for coax attempt to develop long lasting, high pressure connection to copper strands being backed up by PLASTIC. Further, environmental stresses on the made up joint are much more severe than the protected confines of your house's breaker and switch boxes. Contrary to the inventor's fondest wishes, the twist-on coax connector was designed to fail. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Corrosion prevention, WAS: Crimping Question
Date: Jan 18, 2013
Hi (Old) Bob I'll check the 'Corrosion X' out - cheers John (RV9a - England) ----- Original Message ----- From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:21 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Corrosion prevention, WAS: Crimping Question Good Morning John, Just as a small point of possible interest, the gentleman who developed the ACF-50 material has branched out on his own and developed what he calls Corrosion X. He claims it will do everything ACF-50 will do and do it better. I have seen the TV set playing in ACF-50 and talked to the developer about both products. I have been using Corrosion X as he suggests for many years. Works great! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator In a message dated 1/18/2013 10:07:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com writes: Hi Kent What I think you need is ACF-50 anti corrosion spray - fantastic stuff, I've seen a TV coated with this, and placed in a fish tank - TV still worked John ----- Original Message ----- From: Kent Ogden To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimping Question Thanks for all the responses on the dielectric grease question. I guess I will ponder it a bit more, but I probably won't use it on connectors that will be hard to get to in the future or are in a protected area. I was initially thinking about the stall warning switch in the wing leading edge (I did install it, I believe not everyone does). If you were in the clouds or light rain, I'm sure moisture will enter the notch in the leading edge and probably soak the switch/connectors. There's an access plate though, so if there's a problem it's easy to get to. I will have AOA as well so this shouldn't be a critical component to lose. For really nasty environments like on my trailer, I also coat any butt splices with this stuff: http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID=1076 This stuff is great at sealing a connection, also says it's fire resistant so maybe safe to use in a plane. It's kind of like a thin RTV when you put it on without the RTV smell. Dries pretty hard but still a little flexible. My trailer lights used to give me fits because the mounting studs were also the ground connection to the frame, and when they rusted it was lights out. After installing new lights and coating the studs with this stuff the problems were all cured. Kent Ogden RV-10 #40710 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lithium batteries redux
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Jan 20, 2013
I have to sympathise with Bob's views here. Lithium-chemistry based batteries hold a lot of promise for aircraft power sources, but there are clearly issues to be resolved, not least of which is the possibility of a battery fire. I know the problems will eventually be solved, but until that time, I have to question whether the risk is worth taking. There's a limit to how far I'm willing to push the "experimental" aspect! -------- Mike Your political opinions are noted. And ignored. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392692#392692 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
Date: Jan 20, 2013
Thanks for previous input I have considered the info provided as well as studied all of the Rotax 914 documents, and find the following for consideration. I am using only the 914 internal Stator and a single battery. Rotax suggests that the 914 being dependant on electric fuel delivery: 1) Have the 22,000uf/25v capacitor mounted near the V-reg. 2) Have the primary pump connected directly off of the B+ line at the capacitor, with 5A slow-blow breaker protection. 3) Breaking the B+ line for charging control and OV protection (instead of breaking a field wire). Rotax claims that the capacitor will allow the internal alternator to run without battery connection, and prevent damage to the fuel pump, Stator and V-reg, while providing a completely independent source of power to the main fuel pump (2nd pump wired off the battery). In studying Z-16, it looks to me that moving and sizing the 'Alt. OV Disconnect relay' to the B+ would be the only change, and everything else will work fine. To my thinking: a) This truly does eliminate all common points of failure for the two pumps. b) The 22A Max stator output, makes this a reasonably small relay. c) This configuration provides the same level of OV protection to the rest of the electrical system. d) If I can use a self-reset breaker at the large capacitor to protect the fuel pump wiring, then there is no way for the pilot to accidentally (or intentionally) kill power to the main fuel pump. (I think this is a good thing?) The logic is that even in an OV situation, the main fuel pump keeps running; at least till it is killed by the OV. Where having only one battery, a battery connection failure could kill both fuel pumps in any other wiring method. My list of questions are: 1) Are there any dangers, or omissions to the above concept? 2) Is it acceptable to use an automatic reset breaker in a location that is only ground serviceable? If yes, what would be considered equivalent to a "slow blow 5a fuse" as indicated in the Rotax manual? Listed pump running load is 1.7A. 3) What would be the correct relay to use to break the B+ line? Rotax recommends the B+ be protected by a "slow blow 25A fuse", though I propose to use a fuse-able link here, at the starter relay terminal, to protect the B+ wire from battery output; as in Z-16. Alan , HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! -----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: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:01 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Fuel pump wiring At 10:42 AM 1/7/2013, you wrote: Bob, Care to describe what you are thinking. What advantage is there to having one on the Main Bus? Independent power paths with no common failure points. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
> >1) Are there any dangers, or omissions to the above concept? I think you're getting wrapped around the multiple failures axle . . . The properly maintained battery is your most reliable source of energy on the airplane. Having one pump tied to the battery and a second pump tied anywhere else drives probability for loss of fuel pressure into the very tiny numbers. >2) Is it acceptable to use an automatic reset breaker in a >location that is only ground serviceable? If yes, what would be >considered equivalent to a "slow blow 5a fuse" as indicated in the >Rotax manual? Listed pump running load is 1.7A. >3) What would be the correct relay to use to break the B+ >line? Rotax recommends the B+ be protected by a "slow blow 25A >fuse", though I propose to use a fuse-able link here, at the starter >relay terminal, to protect the B+ wire from battery output; as in Z-16. What you're struggling with is the stirring of multiple recipes into the same dish. The trick is to assess each recipe separately and deduce effects of all possible SINGLE failures and evaluate whether or not a plan-b exists for mitigating that failure. See chapter 17 of the 'Connection. Whether you use z-16, the rotax manual, or something else as the starting point doesn't matter. But as soon as you begin cherry picking features from one system and folding into another system raises risks of generating new situations that the original designers should have already covered. Assume Z-16: Primary pump fed directly from battery. Secondary pump from main bus. Question: Deduce and articulate any single failure that will deprive the engine of fuel. If such a condition exists, then Z-16 needs to be fixed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
Date: Jan 20, 2013
What happens if there is a failure at (or very near) the battery (hot or ground) making an open circuit. This disconnect from the alternator seems likely to trip the crowbar, thus eliminating the charging circuit too, drops the battery and charging contactors open with no means to re-energize the OV relay. I believe that I now have an engine that will gladly continue to run, but will not have fuel feed? Alan , HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! -----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 20, 2013 12:32 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax 1) Are there any dangers, or omissions to the above concept? I think you're getting wrapped around the multiple failures axle . . . The properly maintained battery is your most reliable source of energy on the airplane. Having one pump tied to the battery and a second pump tied anywhere else drives probability for loss of fuel pressure into the very tiny numbers. 2) Is it acceptable to use an automatic reset breaker in a location that is only ground serviceable? If yes, what would be considered equivalent to a "slow blow 5a fuse" as indicated in the Rotax manual? Listed pump running load is 1.7A. 3) What would be the correct relay to use to break the B+ line? Rotax recommends the B+ be protected by a "slow blow 25A fuse", though I propose to use a fuse-able link here, at the starter relay terminal, to protect the B+ wire from battery output; as in Z-16. What you're struggling with is the stirring of multiple recipes into the same dish. The trick is to assess each recipe separately and deduce effects of all possible SINGLE failures and evaluate whether or not a plan-b exists for mitigating that failure. See chapter 17 of the 'Connection. Whether you use z-16, the Rotax manual, or something else as the starting point doesn't matter. But as soon as you begin cherry picking features from one system and folding into another system raises risks of generating new situations that the original designers should have already covered. Assume Z-16: Primary pump fed directly from battery. Secondary pump from main bus. Question: Deduce and articulate any single failure that will deprive the engine of fuel. If such a condition exists, then Z-16 needs to be fixed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z-13 and Dead Battery
From: "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net>
Date: Jan 20, 2013
I'm wondering what happens with a dynamo electrical system like Z-13 if the battery is totally dead and the main alternator is also not functional. The engine can be started by hand propping which will enable the dynamo with its self excitation circuit. When you turn on the AUX ALT the dynamo will be connected to the dead battery, the battery bus and endurance bus. Will the battery represent a huge load to the dynamo, draw a lot of amperage and drop the system voltage making avionics etc malfunction? Or since you are on the ground anyway must you charge the battery to some extent with a charger before hand propping and continuing? Thanks Jim Butcher helping with Tailwind Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392754#392754 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13 and Dead Battery
At 02:31 PM 1/20/2013, you wrote: > >I'm wondering what happens with a dynamo electrical system like Z-13 >if the battery is totally dead and the main alternator is also not >functional. The engine can be started by hand propping which will >enable the dynamo with its self excitation circuit. When you turn >on the AUX ALT the dynamo will be connected to the dead battery, the >battery bus and endurance bus. > >Will the battery represent a huge load to the dynamo, draw a lot of >amperage and drop the system voltage making avionics etc malfunction? Depends. If the battery was dead, Dead, DEAD like the master switch was left on for a month, then in all likelihood the battery is kaput. An SD-8 doesn't deliver significant current at ramp idle or taxi speeds, it's unlikely that you're going to hurt the SD-8. It might bring the battery up enough (8 volts or more) to close the battery contactor whereupon the main alternator would come up and do a much more robust job of charging the battery. >Or since you are on the ground anyway must you charge the battery to >some extent with a charger before hand propping and continuing? Depends. If you're a day-vfr airplane and just wanting to get the airplane home, then hand propping . . . letting the main alternator bring the battery up will get you home. But ANY time the battery suffers a total discharge it should be recharged and cap checked on the ground to make sure it meets your design goals for minimum battery performance. In any case, with a battery taking heavy recharge currents from the engine driven power sources, I would not turn on much in the way of electro-whizzies until the low volts warning light has been out for 5-10 minutes. If the ship's voltmeter says anything over 11 volts, electro-whizzies should work as advertised, but leaving the ground without assurances that the battery is taking on a charge is good pilotage. Bob . . . >Thanks > >Jim Butcher >helping with Tailwind > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392754#392754 > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
At 12:36 PM 1/20/2013, you wrote: >What happens if there is a failure at (or very near) the battery >(hot or ground) making an open circuit. Those kinds of failures are generally pretty much in the 'never happens' category. In other words, those wires, terminals, components and craftsmanship for installation is so robust by design that they're treated much like wing struts and prop bolts . . . not part of a failure mode effects analysis. > This disconnect from the alternator seems likely to trip the > crowbar, thus eliminating the charging circuit too, drops the > battery and charging contactors open with no means to re-energize the OV relay. Don't know why. If the Rotax alternator is suppose to run well sans battery, I don't know why it would produce an ov event because the battery became disconnected. That's an experiment you can run. In fact, if any of your plan-b mitigations are predicated on a disconnected battery then you ought to test it. > >I believe that I now have an engine that will gladly continue to >run, but will not have fuel feed? What's your proposed battery configuration? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13 and Dead Battery (CORRECTION)
> But ANY time the battery suffers a total discharge it should > be recharged and cap checked on the ground to make sure it > meets your design goals for minimum battery performance. In > any case, with a battery taking heavy recharge currents from > the engine driven power sources, I would not turn on much > in the way of electro-whizzies until the low volts warning > light has been out for 5-10 minutes. If the ship's voltmeter > says anything over 11 volts, electro-whizzies should work as > advertised, but leaving the ground WITHOUT assurances that > the battery is taking on a charge is NOT good pilotage. <======== Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
>> >>I believe that I now have an engine that will gladly continue to >>run, but will not have fuel feed? > > What's your proposed battery configuration? Some years ago we attended to the notion that redundant systems for an electrically dependent engine would benefit from some unique battery configurations and management. At that time, we were talking about electronic ignition systems. I wrote an article for Sport Aviation on the idea for installing a separate, perhaps smaller battery that would be set aside for the sole purpose of supporting the engine in case of alternator failure. I even crafted a LW warning/ Ignition Battery Management Module that would automate the isolation of a second battery in the event of alternator failure. I sold perhaps 100 of those modules over the years . . . I think Eric has a similar product too. The same notion could apply to fuel pumps in your case. Split battery duties between two separate batteries with one dedicated to running a pump. The second pump would run from the main system. What size battery are you considering now? Have you crafted a load analysis for your proposed system? What are your design goals for battery only ops endurance? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
Date: Jan 21, 2013
Bob, Thanks for the thoughtful info. Last night I spent hours thinking about this, re-reading your book and writing out several pages of notes and drawings. In the end I was overlooking that my proposed wiring for the main fuel pump only might, continue in an OV situation, but under other types of alternator failure, where the pilot had to turn off the Alt switch, it would also turn off the main fuel pump! Not quite as good a plan as I first thought. This could be worked around by adding another relay, but that unreasonably complicates the wiring and charging control, negating its usefulness. The battery being way more reliable than the Alternator, I now agree that I am best served to tie both pumps off the battery from separate buses, main pump on a pull-able breaker to avoid accidental interruption. I understand that the only improvement options are to add a second battery or Alternator, which I am not considering for this airplane. Battery planned to be 16ah RG. Working on load analysis, may be another week or so. Fuel endurance is 5.5hr max, though I am not attached to having that much Battery only Ops. This is a local fun flier/puddle jumper, so even two hours would be a comfortable margin. Alan , HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! -----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: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:21 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax I believe that I now have an engine that will gladly continue to run, but will not have fuel feed? What's your proposed battery configuration? Some years ago we attended to the notion that redundant systems for an electrically dependent engine would benefit from some unique battery configurations and management. At that time, we were talking about electronic ignition systems. I wrote an article for Sport Aviation on the idea for installing a separate, perhaps smaller battery that would be set aside for the sole purpose of supporting the engine in case of alternator failure. I even crafted a LW warning/ Ignition Battery Management Module that would automate the isolation of a second battery in the event of alternator failure. I sold perhaps 100 of those modules over the years . . . I think Eric has a similar product too. The same notion could apply to fuel pumps in your case. Split battery duties between two separate batteries with one dedicated to running a pump. The second pump would run from the main system. What size battery are you considering now? Have you crafted a load analysis for your proposed system? What are your design goals for battery only ops endurance? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2013
From: Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
Original poster (and Bob's reply) said: > What happens if there is a failure at (or very near) the battery > (hot or ground) making an open circuit. > Those kinds of failures are generally pretty much > in the 'never happens' category. In other words, > those wires, terminals, components and craftsmanship > for installation is so robust by design that they're > treated much like wing struts and prop bolts . . . not > part of a failure mode effects analysis. > A slightly different emphasis of which I don't think Bob will disagree: There are a number of areas, of which this is one, in which it is both reasonable and appropriate to make true the statement that, "Those kinds of failures are generally pretty much in the 'never happens' category." Specifically these apply to large feeders, battery connections etc. It also applies to all of the other non-redundant system (e.g. your flight controls). But the 'never happens' characteristic only apply if the appropriate care has been taken. My strident response to this topic is partially motivated by my finding, on my then recently acquired "flying" (with ~1000 hrs) LongEz a totally unacceptable crimp on the main positive terminal feeder coming from the battery. It was either #2 or #4 wire (it was ~5 years ago) and the terminal had been applied by one of those smack-it-with-a-hammer crimpers. It was not gas tight and (presumably after 1000 hrs of vibration) was quite loose. From my perspective if wasn't ready to fail, it had already failed... So I would say: IF you do your homework, and IF you do an appropriatly "good" job (which is not difficult or tricky) THEN "Those kinds of failures are generally pretty much in the 'never happens' category." Steve Stearns Boulder/Longmont, Colorado 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
> >My strident response to this topic is partially motivated by my >finding, on my then recently acquired "flying" (with ~1000 hrs) >LongEz a totally unacceptable crimp on the main positive terminal >feeder coming from the battery. It was either #2 or #4 wire (it was >~5 years ago) and the terminal had been applied by one of those >smack-it-with-a-hammer crimpers. It was not gas tight and >(presumably after 1000 hrs of vibration) was quite loose. From my >perspective if wasn't ready to fail, it had already failed... > >So I would say: IF you do your homework, and IF you do an >appropriatly "good" job (which is not difficult or tricky) THEN >"Those kinds of failures are generally pretty much in the 'never >happens' category." Well stated. Lack of understanding the physics behind processes and inattention to details will undo the most reliable and elegant of constructs. Some of the most vexing (and expensive) dragons I've slain ultimately had foundation in lack of understanding and/or inattention on the part of one or more folks down the chain of experience. Even the wizened practitioners will step on their beards . . . experience alone is not a 100.00% thing. This is why the very best work for both original design and debugging poor design and craftsmanship is a team effort. Different perspectives, diverse curiosities, alternative analysis is always good even if a particular exploration drives up a blind canyon. Eliminating wrong answers is just as valuable as finding the right one . . . when it adds to the experience base (lessons learned) for the whole. Yeah, I know the guys who budget man-hours and write the checks don't always agree . . . some even believe that the golden suite policies and procedures will ultimately prove most valuable. However, I've yet to see it demonstrated. Just because some words are enshrined on a piece of paper does not guarantee that the ideas behind those words are sure to prevail. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
At 08:36 PM 1/21/2013, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I'm not familiar with the term "golden suite" in this context. A >quick dfn please. Collection of elegant solutions. Every new product is fraught with birthing pains and it seems that they number in proportion to the square of the complexity. If the design/manufacturing/marketing team can refrain from radical tangents in a product's evolution, it has a chance of maturing into a golden suite of elegant solutions. Airplanes like the J3, BE36, C172, C185, C208, RVs, Ezs, Kitfox, come to mind just to name a few. Yeah, you can fiddle with engines and avionics but the core strengths require no further attention . . . the design goal has been satisfied. When any of those airplanes presents with a problem, it's almost a sure bet that the problem is rooted in behaviors of the users, a departure from "been there, done that" as opposed to a design deficiency. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Oops, hit send too soon
At 08:36 PM 1/21/2013, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I'm not familiar with the term "golden suite" in this context. A >quick dfn please. Collection of elegant solutions. Every new product is fraught with birthing pains and it seems that they number in proportion to the square of the complexity. If the design/manufacturing/marketing team can refrain from radical tangents in a product's evolution, it has a chance of maturing into a golden suite of elegant solutions. Airplanes like the J3, BE36, C172, C185, C208, RVs, Ezs, Kitfox, come to mind just to name a few. Yeah, you can fiddle with engines and avionics but the core strengths require no further attention . . . the design goal has been satisfied. When any of those airplanes presents with a problem, it's almost a sure bet that the problem is rooted in behaviors of the users, a departure from "been there, done that" as opposed to a design deficiency. In the context of policy and procedure, there's a school of thought that suggests you can write down a set of rules, get them blessed, and declare them the official path to Nirvana. i.e. the Golden Suite of ideas. Individuals who put a lot of faith in such rules are seldom beneficiaries of the school of: Understand the customer's wants. Deliver to those wants with reliability, warranty and incremental improvement. Failure to deliver offers risk that the customer takes their business elsewhere. Hawker-Beechcraft expended $millions$ in achieving and maintaining ISO standards for the generation of policies and procedures. But after all the dust settled and we were 'holy watered' . . . nothing changed except that it got more expensive to do the best we knew how to do. I.e., words in books do not motivate suppliers of goods ands services to improve on the best they know how to do. Smiling customers waving credit cards are 1000 time more incentive than a row of P&P books on the shelves. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Redundant Fuel pump wiring, 914 Rotax
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 22, 2013
> 2) Have the primary pump connected directly off of the B+ line at the capacitor, with 5A slow-blow breaker protection. Although physically apart, the main power bus and the capacitor in Z-16 are electrically the same. I would wire the fuel pump using the least amount of wire to minimize weight and complexity. > 3) Breaking the B+ line for charging control and OV protection (instead of breaking a field wire). I would like to see the source of this. Something has been lost in translation. The Rotax dynamo field consists of permanent magnets, not wires. Locating the alternator relay as shown in Z-16 has advantages over moving it to the rectified output side of the voltage regulator. AC current is easier to switch than DC and a faulty regulator will have its power source removed. The O.V. relay will function in either location, before or after the regulator. But I see no advantage to modifying Z-16. Connecting one fuel pump to the Main Power Bus and the other fuel pump to the battery (or E-Bus) will eliminate common failure points. > d) If I can use a self-reset breaker at the large capacitor to protect the fuel pump wiring, then there is no way for the pilot to accidentally (or intentionally) kill power to the main fuel pump. (I think this is a good thing?) I think that the pilot should have control of the fuel pumps. Fuel pumps need to be shut off in case of engine fire. > Where having only one battery, a battery connection failure could kill both fuel pumps in any other wiring method. Why? I disagree. > What happens if there is a failure at (or very near) the battery (hot or ground) making an open circuit. This disconnect from the alternator seems likely to trip the crowbar, thus eliminating the charging circuit too, drops the battery and charging contactors open with no means to re-energize the OV relay. Disconnecting the battery will not cause an over-voltage condition. This can be tested by jumpering the alternator half of the master switch. Then with the engine running, turn the master switch on and off. The Rotax alternator is highly unlikely to fail. It has no moving parts except for magnets that are part of the flywheel. If the flywheel stops turning, the pilot has bigger problems. The Rotax alternator has no brushes or diodes. There is not much to go wrong with stationary coils of wire. The rectifier / regulator IS failure prone and should be provided with dedicated cooling air. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392884#392884 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: LED landing light filter experiment
A reader sent me a pair of high intensity LED fixtures after he discovered that they generated an unacceptable radio noise level. http://tinyurl.com/aytljbg I jury-rigged a filter from components I use on the BuckPuk supplies and mounted it to the back of the fixture on short leads. Emacs! The reduction of noise at 130 MHz is pronounced. I estimate 30 dB or better. Unfortunately, I've misplaced my set of precision attenuators so I'm unable to make a quantitative A vs. B comparison for effectiveness of the filter. Fortunately, they're cheap. I've ordered some that should be in early next week. I can put some real numbers on the experiment then. The goal is to head off the noise effects at the source. Wiring to the airplane will be ordinary, off-the-spool unshielded wire. When I'm ready to send these back to try on his airplane, I'll try them out on my '87 GMC truck to see how they compare with the stock headlights. Watch this space. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2013
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Nice work Bob. Do you mind me asking... what is about these LED lights that makes them so noisy? In my head, LEDs are completely inert and therefore wouldn't create any interference. On 23 January 2013 19:28, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > A reader sent me a pair of high intensity LED fixtures after he > discovered that they generated an unacceptable radio noise level. > > http://tinyurl.com/aytljbg > > I jury-rigged a filter from components I use on the BuckPuk supplies > and mounted it to the back of the fixture on short leads. > > [image: Emacs!] > > > The reduction of noise at 130 MHz is pronounced. I estimate > 30 dB or better. Unfortunately, I've misplaced my set of > precision attenuators so I'm unable to make a quantitative > A vs. B comparison for effectiveness of the filter. > > Fortunately, they're cheap. I've ordered some that should be > in early next week. I can put some real numbers on the > experiment then. > > The goal is to head off the noise effects at the source. Wiring > to the airplane will be ordinary, off-the-spool unshielded wire. > When I'm ready to send these back to try on his airplane, I'll > try them out on my '87 GMC truck to see how they compare with the stock > headlights. > > Watch this space. > > ** > > ** Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
From: Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2013
Hi Bob, If you get satisfactory results from this, I for one would be very intereste d. Sacha On 23/gen/2013, at 19:28, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr ic.com> wrote: > A reader sent me a pair of high intensity LED fixtures after he > discovered that they generated an unacceptable radio noise level. > > http://tinyurl.com/aytljbg > > I jury-rigged a filter from components I use on the BuckPuk supplies > and mounted it to the back of the fixture on short leads. > > <9bf4435.jpg> > > > The reduction of noise at 130 MHz is pronounced. I estimate > 30 dB or better. Unfortunately, I've misplaced my set of > precision attenuators so I'm unable to make a quantitative > A vs. B comparison for effectiveness of the filter. > > Fortunately, they're cheap. I've ordered some that should be > in early next week. I can put some real numbers on the > experiment then. > > The goal is to head off the noise effects at the source. Wiring > to the airplane will be ordinary, off-the-spool unshielded wire. > When I'm ready to send these back to try on his airplane, I'll > try them out on my '87 GMC truck to see how they compare with the stock > headlights. > > Watch this space. > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
At 02:24 PM 1/23/2013, you wrote: >Hi Bob, >If you get satisfactory results from this, I for one would be very >interested. >Sacha > Whether or not this particular configuration is the dragon slayer remains to be seen . . . but the dragon will be slain. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
At 01:54 PM 1/23/2013, you wrote: >Nice work Bob. =C2 Do you mind me asking... what >is about these LED lights that makes them so >noisy? =C2 In my head, LEDs are completely inert >and therefore wouldn't create any interference. You are, of course, correct. The LEDs are very quiet. Not zero noise . . . the electrical activity in the light emitting junction is pretty frenetic. But the aperture (antenna area) is very tiny so it's hard to detect . . . much less a risk for a noise source. The problem is that LEDs are CURRENT operated devices. You're probably familiar with the ubiquitous resistor wired in series with an LED to SET the current flowing through the device. To light an red LED (typical voltage drop on the order of 2 volts) from a 14v bus, you have to pick a resistor that causes the desired LED current to flow (30 mA) with a DROP of 12 volts. This means that the series resistor dissipates 6 TIMES as much energy as the LED . . . but it's so small as to be insignificant. POWER LEDs will demand much larger current values. Consider this device http://tinyurl.com/a2sggv4 which is rated at 10 watts. Note that it's rated to operate at 3 amps so one would guess that the operating voltage is about 3.3 volts (typical for white). So, using a simple series resistor for 14 volt systems would dissipate 30 watts . . . NOT insignificant. The elegant solution demands a special kind of DC to DC converter. VARIABLE voltage input (say 10 to 16 volts) and CONSTANT current output (3 A). Now, we can hook perhaps 3 to 6 lamps in series (10 to 20 volt operation) but at a constant current. This bit of electronic magic is ALWAYS noisy. Your computer, tv, and countless other appliances have similar power supplies but they're generally qualified to FCC part 15 rules for expected but limited emissions. No so with LED lamp fixtures from Fuzzy Joe's Motorcycle shop . . . or 24xydiy.com either. We had some discussions here on the list about LED position lights wherein a number of builders using a particular DIY kit were experiencing radio noise from the LuxDrive power supplies recommended for the installation. This prompted development of the filtered version of the LuxDrive part which I've offered now for several years [] This board is the foundation for the experimental filter I crafted for the aforementioned experiment. This jeeped experiment may not be the ideal way to go for an on-purpose filter but then, the then, the boards are already fabricated and in stock. Our very own Eric Jones offers an LED based tail light http://tinyurl.com/b377jtv Which has enjoyed the benefits of creative tailoring to the task and generates no objectionable noises. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
Date: Jan 25, 2013
Bob: 1. Why do we LED DIY-fer's need an LED driver for a 12 vdc [forward voltage] LED [10 Watt] when we have a clean 12 vdc source [aircraft]? Answering my own question, maybe: Is it primarily to provide minimum ripple current to the driven LED? 2. What is the simplest way to detect HF noise from an LED; maybe an FM or AM radio receiver, or better yet, an aircraft nav/com receiver? Trying to KIS.. ;) Thanks in advance, Mike W Moab ********* ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: LED landing light filter experiment
Date: Jan 25, 2013
Because an LED is not a voltage driven device. It is a current driven devic e. The required "driver" is a current source. If your 10 watt LED has a for ward voltage drop of 2 volts and is designed to be driven by lets say 5 amp s of current then without a current driver to regulate that current you wou ld need to add a resistor to drop the other 10 volts of your 12 volt source . This means 10 volts being dropped by 5 amps through a resistor or 50 watt s of heat. (Pretty big HOT resistor) So much for the power saving of the LE D. Your "10 watt" LED is now consuming 60 watts. If you use a "driver" to r egulate the current the losses within the driver are minimal and your 10 wa tt LED consumes approximatly 10 watts. Also with a resistor to regulate cur rent what happens when your voltage is 14.5 being supported by the alternat or? Now you power consumption goes even higher and you risk overdriving the LED wheras with a "driver" the current remains constant at the design leve l. Bob McC (I'm sure the "other" Bob can explain it better=2C but that's the jist of i t.) From: wynaire(at)citlink.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED landing light filter experiment Date: Fri=2C 25 Jan 2013 11:14:30 -0700 Bob: 1. Why do we LED DIY-fer's need an LED driver for a 12 vdc [forward voltage] LED [10 Watt] when we have a clean 12 vdc source [aircraft]? Answering my own question=2C maybe: Is it primarily to provide minimum ripple current to the driven LED? 2. What is the simplest way to detect HF noise from an LED=3B maybe an FM or AM radio receiver=2C or better yet=2C an aircraft nav/com receiver? Trying to KIS.. =3B) Thanks in advance=2C Mike W Moab ********* ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
> > >2. What is the simplest way to detect HF noise from an LED; maybe an >FM or AM radio receiver, or better yet, an aircraft nav/com receiver? >Trying to KIS.. ;) There was a time when an airplane might have several kinds of receivers vulnerable to radiated and conducted signals from potential antagonists. In order of spectrum they would have included ADF/AM Broadcast receivers, Loran, HF communications, Marker Beacon, VOR/LOC, VHF Comm, Glideslope all topped off with DME, transponders and GPS. That list is certainly diminished. Most OBAM builders radios of interest are limited to VOR/LOC, VHF Comm, Glideslope, Xpndr and GPS. Each potential victim presents a unique signature and magnitude for immunity to extraneous signals. The easiest way to test for vulnerability is in flight and testing each potential victim at the fringes of its normal performance range. See if turning the antagonist on/off makes any observable difference in performance. This real-life/in-situ A-B comparison requires no calibration of measurement. Obviously, the hand held or bench receiver with some sort of 'sniffer' antenna can be used to see if any noise can be detected . . . but the noise being heard may not be so strong as to be significant. The tests I'm performing now use a filtered and an unfiltered LED assembly. The detector is a full coverage communications receiver with a precision attenuator between the receiver and the sense antenna. The filtered lamp assembly is fired up and a noise level measurement taken on the receiver's strength meter. I then turn on the unfiltered device (which is stronger) and then switch in values of attenuation until the receiver sees the same level of noise. The value of attenuation tells me how GOOD the filter is. I.E. the noise a some frequency of interest is reduced by XX dB. 30 dB is a factor of 1000 reduction. Now, putting real numbers on those signal strengths is a separate experiment. The experiment cited only speaks to filter effectiveness and says nothing about gross numbers for the radiated noise. Hand held, un-calibrated detectors are very handy for detecting the presence of noise and to a limited degree, measuring the efficacy of a noise reduction technique. The REAL test is to fly it and see how the antagonist system affects the victim in a weak signal situation. A noise you can detect with a hand-held transceiver may not be significant in the real world. Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2013
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Thanks Bob. Appreciate the explanation. On the subject of Eric, I seem to recall that it was he who recommended flexible LED strips instead of my noisy EL wire for cockpit lighting. These run on 12V... are they likely to produce noise in the same way then? I'm guessing not, because in testing them the other day, they produced the right level of light at about 7.5V and drew hardly any current at all -- less then 0.01A, according to my bench PSU. James On 23 January 2013 23:06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 01:54 PM 1/23/2013, you wrote: > > Nice work Bob. =C3=82 Do you mind me asking... what is about these LED li ghts > that makes them so noisy? =C3=82 In my head, LEDs are completely inert an d > therefore wouldn't create any interference. > > > You are, of course, correct. The LEDs are very quiet. > Not zero noise . . . the electrical activity in the > light emitting junction is pretty frenetic. But > the aperture (antenna area) is very tiny so it's > hard to detect . . . much less a risk for a noise > source. > > The problem is that LEDs are CURRENT operated > devices. You're probably familiar with the ubiquitous > resistor wired in series with an LED to SET the > current flowing through the device. To light an > red LED (typical voltage drop on the order of > 2 volts) from a 14v bus, you have to pick a resistor > that causes the desired LED current to flow (30 mA) > with a DROP of 12 volts. This means that the series > resistor dissipates 6 TIMES as much energy as the > LED . . . but it's so small as to be insignificant. > > POWER LEDs will demand much larger current values. > Consider this device > > http://tinyurl.com/a2sggv4 > > which is rated at 10 watts. Note that it's rated > to operate at 3 amps so one would guess that > the operating voltage is about 3.3 volts (typical > for white). So, using a simple series resistor > for 14 volt systems would dissipate 30 watts . . . > NOT insignificant. > > The elegant solution demands a special kind of > DC to DC converter. VARIABLE voltage input > (say 10 to 16 volts) and CONSTANT current > output (3 A). Now, we can hook perhaps 3 to > 6 lamps in series (10 to 20 volt operation) > but at a constant current. > > This bit of electronic magic is ALWAYS > noisy. Your computer, tv, and countless > other appliances have similar power supplies > but they're generally qualified to FCC part > 15 rules for expected but limited emissions. > No so with LED lamp fixtures from Fuzzy Joe's > Motorcycle shop . . . or 24xydiy.com either. > > We had some discussions here on the list about > LED position lights wherein a number of > builders using a particular DIY kit were > experiencing radio noise from the LuxDrive > power supplies recommended for the installation. > > This prompted development of the filtered version > of the LuxDrive part which I've offered now > for several years > > [image: []] > > This board is the foundation for the experimental filter > I crafted for the aforementioned experiment. This jeeped > experiment may not be the ideal way to go for an on-purpose > filter but then, the then, the boards are already fabricated > and in stock. > > Our very own Eric Jones offers an LED based tail light > > http://tinyurl.com/b377jtv > > Which has enjoyed the benefits of creative tailoring to > the task and generates no objectionable noises. > > > ** > > ** Bob . . . > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
Date: Jan 25, 2013
Thanks Bob. I'm with you for about 75% of the electro-magic here. My real world [table top] on the test bench: My design rated 12 vdc 6000k LED [with heat sink attached] is working very well "pulling 10 vdc and 500 ma." Power supply is a Micronta Dual Tracking Adjustable DC Power Supply. If I understand you correctly, the main (only?) reason that I should add another component [the LED driver] is to insure a steady-state current supply to my LED? PS: My final lighting goal is to use these (mounted under FAA-PMA red, green & clear glass lens) for wing-tip and tail nav lights, and to strobe them (white) at the same positions. Your thoughts are sincerely appreciated. There is only so much that one can gain from studying texts... ;) Mike ******** ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob McCallum To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:03 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED landing light filter experiment Because an LED is not a voltage driven device. It is a current driven device. The required "driver" is a current source. If your 10 watt LED has a forward voltage drop of 2 volts and is designed to be driven by lets say 5 amps of current then without a current driver to regulate that current you would need to add a resistor to drop the other 10 volts of your 12 volt source. This means 10 volts being dropped by 5 amps through a resistor or 50 watts of heat. (Pretty big HOT resistor) So much for the power saving of the LED. Your "10 watt" LED is now consuming 60 watts. If you use a "driver" to regulate the current the losses within the driver are minimal and your 10 watt LED consumes approximatly 10 watts. Also with a resistor to regulate current what happens when your voltage is 14.5 being supported by the alternator? Now you power consumption goes even higher and you risk overdriving the LED wheras with a "driver" the current remains constant at the design level. Bob McC (I'm sure the "other" Bob can explain it better, but that's the jist of it.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: wynaire(at)citlink.net To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED landing light filter experiment Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:14:30 -0700 Bob: 1. Why do we LED DIY-fer's need an LED driver for a 12 vdc [forward voltage] LED [10 Watt] when we have a clean 12 vdc source [aircraft]? Answering my own question, maybe: Is it primarily to provide minimum ripple current to the driven LED? 2. What is the simplest way to detect HF noise from an LED; maybe an FM or AM radio receiver, or better yet, an aircraft nav/com receiver? Trying to KIS.. ;) Thanks in advance, Mike W Moab ********* ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com . . . -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
At 04:13 PM 1/25/2013, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. =C2 Appreciate the explanation. =C2 > >On the subject of Eric, I seem to recall that it >was he who recommended flexible LED strips >instead of my noisy EL wire for cockpit lighting. =C2 > >These run on 12V... are they likely to produce noise in the same way then? =C2 No . . . those are the same kind of strips I was talking about some months back. I've got about 8 feet of that strip material in two rows on the ' under side of a kitchen cabinet to replace a 40-year old, 18W fluorescent fixture. These strips are an array of 3 lamps and a resistor in series parallel with each trio spread out over about 2" of strip. Are these red lights? Usable light at 7.5 volts suggests that the threshold of 2v x 3 lamps (6v) gives you about 1.5 volts of drop across the installed resistor to set the operating current. >I'm guessing not, because in testing them the >other day, they produced the right level of >light at about 7.5V and drew hardly any current >at all -- less then 0.01A, according to my bench PSU. Yep. These lamps are biased up using the 'simple' but inefficient configuration where the losses are acceptably insignificant. No noisy switch mode power supply necessary. The lamps we're wrestling with are arrays in the 25 to 35 watt class used for position lights, landing/taxi lights and perhaps strobes. They DO have power supplies that WILL be noisy if not properly filtered. Bob . . . >James > > >On 23 January 2013 23:06, Robert L. Nuckolls, >III ><nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: >At 01:54 PM 1/23/2013, you wrote: >>Nice work Bob. =C3=82 Do you mind me asking... what >>is about these LED lights that makes them so >>noisy? =C3=82 In my head, LEDs are completely inert >>and therefore wouldn't create any interference. > >=C2 You are, of course, correct. The LEDs are very quiet. >=C2 Not zero noise . . . the electrical activity in the >=C2 light emitting junction is pretty frenetic. But >=C2 the aperture (antenna area) is very tiny so it's >=C2 hard to detect . . . much less a risk for a noise >=C2 source. > >=C2 The problem is that LEDs are CURRENT operated >=C2 devices. You're probably familiar with the ubiquitous >=C2 resistor wired in series with an LED to SET the >=C2 current flowing through the device. To light an >=C2 red LED (typical voltage drop on the order of >=C2 2 volts) from a 14v bus, you have to pick a resistor >=C2 that causes the desired LED current to flow (30 mA) >=C2 with a DROP of 12 volts. This means that the series >=C2 resistor dissipates 6 TIMES as much energy as the >=C2 LED . . . but it's so small as to be insignificant. > >=C2 POWER LEDs will demand much larger current values. >=C2 Consider this device > ><http://tinyurl.com/a2sggv4>http://tinyurl.com/a2sggv4 > >=C2 which is rated at 10 watts. Note that it's rated >=C2 to operate at 3 amps so one would guess that >=C2 the operating voltage is about 3.3 volts (typical >=C2 for white). So, using a simple series resistor >=C2 for 14 volt systems would dissipate 30 watts . . . >=C2 NOT insignificant. > >=C2 The elegant solution demands a special kind of >=C2 DC to DC converter. VARIABLE voltage input >=C2 (say 10 to 16 volts) and CONSTANT current >=C2 output (3 A). Now, we can hook perhaps 3 to >=C2 6 lamps in series (10 to 20 volt operation) >=C2 but at a constant current. > >=C2 This bit of electronic magic is ALWAYS >=C2 noisy. Your computer, tv, and countless >=C2 other appliances have similar power supplies >=C2 but they're generally qualified to FCC part >=C2 15 rules for expected but limited emissions. >=C2 No so with LED lamp fixtures from Fuzzy Joe's >=C2 Motorcycle shop . . . or=C2 <http://24xydiy.com>24xydiy.com either. > >=C2 We had some discussions here on the list about >=C2 LED position lights wherein a number of >=C2 builders using a particular DIY kit were >=C2 experiencing radio noise from the LuxDrive >=C2 power supplies recommended for the installation. > >=C2 This prompted development of the filtered version >=C2 of the LuxDrive part which I've offered now >=C2 for several years > >[] > =C2 > >=C2 This board is the foundation for the experimental filter >=C2 I crafted for the aforementioned experiment. This jeeped >=C2 experiment may not be the ideal way to go for an on-purpose >=C2 filter but then, the then, the boards are already fabricated >=C2 and in stock. > >=C2 Our very own Eric Jones offers an LED based tail light > ><http://tinyurl.com/b377jtv>http://tinyurl.com/b377jtv > >=C2 Which has enjoyed the benefits of creative tailoring to >=C2 the task and generates no objectionable noises. > > >=C2 Bob . . . > > >ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >tp://forums.matronics.com > >_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics. com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio n > > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
At 04:19 PM 1/25/2013, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. > I'm with you for about 75% of the electro-magic here. >My real world [table top] on the test bench: My design rated 12 vdc >6000k LED [with heat sink attached] is working very well "pulling 10 >vdc and 500 ma." Power supply is a Micronta Dual Tracking >Adjustable DC Power Supply. If I understand you correctly, the main >(only?) reason that I should add another component [the LED driver] >is to insure a steady-state current supply to my LED? PS: My final >lighting goal is to use these (mounted under FAA-PMA red, green & >clear glass lens) for wing-tip and tail nav lights, and to strobe >them (white) at the same positions. > >Your thoughts are sincerely appreciated. There is only so much >that one can gain from studying texts... ;) Are you using any series resistance in your installtion? How do you intend to establish and maintain the desired 500 mA operating point? What the rated operating current for the device. Are these white lights that you're going to filter into red and green? Keep in mind that filters of white light are VERY inefficient. They block a majority of the lamp's total output allowing only the desired color to pass. If you use leds designed to produce red and green light, then no filtering (with attendant losses) are necessary. But assuming that you DO use three such arrays at 500 ma each. Then you need to drop about 5 volts in a resistor in series with each array for 2.5 watts each. That's 7.5 watts tossed off in heat for each fixture with 15 watts being used by the lamps. Should the alternator quit, your bus drops to 12v and you now bias each array at only 200 mA for a 60% drop in light output. Now, if you hook all the lamps in series and power them with a 500 mA constant current switchmode supply, the light output can remain constant throughout an operating range of 10 to 15 volts for the bus with only a couple of watts tossed off by the supply. That's what these guys do for the OBAM aircraft position lights that were being discussed here on the list a few years back. This particular supply will put out any practical excitation value between 100 and 1000 mA . . . and is filtered. https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9051s.jpg Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
Date: Jan 26, 2013
Thanks for the replies. I cannot answer your first questions until further education on my part. However, by re-reading your para 2 & 3, the fog is thinning! Thanks. Currently there are no resisters in series with the LED. The "operating point" will be the aircraft battery / alternator system buss. Apparently your "switch mode supply" handles well any voltage fluctuation event, as referenced in para 3. Point well made. We will go with that item. Since posting my last question, I've located for sale a multi-vdc 30 watt RGB LED, with a separate contact tab for each color, as opposed to a ganged contact used with remote LED controls for color choice. (My terminology may not be perfect here...) This LED-heat sink package should (as you stated) fit my needs much better than "filtering white light thru red and green glass wingtip filter lens." I'll plan on using the white LED's only as strobes. As always, the education one receives from the build-it-yourself effort is well worth the initial confusion. Best regards, Mike W. **************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:46 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED landing light filter experiment At 04:19 PM 1/25/2013, you wrote: Thanks Bob. I'm with you for about 75% of the electro-magic here. My real world [table top] on the test bench: My design rated 12 vdc 6000k LED [with heat sink attached] is working very well "pulling 10 vdc and 500 ma." Power supply is a Micronta Dual Tracking Adjustable DC Power Supply. If I understand you correctly, the main (only?) reason that I should add another component [the LED driver] is to insure a steady-state current supply to my LED? PS: My final lighting goal is to use these (mounted under FAA-PMA red, green & clear glass lens) for wing-tip and tail nav lights, and to strobe them (white) at the same positions. Your thoughts are sincerely appreciated. There is only so much that one can gain from studying texts... ;) Are you using any series resistance in your installtion? How do you intend to establish and maintain the desired 500 mA operating point? What the rated operating current for the device. Are these white lights that you're going to filter into red and green? Keep in mind that filters of white light are VERY inefficient. They block a majority of the lamp's total output allowing only the desired color to pass. If you use leds designed to produce red and green light, then no filtering (with attendant losses) are necessary. But assuming that you DO use three such arrays at 500 ma each. Then you need to drop about 5 volts in a resistor in series with each array for 2.5 watts each. That's 7.5 watts tossed off in heat for each fixture with 15 watts being used by the lamps. Should the alternator quit, your bus drops to 12v and you now bias each array at only 200 mA for a 60% drop in light output. Now, if you hook all the lamps in series and power them with a 500 mA constant current switchmode supply, the light output can remain constant throughout an operating range of 10 to 15 volts for the bus with only a couple of watts tossed off by the supply. That's what these guys do for the OBAM aircraft position lights that were being discussed here on the list a few years back. This particular supply will put out any practical excitation value between 100 and 1000 mA . . . and is filtered. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
> Since posting my last question, I've located for sale a multi-vdc > 30 watt RGB LED, with a separate contact tab for each color, as > opposed to a ganged contact used with remote LED controls for color > choice. (My terminology may not be perfect here...) This LED-heat > sink package should (as you stated) fit my needs much better than > "filtering white light thru red and green glass wingtip filter > lens." I'll plan on using the white LED's only as strobes. Hmmmm . . . multi-colored devices also suggest less than the best efficiency compared to a single color device. I'm pretty sure that the most successful LED replacements for incandescent lamps will be single color-specific devices. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LED landing light filter experiment
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2013
Mike, RGB devices like the one you found are intended to be driven by a controller that can vary the intensity of each color as required to achieve "full colo r" output. The eye mixes the colors so you "see" the intended color -- thin k of each device as akin to a single pixel in a color "jumbotron" stadium sc reen and you'll have the basic idea. For aircraft position lights, you'd probably be better off from an output in tensity, size and cost perspective to find suitable single-color LEDs. Pay close attention to color wavelength with LEDs. Their output is very nar row and specific. Red doesn't necessarily mean red and green doesn't necess arily mean green. Both colors have specifically defined wavelengths as far a s the FAA is concerned. Also pay close attention to beam angles. LEDs come with all kinds of optics molded into them. Wide angles obviously cover more area, but throw less li ght in any given direction. Narrow beam devices throw more light, but you'l l need more of them, carefully aimed, to cover the desired viewing area. I believe it was the other Eric who posted something a few months back about LED use for aircraft position lighting. I recall something about aviation g reen being very hard to duplicate with LEDs. Perhaps you can find it in the archives, or the OP will see this and kindly repost. Eric On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:43 AM, "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" w rote: > Thanks for the replies. > I cannot answer your first questions until further education on my part. H owever, by re-reading your para 2 & 3, the fog is thinning! Thanks. > > Currently there are no resisters in series with the LED. The "operating po int" will be the aircraft battery / alternator system buss. Apparently your " switch mode supply" handles well any voltage fluctuation event, as reference d in para 3. Point well made. We will go with that item. > > Since posting my last question, I've located for sale a multi-vdc 30 wat t RGB LED, with a separate contact tab for each color, as opposed to a gange d contact used with remote LED controls for color choice. (My terminology ma y not be perfect here...) This LED-heat sink package should (as you stated) f it my needs much better than "filtering white light thru red and green glass wingtip filter lens." I'll plan on using the white LED's only as strobes . > > As always, the education one receives from the build-it-yourself effort is well worth the initial confusion. > Best regards, > Mike W. > **************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 24x7diy led lights
At 09:33 AM 1/27/2013, you wrote: >Hello >Thanks for reply. >My boss design these lights for electric Bikes, motor bikes and 4x4 Trucks. >Last time one of our user faced such problem when he use CB radio. >My boss advised them to use good noise Filter with Power supply to >avoid noise. >If you need any info regarding out lights please feel free to ask >Regards >Lisa Understand. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 24x7diy led lights
At 10:58 AM 1/27/2013, you wrote: > > >At 09:33 AM 1/27/2013, you wrote: >>Hello >>Thanks for reply. >>My boss design these lights for electric Bikes, motor bikes and 4x4 Trucks. >>Last time one of our user faced such problem when he use CB radio. >>My boss advised them to use good noise Filter with Power supply to >>avoid noise. >>If you need any info regarding out lights please feel free to ask >>Regards >>Lisa > > > Understand. > > > Bob . . . I was approached by Lisa Jackson who became aware of our discussions here on the List concerning 24x7diy products. She inquired as to the nature of the noise problem. I explained the List and our OBAM aviation mission. I also introduced myself as willing to assist in mitigating the noise as a function of their off the shelf design. As you can see that offer was not attractive to them. So . . . I'll continue to search for a satisfactory mod to their products such that they become friendly to our needs. The attenuators are due in here tomorrow but I'll be out of town until Tues afternoon. Should get looksee on the effectiveness of the experimental filter and get them back in the mail for installation on an airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: LEDs
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 27, 2013
I have posted lots on this and there is always new interest. Some recent notes: 1) With regard to LED avaiation colrs, especially green, See: attached PDF-- redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf 2) With regard to LED beacons, See: aircraft_beacons_using_leds.pdf Several cogent comments have been offered here regarding LED power supplies. My LED tail light, which (now) needs about 1A originally ran on the Luxdrive Buck Puck, but I couldn't make the power supply quiet (EMI/RFI) enough to work. The Buck Puck switch-mode supply I used was noisy because of poor design (or one might say unsuitable for my application). There are far better, far quieter supplies that you can build or buy, and let's hope Luxdrive makes some of them. Bob put in yeoman's effort to quiet the thing but by that time I had completely converted to an LM317 configured as a constant current supply. I wouldn't have tried to save the Buck Puck. I published a simple LM317 LED constant current supply which you can build: See: Current Regulator.pdf This is carved into a little piece of copper circuit board, but I'll send you the ExpressPCB file if you email me. See also a discussion of LEDs in series/parallel: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=379712&sid=7400ff5dce844aff9fbcfd32e30328a8 So why do we need this complication to power an LED? And what's this Current Operated vs. Voltage Operated stuff? Well, there's not much difference in operating a 10 milliAmp LED and a 1A LED except that connecting a 10 mA LED to 12V (12V*/.01A=1200 Ohms, and the watts dissipated is IxIxR=.01X.01X1200=0.12W). So the current limiting resistor is trivial, while connecting a similar 1A LED requires a really hot resistor of 12 Ohms >12 Watts. (12V/1A=12 Ohms and the dissipation is 1x1x12 Watts). Which will cost ~$20 and gets hot...and doesn't regulate the light output. So the rule of thumb is when the current gets high, some non-resistive method of reducing the current becomes more attractive. These methods are few, and basically consist of electronically turning ON the power, then OFF real fast while storing some energy to be drained out to the load by a variety of clever methods. These are called "switch-mode". They all have the EMI/RFI problems generated by switching ON and OFF any other kind of circuit. A lot of engineering goes into making them as quiet as necessary, but no more than needed for a particular job. And the EMI/RFI specifications are complicated because frequencies and energy at those frequencies are peak, average, mathematically sampled, radiated, conducted, etc. etc. etc. One technique involves reducing the peak noise by spreading it around. Not a straightforward business. *(Technical sorts will notice I simplified by using 12V instead of 14V-2Vf). -------- 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=393142#393142 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/current_regulator_875.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_beacons_using_leds_116.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/redandgreenledpositionlights_316.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED light experiment
Date: Jan 27, 2013
Hello Eric, Many thanks for the "hand-holding exercise." I envy your expertise. What [project] seemed simple becomes a bit complicated, though doable, I hope. This morning my experimenting led to placing a white [6000k] 10 watt LED being a FAA nav green (blue) glass lens. The resultant visible color was not even close to green. Thanks for the tip on the FAA wanting a specific color in wavelengths. At least I know where to start, once back in the lab (basement shop). At least so far, I have the white strobe light (color) nailed down. That's a start! Do you [or anyone reading this] have a suggestion as to how to best measure lumens? Would an older type of photo light-meter work in this case, held a set distance for each test? As well, does any one know why the LED manufacturers use a "flexible clear colloid" to cover the active LED material? Is this an inexpensive way to seal the active material, or something else? I want to mount the end of a polished acrylic rod as close as possible to a LED, for light transmission. This colloid material is fragil. Several LED OEM's have not responded to this question. My best regards, Mike Moab, UT *********** ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Page To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:49 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED landing light filter experiment Mike, RGB devices like the one you found are intended to be driven by a controller that can vary the intensity of each color as required to achieve "full color" output. The eye mixes the colors so you "see" the intended color -- think of each device as akin to a single pixel in a color "jumbotron" stadium screen and you'll have the basic idea. For aircraft position lights, you'd probably be better off from an output intensity, size and cost perspective to find suitable single-color LEDs. Pay close attention to color wavelength with LEDs. Their output is very narrow and specific. Red doesn't necessarily mean red and green doesn't necessarily mean green. Both colors have specifically defined wavelengths as far as the FAA is concerned. Also pay close attention to beam angles. LEDs come with all kinds of optics molded into them. Wide angles obviously cover more area, but throw less light in any given direction. Narrow beam devices throw more light, but you'll need more of them, carefully aimed, to cover the desired viewing area. I believe it was the other Eric who posted something a few months back about LED use for aircraft position lighting. I recall something about aviation green being very hard to duplicate with LEDs. Perhaps you can find it in the archives, or the OP will see this and kindly repost. Eric On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:43 AM, "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" wrote: Thanks for the replies. I cannot answer your first questions until further education on my part. However, by re-reading your para 2 & 3, the fog is thinning! Thanks. Currently there are no resisters in series with the LED. The "operating point" will be the aircraft battery / alternator system buss. Apparently your "switch mode supply" handles well any voltage fluctuation event, as referenced in para 3. Point well made. We will go with that item. Since posting my last question, I've located for sale a multi-vdc 30 watt RGB LED, with a separate contact tab for each color, as opposed to a ganged contact used with remote LED controls for color choice. (My terminology may not be perfect here...) This LED-heat sink package should (as you stated) fit my needs much better than "filtering white light thru red and green glass wingtip filter lens." I'll plan on using the white LED's only as strobes. As always, the education one receives from the build-it-yourself effort is well worth the initial confusion. Best regards, Mike W. **************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LEDs
Date: Jan 27, 2013
Thanks Eric M J, You (and others) have provided here a wealth of info that obviously will go a long way to shortening the [my] trial and error period. Kudos to your reply, your web page design and the info therein. Bach at you after I "smoke" a few more LED's. ;) Mike Moab, UT ***************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:24 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: LEDs > > > I have posted lots on this and there is always new interest. Some recent > notes: > > 1) With regard to LED avaiation colrs, especially green, See: attached > PDF-- > redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf > 2) With regard to LED beacons, See: aircraft_beacons_using_leds.pdf > > Several cogent comments have been offered here regarding LED power > supplies. My LED tail light, which (now) needs about 1A originally ran on > the Luxdrive Buck Puck, but I couldn't make the power supply quiet > (EMI/RFI) enough to work. The Buck Puck switch-mode supply I used was > noisy because of poor design (or one might say unsuitable for my > application). There are far better, far quieter supplies that you can > build or buy, and let's hope Luxdrive makes some of them. Bob put in > yeoman's effort to quiet the thing but by that time I had completely > converted to an LM317 configured as a constant current supply. I wouldn't > have tried to save the Buck Puck. > > I published a simple LM317 LED constant current supply which you can > build: See: Current Regulator.pdf This is carved into a little piece of > copper circuit board, but I'll send you the ExpressPCB file if you email > me. > > See also a discussion of LEDs in series/parallel: > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=379712&sid=7400ff5dce844aff9fbcfd32e30328a8 > > So why do we need this complication to power an LED? And what's this > Current Operated vs. Voltage Operated stuff? > > Well, there's not much difference in operating a 10 milliAmp LED and a 1A > LED except that connecting a 10 mA LED to 12V (12V*/.01A=1200 Ohms, and > the watts dissipated is IxIxR=.01X.01X1200=0.12W). So the current limiting > resistor is trivial, while connecting a similar 1A LED requires a really > hot resistor of 12 Ohms >12 Watts. (12V/1A=12 Ohms and the dissipation is > 1x1x12 Watts). Which will cost ~$20 and gets hot...and doesn't regulate > the light output. > > So the rule of thumb is when the current gets high, some non-resistive > method of reducing the current becomes more attractive. These methods are > few, and basically consist of electronically turning ON the power, then > OFF real fast while storing some energy to be drained out to the load by a > variety of clever methods. These are called "switch-mode". They all have > the EMI/RFI problems generated by switching ON and OFF any other kind of > circuit. A lot of engineering goes into making them as quiet as necessary, > but no more than needed for a particular job. And the EMI/RFI > specifications are complicated because frequencies and energy at those > frequencies are peak, average, mathematically sampled, radiated, > conducted, etc. etc. etc. One technique involves reducing the peak noise > by spreading it around. Not a straightforward business. > > *(Technical sorts will notice I simplified by using 12V instead of > 14V-2Vf). > > -------- > 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=393142#393142 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/current_regulator_875.pdf > http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_beacons_using_leds_116.pdf > http://forums.matronics.com//files/redandgreenledpositionlights_316.pdf > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LED light experiment
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 28, 2013
> This morning my experimenting led to placing a white [6000k] 10 watt LED being a FAA nav green (blue) glass lens. The resultant visible color was not even close to green. Thanks for the tip on the FAA wanting a specific color in wavelengths. At least I know where to start, once back in the lab (basement shop). Mike, The FAA filter is bluish because the original incandescent lamp was yellowish. Bluish + yellowish equals aviation greenish. Abandon any hope of filtering LEDs to get other colors. If you want green, buy 525 nm green. Read my paper on red-green position lights. Learn how to say "spatial distribution". > At least so far, I have the white strobe light (color) nailed down. That's a start! The FAA still likes neon red too. And red has some advantages in LED strobes. Read my paper on LED strobes. > Do you [or anyone reading this] have a suggestion as to how to best measure lumens? Would an older type of photo light-meter work in this case, held a set distance for each test? Read my paper on red-green position lights. It has a very nice and very readable description of how to do the photometry, which gets a lot of people confused. > As well, does any one know why the LED manufacturers use a "flexible clear colloid" to cover the active LED material? Is this an inexpensive way to seal the active material, or something else? I want to mount the end of a polished acrylic rod as close as possible to a LED, for light transmission. This colloid material is fragile. Several LED OEM's have not responded to this question. "Colloid" is Chem-speak for "stuff with other stuff in it". The little LED chip gets very hot and has to be protected. Optical coupling is also the key issue. Materials used are usually high temperature acrylic and for higher temperatures, epoxies and silicones. Mike, A lot of what you are trying has already been done for you. Read everything you can find before trying to invent new stuff. Remember, Nature give you uncountable ways to fool yourself. Science teaches how not to fool ourselves. Good luck. -------- 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=393158#393158 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Load Calculations and bus layout for comment
Date: Jan 28, 2013
I am developing my first ever wiring plan for a 914 powered SeaRey amphibian kit. It is to be VFR night capable, and definitely will be Dynon SkyView system, two screens (planning only one to have backup battery). I intend to use ATC fuses for most circuits, and utilize Bob's Z-16 drawing. I have attached my load calculations with the best info that I have. I do not know the constant load for the com? I also see a problem with cold night flight, because my load seems to exceed my alternator output with heater and lights running. These SeaRey planes typically have HID landing lights, plus taxi lights (I plan LED landing lights, no taxi lights). I intend to use only the internal alternator on my 914 Rotax, rated at 22a max, 20a at 5000rpm, and Auto pilot is preferred, but will be eliminated if it requires another alternator. This load came as a surprise because other than AP, many are equipped similar to this plan. I called Dynon hoping that the second screen will draw less, but they say it will draw 3 to 3.5a. Plane has electric landing gear, electric trim, sump pump and a 2nd electric fuel pump for take-off, but being intermittent loads, I did not include them in my running load. I would appreciate any input at all, and request help with refining or managing my load to fit the alternator, and also comments on my Buss layout. My landing gear uses 4 small relays, do I understand correctly that even these small relays should have a diode across them for contact life and spike reduction? I will start putting together my wire sizes, and intend to use a max 8% wattage loss to size wires for everything except the starter, and use wire size at 10deg rise to dictate fuse size according to AE Connection chart fig 8-3. Can anyone tell me what to use as the max V-drop when sizing wires? Thanks in advance, Alan , HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com SeaRey Amphibian, framework and hull assembled (not covered). Working on VFR avionics and wiring (Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place weight forward! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2013
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Grounding a Super Cub
A friend of mine is building a tube and fabric aircraft with an O360. The tubes are thin wall 4130. The battery is in the rear. My understanding is that it is normally preferable to ground strap the engine directly to the firewall, rather than to the engine mount, since this avoids putting starter currents through the engine mount. If that is correct, then I wonder whether putting starter currents through the frame is also a bad idea, and running a heavy wire from the battery to the firewall is desirable ? Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LED light experiment
From: "Andrewjames" <adambrooksabs(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
[quote="wynaire(at)citlink.net"]Hello Eric, Many thanks for the "hand-holding exercise." I envy your expertise. What [project] seemed simple becomes a bit complicated, though doable, I hope. This morning my experimenting led to placing a white [6000k] 10 watt LED being a FAA nav green (blue) glass lens. The resultant visible color was not even close to green. Thanks for the tip on the FAA wanting a specific color in wavelengths. At least I know where to start, once back in the lab (basement shop). At least so far, I have the white strobe light (color) nailed down. That's a start! Do you [or anyone reading this] have a suggestion as to how to best measure lumens? Would an older type of photo light-meter work in this case, held a set distance for each test? As well, does any one know why the LED manufacturers use a "flexible clear colloid" to cover the active LED material? Is this an inexpensive way to seal the active material, or something else? I want to mount the end of a polished acrylic rod as close as possible to a LED, for light transmission. This colloid material is fragil. Several LED OEM's have not responded to this question. My best regards, Mike Moab, UT *********** > --- Hello. I am not wellknown to led lights and you seems to be experienced person. I want to install led lights in my home. What is your suggestion? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393219#393219 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LEDs
From: "Andrewjames" <adambrooksabs(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
wynaire(at)citlink.net wrote: > Thanks Eric M J, > You (and others) have provided here a wealth of info that obviously will go > a long way to shortening the [my] trial and error period. Kudos to your > reply, your web page design and the info therein. Bach at you after I > "smoke" a few more LED's. ;) > Mike > Moab, UT > ***************** > > > --- hello I need to buy led lights in bulk for my house. Any reliable source which can provide me best possible price Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393220#393220 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LED light experiment
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
> Hello. I am not well known to led lights and you seems to be experienced person. I want to install led lights in my home. What is your suggestion? > AndrewJames For DIYers and LED flashlights I refer people to Deal Extreme (DX.com) For household lighting, the big-box stores are selling now. The price is high but the selection is good and getting better. By year's end it will be a whole new world for lighting. FYI, Cree is now marketing led chips of >200 lumens/watt. -------- 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=393222#393222 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Load Calculations and bus layout for comment
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
A half amp can be saved by reducing the holding current of the master relay after starting. This subject has been discussed here in the past. Or the master can be shut off after starting and an automotive relay turned on in parallel (with engine starting disabled). The "Charge LED" current seems excessive by a factor of 10. It is not needed anyway because the SkyView has built-in low voltage warning. The O.V. relay coil current is too high. Relays are available with less than 0.1 amp coil current. The landing light does not need to be counted as part of the continuous load. After landing, the battery should be put on a charger - maintainer. The second SkyView can be turned off most of the time and used only when needed. Or consider a D-180 or other EFIS that uses less current. (And less weight, less cost) I would definitely have an autopilot. To me, that is more important than a second EFIS. The flight control indicators are all built into the SkyView. Separate indicators are not needed. The Rotax voltage regulator / rectifier is the weak link in the charging system. It should be kept cool! And not operated at maximum. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393223#393223 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SWAN MGT LLC/M WYNN" <wynaire(at)citlink.net>
Subject: Re: LED light experiment
Date: Jan 29, 2013
Hi. My advice is to go to EBay.com and search for "LED lights." There are many to chose from. Often the seller offers basic instructions for use. Good luck, Mike *********** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrewjames" <adambrooksabs(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:54 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED light experiment > > > [quote="wynaire(at)citlink.net"]Hello Eric, > Many thanks for the "hand-holding exercise." I envy your expertise. What > [project] seemed simple becomes a bit complicated, though doable, I hope. > This morning my experimenting led to placing a white [6000k] 10 watt LED > being a FAA nav green (blue) glass lens. The resultant visible color was > not even close to green. Thanks for the tip on the FAA wanting a specific > color in wavelengths. At least I know where to start, once back in the > lab (basement shop). > > At least so far, I have the white strobe light (color) nailed down. > That's a start! > > Do you [or anyone reading this] have a suggestion as to how to best > measure lumens? Would an older type of photo light-meter work in this > case, held a set distance for each test? > > As well, does any one know why the LED manufacturers use a "flexible > clear colloid" to cover the active LED material? Is this an inexpensive > way to seal the active material, or something else? I want to mount the > end of a polished acrylic rod as close as possible to a LED, for light > transmission. This colloid material is fragil. Several LED OEM's have > not responded to this question. > My best regards, > Mike > Moab, UT > *********** > > >> --- > > > Hello. I am not wellknown to led lights and you seems to be experienced > person. I want to install led lights in my home. What is your suggestion? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393219#393219 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
Jeff, I have tube & fabric aircraft with an IO-360 and the battery in the back. I have a tab welded on on the engine mount and a tab welded on the frame near to the battery both used for earth strap connection. What is the down side of putting very short duration starter current through the engine mount, and equally through the fuselage frame? Why would the (very thin) firewall be any better? Can you provide some more details where you obtained your understanding from? I think you are mis-informed. Most people I know have saved the weight of a 2nd heavy gauge wire by using the fuselage frame as the ground return. Peter On 29/01/2013 06:25, Jeff Page wrote: > > A friend of mine is building a tube and fabric aircraft with an O360. > The tubes are thin wall 4130. The battery is in the rear. > My understanding is that it is normally preferable to ground strap the > engine directly to the firewall, rather than to the engine mount, > since this avoids putting starter currents through the engine mount. > If that is correct, then I wonder whether putting starter currents > through the frame is also a bad idea, and running a heavy wire from > the battery to the firewall is desirable ? > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
Peter, I looked back into Bob's book trying to find it, but although he says connect the ground strap from engine to firewall (better than using the P-leads!), it doesn't say there that that using the engine mount is bad. Searching this list, I found the "rules" by which Bob Nuckolls would wire his own airplane: Rule 9 includes this bit: Any ground straps provided around the rubber biscuits of an engine mount will be removed. Engine mounts are for holding engines on airplanes and not used for any part of the electrical system. I have extrapolated that to assume that starter current through the engine mount is undesirable. My imagination sees a similarity between a 200A arc welder and 200A of starter current and wonders what happens to the welds as the current passes through ? The firewall is just the convenient place for a single point ground. If there is no problem with using the frame, we would wire it as battery to local tab on frame at the rear, plus firewall to local tab on frame at firewall, plus firewall to engine. If there is a problem, then it would be 2WG from battery to firewall, firewall to local tab on frame and firewall to engine. This is heavier by the 2AWG cable from the battery to the firewall, but one less connection. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393247#393247 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2013
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
1. Steel has a much higher resistance than copper. 2. One way to make a magnet is to pass a DC current through a ferrous metal (steel). FWIW..... Charlie On 01/29/2013 04:17 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > > > Jeff, > > I have tube & fabric aircraft with an IO-360 and the battery in the > back. I have a tab welded on on the engine mount and a tab welded on > the frame near to the battery both used for earth strap connection. > What is the down side of putting very short duration starter current > through the engine mount, and equally through the fuselage frame? Why > would the (very thin) firewall be any better? Can you provide some > more details where you obtained your understanding from? I think you > are mis-informed. Most people I know have saved the weight of a 2nd > heavy gauge wire by using the fuselage frame as the ground return. > > Peter > > On 29/01/2013 06:25, Jeff Page wrote: >> >> A friend of mine is building a tube and fabric aircraft with an >> O360. The tubes are thin wall 4130. The battery is in the rear. >> My understanding is that it is normally preferable to ground strap >> the engine directly to the firewall, rather than to the engine mount, >> since this avoids putting starter currents through the engine mount. >> If that is correct, then I wonder whether putting starter currents >> through the frame is also a bad idea, and running a heavy wire from >> the battery to the firewall is desirable ? >> >> Jeff Page >> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
Yes, a magnetized frame would make compass swings pretty difficult. When Bob discussed using the airframe as ground in the Book, he seemed to be referring to all metal aircraft, which would be aluminum. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393257#393257 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
>I have tube & fabric aircraft with an IO-360 and the battery in the >back. I have a tab welded on on the engine mount and a tab welded on >the frame near to the battery both used for earth strap connection. >What is the down side of putting very short duration starter current >through the engine mount, and equally through the fuselage frame? They're magnetic materials . . . steel . . . with higher resistance than copper. While carrying high currents, the steel conductors generate strong local magnetic fields which do not go completely away after the current goes to zero. Remote battery grounding on aluminum airplanes is less problematic . . . but many builders still run starter currents through the engine mount and/or fire wall sheet . . . for the most part they don't perceive any problems. Performance degradation is most likely to present during cold weather cranking. So MANY things pile on top of each other in cold weather that one is unlikely to see much difference fore wired vs. airframe battery ground. But a combination of design and preventative maintenance efforts can add up to a significant difference. Those would include selection of starter, keeping the battery well maintained, minimizing joints in the cranking path, and in extreme conditions, warming the engine and battery, etc. > Why would the (very thin) firewall be any better? It's not. I try NEVER to depend on fire wall sheet for anything other than grounding of light draw accessories like case-ground regulators, facet fuel pumps, starter contactors, etc. > Most people I know have saved the weight of a 2nd heavy gauge wire > by using the fuselage frame as the ground return. Which is what's been done on thousands of airplanes for 100+ years . . . but I'm aware of no study that quantifies performance or maintenance issues for having done so. My personal design goals call for a minimum number of made up joints between battery (-) and crankcase and avoid using airframe ground for all but the few outlying appliances depicted in Figure Z-15. The ideal battery ground is an engine-cranking-sized-wire from battery(-) to fire wall single-point ground . . . and a second conductor from single-point ground stud to the crankcase. But if one wishes to embrace another philosophy, it will probably function. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013
Bob, I am going to suggest he go with your recommendations. He is keenly interested in being able to start in remote locations. What you say makes sense. Thanks (again) for your very helpful advice. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393261#393261 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
Not trying to cause any trouble here!!! My airplane is a single seat aerobatic One Design - I was very keen to keep weight to a minimum, and I wasn't too concerned about the compass (definitely VFR only). To ensure good starting I decided to 'spend' 2lb on a Sky-tec NL starter - which draws much less current than a permanent magnet type (also achieves better engagement on starter ring, but that may have been a peculiarity of my engine). With a PC680, starter solenoid on top of battery and once length of wire from solenoid to starter so far starting has been good, even in damp, cold weather after several weeks of inactivity. I could have gone with Eric's copper covered aluminium wire, but I had the copper wire to hand ... If I was going to use heavy gauge both ways I would definitely use his Super-CCA wire. Thinking about it I guess my design goals might not be that similar to a Tundra or Super Cub builder! Peter On 30/01/2013 05:17, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> I have tube & fabric aircraft with an IO-360 and the battery in the >> back. I have a tab welded on on the engine mount and a tab welded on >> the frame near to the battery both used for earth strap connection. >> What is the down side of putting very short duration starter current >> through the engine mount, and equally through the fuselage frame? > > They're magnetic materials . . . steel . . . > with higher resistance than copper. While > carrying high currents, the steel conductors generate > strong local magnetic fields which do not go > completely away after the current goes to zero. > > Remote battery grounding on aluminum airplanes is > less problematic . . . but many builders still run > starter currents through the engine mount and/or > fire wall sheet . . . for the most part they don't > perceive any problems. Performance degradation is > most likely to present during cold weather cranking. > > So MANY things pile on top of each other in cold > weather that one is unlikely to see much difference > fore wired vs. airframe battery ground. But a combination of > design and preventative maintenance efforts can > add up to a significant difference. Those would > include selection of starter, keeping the battery > well maintained, minimizing joints in the cranking > path, and in extreme conditions, warming the engine > and battery, etc. > >> Why would the (very thin) firewall be any better? > > It's not. I try NEVER to depend on fire wall sheet for anything > other than grounding of light draw accessories like case-ground > regulators, facet fuel pumps, starter contactors, etc. > >> Most people I know have saved the weight of a 2nd heavy gauge wire >> by using the fuselage frame as the ground return. > > Which is what's been done on thousands of airplanes > for 100+ years . . . but I'm aware of no study > that quantifies performance or maintenance issues > for having done so. > > My personal design goals call for a minimum number > of made up joints between battery (-) and crankcase > and avoid using airframe ground for all but the few > outlying appliances depicted in Figure Z-15. The ideal > battery ground is an engine-cranking-sized-wire from > battery(-) to fire wall single-point ground . . . and > a second conductor from single-point ground stud > to the crankcase. > > But if one wishes to embrace another philosophy, > it will probably function. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2013
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Bob,=0A =0AI'm trying to figure out my LED Nav lights and I have a couple o f questions: I =0Abought a set of wingtip LED Nav lights from a builder of f of VAF who was =0Aproducing them prior to you offering your LuxDrive filt ers. They came with =0A700mA LuxDrive Power Pucks. After you started offe ring your filters, I bought a =0Acouple of those. They came with 1000mA Po wer Pucks. Can I use the 1000mA =0Amodels or should I reorder 700mA units? =0A=0A =0AWhen I received the filters, it came with a hand written sketch for a wiring =0Adiagram. I have since downloaded a newer schematic from y our website. =0AComparing the two, I see there is a difference in them con cerning pins 2 & 3. =0AOn the original hand written one, both pins are lab eled =9CN/C=9D. I assume this =0Ameans =9CNot Connected. =9D (?) The newer schematic shows pin 2 as 5v ref and pin 3 =0Aas =9CControl Dimming.=9D As I am not considering dimming my Nav lights, I don=99t =0Aneed to connect these, correct?=0A =0AAlso, on b oth drawings, pins 4 & 8 and pins 5 & 9 are common with each other. =0AIs this for one filter to drive two different Nav lights?=0A=0AThanks,=0ABill Settle=0ARV-8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re:
At 03:24 PM 1/30/2013, you wrote: >Bob, > > >I'm trying to figure out my LED Nav lights and I >have a couple of questions: I bought a set of >wingtip LED Nav lights from a builder off of VAF >who was producing them prior to you offering >your LuxDrive filters. They came with 700mA >LuxDrive Power Pucks. After you started >offering your filters, I bought a couple of >those. They came with 1000mA Power Pucks. Were you wanting filter boards only for your 700mA devices? Are they the 3021 series devices with ECB pins? http://tinyurl.com/a4nltlv If so, you can trade your 1000 mA filtered supplies for filters + refund. > Can I use the 1000mA models or should I reorder 700mA units? As shown on the LuxDrive data sheet, you can 'dim' the 3021 series devices by connecting the appropriate resistor between CTRL and REF pins. Emacs! This adjustment sets a new operating current that is lower than the rated current for the device. > > >When I received the filters, it came with a hand >written sketch for a wiring diagram. I have >since downloaded a newer schematic from your >website. Comparing the two, I see there is a >difference in them concerning pins 2 & 3. On >the original hand written one, both pins are >labeled =9CN/C=9D. I assume this means =9CNot >Connected.=9D (?) The newer schematic shows >pin 2 as 5v ref and pin 3 as =9CControl >Dimming.=9D As I am not considering dimming my >Nav lights, I don=99t need to connect these, correct? You can wire a resistor (about 220 ohms I think) between 2 and 3 on the 9-pin connector to set your 1000 mA units to any desired lower current. I now offer bench adjusted power supplies wherein I attach a resistor to the bottom of the board that produces the desired maximum current . . . this lets me stock only one power supply (1000 mA) to service the full range of builder needs. In the future, I'll be re-laying the board to provide a clearance hole to the potentiometer that comes on the "I" devices. >Also, on both drawings, pins 4 & 8 and pins 5 & >9 are common with each other. Is this for one >filter to drive two different Nav lights? If your lamps are two strings of leds in series where each requires 1/2 of total current, then the extra pins enable that connection. Let me know what works for you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2013
My friend has some 2AWG available from another project, so he will be using that. However, I tried to do a comparison between 2AWG and 4AWG, based on Bob's discussions of voltage at the starter motor. It seems that battery internal resistance and connection resistance are the most significant factors. I calculated that for his airplane it will cost 2.2 additional pounds to gain 4% more voltage at the starter. For my airplane, with the battery on the firewall, it would cost 0.8 pounds to gain 1.5% more voltage at the starter. I think longer cable runs are required before the lower resistance cable makes a significant difference. A battery with lower internal resistance makes the biggest difference of all. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393334#393334 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
Date: Jan 30, 2013
Tell him to try some of this lightweight wire. http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm Bill B -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tundra10 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding a Super Cub My friend has some 2AWG available from another project, so he will be using that. However, I tried to do a comparison between 2AWG and 4AWG, based on Bob's discussions of voltage at the starter motor. It seems that battery internal resistance and connection resistance are the most significant factors. I calculated that for his airplane it will cost 2.2 additional pounds to gain 4% more voltage at the starter. For my airplane, with the battery on the firewall, it would cost 0.8 pounds to gain 1.5% more voltage at the starter. I think longer cable runs are required before the lower resistance cable makes a significant difference. A battery with lower internal resistance makes the biggest difference of all. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393334#393334 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Super Cub
>A battery with lower internal resistance makes the biggest difference of all. RIiighhttt ONnnnnn! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: 24x7diy LED noise experiment
The first-pass filter I crafted last week only offers about 12 dB of attenuation of noises in the VHF Comm spectrum. I've got some tubing ordered that will let me 'box up' the filter components and bring power connection out to a connector. Working on plan-b. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Short Discharge Time
Batteries! With batteries there are 2 properties of interest: 1. the energy content measured in Wh, or Ah x voltage at some standard rate of discharge. 2. the efficiency of release of the energy (some power rating) The first measure is fairly well established, although the "standard" discharge rate is often very low or not even mentioned, but the second is not. Manufacturers may give a power rating in W, but they do not mention how much power is lost internally in heat and what temperature increase for the battery they had to consider still within bounds to attain the given power rating. Manufacturers may also give an internal resistance but it may be at a useless 1 kHz. In any case it must be related to capacity and voltage to decide whether the number is relatively high or low. Mr. Davide Andrea introduces the "Short Discharge Time" (a calculated time in seconds to completely discharge a battery if shorted) as a figure of merit for battery efficiency. It does not depend on size, voltage and composition of a battery. I found the following interesting: http://liionbms.com/php/wp_short_discharge_time.php Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R. curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Short Discharge Time
Date: Feb 03, 2013
> Batteries! > With batteries there are 2 properties of interest: > 1. the energy content measured in Wh, or Ah x voltage at some standard > rate of discharge. > 2. the efficiency of release of the energy (some power rating) May I add a third property of interest? 3. Batteries that self ignite for some unknown reason should never be used in an aircraft, even if they meet or exceed all of another batteries specs! Roger -- Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: Short Discharge Time
I might have said: there are two functional properties of interest - and a host of non-functional ones - of which not conflagrating ranks pretty high indeed. Jan de Jong On 2/3/2013 3:06 PM, R. curtis wrote: > > >> Batteries! >> With batteries there are 2 properties of interest: >> 1. the energy content measured in Wh, or Ah x voltage at some >> standard rate of discharge. >> 2. the efficiency of release of the energy (some power rating) > > May I add a third property of interest? > 3. Batteries that self ignite for some unknown reason should > never be used in an aircraft, even > if they meet or exceed all of another batteries specs! > > Roger > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2013
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: External Flight Plans - Dynon Skyview/Garmin 696
Dear Listers, Below is a dialog that I'm currently having with Dynon technical support regarding the support for External Flight Plans on the Dynon Skyview. I have a Garmin 696 connected serially to the Dynon and use it for primary GPS positional data. I would like to also have it transfer the current flight plan data as its a LOT easier to look up remote airports, etc. on the Garmin696. But, for some reason, the flight plan data doesn't seem to propagate to the Skyview; I can only assume because the Dynon is ignoring the GPRMB NMEA0182 data fields. In contrast, I have a King Skymap IIIc connected to the GRT HXs in the RV-8 (for testing) and I am able to easily get external flight plan data from the Skymap to the GRT HX over the serial line (see screen shots) Finally, with the new ADSB receiver on the Skyview, I'm no longer getting Traffic data on the Garmin 696. With just the Mode S transponder, I get traffic targets when I'm in traffic areas so the TIS data link (Skyvew->Garmin696) seems to be working. But as soon as I enable the ADSB receiver, I no longer get the traffic on the Garmin 696 even though the ADSB traffic is showing up on the Skyview Map and PDF displays. Below are some composite screen shots I made for Dynon with embedded comments and documentation to describe what I'm seeing. I thought I'd share with the rest of the group in case someone maybe had some feedback or thoughts. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 172+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap... RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 120+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode At 10:36 AM 2/1/2013 Friday, you wrote: >Matt, > >Please do send some screen shots. We will fly a flight plan from the Garmin. Do you see the CDI on the HSI? > >I can make sense out of this with a picture. > >Mike H > >Dynon Avionics Technical Support >support(at)dynonavionics.com >Phone: 425-402-0433 - 07:00-17:00 Pacific weekdays >--- > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> >Reply-To: "Matt Dralle" >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:01:39 -0800 >To: "Dynon Technical Support" >Cc: "dralle(at)matronics.com" , "michael Woolson" >Subject: Re: (Case 117228) Garmin GPS696 Input to Skyview > >>Hi Mike, >> >>That's not what I'm talking about. What I mean is when I go into the Garmin and enter in a flight plan. For example, KLVK to KEDU to KMRY. These destinations are being transmitted by the Garmin over the NMEA 0183 serial output but the Skyview isn't using them. I have to go into the Skyview and reenter the destinations. >> >>In contrast, on my Garmin to GRT HX installation, if I have a flight plan entered into the Garmin, that information is picked up and used by the GRT HX. If I don't have a flight plan on the Garmin, then the GRT HX uses whatever I enter in on the GRT HX. I can sent you some screen shots if you want. >> >>Matt >> >>At 09:26 AM 2/1/2013 Friday, you wrote: >> Hi Mike, Please see that attached two images. The first describes what I'm seeing on the Dynon/Garmin696 and the second shows what I'm getting on the GRT HX/SkymapIIIc. The third shot is of my Dynon and Garmin 696 configuration. Note that with the Dynon, there's no external flight plan data utiliation. Note on the GRT, there is full external flight plan data utilization. I've included the NMEA0183 data strings that include the flight plan data. Also note, the lack of ADSB traffic on the Garmin 696 when the ADSB is enabled. With the ADSB DISABLED, the Mode S traffic appears. Emacs! Emacs! Emacs! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2013
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: (Case 117320) VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon Skyview
5.1 EMS Data (I sent the message below to Dynon this afternoon. FYI -Matt) Dear Dynon Support, I was forwarded the text immediately below regarding the new Skyview Version 5.1 issue and EMS data stream compatibility with Vertical Power VP-200 I think that Dynon is kind of missing the point here. Dynon has, for all intents and purposes, developed a "standard" for this EMS data format. Whether arbitrary 3rd parties use it and/or communicate that use to Dynon is also beside the point. Dynon has committed to a certain format and as such cannot change it without incurring some serious, potentially negative and/or life threatening ramifications in the field. The designers of TCP/IP didn't just randomly decide to change the order and meaning byte values in the standard. A standard is a standard. When its done and released, *its done*. Version 1.0 cannot be updated. Adding a "version string" to the data stream doesn't work either as the devices listening to version 1.0 don't know the version string is there and are equally as broken. The only option is to version each new format and allow the user to select between the various version. Or, depending on the flexibility of the protocol, ADD new data strings to the format. But the original data strings *cannot* be changed. For example, in NMEA0183, $GPGGAxxx, $GPRMCxxx etc. allow for a progression of new formats to be added. But the format of $GPGGAxxx always has to remain the same. I work at a Government research laboratory in Livermore where I engineer and write embedded firmware for remote security terminals that are used throughout the Department of Energy sites. Part of that responsibility is to design, implement, and utilize serial protocols for communicating between various devices over both RS485 and Ethernet. If I were to make a change to our protocol like Dynon has done in the upgrade between 5.0 and 5.1, I would be fired. Plain and simple. Even IF everyone that is using the protocol happens to be notified of the change, there is still the issue of incrementally upgrading all of the end devices. I guess my point here is that Dynon needs to take their various "proprietary" serial protocols a whole lot more seriously. I believe this is now at least the *third* time that a protocol change has adversely impacted the user community. That is *not* acceptable. I would have probably been fired after the first indiscretion, if not strongly reprimanded. The second and third times would just not have happened. For protocol versioning control, Dynon needs to either add additional named strings to their protocol or they need to simply start versioning each change AND including support for all versions in their products. For example, the user should be able to select between EMS Version 1 or EMS Version 2 or EMS Version 3 from the configuration menu. The format of EMS Version 1 or any previous versions can never change; period. And finally, given Dynon's lackadaisical attitude toward their protocol specifications, I find it almost impossible to believe that a simple downgrade from Version 5.1 to 5.0 is, by default, disallowed? Why aren't the same Draconian version control practices imposed on the customers, applied to their software developers as well? Matt Dralle RV-8/RV-6/RV-4 >Forwarded Email (Originally from Dynon Support) > > We updated the serial stream because we had some important customers that asked for specific elements to be added to the stream. We knew this was a possibility since day one, and even put a version number in the serial stream so an application can tell that the stream has been changed. We would always prefer to not change the format, but at some point you need to balance the needs of a variety of customers, and we had a clear business case to support customers asking for new features in the serial stream. > >One of the issues here is that the VP-200 is not a product we "support." While we have official support for the VP-X, >Vertical Power used our serial stream for the VP-200 on their own accord without any input from us. This is fine and in fact the whole reason that we created a documented serial stream, but this means we didn't even really know they were using it so it's hard for us to realize that we were going to break anything. Compatibility is something that we test every release for products we support, but isn't something that we can promise for arbitrary 3rd party devices that few of our customers use. > >We only moved a few parameters around in the new serial stream, so it's unfortunate that it will take them months to fix this as it's likely just a few constants in their code to make it work again. > >It is possible to revert to 5.0 without much hassle. Contact support via email or phone and we can send you instructions. At 03:48 PM 2/1/2013 Friday, Dynon Technical Support wrote: >Matt: > >Another customer told us today that Vertical Power recommended not updating to v5.1 because of changes Dynon made to the streaming data format. > >We advise talking to Vertical Power first. > >Thanks, > >Steve > >Dynon Avionics Technical Support >support(at)dynonavionics.com >Phone: 425-402-0433 - 07:00-17:00 Pacific weekdays > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> >Reply-To: "Matt Dralle" >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:26:51 -0800 >To: "support(at)dynonavionics.com" >Cc: "support(at)verticalpower.com" >Subject: VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon Skyview 5.1 EMS Data > >>With the release of Skyview 5.1, it seems there might be an issue with the new EMS data format from the Skyview and compatibility with the Vertical Power VP-200 EMS input. >> >>I haven't upgraded my Skyview from 5.0 to 5.1 but I was planning to on Saturday. Any thoughts? >> >>Here's the thread from the RV10-List Forum (towards the bottom): >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393418#393418 >> >>Thanks for your help, >> >>Matt Dralle >> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2013
From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 02/03/13
matt's comments are cogent and should be heeded. I wish Obama care had done that WRT the electronic medical record. While pacemaker manufacturers followed IEEE standardization; most medical companies don't. The standardiization of avionics data streams should be adhered to. "Proprietary" data will ensure a companies "stuff" won't be used IMHO. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: re: useful standards for productive cooperation
> The standardiization of avionics data streams should be adhered >to. "Proprietary" data will ensure a companies "stuff" won't be used IMHO. Sure. This has been well understood for decades . . . at least in my circle of colleagues. DO160, MIL-STD-704, and a host of other cooperative ventures by capable and cognizant practitioners of the arts made it possible for makers of Murphy's Flying Flivers to buy components from Black Boxes, Inc, and Generators-R- Us with a high order confidence for achieving seamless integration. All this in spite of the fact that airplane guys, electro-mechanical guys and electron- herders had no direct contact or collaboration with each other. The risks to elegant solutions rise when (1) new guys on the block fail to see the advantages of such standards and/or (2) the producers of standards become less collegial, less cognizant of the art and more dictatorial in their production of requirements. It matters little whether you're studying the operation of governments, schools, companies, or home owner's associations. A cooperative venture to insure free-market exchange of value amongst capable competitors suppling a needful customer base waving credit cards is the time honored, well proven recipe for success. Yes, there ARE examples of ground-breaking ventures that pulled off a successful enterprise that included some degree of creative destruction. But creating a new communications protocol in a community of well established and widely practiced protocols is like walking into a classroom offering to deliver the world's most spellbinding lecture . . . in Swahili or Gaelic. Fortunately, Dynon is a relatively small and I hope agile organization. If still lead by capable participants in the world of spontaneous order, they will see the light and make useful course corrections. In the mean time, the best thing we can do to help is offer constructive critical review and suggestions. It wouldn't hurt to include a small feint as well . . . make little motions that suggest the credit card is going back into your pocket. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 02/03/13
From: Matt Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com>
Unless the company is Apple. ;-) Matt- On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Robert Feldtman wrote: > bobf(at)feldtman.com> > > matt's comments are cogent and should be heeded. I wish Obama care had > done that WRT the electronic medical record. While pacemaker > manufacturers followed IEEE standardization; most medical companies > don't. The standardiization of avionics data streams should be adhered > to. "Proprietary" data will ensure a companies "stuff" won't be used IMHO. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <sprocket@vx-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: (Case 117320) VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon
Skyview 5.1 EMS Data
Date: Feb 04, 2013
I assisted both Garmin and Dynon in the writing of a common interface specification (called FIX: Flight Information eXchange) for Attitude/Airdata and EMS data. I invested a lot of my time and both companies agreed to the common specification... including modifying their own protocol to allow for commonality. When Dynon production released their version, they added one field in the air data, making it incompatible with the Garmin version. Now, apparently they have changed the EMS data as well. One small victory is that each company uses its own delimiter and version number so it is possible in software to determine the format. What we need is an industry group that produces interoperability specifications. Unfortunately, our industry is too small to support such an effort, so it's up to groups like MakerPlane to produce open standards for EFIS data and such. One thing for sure, I will never donate my time to this effort again. Shame on Dynon and shame on me. Vern -----Original Message----- From: Matt Dralle Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 4:21 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: (Case 117320) VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon Skyview 5.1 EMS Data (I sent the message below to Dynon this afternoon. FYI -Matt) Dear Dynon Support, I was forwarded the text immediately below regarding the new Skyview Version 5.1 issue and EMS data stream compatibility with Vertical Power VP-200 I think that Dynon is kind of missing the point here. Dynon has, for all intents and purposes, developed a "standard" for this EMS data format. Whether arbitrary 3rd parties use it and/or communicate that use to Dynon is also beside the point. Dynon has committed to a certain format and as such cannot change it without incurring some serious, potentially negative and/or life threatening ramifications in the field. The designers of TCP/IP didn't just randomly decide to change the order and meaning byte values in the standard. A standard is a standard. When its done and released, *its done*. Version 1.0 cannot be updated. Adding a "version string" to the data stream doesn't work either as the devices listening to version 1.0 don't know the version string is there and are equally as broken. The only option is to version each new format and allow the user to select between the various version. Or, depending on the flexibility of the protocol, ADD new data strings to the format. But the original data strings *cannot* be changed. For example, in NMEA0183, $GPGGAxxx, $GPRMCxxx etc. allow for a progression of new formats to be added. But the format of $GPGGAxxx always has to remain the same. I work at a Government research laboratory in Livermore where I engineer and write embedded firmware for remote security terminals that are used throughout the Department of Energy sites. Part of that responsibility is to design, implement, and utilize serial protocols for communicating between various devices over both RS485 and Ethernet. If I were to make a change to our protocol like Dynon has done in the upgrade between 5.0 and 5.1, I would be fired. Plain and simple. Even IF everyone that is using the protocol happens to be notified of the change, there is still the issue of incrementally upgrading all of the end devices. I guess my point here is that Dynon needs to take their various "proprietary" serial protocols a whole lot more seriously. I believe this is now at least the *third* time that a protocol change has adversely impacted the user community. That is *not* acceptable. I would have probably been fired after the first indiscretion, if not strongly reprimanded. The second and third times would just not have happened. For protocol versioning control, Dynon needs to either add additional named strings to their protocol or they need to simply start versioning each change AND including support for all versions in their products. For example, the user should be able to select between EMS Version 1 or EMS Version 2 or EMS Version 3 from the configuration menu. The format of EMS Version 1 or any previous versions can never change; period. And finally, given Dynon's lackadaisical attitude toward their protocol specifications, I find it almost impossible to believe that a simple downgrade from Version 5.1 to 5.0 is, by default, disallowed? Why aren't the same Draconian version control practices imposed on the customers, applied to their software developers as well? Matt Dralle RV-8/RV-6/RV-4 >Forwarded Email (Originally from Dynon Support) > > We updated the serial stream because we had some important customers that > asked for specific elements to be added to the stream. We knew this was a > possibility since day one, and even put a version number in the serial > stream so an application can tell that the stream has been changed. We > would always prefer to not change the format, but at some point you need > to balance the needs of a variety of customers, and we had a clear > business case to support customers asking for new features in the serial > stream. > >One of the issues here is that the VP-200 is not a product we "support." >While we have official support for the VP-X, >Vertical Power used our serial stream for the VP-200 on their own accord >without any input from us. This is fine and in fact the whole reason that >we created a documented serial stream, but this means we didn't even really >know they were using it so it's hard for us to realize that we were going >to break anything. Compatibility is something that we test every release >for products we support, but isn't something that we can promise for >arbitrary 3rd party devices that few of our customers use. > >We only moved a few parameters around in the new serial stream, so it's >unfortunate that it will take them months to fix this as it's likely just a >few constants in their code to make it work again. > >It is possible to revert to 5.0 without much hassle. Contact support via >email or phone and we can send you instructions. At 03:48 PM 2/1/2013 Friday, Dynon Technical Support wrote: >Matt: > >Another customer told us today that Vertical Power recommended not updating >to v5.1 because of changes Dynon made to the streaming data format. > >We advise talking to Vertical Power first. > >Thanks, > >Steve > >Dynon Avionics Technical Support >support(at)dynonavionics.com >Phone: 425-402-0433 - 07:00-17:00 Pacific weekdays > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> >Reply-To: "Matt Dralle" >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:26:51 -0800 >To: "support(at)dynonavionics.com" >Cc: "support(at)verticalpower.com" >Subject: VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon Skyview 5.1 EMS Data > >>With the release of Skyview 5.1, it seems there might be an issue with the >>new EMS data format from the Skyview and compatibility with the Vertical >>Power VP-200 EMS input. >> >>I haven't upgraded my Skyview from 5.0 to 5.1 but I was planning to on >>Saturday. Any thoughts? >> >>Here's the thread from the RV10-List Forum (towards the bottom): >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393418#393418 >> >>Thanks for your help, >> >>Matt Dralle >> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Subject: Re: (Case 117320) VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon
Skyview 5.1 EMS Data This is the first I've heard of this problem. As the buyer of the last VP-200 unit, still uninstalled, and planning on using Dynon's Skyview system, this is not good news. What's Vertical Power's position on this? Are they going to do anything to keep the firmware of the VP-200 updated for a few more years? On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Matt Dralle wrote: > (I sent the message below to Dynon this afternoon. FYI -Matt) > > > Dear Dynon Support, > > I was forwarded the text immediately below regarding the new Skyview Version 5.1 issue and EMS data stream compatibility with Vertical Power VP-200 > > I think that Dynon is kind of missing the point here. Dynon has, for all intents and purposes, developed a "standard" for this EMS data format. Whether arbitrary 3rd parties use it and/or communicate that use to Dynon is also beside the point. Dynon has committed to a certain format and as such cannot change it without incurring some serious, potentially negative and/or life threatening ramifications in the field. The designers of TCP/IP didn't just randomly decide to change the order and meaning byte values in the standard. A standard is a standard. When its done and released, *its done*. Version 1.0 cannot be updated. > > Adding a "version string" to the data stream doesn't work either as the devices listening to version 1.0 don't know the version string is there and are equally as broken. > > The only option is to version each new format and allow the user to select between the various version. Or, depending on the flexibility of the protocol, ADD new data strings to the format. But the original data strings *cannot* be changed. For example, in NMEA0183, $GPGGAxxx, $GPRMCxxx etc. allow for a progression of new formats to be added. But the format of $GPGGAxxx always has to remain the same. > > I work at a Government research laboratory in Livermore where I engineer and write embedded firmware for remote security terminals that are used throughout the Department of Energy sites. Part of that responsibility is to design, implement, and utilize serial protocols for communicating between various devices over both RS485 and Ethernet. If I were to make a change to our protocol like Dynon has done in the upgrade between 5.0 and 5.1, I would be fired. Plain and simple. Even IF everyone that is using the protocol happens to be notified of the change, there is still the issue of incrementally upgrading all of the end devices. > > I guess my point here is that Dynon needs to take their various "proprietary" serial protocols a whole lot more seriously. I believe this is now at least the *third* time that a protocol change has adversely impacted the user community. That is *not* acceptable. I would have probably been fired after the first indiscretion, if not strongly reprimanded. The second and third times would just not have happened. > > For protocol versioning control, Dynon needs to either add additional named strings to their protocol or they need to simply start versioning each change AND including support for all versions in their products. For example, the user should be able to select between EMS Version 1 or EMS Version 2 or EMS Version 3 from the configuration menu. The format of EMS Version 1 or any previous versions can never change; period. > > And finally, given Dynon's lackadaisical attitude toward their protocol specifications, I find it almost impossible to believe that a simple downgrade from Version 5.1 to 5.0 is, by default, disallowed? Why aren't the same Draconian version control practices imposed on the customers, applied to their software developers as well? > > Matt Dralle > RV-8/RV-6/RV-4 > > >>Forwarded Email (Originally from Dynon Support) >> >> We updated the serial stream because we had some important customers that asked for specific elements to be added to the stream. We knew this was a possibility since day one, and even put a version number in the serial stream so an application can tell that the stream has been changed. We would always prefer to not change the format, but at some point you need to balance the needs of a variety of customers, and we had a clear business case to support customers asking for new features in the serial stream. >> >>One of the issues here is that the VP-200 is not a product we "support." While we have official support for the VP-X, >>Vertical Power used our serial stream for the VP-200 on their own accord without any input from us. This is fine and in fact the whole reason that we created a documented serial stream, but this means we didn't even really know they were using it so it's hard for us to realize that we were going to break anything. Compatibility is something that we test every release for products we support, but isn't something that we can promise for arbitrary 3rd party devices that few of our customers use. >> >>We only moved a few parameters around in the new serial stream, so it's unfortunate that it will take them months to fix this as it's likely just a few constants in their code to make it work again. >> >>It is possible to revert to 5.0 without much hassle. Contact support via email or phone and we can send you instructions. > > > At 03:48 PM 2/1/2013 Friday, Dynon Technical Support wrote: >>Matt: >> >>Another customer told us today that Vertical Power recommended not updating to v5.1 because of changes Dynon made to the streaming data format. >> >>We advise talking to Vertical Power first. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Steve >> >>Dynon Avionics Technical Support >>support(at)dynonavionics.com >>Phone: 425-402-0433 - 07:00-17:00 Pacific weekdays >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> >>Reply-To: "Matt Dralle" >>Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:26:51 -0800 >>To: "support(at)dynonavionics.com" >>Cc: "support(at)verticalpower.com" >>Subject: VP-200 Compatibility with Dynon Skyview 5.1 EMS Data >> >>>With the release of Skyview 5.1, it seems there might be an issue with the new EMS data format from the Skyview and compatibility with the Vertical Power VP-200 EMS input. >>> >>>I haven't upgraded my Skyview from 5.0 to 5.1 but I was planning to on Saturday. Any thoughts? >>> >>>Here's the thread from the RV10-List Forum (towards the bottom): >>> >>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393418#393418 >>> >>>Thanks for your help, >>> >>>Matt Dralle >>> > > > Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550 > 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email > http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2013
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: What terminal is this ?
So many connectors and no good way to sort through them all. Does anyone know what terminal this is ? http://www.qenesis.com/Temp/terminal.jpg Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: What terminal is this ?
At 02:38 PM 2/4/2013, you wrote: >So many connectors and no good way to sort through them all. >Does anyone know what terminal this is ? That terminal is used in a variety of products including holders ATC plastic fuses where the wires come in through the mounting surface to the back side of the holder or, in this case, up under the fuse holder from the front side of the mounting surface. http://tinyurl.com/bl7b7ku Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What terminal is this ?
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Thanks Bob ! These seem to be pretty uncommon, since Digi-key, Mouser etc. don't seem to carry them. Now that I have a part number, it is clear why I had trouble finding them before. Once again, you have saved me a lot of time. Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393614#393614 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Latimer" <jlatimer1(at)cox.net>
Subject: What terminal is this ?
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Jeff, I used a rear feed fuse block that used these terminals. There is also a removal tool for them that was useful. Here is link to a website that has the terminals, blocks, and exctraction tool. If the link doesn't work, the company is MIH Industries. Hope this helps. Jerry Latimer http://home.earthlink.net/~dswartzendruber/id13.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What terminal is this ? So many connectors and no good way to sort through them all. Does anyone know what terminal this is ? http://www.qenesis.com/Temp/terminal.jpg Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LEDs
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 04, 2013
One of the "Rich-man's problems" involved in designing and selling LEDs is that the technology is moving so fast, just as one cool device is ready to sell, it is obsolete. Cree has recently announced a 200 lumen/watt LED and has published a reference design for an MR-16 design that is free to use and will almost instantly result in marketed products. Not to be outdone, Phillips-Luxeon has released their Luxeon-M which has an enormous output (but lower efficiency than the Cree device) and furthermore works on 12VDC. It apparently will produce >1000 lumens at 12V 1000 milliamps. This is especially advantageous because it needs no (or a minimal) power supply for 12-14.5V systems. As always YMMV. -------- 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=393621#393621 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What terminal is this ?
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Wow. That helped a lot. Turns out this terminal is used in many GM vehicles, so lots of auto parts places have it. In case anyone else is looking for it, search for PackCon III. They are available for different size wires. It seems the automotive ones are not plated, but rumor has it that the John Deere 57M7508 is. Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393622#393622 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: What terminal is this ?
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Another good source for this and other electrical connection products is Waytek Inc. www.waytekwire.com Take care. Jim Wickert Tel 920-467-0219 Cell 920-912-1014 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Latimer Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:52 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: What terminal is this ? --> Jeff, I used a rear feed fuse block that used these terminals. There is also a removal tool for them that was useful. Here is link to a website that has the terminals, blocks, and exctraction tool. If the link doesn't work, the company is MIH Industries. Hope this helps. Jerry Latimer http://home.earthlink.net/~dswartzendruber/id13.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What terminal is this ? So many connectors and no good way to sort through them all. Does anyone know what terminal this is ? http://www.qenesis.com/Temp/terminal.jpg Thanks ! Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What terminal is this ?
From: "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2013
Thanks ! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393647#393647 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2013
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: SD-20 Alternator / SB1B-14 regulator failure modes
Looking to see if anyone has ever experienced a failure of either of these two types of units. This is a backup unit be design so a failure might not get noticed - until you need it. My start-up checklist has me powering on the backup unit first, checking for amps generated and the warning light on...then power up the primary unit - I get more amps and the secondary light goes out... Not looking to bad-mouth anyone.....my back-up alternator did not come on-line during my start-up checklist. No biggie - I was going on a local VFR fun flight close enough to get back to home-plate if necessary. Anyone experienced anything with theirs - how did it present? what was the cause? How did you determine / diagnose? What did you do to repair? My line of troubleshooting thinking has me first checking to make sure the unit turns when the engine turns - then looking at the two ckt breakers and finally testing for current at the field wire on the back of the alternator. Thanks, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SD-20 Alternator / SB1B-14 regulator failure modes
From: "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net>
Date: Feb 05, 2013
Ralph, I have an SD-20/SB1B-14 as a back-up unit with a Z12 architecture. I had an anomaly early on where, on my after start check, I would have both alternators selected ON. With everything stable at a low load and the main alternator pulling around 8 amps, I would select the main alternator OFF. The Aux would come on line and the amps would increase up to 16 amps. After much sleuthing by this great team on the Aeroelectric List I changed the Aux alternator shunt and replaced the original supplied 40 amp shunt with a 60 amp shunt and now all is well. I still do the same check in the 'After Start' but the amp reading remains the same on both alternators. Regards David Lamb Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393671#393671 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2013
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: SD-20 Alternator / SB1B-14 regulator failure
modes Interesting... I engage my secondary first to make sure it takes the load and lights the panel lights - then engage the primary - to watch it take the load and extinguish the panel lights. I notice the amps and volts drop on the sacondary - maybe my load is too high when I am testing, or it has been broke since day one. I may add another step to my test process to make sure the secondary re-takes the load after the primary is shut-off. Thanks -----Original Message----- >From: RV7ASask <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net> >Sent: Feb 5, 2013 10:43 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: SD-20 Alternator / SB1B-14 regulator failure modes > > >Ralph, > >I have an SD-20/SB1B-14 as a back-up unit with a Z12 architecture. I had an anomaly early on where, on my after start check, I would have both alternators selected ON. With everything stable at a low load and the main alternator pulling around 8 amps, I would select the main alternator OFF. The Aux would come on line and the amps would increase up to 16 amps. > >After much sleuthing by this great team on the Aeroelectric List I changed the Aux alternator shunt and replaced the original supplied 40 amp shunt with a 60 amp shunt and now all is well. > >I still do the same check in the 'After Start' but the amp reading remains the same on both alternators. > >Regards >David Lamb > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393671#393671 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: audio amp
At 02:04 PM 2/5/2013, you wrote: > >Can someone point me to a simple audio amp that I can use with an >MP3 player and plug it into my Microair 760 radio? The MA760 doesn't have auxiliary audio inputs. You need an audio isolation (mixer) amplifier to combine MP3 player outputs with audio from the MZ760. Here's one option which you can build using instructions found here http://tinyurl.com/crzw4yd using a board that we can provide. If you're looking for an assembled unit, here's one option. http://tinyurl.com/bv5pf6e Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: audio amp (Link Correction)
> The MA760 doesn't have auxiliary audio inputs. You > need an audio isolation (mixer) amplifier to combine > MP3 player outputs with audio from the MZ760. Here's > one option which you can build using instructions > found here > >http://tinyurl.com/crzw4yd (my bad) Try this link instead. http://tinyurl.com/a744hkd Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
The AS3935 DK is a Development Kit for AS3935 Lightning Sensor IC. The AS3935 is a programmable fully integrated Lightning Sensor IC that detects the presence and approach of potentially hazardous lightning activity in the vicinity and provides an estimation on the distance to the head of the storm. Features: * Lightning Detector warns of lightning storm activity within a radius of 40km * Distance estimation to the head of the storm down to 1km in 14 steps * Detects both cloud-to-ground and intra-cloud (cloud-to-cloud) flashes * Embedded man-made disturber rejection algorithm * Programmable detection levels enable threshold setting for optimal controls * SPI and I=B2C interface is used for control and register reading * Antenna Tuning to compensate variations of the external components * Supply voltage range 2.4 V to 5.5 V * Power-down, listening, and active mode * Package: 16LD MLPQ (4x4mm) Applications: * Weather Stations * Clocks * Sports Equipment, * Portables * Pool Safety * Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) * Global Positioning System (GPS) * Cellular phones * Watches and Golf Equipmet See: http://tinyurl.com/d5ac63g Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
Date: Feb 06, 2013
How cool is that! Digikey has them for ~$8. Just seems like it would be fun to play with. (I just might have to move to somewhere there is a lot of lightning - I live in southern California on the coast and we might get o 1 or 2 thunder storms per year) that would make it difficult to test such a device. _____ 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, February 06, 2013 08:17 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . . The AS3935 DK is a Development Kit for AS3935 Lightning Sensor IC. The AS3935 is a programmable fully integrated Lightning Sensor IC that detects the presence and approach of potentially hazardous lightning activity in the vicinity and provides an estimation on the distance to the head of the storm. Features: * Lightning Detector warns of lightning storm activity within a radius of 40km * Distance estimation to the head of the storm down to 1km in 14 steps * Detects both cloud-to-ground and intra-cloud (cloud-to-cloud) flashes * Embedded man-made disturber rejection algorithm * Programmable detection levels enable threshold setting for optimal controls * SPI and I=B2C interface is used for control and register reading * Antenna Tuning to compensate variations of the external components * Supply voltage range 2.4 V to 5.5 V * Power-down, listening, and active mode * Package: 16LD MLPQ (4x4mm) Applications: * Weather Stations * Clocks * Sports Equipment, * Portables * Pool Safety * Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) * Global Positioning System (GPS) * Cellular phones * Watches and Golf Equipmet See: http://tinyurl.com/d5ac63g Bob . . . No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 02/05/13 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
Subject: Re: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 02/06/2013 01:21 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > (I just might have to move to somewhere there is a lot of lightning - I > live in southern California on the coast and we might get o 1 or 2 > thunder storms per year) that would make it difficult to test such a > device. I wonder if you could test it with a Tesla Coil. Mini Tesla Lightning Machine: http://www.amazing1.com/tesla.htm#TLITE10 -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
Subject: Re: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Hmm. That would make part of an interesting PIC project. As a matter of interest, I've been a bit behind with the PIC projects that have been discussed on the list. Have you made a product available, Bob? James On 6 February 2013 16:17, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > *The AS3935 DK is a Development Kit for AS3935 Lightning Sensor IC.* > > The AS3935 is a programmable fully integrated Lightning Sensor IC that > detects the presence and approach of potentially hazardous lightning > activity in the vicinity and provides an estimation on the distance to th e > head of the storm. > > *Features:* > > - Lightning Detector warns of lightning storm activity within a radius > of 40km > - Distance estimation to the head of the storm down to 1km in 14 steps > - Detects both cloud-to-ground and intra-cloud (cloud-to-cloud) > flashes > - Embedded man-made disturber rejection algorithm > - Programmable detection levels enable threshold setting for optimal > controls > - SPI and I=C2=B2C interface is used for control and register reading > - Antenna Tuning to compensate variations of the external components > - Supply voltage range 2.4 V to 5.5 V > - Power-down, listening, and active mode > - Package: 16LD MLPQ (4x4mm) > > > *Applications:* > > - Weather Stations > - Clocks > - Sports Equipment, > - Portables > - Pool Safety > - Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) > - Global Positioning System (GPS) > - Cellular phones > - Watches and Golf Equipmet > > > See: http://tinyurl.com/d5ac63g > > > ** > > ** Bob . . . > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: dlj04 <dlj04(at)josephson.com>
Subject: Lithium battery comparisons
I was puzzled by the new term "PbEq" in rating capacity of lithium secondary batteries used in aircraft, motorcycles, etc and tried to find out what they were really talking about. I couldn't find anything on the websites for Aerovoltz or Full Spectrum (the two brands sold by Aircraft Spruce) and was puzzled by the claim of 20 AH for a 2.5 pound 12 volt battery. It turns out that "lead equivalent" amp-hour capacity is actually three times the actual cell capacity. http://www.batterystuff.com/kb/frequently-asked-questions/powersports-batteries-faq/lithium-iron-faq.html This would explain why these new wonder batteries, although great in some respects, don't last quite as long as we'd expect them to! We know that you don't discharge a lead-acid cell more than about 1/3 or it will suffer loss of capacity. Sometimes, as in the case of losing an alternator at night or IFR, we're happy to kill a battery if it gives us power for long enough to land safely. Some LiPo and LiFe batteries can be discharged to 80-90% without damage, but this doesn't help us if we are expecting 20 AH and the battery is actually made of 6 AH cells. If you want to know how long they will run your radios while you're up in the air, you need to know the actual cell capacity and discharge curve to figure out how many minutes you have before the voltage drops to the point that's unusable by your equipment. -- David Josephson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
At 12:53 PM 2/6/2013, you wrote: >Hmm. That would make part of an interesting PIC project. > >As a matter of interest, I've been a bit behind >with the PIC projects that have been discussed >on the list. Have you made a product available, Bob? > >James Yes. The open-source project data for the Programmable Wig-Wag Controller has been posted at: http://tinyurl.com/cg63y3k Assembled product is available from the website catalog. The next item is in process; hardware is done. Software is moving along for a battery capacity meter that will be useable either on the bench or in-situ on an aircraft. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Skyview 5.1 to 5.0 Downgrade Successful...
Dear Listers, Good news. I was able to roll back to Skyview 5.0.0 using a special roll-back file supplied Mike Schofield at Dynon and carefully followed a procedure he outlined to accomplish the task at hand. I am again getting an EMS data feed from the Skyview to the VP-200. I haven't flown or started the engine yet, but I flipped on the Boost pump and saw fuel pressure so that's a good sign. Hopefully Vertical Power will have an update for the VP-200 soon... I had a long phone conversation with Mike Schofield, Marketing Manager at Dynon about the trials and tribulations of late. He was sympathetic to the plight of those of us utilizing their EMS protocol, but didn't seem like they were planning on really doing anything procedurally any different in the future with respect to not compromising the data integrity of the data format for devices such as the VP-200 in the field. I indicated that as a developer of products that might potentially use those protocols, I would be uncomfortable choosing to use those data feeds because of the lack of commitment to their stability and continuity by Dynon. I guess I got my point across. He went on to say that they hadn't intended for the protocol to be used by autonomous devices like the VP-200, but rather foresaw it simply being used as raw data that would be captured and used for post-analysis like with a spreadsheet. I countered that even in those applications, some consistency of format is expected and consumers of the data might very will write scripts and/or code to interpret the data and would be put off by constant format changes. Anyway, Dynon is a small company and they've got a lot on their plate and a lot of customers asking for a lot of different things. I think they get it, but it sometimes takes events like this to show them exactly why these things are important. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 172+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap... RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 140+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
Subject: Re: Skyview 5.1 to 5.0 Downgrade Successful...
From: Bill <wtrooper(at)gmail.com>
This speaks well of your "presentation" as well as Mike's considerate cooperation. "You've done a man's job sir!" On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > > > > Dear Listers, > > Good news. I was able to roll back to Skyview 5.0.0 using a special > roll-back file supplied Mike Schofield at Dynon and carefully followed a > procedure he outlined to accomplish the task at hand. I am again getting > an EMS data feed from the Skyview to the VP-200. I haven't flown or > started the engine yet, but I flipped on the Boost pump and saw fuel > pressure so that's a good sign. > > Hopefully Vertical Power will have an update for the VP-200 soon... > > I had a long phone conversation with Mike Schofield, Marketing Manager at > Dynon about the trials and tribulations of late. He was sympathetic to the > plight of those of us utilizing their EMS protocol, but didn't seem like > they were planning on really doing anything procedurally any different in > the future with respect to not compromising the data integrity of the data > format for devices such as the VP-200 in the field. I indicated that as a > developer of products that might potentially use those protocols, I would > be uncomfortable choosing to use those data feeds because of the lack of > commitment to their stability and continuity by Dynon. I guess I got my > point across. He went on to say that they hadn't intended for the protocol > to be used by autonomous devices like the VP-200, but rather foresaw it > simply being used as raw data that would be captured and used for > post-analysis like with a spreadsheet. I countered that even in those > applications, some consistency of for! > mat is expected and consumers of the data might very will write scripts > and/or code to interpret the data and would be put off by constant format > changes. > > Anyway, Dynon is a small company and they've got a lot on their plate and > a lot of customers asking for a lot of different things. I think they get > it, but it sometimes takes events like this to show them exactly why these > things are important. > > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 172+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap... > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 140+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer > Mode > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Skyview 5.1 to 5.0 Downgrade Successful...
At 11:10 PM 2/6/2013, you wrote: >This speaks well of your "presentation" as well as Mike's >considerate cooperation. > >"You've done a man's job sir!" Hear, hear . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2013
Subject: Re: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Interesting stuff Bob. Do you have plans to release a board with support for a PIC with more IO lines (both analogue and digital)? I've prototyped a PIC-based fuel gauge on a Microchip PIC18F along with the ubiquitous Nokia LCD phone display. There was a chap who made little development boards with theses on, but he decided some time ago that he was dropping the project, which was a shame. It was a little board about 2 x 1-1/2" and it had a regulator, crystal, couple of LEDs, etc. along with the SMT chip. Works pretty nicely, but I think the display was a little bit dim for a fuel gauge in any case... so I could do with investigating a new OLED-based version that would be readable in daylight. With all the PIC power available... it could a whole heap more too. James On 6 February 2013 21:57, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> > > At 12:53 PM 2/6/2013, you wrote: > >> Hmm. =C3=82 That would make part of an interesting PIC project.=C3=82 >> >> As a matter of interest, I've been a bit behind with the PIC projects >> that have been discussed on the list. =C3=82 Have you made a product ava ilable, >> Bob?=C3=82 >> >> James >> > > Yes. The open-source project data for the > Programmable Wig-Wag Controller has been > posted at: > > http://tinyurl.com/cg63y3k > > Assembled product is available from > the website catalog. > > The next item is in process; hardware > is done. Software is moving along for > a battery capacity meter that will be > useable either on the bench or in-situ > on an aircraft. > > > Bob . . . > > =====**=================== ===========**= /www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> =====**=================== ===========**= =====**=================== ===========**= com/contribution> =====**=================== ===========**= > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
At 12:34 PM 2/7/2013, you wrote: >Interesting stuff Bob. Do you have plans to >release a board with support for a PIC with more >IO lines (both analogue and digital)? Not in the plans right now. I have two sets of artwork that have been massaged into something of a "do lots" configuration. One that fits the plastic enclosure with a top mounted connector (a la wig-wag controller) and the other fits entirely inside a 15 pin, d-sub back shell. With these two boards I can craft perhaps 20 different products. >I've prototyped a PIC-based fuel gauge on a >Microchip PIC18F along with the ubiquitous Nokia >LCD phone display. There was a chap who made >little development boards with theses on, but he >decided some time ago that he was dropping the >project, which was a shame. It was a little >board about 2 x 1-1/2" and it had a regulator, >crystal, couple of LEDs, etc. along with the SMT chip. We had some discussion here on the list about ECB layout and source options. I use ExperessPCB's free 'cad' program to layout boards and they are my current supplier of choice for boards. In this competitive market, there are no doubt other attractive options. If you wanted to throw your project into the 'open source' arena, there are probably folks here on the list that could assist with a board layout as well as other issues. I might consider some level of participation. We'd want to set up a folder (perhaps on aeroelectric.com) where all the data would reside. Your board doesn't sound like it would take more than an hour to lay it out. You can get 3, fast- turn prototypes for $60. >Works pretty nicely, but I think the display was >a little bit dim for a fuel gauge in any case... >so I could do with investigating a new >OLED-based version that would be readable in >daylight. With all the PIC power available... it could a whole heap more too. I've got a LOT on my plate right now but if it makes sense to you, run it up the List flagpole and see how many folks salute it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . .
Date: Feb 07, 2013
Picture worth a thousand words ' very cool! _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Kilford Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:34 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Interesting new electro-whizzy . . . Interesting stuff Bob. Do you have plans to release a board with support for a PIC with more IO lines (both analogue and digital)?


January 04, 2013 - February 07, 2013

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-lo