AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mr

January 27, 2015 - March 14, 2015



Subject: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
I believe you heard the information backwards, since Dynon's printed manuals up through the current revision of a week ago say to start the engine with the Dynon on, and mention nothing about starting on a backup battery. It just says that if you want the EFIS to be on during start that you should install a Dynon backup battery for the EFIS. The Dynon itself controls switching to its backup battery, which is connected only to the Dynon, not to the system buss, and it keeps the Dynon alive while you are cranking. Perhaps it is just a communications problem, that what you are trying to say is what the Dynon manuals say. You crank on the Ship's battery. The EFIS is kept alive via its backup battery, which isolates the display from the system buss when voltage drops below its minimum, and keeps the system up with power from its backup battery. On 1/27/2015 2:44 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > Actually, > That information came from a conversation that I had with Dynon's Tec. > When I asked him how do I monitor my oil pressure ect on startup he > told me about starting the engine on the backup battery. > So if you start the engine with the skyview attached to the system bus > and you get the electronic glitch that would reboot your system, by > the time it reboots and is able to give you an oil pressure reading > you may have toasted your engine. Are they just talking about the > starting draw decreasing the voltage to the point of resetting or the > transients caused by starting when they talk about the use of > auxiliary power on startup. My understanding, possibly wrong is that > the dynon battery is automatically connected in the case of low > voltage. If low voltage is the case, does the switchover happen > quickly enough to prevent the reboot? If a transient situation does > the small aux battery have the capability to filter it out? > Additionally the installation/operation instructions for the ICOM > A-200 (not really an ancient radio) state, > "Do not turn the power on until after the aircraft engines have been > started. This is important for the protection of the circuit." > If you are concerned about single point failure, nothing stops you > from having a duplicate avionics switch. I have duplicate fuel pump > switches (located in different places). > Rich > In a message dated 1/27/2015 9:50:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, > fransew(at)gmail.com writes: > > > > > > TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF THE SYSTEM RESETTING DURING ENGINE > CRANKING, THE OPTIONAL REDUNDANT (DIODE OR'D) POWER INPUTS MAY BE > CONNECTED TO AN AUXILIARY BATTERY . . .OR STABILIZED POWER INPUT. . . > > The Garmin manual does not recommend using backup power during > engine start. It says that OPTIONAL backup power MAY be used. > Both Garmin and Dynon say that having optional backup power will > prevent rebooting during engine cranking, which I think is a good > idea because rebooting is annoying. But neither company says that > not having backup power will damage their units. And neither > company recommends disconnecting their units from the aircraft > electrical system during engine starting. > The point that I am trying to make is that an avionics master > switch to protect avionics is unnecessary. Installing an avionics > master switch introduces a single point of failure. If that > switch fails, avionics go dark. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437697#437697============================================== > ================================================ - MATRONICS > WEB FORUMS ================================================ - > List Contribution Web Site sp; > ================================================== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
The Dynon backup battery is a rechargable lithium battery of some sort, which the Dynon Skyview system controls the charging rate, and it maxes out around 12.2-12.25 volts. It requires you run a battery test at least once a year to ensure 1 hour of capacity. On 1/27/2015 3:07 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > I would be interested in looking at the circuitry of the standby > battery from dynon. Does anyone know if there is a diode that allows > current to flow from the standby battery to the dynon but not back > into the battery? > > Seems that you would either have a need for a replacement standby > battery, or you would have a need to recharge the dynon battery > somehow (if it were rechargeable) when the standby battery dies. > > Justin > > > On Jan 27, 2015, at 12:44, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com > wrote: > >> Actually, >> That information came from a conversation that I had with Dynon's >> Tec. When I asked him how do I monitor my oil pressure ect on startup >> he told me about starting the engine on the backup battery. >> So if you start the engine with the skyview attached to the system >> bus and you get the electronic glitch that would reboot your system, >> by the time it reboots and is able to give you an oil pressure >> reading you may have toasted your engine. Are they just talking about >> the starting draw decreasing the voltage to the point of resetting or >> the transients caused by starting when they talk about the use of >> auxiliary power on startup. My understanding, possibly wrong is that >> the dynon battery is automatically connected in the case of low >> voltage. If low voltage is the case, does the switchover happen >> quickly enough to prevent the reboot? If a transient situation does >> the small aux battery have the capability to filter it out? >> Additionally the installation/operation instructions for the ICOM >> A-200 (not really an ancient radio) state, >> "Do not turn the power on until after the aircraft engines have been >> started. This is important for the protection of the circuit." >> If you are concerned about single point failure, nothing stops you >> from having a duplicate avionics switch. I have duplicate fuel pump >> switches (located in different places). >> Rich >> In a message dated 1/27/2015 9:50:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, >> fransew(at)gmail.com writes: >> >> > >> >> >> > TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF THE SYSTEM RESETTING DURING ENGINE >> CRANKING, THE OPTIONAL REDUNDANT (DIODE OR'D) POWER INPUTS MAY BE >> CONNECTED TO AN AUXILIARY BATTERY . . .OR STABILIZED POWER INPUT. . . >> >> The Garmin manual does not recommend using backup power during >> engine start. It says that OPTIONAL backup power MAY be used. >> Both Garmin and Dynon say that having optional backup power will >> prevent rebooting during engine cranking, which I think is a good >> idea because rebooting is annoying. But neither company says >> that not having backup power will damage their units. And >> neither company recommends disconnecting their units from the >> aircraft electrical system during engine starting. >> The point that I am trying to make is that an avionics master >> switch to protect avionics is unnecessary. Installing an >> avionics master switch introduces a single point of failure. If >> that switch fails, avionics go dark. >> Joe >> >> -------- >> Joe Gores >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online = Use utilities Day >> ================================================ - >> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS >> ================================================ - List >> Contribution Web Site sp; >> ================================================== >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2015
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
RHlub24tLXBlcnNvbmFsIGNvbnRhY3Qgd2l0aCB0aGUgZHlub24gdGVjaCByZXAgd2hlbiBJIHdh cyBkZXNpZ25pbmcgdGhlICANCmVsZWN0cmljYWwgb2YgbXkgY3JhZnQuDQogDQpJY29tIGZyb20g dGhlIGluc3RhbGxhdGlvbiBtYW51YWwNCiANClJpY2gNCiANCiANCkluIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBkYXRl ZCAxLzI3LzIwMTUgNTo0NzoxMiBBLk0uIENlbnRyYWwgU3RhbmRhcmQgVGltZSwgIA0KZnJhbnNl d0BnbWFpbC5jb20gd3JpdGVzOg0KDQotLT4gIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9z dGVkIGJ5OiAidXNlcjkyNTMiICA8ZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20+DQoNCg0KPiBUaGUgYmVsb3cg bm90IHdpdGhzdGFuZGluZywgRHlub24gIHJlY29tbWVuZHMgc3RhcnRpbmcgYW5kIHN0b3BwaW5n IHRoZSANCmVuZ2luZSB3aXRoIHRoZSAvU2t5dmlldyBub3QgY29ubmVjdGVkIHRvICB0aGUgc2hp cHMgYnVzcy4gVGhleSByZWNvbW1lbmQgDQpzdGFydGluZyB0aGUgZW5naW5lIG9uIHRoZSBza3l2 aWV3IGJhY2t1cCAgYmF0dGVyeSBzbyB0aGF0IHlvdSBjYW4gc2VlIHRoZSANCmVuZ2luZSBpbnN0 cnVtZW50cyBhbmQgY29ubmVjdGluZyB0byB0aGUgc2hpcHMgIHBvd2VyIGFmdGVyIHN0YXJ0LiBX aGF0IGRvIHRoZXkgDQprbm93IHRoYXQgd2UgZG9uJ3Q/IA0KPiBSaWNoDQoNCldoZXJlICBkaWQg eW91IHJlYWQgdGhhdD8gIFBsZWFzZSBwb3N0IGEgbGluayB0byBEeW5vbiBtYW51YWwgYW5kIHBh Z2UuICANCg0KVGhlIER5bm9uIFNreVZpZXcgUGlsb3TDouKCrOKEonMgVXNlciBHdWlkZSAtIFJl dmlzaW9uIFEgIHBhZ2UgMi0xICBzYXlzLCANCiJTa3lWaWV3w6LigqzihKJzIHJvYnVzdCBwb3dl ciBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIGFsbG93cyBpdCB0byBiZSBwb3dlcmVkIG9uIGR1cmluZyAgZW5naW5lIA0K c3RhcnQuIg0KQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIEJvYidzIHRlYWNoaW5ncywgdGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vIGhpZ2gg dm9sdGFnZSAgc3Bpa2VzIGR1cmluZyANCmVuZ2luZSBzdGFydGluZy4gIFRoZSBvbmx5IGNvbmNl cm4gaXMgYSBicm93bm91dC4gICBEeW5vbidzIFNreVZpZXcgDQphdXRvbWF0aWNhbGx5IHN3aXRj aGVzIHRvIGl0cyBvd24gYmFja3VwIGJhdHRlcnkgZHVyaW5nICBicm93bm91dCBjb25kaXRpb25z LiAgTm8gYWN0aW9uIA0KaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgdGhlIHBpbG90IGFzIHRoZSBwb3dlciAgdHJh bnNmZXIgaXMgYXV0b21hdGljLg0KSm9lDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0NCkpvZSAgR29yZXMNCg0KDQoN Cg0KUmVhZCB0aGlzIHRvcGljIG9ubGluZSAgaGVyZToNCg0KaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25p Y3MuY29tL3ZpZXd0b3BpYy5waHA/cD00Mzc2OTAjNDM3NjkwDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCl8tPT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 DQpfLT0gICAtIFRoZSBBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtDQpfLT0gVXNlICB0 aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KXy09IHRoZSBt YW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzICBzdWNoIGFzIExpc3QgVW4vU3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uLA0KXy09IEFy Y2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5ICBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwNCl8tPSBQ aG90b3NoYXJlLCBhbmQgbXVjaCBtdWNoICBtb3JlOg0KXy09DQpfLT0gICAtLT4gIGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/QWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QNCl8tPQ0KXy09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0N Cl8tPSAgIC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgIC0NCl8tPSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNvbnRlbnQg YWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgIEZvcnVtcyENCl8tPQ0KXy09ICAgLS0+ICBodHRw Oi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCl8tPQ0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCl8tPSAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmli dXRpb24gV2ViIFNpdGUgIC0NCl8tPSAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBv cnQhDQpfLT0gICAgICAgIC1NYXR0IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCl8tPSAgIC0tPiAgaHR0 cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KDQoNCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2015
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
UHV0cyBteSBtaW5kIGF0IGVhc2UgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGR5bm9uLS0gbm93IGp1c3QgdG8gdGhpbmsg b2YgdGhlIGljb20NCiANClJpY2gNCiANCiANCkluIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBkYXRlZCAxLzI3LzIwMTUg NjoxMzoyOCBBLk0uIENlbnRyYWwgU3RhbmRhcmQgVGltZSwgIA0KZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20g d3JpdGVzOg0KDQotLT4gIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAidXNl cjkyNTMiICA8ZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20+DQoNCkJlbG93IGlzIGEgcXVvdGUgZnJvbSBTa3lW aWV3IFN5c3RlbSAgSW5zdGFsbGF0aW9uIEd1aWRlIC0gUmV2aXNpb24gUiBwYWdlIA0KMi01Lg0K DQoNCj4gU2t5VmlldyBDYW4gQmUgT24gIER1cmluZyBFbmdpbmUgU3RhcnQgU2t5VmlldyB1bml0 cyBpbmNvcnBvcmF0ZSByb2J1c3QgDQpwb3dlciBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHRoYXQgIGFsbG93cyB0aGVt IHRvIGJlIHBvd2VyZWQgb24gZHVyaW5nIGVuZ2luZSBzdGFydCBmb3IgDQpmdWxsIGVuZ2luZSBt b25pdG9yaW5nLiAgU2t5VmlldyBkaXNwbGF5cyByZXF1aXJlIGEgbWluaW11bSBvZiAxMFYsIGFu ZCANCmR1cmluZyBlbmdpbmUgc3RhcnQsIGl0w6LigqzihKJzICBjb21tb24gZm9yIHRoZSBlbGVj dHJpY2FsIHN5c3RlbSB0byB0ZW1wb3JhcmlseSANCmRyb3AgYmVsb3cgMTBWLiBJZiBhbiBTVi1C QVQtICAzMjAgYmFja3VwIGJhdHRlcnkgaXMgbm90IGluc3RhbGxlZCwgU2t5VmlldyBtYXkgDQpz aHV0IG9mZiAvIHJlYm9vdC4gSWYgeW91ICB3aXNoIHRvIG1vbml0b3IgeW91ciBlbmdpbmUgcHJp b3IgdG8gZW5naW5lIA0Kc3RhcnQsIGFuIFNWLUJBVC0zMjAgYmFja3VwICBiYXR0ZXJ5IHNob3Vs ZCBiZSBpbnN0YWxsZWQgc28gdGhhdCB0aGUgU2t5VmlldyANCmRpc3BsYXkgY2FuIHN3aXRjaCB0 byB0aGUgIFNWLUJBVC0zMjAgd2hlbiBpdHMgcG93ZXIgaW5wdXRzIGFyZSBub3QgcmVjZWl2aW5n IA0KYXQgbGVhc3QgMTBWLiBUaGUgU2t5VmlldyAgZGlzcGxheSB3aWxsIHN3aXRjaCBmcm9tIFNW LUJBVC0zMjAgdG8gc2hpcMOi4oKs4oSicyANCnBvd2VyIHdoZW4gaXRzIHBvd2VyIGlucHV0cyAg cmVjZWl2ZSB2b2x0YWdlIGFib3ZlIDEwVi4NCg0KDQotLS0tLS0tLQ0KSm9lICBHb3Jlcw0KDQoN Cg0KDQpSZWFkIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgb25saW5lICBoZXJlOg0KDQpodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJv bmljcy5jb20vdmlld3RvcGljLnBocD9wPTQzNzY5MiM0Mzc2OTINCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KXy09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT0NCl8tPSAgIC0gVGhlIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCl8tPSBVc2Ug IHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQpfLT0gdGhl IG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQpfLT0g QXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkgIEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KXy09 IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggIG1vcmU6DQpfLT0NCl8tPSAgIC0tPiAgaHR0cDov L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9BZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdA0KXy09DQpfLT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PQ0KXy09ICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAgLQ0KXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVu dCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiAgRm9ydW1zIQ0KXy09DQpfLT0gICAtLT4gIGh0 dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KXy09DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KXy09ICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRy aWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAgLQ0KXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3Vw cG9ydCENCl8tPSAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KXy09ICAgLS0+ICBo dHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQoNCg0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2015
Here is a link to the http://tinyurl.com/SkyView-User-Guide Kellym gives a good explanation in a separate thread. It is not an electronic glitch that reboots the SkyView, but is low voltage caused by the heavy starter load. Aircraft system voltage during engine cranking can drop down to 8 volts or so. The Dynon needs 10 volts or else it shuts off. The SkyView then reboots when the aircraft system rises above 10 volts. But if the SkyView has a backup battery, it automatically switches to that instead of rebooting. The switch over is instantaneous. The SkyView, like any electrical load, will draw current from the highest voltage source that is available. There are no significant voltage spikes (transients) caused by engine starting that would cause the SkyView to reboot. The Skyview backup battery is isolated from the aircraft electrical system and is recharged by the SkyView. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437753#437753 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
From: "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2015
I have a Vans RV7A (finished but not yet flying) with the Z14 architecture (dual buses with crossfeed contactor). The only deviation from Z14 is that the system does not automatically crossfeed between buses at engine start). Bus 1 has a B&C LR3C voltage regulator, a B&C L40 alternator and an Odyssey PC680 AGM battery (17 Amphours). The aircraft starts on Bus 1 and all heavy current users are on this bus. Bus 2 has a B&C LR3C voltage regulator, a B&C SD20 alternator and an Odyssey PC310 AGM battery (8 Amphours). This bus supports only the primary EFIS and one LightSpeed EI (magneto on the other ignition side). The LR3C regulators are both factory set to approx 14.4 volts but there is likely to be a very small difference in the settings. In practical terms this means that when the crossfeed contactor is activated one alternator will tend to hog the load but the other alternator will tend to flicker on and off. I think that this cannot be desirable. Odyssey Batteries have advised me that the optimum bus voltage for charging either the PC310 or PC680 is 14.4 volts but that the recommended min/max is 13.6 to 14.8 volts. The B&C installation manual for the LR3C regulator says that the voltage can be manually adjusted up and down. So here are my questions: 1. Should I create a voltage spread between the LR3C regulators such that when the crossfeed contactor is activated the L40 takes all the load and the SD20 justs sit idle in the background as a true standby alternator. In other words Bus 1 and Bus 2 would run at different voltages when the crossfeed is NOT activated. 2. If the answer to question 1 is YES then what would be the optimum differential voltages for the alternators to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Would say running the L40 at 14.6 volts and the SD20 at 14.1 volts (thus creating a spread of 0.5 volts) be desirable. Bob Barrow Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437794#437794 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2015
Yes, adjust the regulators to achieve a 1/2 volt difference. Adjust L40 to 14.2 volts and SD20 to 13.7 volts. That is just an educated guess on my part. Bob N is the expert. Since the small battery is not intended for starting, it will not be discharged very much. 13.7 volts will keep the small battery charged if the cross feed contactor is not energized. And 14.2 volts is optimum for the big battery. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437799#437799 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
I do not close the crossfeed unless one alternator has quit and therefore don't have any concern about running the same voltage on both systems. Seems little point of having dual systems if a failure in one can affect the other. My crossfeed does auto close during cranking but again not an issue. Ken On 28/01/2015 9:53 PM, bobbarrow wrote: > > I have a Vans RV7A (finished but not yet flying) with the Z14 architecture (dual buses with crossfeed contactor). The only deviation from Z14 is that the system does not automatically crossfeed between buses at engine start). > > Bus 1 has a B&C LR3C voltage regulator, a B&C L40 alternator and an Odyssey PC680 AGM battery (17 Amphours). The aircraft starts on Bus 1 and all heavy current users are on this bus. > > Bus 2 has a B&C LR3C voltage regulator, a B&C SD20 alternator and an Odyssey PC310 AGM battery (8 Amphours). This bus supports only the primary EFIS and one LightSpeed EI (magneto on the other ignition side). > > The LR3C regulators are both factory set to approx 14.4 volts but there is likely to be a very small difference in the settings. In practical terms this means that when the crossfeed contactor is activated one alternator will tend to hog the load but the other alternator will tend to flicker on and off. I think that this cannot be desirable. > > Odyssey Batteries have advised me that the optimum bus voltage for charging either the PC310 or PC680 is 14.4 volts but that the recommended min/max is 13.6 to 14.8 volts. The B&C installation manual for the LR3C regulator says that the voltage can be manually adjusted up and down. So here are my questions: > > 1. Should I create a voltage spread between the LR3C regulators such that when the crossfeed contactor is activated the L40 takes all the load and the SD20 justs sit idle in the background as a true standby alternator. In other words Bus 1 and Bus 2 would run at different voltages when the crossfeed is NOT activated. > > 2. If the answer to question 1 is YES then what would be the optimum differential voltages for the alternators to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Would say running the L40 at 14.6 volts and the SD20 at 14.1 volts (thus creating a spread of 0.5 volts) be desirable. > > Bob Barrow > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437794#437794 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
At 06:55 2015-01-29, you wrote: > >I do not close the crossfeed unless one alternator has quit and >therefore don't have any concern about running the same voltage on >both systems. Seems little point of having dual systems if a failure >in one can affect the other. My crossfeed does auto close during >cranking but again not an issue. >Ken That was the spirit and intent of the Z-14 architecture. Two batteries for cranking . . . if useful . . . but if the failure gods smile on your airplane with benevolence, the cross-feed contactor is never closed in flight. They are intended to be separate, independent systems with the capability to share if needed . . . but no more. If you DO operate with the contactor closed, then you have Z-12 with two batteries. In that case the smaller alternator should be regulated with an SB-1 regulator set up to conduct operations as an always-on but relaxed, stand-by alternator with active notification of activation. In that case, the standby regulator is set for 13.5 volts and never intended to charge batteries. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
On 1/29/2015 8:38 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 06:55 2015-01-29, you wrote: >> >> I do not close the crossfeed unless one alternator has quit and >> therefore don't have any concern about running the same voltage on >> both systems. Seems little point of having dual systems if a failure >> in one can affect the other. My crossfeed does auto close during >> cranking but again not an issue. >> Ken > > That was the spirit and intent of the Z-14 architecture. > Two batteries for cranking . . . if useful . . . but > if the failure gods smile on your airplane with benevolence, > the cross-feed contactor is never closed in flight. It took me awhile to fully understand the spirit and intent of a straight up Z-14 but I have been operating that way for over year now and am very satisfied. The (2) 960s give me what I need to reliably turnover my cold IO540 with the lightweight starter.... > > They are intended to be separate, independent systems > with the capability to share if needed . . . but no > more. ...and the peace of mind of having 2 separate electrical systems that can be linked if ever needed. Given the (3) EFISs and the rest of the 'kitchen sink' panel I have, I can turn the key parts on, do all my flight plan entry and clearance work, and know that I still have at least 1 fresh battery to cross feed with the somewhat discharged 2nd battery for a reliable start. This capability was very important to me and my flying based on previous experience with my Maule. FWIW, I don't have any auto cross feed function during the start. That would have been undesirable based on early experiences with the EFISs re-booting due to low voltage during some cross feed starts. I learned to do single battery starts in certain situations to avoid the (longish) reboots - the same situations where a 2 battery start would otherwise be most desirable. I eliminated that situation by adding a power stabilizer to maintain adequate voltage levels during the start for the EFISs. Now, an auto cross feed during the start would be nice but not necessary. > Bill "the happy RV10 driver" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & Brownout Prevent
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2015
Attached is a diagram that I drew of an electrical system with two engine-cranking batteries and brownout prevention. It is intended for a seaplane that will fly into remote lakes. Either battery can crank the engine. One of the batteries will run a bilge pump. If the engine is cranked using only one battery, then the other battery will provide 12 volts to avionics to prevent brownout. The electrically dependent engine will be powered by the same bus as the avionics. With multiple current paths through two contactors and two relays, the chances of this bus losing power are slim. Good workmanship will prevent short circuits. Go ahead and point out any faults with this diagram or give suggestions. You will not hurt my feelings. I want to fix any shortcomings or design errors. I used Bob N's Z-19/RB as a staring point, although you might not see any resemblance. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437846#437846 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dual_bat_brownout_prevention__202.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery?
From: "ChrisM" <mullincl(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2015
Bob, Thanks to you and other participants for help with my questions. Interesting that you are feeling so confident in the application of Li batteries. This is really a significant step forward in technology for small aircraft. You emphasized to "operate (Lithium battery) within well established limits and preventative maintenance to verify integrity." Will you elaborate regarding how this looks with Li? You have mentioned in the past about the lack of data from many manufacturers, and the lack of lead acid equivalency. Do you feel the BMS used by EarthX is a final equilibrator here? The advanced EFII system I have been evaluating may be a bit too far up the ladder for my project, as you pointed out. The 10 ampere requirement quoted was per email from manufacturer and is for both the fuel and ignition systems. Majority apparently consumed by the fuel pump - one of two runs at a time to pressurize a fuel rail. Anyway, I am currently favoring a pullback to a set of P Mags, mechanical fuel injection, a single Li battery with a small detached back up, and a single alternator. This set up should perform similarly in practical terms, and be very reliable and light. At least I have a nice head start on my Lance Air project! -------- ChrisM Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437871#437871 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Lithium Ion Battery Fires
Date: Jan 30, 2015
Possible cure for them, although it may not be cheap and it will be a while before it's in production. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325467&_mc=NL_EET_EDT_EET_eelife _20150130&cid=NL_EET_EDT_EET_eelife_20150130&elq=9eb2af70e2bc47b2bae2a09aa17 b06b5&elqCampaignId=21425 Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM 6 years of flying fun ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery?
At 12:05 2015-01-30, you wrote: Bob, Thanks to you and other participants for help with my questions. Interesting that you are feeling so confident in the application of Li batteries. This is really a significant step forward in technology for small aircraft. I have not said that it's a "step forward" . . . in fact, I have raised questions as to the economics for the transition to lithium. I will assert that lithium is an alternative ingredient that may well be an appealing recipe for success. I don't yet see a concise definition of 'success'. There are three separate lines of inquiry that influence the choice to incorporate lithium batteries into your personal elegant solution. Integration: It's no different than the study of how transistors evolved with significant milestones marked by the relative fragility of the PNP germanium transistors that first flew in airplanes. Devices later displaced with more robust NPN silicon. More recently, the power mosfet is King Silicon. EVERY evolutionary plateau was an improvement in performance, robustness and service life. However, EVERY step up required major changes to the circuitry and design philosophy to fully exploit what the new device had to offer. One could not simply pull out the old and plug in the new. This is the foundation for my distaste of popular marketing hype citing "lead-acid equivalency". Lithium is equivalent to nothing . . . its greatest advantages cannot be fully exploited without careful attention to just how this ingredient 'fits' into the recipe for success. Cost of Ownership: When Burt Rutan was putting the sharp pencil to the design of Voyager, weight was a critical consideration. He told us that it takes 5 pounds of fuel to carry one pound of airplane around the world. Every pound removed from empty weight removes 6 pounds from gross weight at takeoff. Nearly one gallon more fuel. One gallon at end of mission would carry Voyager another hundred miles or so. But there were prices to pay. The materials to build such a 'featherweight' airplane with any structural integrity were very expensive. Further, fuel unique mission requirement multiplies the weight of the airplane by 6 times called for a fuel tank with wings having very attractive l/d ratios . . . at the sacrifice of handling qualities. Dick Rutan confessed that the airplane scared the hell out of him . . . he had nightmares of dying in that airplane. Without the fine support of King Radio for an autopilot that would handle this winged beast, the around-the-world mission would have humanly impossible. Without pedantic attention to weight, sometimes a great cost, the mission might not have been possible. Risk: Properly conducted FMEA seek to study, discover, classify, understand and ultimately mitigate all the ways that the product can first, cease to preform intended duties as one of many players in the orchestra. Then, mitigate failures that put the entire system at risk for catastrophic collapse. It's one thing for the cello player to break a string . . . quite another for to be sneezing H1N1 into the surrounding environment. You emphasized to "operate (Lithium battery) within well established limits and preventative maintenance to verify integrity." Will you elaborate regarding how this looks with Li? You have mentioned in the past about the lack of data from many manufacturers, and the lack of lead acid equivalency. Do you feel the BMS used by EarthX is a final equilibrator here? The purveyors of lithium are the first folks to assert that battery management systems are always a 'good' idea. What ever form they take, the BMS mitigates risk for catastrophic failure. Just how the BMS is configured and applied in practice a big factor in performance, risk and cost of ownership. It's unreasonable and added risk to expect the consumer (OBAM aircraft builder) to take on yet another task that amounts to micro-managing the lithium physics. Especially when compared to the mature, relatively docile qualities of lead-acid. BMS may not be the 'final' answer to the svla vs. lithium decision but certainly a major consideration. An this still leaves the question I've asked and nobody has come forward to answer, "What are the numbers . . . how will the smaller weight and volume numbers manifest in the performance and utility of say, an RV7 presently fitted wity a PC680? Shorter takeoffs? Higher mountains to challenge, cleared out space to store your sandwiches? Boeing's considerations for battery weight were but one component in a HUGE model of cost/benefit ratios. The numbers they considered enticed them to spend $millions$ in making the switch to lithium. What are YOUR numbers? The advanced EFII system I have been evaluating may be a bit too far up the ladder for my project, as you pointed out. The 10 ampere requirement quoted was per email from manufacturer and is for both the fuel and ignition systems. Majority apparently consumed by the fuel pump - one of two runs at a time to pressurize a fuel rail. Yes . . . and I've heard 'up and running' numbers on that system 'quoted' from 6 to 10 amps . . . but I have yet to discover published data that speaks to the real energy requirements for this system. People may snicker at my insistence that the purveyors of lithium come forth with "all the numbers" . . . like Hawker/Enersys and virtually all contemporaries. But as Lord Kelvin often opined, "without the numbers you have barely scratched the surface of the science." I will build on that sentiment by suggesting that the decision should not devolve to preferring Big Macs just because they taste good without knowing how they integrate into the energy conversion/management system of a very complex machine. Questions that remain undiscovered, unasked, unanswered and/or ill-considered may bring the system down no matter how good the product tasted. EFII "owes" you the same quality of numbers that we expect from Rotax, AeroVoltz, Icom, Smiley Jack's Prop Shop . . . or anybody else that wants to play honorably and capably in this sandbox. Anyway, I am currently favoring a pullback to a set of P Mags, mechanical fuel injection, a single Li battery with a small detached back up, and a single alternator. This set up should perform similarly in practical terms, and be very reliable and light. Sounds like a considered move . . . what now are your electrical system numbers insuring comfortable termination of flight limited only by fuel aboard? Are you going to have a vacuum pump? Why waste a perfectly good energy source by covering the pump pad with a plate of aluminum? After nearly 20 years of sifting the numbers, FMEA scenarios, costs of ownership and performance, I suggest that Figure Z-13/8 is as near 'perfection' for flight system reliability . . . assuming of course that you don't burden it with an 120 watt engine support demands. You speak of two batteries . . . why? One or both lithium? Can you share your FMEA and cost of ownership reasoning? Exactly how will that savings of wight manifest in performance or utility of your airplane . . . and at what cost of hours to integrate and maintain performance at minimum levels throughout the service life of the battery? Z-13/8 will keep your panel lit and allow you to run any battery until it won't crank the engine any more. The cost of ownership for the 4 pound wight penalty of an SD-8 is far, Far, FAR lower than that of any second battery you might choose to lug around ESPECIALLY lithium. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Internal Shunt in Alternator?
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2015
A friend of mine has a maule m4 with a Franklin 220. He is restoring the pla ne. The ammeter has never worked and when he removed the gauge, he traced on e wire to the alternator. It was about 22 or 20 ga. Are there aviation alternators out there with an internal shunt? I haven't h eard of it but if not, this would be the cause of the ammeter not working. Thanks Justin > On Jan 31, 2015, at 08:04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect ric.com> wrote: > > At 12:05 2015-01-30, you wrote: > > Bob, > Thanks to you and other participants for help with my questions. > Interesting that you are feeling so confident in the application of Li bat teries. This is really a significant step forward in technology for small ai rcraft. > > I have not said that it's a "step forward" . . . in fact, > I have raised questions as to the economics for the transition > to lithium. I will assert that lithium is an alternative > ingredient that may well be an appealing recipe for success. > I don't yet see a concise definition of 'success'. > > There are three separate lines of inquiry that influence the > choice to incorporate lithium batteries into your personal > elegant solution. > > Integration: It's no different than the study of how > transistors evolved with significant milestones marked > by the relative fragility of the PNP germanium > transistors that first flew in airplanes. Devices later > displaced with more robust NPN silicon. More recently, > the power mosfet is King Silicon. EVERY evolutionary > plateau was an improvement in performance, robustness > and service life. However, EVERY step up required major > changes to the circuitry and design philosophy to fully > exploit what the new device had to offer. One could not > simply pull out the old and plug in the new. This is > the foundation for my distaste of popular marketing > hype citing "lead-acid equivalency". > > Lithium is equivalent to nothing . . . its greatest > advantages cannot be fully exploited without careful > attention to just how this ingredient 'fits' into > the recipe for success. > > Cost of Ownership: When Burt Rutan was putting the sharp > pencil to the design of Voyager, weight was a critical > consideration. > > He told us that it takes 5 pounds of fuel to carry > one pound of airplane around the world. Every pound > removed from empty weight removes 6 pounds from gross > weight at takeoff. Nearly one gallon more fuel. One gallon > at end of mission would carry Voyager another hundred > miles or so. But there were prices to pay. The materials > to build such a 'featherweight' airplane with any structural > integrity were very expensive. Further, fuel unique mission > requirement multiplies the weight of the airplane by 6 times > called for a fuel tank with wings having very attractive > l/d ratios . . . at the sacrifice of handling qualities. > Dick Rutan confessed that the airplane scared the hell > out of him . . . he had nightmares of dying in that > airplane. Without the fine support of King Radio for > an autopilot that would handle this winged beast, > the around-the-world mission would have humanly > impossible. Without pedantic attention to weight, > sometimes a great cost, the mission might not have been > possible. > > Risk: Properly conducted FMEA seek to study, discover, > classify, understand and ultimately mitigate all the > ways that the product can first, cease to preform > intended duties as one of many players in the orchestra. > Then, mitigate failures that put the entire system at risk for > catastrophic collapse. It's one thing for the cello > player to break a string . . . quite another for > to be sneezing H1N1 into the surrounding environment. > > You emphasized to "operate (Lithium battery) within well established limit s and preventative maintenance to verify integrity." Will you elaborate rega rding how this looks with Li? You have mentioned in the past about the lack of data from many manufacturers, and the lack of lead acid equivalency. Do y ou feel the BMS used by EarthX is a final equilibrator here? > > The purveyors of lithium are the first folks to assert > that battery management systems are always a 'good' > idea. What ever form they take, the BMS mitigates risk > for catastrophic failure. Just how the BMS is configured > and applied in practice a big factor in performance, risk > and cost of ownership. It's unreasonable and added risk > to expect the consumer (OBAM aircraft builder) to take > on yet another task that amounts to micro-managing the > lithium physics. Especially when compared to the mature, > relatively docile qualities of lead-acid. BMS may not > be the 'final' answer to the svla vs. lithium decision > but certainly a major consideration. > > An this still leaves the question I've asked and > nobody has come forward to answer, "What are the > numbers . . . how will the smaller weight and volume > numbers manifest in the performance and utility of > say, an RV7 presently fitted wity a PC680? Shorter > takeoffs? Higher mountains to challenge, cleared > out space to store your sandwiches? > > Boeing's considerations for battery weight were but one > component in a HUGE model of cost/benefit ratios. The numbers > they considered enticed them to spend $millions$ in making > the switch to lithium. What are YOUR numbers? > > > The advanced EFII system I have been evaluating may be a bit too far up t he ladder for my project, as you pointed out. The 10 ampere requirement quot ed was per email from manufacturer and is for both the fuel and ignition sys tems. Majority apparently consumed by the fuel pump - one of two runs at a t ime to pressurize a fuel rail. > > Yes . . . and I've heard 'up and running' numbers on > that system 'quoted' from 6 to 10 amps . . . but I have > yet to discover published data that speaks to the real > energy requirements for this system. > > People may snicker at my insistence that the purveyors of > lithium come forth with "all the numbers" . . . like > Hawker/Enersys and virtually all contemporaries. But as > Lord Kelvin often opined, "without the numbers you have > barely scratched the surface of the science." I will build > on that sentiment by suggesting that the decision should not > devolve to preferring Big Macs just because they taste good > without knowing how they integrate into the energy > conversion/management system of a very complex machine. > Questions that remain undiscovered, unasked, unanswered > and/or ill-considered may bring the system down no matter > how good the product tasted. > > EFII "owes" you the same quality of numbers that we expect > from Rotax, AeroVoltz, Icom, Smiley Jack's Prop Shop > . . . or anybody else that wants to play honorably and capably > in this sandbox. > > Anyway, I am currently favoring a pullback to a set of P Mags, mechanical f uel injection, a single Li battery with a small detached back up, and a sing le alternator. This set up should perform similarly in practical terms, and b e very reliable and light. > > Sounds like a considered move . . . what now are your > electrical system numbers insuring comfortable termination > of flight limited only by fuel aboard? > > Are you going to have a vacuum pump? Why waste a > perfectly good energy source by covering the pump > pad with a plate of aluminum? After nearly 20 years > of sifting the numbers, FMEA scenarios, costs of > ownership and performance, I suggest that Figure Z-13/8 > is as near 'perfection' for flight system reliability > . . . assuming of course that you don't burden it with > an 120 watt engine support demands. > > You speak of two batteries . . . why? One or both lithium? > Can you share your FMEA and cost of ownership reasoning? > Exactly how will that savings of wight manifest in performance > or utility of your airplane . . . and at what cost of > hours to integrate and maintain performance at minimum > levels throughout the service life of the battery? > > Z-13/8 will keep your panel lit and allow you to > run any battery until it won't crank the engine any > more. The cost of ownership for the 4 pound wight > penalty of an SD-8 is far, Far, FAR lower than > that of any second battery you might choose to > lug around ESPECIALLY lithium. > > Bob . . . > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Shunt in Alternator?
At 15:16 2015-01-31, you wrote: >A friend of mine has a maule m4 with a Franklin 220. He is restoring >the plane. The ammeter has never worked and when he removed the >gauge, he traced one wire to the alternator. It was about 22 or 20 ga. > >Are there aviation alternators out there with an internal shunt? I >haven't heard of it but if not, this would be the cause of the >ammeter not working. > > Thanks > >Justin There were a few, less than elegant ammeter installations that relied on copper wiring resistance to stand-in for a real shunt. The fact that one wire did go to the alternator (I guessing b-lead terminal) I suspect the other end is tied to the alternator-side of the b-lead breaker. Hence, voltage drop more or less proportional to b-lead current could be impressed on an instrument for display. Is he interested in getting the ammeter to work? He might send it to me and I'll test and quantify the instrument itself . . . we could go from there to determine the most practical way to get it up and running again. Baring that, encourage him to install active notification of low voltage . . . a flashing light thingy. That's about 10x more useful than any ammeter. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2015
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & Brownout Prevent
Joe, A couple of things you probably have already considered and discarded (or have omitted for simplicity): No over voltage protection is shown. Perhaps feed the bilge pump switch from main bus, or otherwise ensure it can be easily shut off when turning off master switches to avoid accidentally draining the battery. As shown, there is no way to operate the Avionics and Engine bus as an E-Bus without powering the Main bus. That said, I cannot come up with an elegant switching solution to make that happen. One option is an additional switch that operates both relays, but in an emergency, it would be easy to flip off the master switches before turning on the E-Bus switch. If this is an electrically dependent engine with the ignition powered from the Avionics and Engine bus, that would lead to a pretty scary moment. Another option is to use 2-10 switches and use the center position for the Avionics and Engine bus, although again, in an emergency, the tendency might be to turn those switches fully off, since that is the habit ingrained at the end of every flight. A totally different approach, what about this ? Feed the coils of the relays from the Avionics and Engine bus. So when either contactor is engaged, both relays are engaged and stay engaged when the masters are shut off. Interrupt the feed to the relays at the end of the flight with a normally on momentary switch marked Engine Shutdown. This doesn't give you the ability to manually engage the Avionics and Engine bus before flight to do clearance delivery and configure avionics (you could using a 2-50 switch), but you won't shut off the master switches and accidentally turn off the electronic ignition in flight. If you have previously posted details, I missed them. Are you planning to connect an electrically dependent engine to the Avionics and Engine bus ? Perhaps consider a battery bus for the critical items ? Bob can confirm, but perhaps there are situations, like a shorted cell in a battery that would prevent the alternator charging the good battery. In that case, perhaps it is better to add a second alternator and keep the cross feed open during flight. This complicates the pilot's job a lot and after mulling this over for quite a while, I ended up going with Z13-8 for my plane. Depending how far you are from civilization when the single alternator fails, perhaps a second alternator is a good idea ? Hopefully there is something useful to you in the above. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & > Brownout Prevent > From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> > > > Attached is a diagram that I drew of an electrical system with two > engine-cranking > batteries and brownout prevention. It is intended for a seaplane that will > fly into remote lakes. Either battery can crank the engine. One of > the batteries > will run a bilge pump. If the engine is cranked using only one battery, > then the other battery will provide 12 volts to avionics to prevent brownout. > The electrically dependent engine will be powered by the same bus as > the avionics. > With multiple current paths through two contactors and two relays, the > chances of this bus losing power are slim. Good workmanship will > prevent short > circuits. > Go ahead and point out any faults with this diagram or give > suggestions. You > will not hurt my feelings. I want to fix any shortcomings or design errors. > I used Bob N's Z-19/RB as a staring point, although you might not > see any resemblance. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437846#437846 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dual_bat_brownout_prevention__202.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
From: "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2015
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > That was the spirit and intent of the Z-14 architecture. > Two batteries for cranking . . . if useful . . . but > if the failure gods smile on your airplane with benevolence, > the cross-feed contactor is never closed in flight. > > They are intended to be separate, independent systems > with the capability to share if needed . . . but no > more. > > If you DO operate with the contactor closed, then you > have Z-12 with two batteries. In that case the smaller > alternator should be regulated with an SB-1 regulator > set up to conduct operations as an always-on but > relaxed, stand-by alternator with active notification > of activation. > > In that case, the standby regulator is set for 13.5 > volts and never intended to charge batteries. > > Bob . . . It is not my intent to fly around with the crossfeed contactor closed for normal operations. However there might be circumstances where it is closed, such as for testing, or if inadvertently left on after a 2 battery start. In that case one alternator is going to hog the load. Therefore wouldn't it make sense to ensure that a preferred alternator (in my case the bigger L40) simply takes all the load and the second alternator is not rapidly flickering on and off incessantly (which can't be good for it). Is there a perceived problem with setting the SD20 to a slightly lower voltage? If there is no problem then what would be an ideal voltage spread. Cheers Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437909#437909 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z14 with different bus voltages ?
> >Is there a perceived problem with setting the SD20 to a slightly >lower voltage? If there is no problem then what would be an ideal >voltage spread. No, that IS the way it's done in Z-12. The 'standby' alternator is set lower such that it relaxes but high enough to prevent discharge of the second battery . . . which guarantees that the second battery doesn't get fully charged unless the cross-feed is closed. Two alternators set to the same voltage generally don't 'argue' with each other but when we do that on purpose, it's usually done with regulators designed to effect load-sharing between paralleled alternators. If the SD-20 is 'higher' . . . it would pick up loads to the limit of its capacity whereupon bus voltage sags and the other alternator starts picking up the difference . . . no spectacular or annoying events. "Left on after a two-battery start"? I really dislike that word "inadvertently". It's like "I inadvertently let IAS decay and spun the sucker in" . . . we're pilots. We are encouraged . . . indeed expected to pay attention to critical things and either automate potentially distracting conditions . . . or design them out of the system. If that's a real concern, perhaps "X_FEED CLOSED" should be an item on your annunciator panel. If you want single-battery start for the purpose of avoiding brown-out resets . . . then your airplane is a dual-battery/dual-alternator split bus system for all but the most pressing circumstances with rarified probabilities. Given the disparity of battery sizes, two-battery starts are probably in that rarified category managed best by better management of the main battery's condition. I suggest that the two systems be treated as completely independent. Both set to 14.4v and the cross-feed switch ignored until you encounter a situation where remembering that it's there may be useful to you. With prudent preventative maintenance and given the demonstrated reliability of modern electrics, it seems likely that you'll never need to close that switch. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Name that Voltage Regulator
From: "Dan Olson" <mercedesmb(at)aol.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2015
I got a momentary spike of voltage (needle pegged for about two seconds) the other day while taxing to do my run-up. I checked my alternator (ALY-8520R) wiring and found that F1 was grounded to the starter, and F2 was connected to the field output of the regulator. No shorts or opens, but the wiring was in poor shape. I re-wired the alternator with F1 to field output on VR, and F2 grounded on alternator case (does it even matter which way F1/F2 are wired?). Wiring on the VR is also in poor shape (cracked insulators). I will probably replace with the B&C LR3C-14, but it's about four times the size of my current regulator! In the meantime until I find a place to mount the B&C, I'd like to replace the existing regulator as a quick fix, but can't find a match. No part numbers or markings other than "12V" and "Nov 1984". Anybody see one of these before? -Dan Glasair RG Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437937#437937 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/vr_262.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Name that Voltage Regulator
At 17:37 2015-02-01, you wrote: > >I got a momentary spike of voltage (needle pegged for about two >seconds) the other day while taxing to do my run-up. I checked my >alternator (ALY-8520R) wiring and found that F1 was grounded to the >starter, and F2 was connected to the field output of the >regulator. No shorts or opens, but the wiring was in poor shape. I >re-wired the alternator with F1 to field output on VR, and F2 >grounded on alternator case (does it even matter which way F1/F2 are wired?). No . . . > Wiring on the VR is also in poor shape (cracked insulators). I > will probably replace with the B&C LR3C-14, but it's about four > times the size of my current regulator! In the meantime until I > find a place to mount the B&C, I'd like to replace the existing > regulator as a quick fix, but can't find a match. No part numbers > or markings other than "12V" and "Nov 1984". Go to a car-parts store and get a generic replacement for a 1980's Ford. If it looks like this http://tinyurl.com/nfwuxtl it will work no matter what brand/ part number. Should be able to pick one up locally for $20 or so . . . Tie "A" and "S" leads together and route to your alternator switch. Take the F lead to the alternator. Ground the case. Leave the "I" lead open. See http://tinyurl.com/ku2nb5t for exemplar wiring. This will get you by until the better alternative becomes more attractive. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2015
Considering that many modern EFIS ammeters can be calibrated to match any shunt, is it feasible to use the alternator current limiter (ANL fuse) as a load-meter shunt? If so, one device could serve a dual purpose. The LittleFuse MEGA line of fuses are much less expensive than the ANL. Are the MEGA fuses just as good as the ANL? http://tinyurl.com/LittleFuse-MEGA Thanks, Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437958#437958 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
That's a really interesting question, Joe - Shunts are designed to maintain their highly-calibrated resistance over a wide temperature range. I don't know if that is true for current limiters, since their mission is very different. Also, I wonder if: 1. a current limiter's response is linear 2. their resistance is consistent from manufacturing batch to batch -Jeff On Monday, February 2, 2015 6:01 AM, user9253 wrote: Considering that many modern EFIS ammeters can be calibrated to match any shunt, is it feasible to use the alternator current limiter (ANL fuse) as a load-meter shunt? If so, one device could serve a dual purpose. The LittleFuse MEGA line of fuses are much less expensive than the ANL. Are the MEGA fuses just as good as the ANL? http://tinyurl.com/LittleFuse-MEGA Thanks, Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437958#437958 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & Brownout
Prevent "Good workmanship will prevent short circuits." Yeah, good workmanship is definitely a requirement but it is not enough. Over-current protection devices: fuses, circuit breakers, current limiters, prevent melting stuff and fires (that's why they were created). All the Good Workmanship in the world cannot foresee every possible bad event. We just had a case-in-point on the VansAirforce forum. Bad stuff happens no matter how diligent we are in trying to prevent it - Murphy's Law. It seems irresponsible of us as system designers to ignore that fact, especially when circuit protection devices are so cheap, easy, and simple. -Jeff On Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:02 PM, user9253 wrote: Attached is a diagram that I drew of an electrical system with two engine-cranking batteries and brownout prevention. It is intended for a seaplane that will fly into remote lakes. Either battery can crank the engine. One of the batteries will run a bilge pump. If the engine is cranked using only one battery, then the other battery will provide 12 volts to avionics to prevent brownout. The electrically dependent engine will be powered by the same bus as the avionics. With multiple current paths through two contactors and two relays, the chances of this bus losing power are slim. Good workmanship will prevent short circuits. Go ahead and point out any faults with this diagram or give suggestions. You will not hurt my feelings. I want to fix any shortcomings or design errors. I used Bob N's Z-19/RB as a staring point, although you might not see any resemblance. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437846#437846 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dual_bat_brownout_prevention__202.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2015
Jeff, thanks for the input. Manufacturing variations would not matter because the EFIS ammeter would be calibrated to match the installed fuse. You are probably right that a current limiter resistance might not be linear as temperature and current vary. If the ammeter were an important instrument, then accuracy would be a concern. Others might not agree, but to me, the ammeter is not important. The voltmeter tells me that that alternator is working. Accurately measuring current and troubleshooting is best done on the ground. Even if the aircraft ammeter is inaccurate, the pilot will learn what is normal under certain conditions. If the voltage drops and the ammeter shows high current, then there is a short circuit some place. If the ammeter indicates low or no current, then the alternator has failed. If no dedicated shunt is installed, then there is one less thing to fail. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437973#437973 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
At 07:52 2015-02-02, you wrote: > >Considering that many modern EFIS ammeters can be calibrated to >match any shunt, is it feasible to use the alternator current >limiter (ANL fuse) as a load-meter shunt? If so, one device could >serve a dual purpose. > The LittleFuse MEGA line of fuses are much less expensive than > the ANL. Are the MEGA fuses just as good as the ANL? To be a calibrated 'shunt' the temperature coefficient of resistance would have to be very close to zero. Just over a century ago, the grandfather of precision measurements . . . http://tinyurl.com/3f79fgy . . . offered up an improvement on his earlier low tempco wire (Constantan) dubbed Manganin http://tinyurl.com/ln5q4at This material is favored for use in ammeter shunts and precision resistors. Fusing alloys are modified for their I(squared)R melting characteristics. fast blow fuses (like a glass, AGC1) probably have a higher tempco than say a current limiter with robustness approaching copper wire. Using the copper in a b-lead isn't a 'terrible' idea . . . it's certainly no less useful than the legacy -0+ battery ammeters used in millions of vehicles. Ammeters are generally not a flight operations or diagnostics instrument. If the bus volts are up, all is right with the universe. If the bus volts are too low, then implementation of plan-b is called for. The precise value of ANY current in the system may be interesting but it's of little use in comfortably terminating your flight. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
Joe, 1. "Manufacturing variations would not matter because the EFIS ammeter would be calibrated to match the installed fuse. On Monday, February 2, 2015 11:54 AM, user9253 wrote: Jeff, thanks for the input. Manufacturing variations would not matter because the EFIS ammeter would be calibrated to match the installed fuse. You are probably right that a current limiter resistance might not be linear as temperature and current vary. If the ammeter were an important instrument, then accuracy would be a concern. Others might not agree, but to me, the ammeter is not important. The voltmeter tells me that that alternator is working. Accurately measuring current and troubleshooting is best done on the ground. Even if the aircraft ammeter is inaccurate, the pilot will learn what is normal under certain conditions. If the voltage drops and the ammeter shows high current, then there is a short circuit some place. If the ammeter indicates low or no current, then the alternator has failed. If no dedicated shunt is installed, then there is one less thing to fail. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437973#437973 " There may be variations from batch to manufacturing batch therefore you may have to re-calibrate your EFIS if you ever have to install a new current limiter. (granted, we hope that doesn't happen very often) Also - how would you calibrate the current limiter? 2. "Others might not agree, but to me, the ammeter is not important." If the ammeter is not important and it is not displaying accurate info, then why bother with it? 3. "If no dedicated shunt is installed, then there is one less thing to fail." There's not much that can go wrong with a shunt (except maybe melting - and if that happens, you've got other problems) It's a solid-state hunk a calibrated metal and therefore very unlikely to fail. (it's probably one of the most reliable electrical components in the airframe) 4. For the scenarios you outline above, it seems that the voltmeter gives the appropriate indications. I like ammeters for a few of reasons: 1. In a battery-only situation, they help the pilot confirm that electrical loads have been appropriately minimized so that you will achieve the designed endurance. In this case, you want fairly accurate information because a few amps might be critical to endurance calculations. 2. To the trained eye, they can provide hints to other problems 3. They can help make testing & trouble-shooting easier -Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Current limiter used as ammeter shunt
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2015
> how would you calibrate the current limiter? I thought that could be done in the EFIS software. > If the ammeter is not important and it is not displaying accurate info, then why bother with it? If the EFIS has the ammeter feature but a builder does not want to install a shunt, then maybe the ammeter could be connected to the alternator fuse. I was not recommending that, only asking if it was feasible. I did see an electric hi-low battery-charger shunt fail at work. The likely cause was a loose connection that generated heat. Jeff, I can not argue with your reasoning. Everything you wrote makes sense. Your response and Bob's indicate that using a current limiter as an ammeter shunt is a bad idea. Look at the good side. This topic filled a void on the AeroElectric list between more important questions. :-) Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437996#437996 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & Brownout
Prevent
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2015
Updated pdf Feb 3, 2015 -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438009#438009 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Intercom question
From: "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 03, 2015
My EAA chapter has spawned a group of young people known as the "Young Aviators". They are constructing a mockup of a B-25 that they are planning to transport to Oshkosh this year. A question has come up... is there a simple way to hook up 7 individual headsets w/ microphones so that the entire "crew" can talk back & forth, without having to somehow patch together off the shelf 4 or 2 place intercoms? Some kind of simple circuitry that could be easily built? Thanks in advance for any ideas or suggestions. John Evens -------- John Evens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438022#438022 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery?
From: "ChrisM" <mullincl(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2015
Hi Bob, Thank you for hanging in there with me as I continue to learn. I feel I am getting my moneys worth. Most of us here are really interested in how Li will fit in the OBAM aircraft world. Based on my own study and what I have learned here, I do feel Li is a good choice for my design. You asked about the definition of design success - Doesn't that change a bit with each aircraft and mission? Refining success is one of the satisfying things about working with OBAM aircraft. Each design decision, by itself, can be considered to be a success or not depending on how wisely risks and benefits which apply to the specific problem at hand are evaluated and applied. I think design success for me does involve a Li battery. Seems to me that Li is becoming the clear choice for most light weight aircraft with electrical systems tasking the battery primarily with starting duties. I'll try and explain my thinking... One of the major seminal concepts for the plane I am constructing is light weight. It's a clean sheet design, and weight figured in all the decisions made by the airframe engineers. If weight had been ignored in a few of those decisions, it wouldn't have crippled the design. But if weight consciousness was repeatedly ignored thru a thousand decisions, then it would have resulted in a poor/heavy design. I think your question What are the performance improvement numbers..... is narrowly phrased to provoke thought about the bigger picture. It points to the folly of making a decision which favors weight savings excessively in favor of other parameters like cost, reliability etc etc. Practically speaking, a single decision to adopt a heavy solution in an airplane cannot easily be quantified from a performance functionality point of view. But I think that still qualifies as a compromised decision from an engineering point of view, if lightweight is one legitimate priority for the aircraft. I think decisions as builder need to remain generally in alignment with the original concept, or one probably should be building a different aircraft. My understanding from lurking here is that, aside from endurance, Li with a BMS, has become a functionally equivalent stand-in for lead acid. If light weight is one prominent priority for a given design, the 10# or so one saves, for the $200 or so it costs, is very cost effective when compared with widely accepted weight saving techniques. The real engineers have already spent a lot more than that on solutions to eliminate 10#. One of my goals as builder and supplemental designer, is to not screw up their work. I agree that impact on performance cannot be specifically quantified, but that has more to do with the nature of aviation itself. But the 10# weight reduction is objective, and it's a legitimate achievement because we do know it translates to improved performance. I think I'll carry a small spare power source until I have personal experience with the Li technology. My single Li battery will be the only way to start the engine. I don't want to be surprised by some nuance of Li technology after landing on a gravel bar. Pmags apparently will not self excite with hand propping they must have some external power to initialize function. The BMS in an EarthX apparently shuts off the battery under certain circumstances need to learn more about it. Resetting the BMS requires external power. EarthX seems to have come up with this device: http://earthxmotorsports.com/shop/earthx-jump-pack/ I appreciate comments questioning costs of presumptively assuming 10 amps for the EFII, when the figures might be only partially vetted or motivated by some other issue besides real engineering. If I end up going that route I will explore thoroughly. I think no vacuum pump for this plane. Single alternator. If the battery or alternator fails, I will turn off the electrical system and navigate by tablet or smart phone. I'll use the radio on arrival at a landing site if it's operational - or not. I don't think the SD-8 does anything but add unneeded weight to the Pmag/Bendix type injection design. I don't need additional inflight power sources with self sustaining fuel and ignition systems. I think my weakest link could be engine starting, and the SD-8 won't help with that. I am going to focus on getting the Li done right! Chris M -------- ChrisM Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438031#438031 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery
From: "JohnInReno" <john(at)morgensen.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2015
Chris, Check your PMs. -------- John Morgensen RV-9A - Born on July 3, 2013 RV4 - for sale Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438041#438041 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2015
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery?
If I remember correctly, I asked the hand propping question of the E-Mag Ignitions folks at AirVenture a couple of years ago. I think the response was to carry a regular 9V battery with you, since it would be enough to get the plane started. That information would need to be verified and the concept would need to be tested, and you would need an elegant way to connect it, but if you plan to be away from civilization, it might be an elegant solution. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Generation without Battery? > From: "ChrisM" <mullincl(at)gmail.com> > <--- SNIP ---> > I think I'll carry a small spare power source until I have personal > experience with the Li technology. My single Li battery will be the > only way to start the engine. I don't want to be surprised by some > nuance of Li technology after landing on a gravel bar. Pmags > apparently will not self excite with hand propping they must have > some external power to initialize function. The BMS in an EarthX > apparently shuts off the battery under certain circumstances need > to learn more about it. Resetting the BMS requires external power. > EarthX seems to have come up with this device: > http://earthxmotorsports.com/shop/earthx-jump-pack/ <--- SNIP ---> > ChrisM > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438031#438031 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electrical System with Dual Batteries & Brownout
Prevent
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2015
I removed the electrically dependent engine circuits from my previous posting. Attached is a wiring diagram based on Z-19 but with the addition of a second E-Bus relay. If the engine is started using only one of the batteries, the other battery will prevent brownout of the avionics. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438048#438048 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dual_cranking_bat_with_brownout_893.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery?
At 11:06 2015-02-04, you wrote: > >If I remember correctly, I asked the hand propping question of the >E-Mag Ignitions folks at AirVenture a couple of years ago. > >I think the response was to carry a regular 9V battery with you, since >it would be enough to get the plane started. > >That information would need to be verified and the concept would need >to be tested, and you would need an elegant way to connect it, but if >you plan to be away from civilization, it might be an elegant solution. I was given the same information on my last visit to Emagair . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Intercom question
At 13:27 2015-02-03, you wrote: > >My EAA chapter has spawned a group of young people known as the >"Young Aviators". They are constructing a mockup of a B-25 that they >are planning to transport to Oshkosh this year. A question has come >up... is there a simple way to hook up 7 individual headsets w/ >microphones so that the entire "crew" can talk back & forth, without >having to somehow patch together off the shelf 4 or 2 place >intercoms? Some kind of simple circuitry that could be easily built? >Thanks in advance for any ideas or suggestions. What kind of microphones/headsets? Aviation style? Over what distances are the wires routed? The task is 'easy' . . . just need some details on the hardware you plan to use. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: hair wigs for women
From: "sulemacheu" <sulemacheu(at)yandex.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2015
fahionable way of dressing up your hair with the most refreshed hairstyle is on its way to provide you the fairy appearance without any harm to your own hair! the hair wigs for women (http://www.hairwigsall.com/categories/Women%27s-Wigs/)I bought here is perfectly convenient and saved me lots of extra trouble and energy on daily hair dress! it is being featured with the glamourous outlook and selling at the reasonable price now! hope this will help to invest for the bargain! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438062#438062 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability?
At 21:01 2015-01-05, you wrote: >Bob, > >Do you have any of these new ovp modules available? > >Justin > The last iteration for proof of concept boards were ordered this week. Should have some prototypes assembled next week. I believe B&C still has an inventory of the original design. Give them a call if you're needing something real soon. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Intercom question
From: "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 06, 2015
Thanks, Bob. It looks like they are going to use aviation headsets... probably donated units of various brands. Not everyone has to necessarily be able to "transmit" (push-to-talk) to the other headsets - perhaps only 1 or 2 ("pilot" & "co-pilot"), & everyone else able to hear at least. The mock-up is basically of the nose section, so maximum distances of wire runs would be approximately 10 or 15 feet. The leaders of this project feel that it will add to the experience if the kids can connect in this way. BTW, this project is written about in the latest "Sport Aviation" magazine on p.110. -------- John Evens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438150#438150 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Brown" <dbrown2(at)nycap.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Intercom question
Date: Feb 07, 2015
Just read the article ...very cool! -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrevens Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 12:15 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom question Thanks, Bob. It looks like they are going to use aviation headsets... probably donated units of various brands. Not everyone has to necessarily be able to "transmit" (push-to-talk) to the other headsets - perhaps only 1 or 2 ("pilot" & "co-pilot"), & everyone else able to hear at least. The mock-up is basically of the nose section, so maximum distances of wire runs would be approximately 10 or 15 feet. The leaders of this project feel that it will add to the experience if the kids can connect in this way. BTW, this project is written about in the latest "Sport Aviation" magazine on p.110. -------- John Evens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438150#438150 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Intercom question
At 23:14 2015-02-06, you wrote: > >Thanks, Bob. It looks like they are going to use aviation >headsets... probably donated units of various brands. Not everyone >has to necessarily be able to "transmit" (push-to-talk) to the other >headsets - perhaps only 1 or 2 ("pilot" & "co-pilot"), & everyone >else able to hear at least. The mock-up is basically of the nose >section, so maximum distances of wire runs would be approximately 10 >or 15 feet. The leaders of this project feel that it will add to the >experience if the kids can connect in this way. BTW, this project is >written about in the latest "Sport Aviation" magazine on p.110. > >-------- >John Evens Understand. My recommendation is to start with any sort of pre-packaged audio amplifier. One like this would work nicely. Emacs! There are dozens of similar devices on eBay. I've used a bunch in various applications with good results and value. You can power them up with a 12v 'wall wart'. In fact, if you'll shoot me an address, I donate an amplifier and power supply to the project. The next thing you need to do is cobble up the interface that makes an aircraft microphone 'look' like something found in the rest of the world . . . Emacs! A circuit like that shown above will allow you to bias-up and mix as many microphones together as needed. PTT for any particular mic can be a simple n.c. push button in parallel with the microphone. The button shorts out the mic unless being used. This is preferable to putting a n.o. button in series . . . the parallel configuration reduces the DC level shift and resulting 'pop' you hear in the system as any one microphone is keyed. Headphones can simply be paralleled assuming they're all about the same efficiency where volume can be managed by the single control on the amplifier. Recommended circuitry not shown is a 220 ohm, 1/2 watt resistor in series with each line out to a headset. At worst, you may have to balance relative audio levels in the headsets which can be accomplished by adjusting the value of that 220 ohm resistor. Got somebody in your group that's handy slinging solder? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Intercom question
From: "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 08, 2015
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > At 23:14 2015-02-06, you wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Bob. It looks like they are going to use aviation headsets... probably donated units of various brands. Not everyone has to necessarily be able to "transmit" (push-to-talk) to the other headsets - perhaps only 1 or 2 ("pilot" & "co-pilot"), & everyone else able to hear at least. The mock-up is basically of the nose section, so maximum distances of wire runs would be approximately 10 or 15 feet. The leaders of this project feel that it will add to the experience if the kids can connect in this way. BTW, this project is written about in the latest "Sport Aviation" magazine on p.110. > > > > -------- > > John Evens > > > Understand. My recommendation is to start with > any sort of pre-packaged audio amplifier. One > like this would work nicely. > > [img]cid:.0[/img] > > There are dozens of similar devices on eBay. I've > used a bunch in various applications with good > results and value. You can power them up with a > 12v 'wall wart'. In fact, if you'll shoot me an > address, I donate an amplifier and power supply > to the project. > > The next thing you need to do is cobble up the > interface that makes an aircraft microphone 'look' > like something found in the rest of the world . . . > > [img]cid:.1[/img] > > A circuit like that shown above will allow > you to bias-up and mix as many microphones > together as needed. PTT for any particular > mic can be a simple n.c. push button in parallel > with the microphone. The button shorts out the > mic unless being used. This is preferable to > putting a n.o. button in series . . . the > parallel configuration reduces the DC level > shift and resulting 'pop' you hear in the system > as any one microphone is keyed. > > Headphones can simply be paralleled assuming > they're all about the same efficiency where volume > can be managed by the single control on the amplifier. > Recommended circuitry not shown is a 220 ohm, 1/2 > watt resistor in series with each line out to > a headset. At worst, you may have to balance > relative audio levels in the headsets which > can be accomplished by adjusting the value of that > 220 ohm resistor. > > Got somebody in your group that's handy > slinging solder? > > > > > Bob . . . Thank you so much, Bob! That's exactly what I was hoping for. I'm sure I can handle building the mic mixing circuit. If I used an adjustable 1/2 watt potentiometer to each headset, what value would you recommend - 220 ohm, or higher? Probably a stupid question, but what type capacitors should I use - electrolytic, or? I would gratefully accept your offer of an amp & power supply... I will send you an email. Again, from myself, our chapter, and the Young Aviators - thank you!! -------- John Evens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438170#438170 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Intercom question
>Thank you so much, Bob! That's exactly what I was hoping for. >I'm sure I can handle building the mic mixing circuit. If I used an >adjustable 1/2 watt potentiometer to each headset, what value >would you recommend - 220 ohm, or higher? Probably a stupid >question, but what type capacitors should I use - electrolytic, or? >I would gratefully accept your offer of an amp & power supply... >I will send you an email. Again, from myself, our chapter, and >the Young Aviators - thank you!! Got the mailing address. I dug out an amplifier and power supply. Need to find my MP3 player to test it for functionality. What you might consider is a volume control at each station where a headset is plugged in. Set the master volume on the amplifier on the 'generous' side and let each station set their own volume to suit. There's some other options to consider. If some of the stations are listen-only, you could use contemporary headsets (10-50 ohm) for a lot less money than aviation headsets (100+ ohms). Each station's volume control would be a 50-ohm, wire wound potentiometer. http://tinyurl.com/nqruvxd The capacitors shown are all electrolytic. Any time you see a "+" sign associated with the symbol, that tells you that it's some form of electrolytic. I've got all those parts in my sand-box-bins. I'll include a kit of loose parts with the amplifier. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2015
I read about the SILENT-HEKTIK rectifier/regulator after Google translated the webpage to English. It seems that the SILENT-HEKTIK has the same mounting footprint as the Ducati and the electrical connector is also the same. So installation should be easy. The cooling fins look to be much higher to give better cooling. The SILENT-HEKTIK claims to be rated for 47 amps, which is more than twice the output of the Rotax dynamo. The voltage output of the SILENT-HEKTIK is 14.2 volts which is also higher than the Ducati 13.8 volts. Although the Ducati keeps my RV-12 battery charged just fine. Heat is the enemy of electronics. So the mounting location of the regulator is important. The fins should be exposed to moving air. The SILENT-HEKTIK is expensive, but would be worth it if it does not fail. I thought about cutting a rectangular hole in my RV-12 fuselage skin and mounting the Ducati regulator with the fins protruding through the hole. The slipstream should keep the regulator cool. But I am concerned with aesthetics. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438183#438183 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery
>Heat is the enemy of electronics. So the mounting location of the >regulator is important. The fins should be exposed to moving air. >The SILENT-HEKTIK is expensive, but would be worth it if it does not fail. Yeah sorta . . . the early days of semiconductor products were pretty tense with respect to potential for heat damage. There was a time when we were cautioned to grip the leads of a transistor with needle nose while soldering the puppies in lest milliBTUs run up the leads and toast the critter. A couple years ago I was working with a supplier of electronic assemblies to the aviation industry. Don had just finished doing some mods to the board of a rather complex actuator. He decided to do a quick look-see for performance at hi temp. He put the beast into the chamber at 100C and said, "let's get some lunch." When we came back, he ran it through the paces and deemed the thing healthy for continued service. I was surprised at his assertion that (within limits) just about any modern piece of electronics ought to shrug off those kinds of temperatures. The limits being established by how well internal energy dissipations were managed. The point is that technology and processes are in existence at this time to fabricate PM alternator regulators that will live happily under the cowl which, by the way, is not all that mean an environment. Unless subjected to radiant heating from exhaust stacks while deprived of any circulation, temperatures under the cowl are subject only to transient spiking . . . like long taxi ops on a hot day . . . or hot soaking at the pumps after shutdown. Few items of avionics need forced air cooling any more. The newer MOSFET regulators run rather cool even at 20A . . . As far as we can tell, the Ducati product has not be materially updated in 20 years. The thrust of my studies in the near future will go to discovery of why and how B&C's product offers can be leveraged into the 21st century . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2015
From: "danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com" <danb_89(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Frequency problem update
A little over a week ago I mentioned I recently purchased a Bose headset that would not allow me to make a call to tower. I could talk to ground, yet , when I switched over to tower I got nothing but a loud high-pitched squeal. I wanted to give an up-date as I have the problem resolved. All it took was going to Radio Shack and purchased a couple ferrite beads. I snapped one on the coax behind my radio, started my engine and hit the PTT. It was almost gone but still a chirp here and there. I shut down and snapped the second one on the coax just in front of the antenna. Works perfect now. Hope this can help others with similar problems.Dan B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2015
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Joe, Have you looked at the aftermarket regulators for Harley Davidson motorcycles? They're available from Accel among others and the regulators for the baggers handle 32 amps. http://www.jpcycles.com/product/381-277 Rick Girard On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:21 AM, user9253 wrote: > > I read about the SILENT-HEKTIK rectifier/regulator after Google translated > the webpage to English. It seems that the SILENT-HEKTIK has the same > mounting footprint as the Ducati and the electrical connector is also the > same. So installation should be easy. The cooling fins look to be much > higher to give better cooling. The SILENT-HEKTIK claims to be rated for 47 > amps, which is more than twice the output of the Rotax dynamo. The voltage > output of the SILENT-HEKTIK is 14.2 volts which is also higher than the > Ducati 13.8 volts. Although the Ducati keeps my RV-12 battery charged just > fine. > Heat is the enemy of electronics. So the mounting location of the > regulator is important. The fins should be exposed to moving air. The > SILENT-HEKTIK is expensive, but would be worth it if it does not fail. > I thought about cutting a rectangular hole in my RV-12 fuselage skin and > mounting the Ducati regulator with the fins protruding through the hole. > The slipstream should keep the regulator cool. But I am concerned with > aesthetics. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438183#438183 > > -- Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
Sounds like your antenna coax has compromised shielding, that allows RF leakage. Most likely the ferrite beads mask the problem. A new coax would likely give same result. On 2/9/2015 6:25 PM, danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com wrote: > A little over a week ago I mentioned I recently purchased a Bose > headset that would not allow me to make a call to tower. I could talk > to ground, yet , when I switched over to tower I got nothing but a > loud high-pitched squeal. I wanted to give an up-date as I have the > problem resolved. All it took was going to Radio Shack and purchased a > couple ferrite beads. I snapped one on the coax behind my radio, > started my engine and hit the PTT. It was almost gone but still a > chirp here and there. I shut down and snapped the second one on the > coax just in front of the antenna. Works perfect now. Hope this can > help others with similar problems. > Dan B > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Power Generation without Battery
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2015
Rick, Thanks for the suggestion and link. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438197#438197 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
On 2/9/2015 6:25 PM, danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com wrote: A little over a week ago I mentioned I recently purchased a Bose headset that would not allow me to make a call to tower. I could talk to ground, yet , when I switched over to tower I got nothing but a loud high-pitched squeal. I wanted to give an up-date as I have the problem resolved. All it took was going to Radio Shack and purchased a couple ferrite beads. I snapped one on the coax behind my radio, started my engine and hit the PTT. It was almost gone but still a chirp here and there. I shut down and snapped the second one on the coax just in front of the antenna. Works perfect now. Hope this can help others with similar problems. Dan B -------------------------- At 20:39 2015-02-09, Kelly wrote: Sounds like your antenna coax has compromised shielding, that allows RF leakage. Most likely the ferrite beads mask the problem. A new coax would likely give same result. ===================== I agree. The OUTSIDE of a properly installed coax is radio frequency neutral . . . i.e. nothing of what exists inside the coax will exist outside the coax. The fact that adding anything outside has an influence on observed behaviors suggests that your coax is behaving more like a piece of wire than a properly functioning transmission line. Metal or composite airplane? If composite, what kind of ground plane under your antenna? Where is antenna located on airplane? Check your coax connectors at both ends . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2015
From: "danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com" <danb_89(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
Bob, This is a tube and fabric plane (Kitfox). My connection to the radio w as straight forward, however, the antenna (which is in the vertical stab.) is a simple SS pole with just a thread and nut end. I crimped a washer like connector on the primary wire and tightened it with a nut. The outside str and was twisted and crimped on the same type of connector and I bolted that to the frame. I always felt as if this were Disneyland-type engineering. A re there any other options or ideas?Thanks,Dan B From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Frequency problem update s.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> On 2/9/2015 6:25 PM, danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com wrote: A little over a week ago I mentioned I recently purchased a Bose headset that would not allow me to make a call to tower. I could talk to ground, yet , when I switched over to tower I got nothing but a loud high-pitched squeal. I wanted to give an up-date as I have the problem resolved. All it took was going to Radio Shack and purchased a couple ferrite beads. I snapped one on the coax behind my radio, started my engine and hit the PTT. It was almost gone but still a chirp here and there. I shut down and snapped the second one on the coax just in front of the antenna. Works perfect now. Hope this can help others with similar problems. Dan B -------------------------- At 20:39 2015-02-09, Kelly wrote: Sounds like your antenna coax has compromised shielding, that allows RF leakage. Most likely the ferrite beads mask the problem. A new coax would likely give same result. ===================== I agree. The OUTSIDE of a properly installed coax is radio frequency neutral . . . i.e. nothing of what exists inside the coax will exist outside the coax.=C2- The fact that adding anything outside has an influence on observed behaviors suggests that your coax is behaving more like a piece of wire than a properly functioning transmission line. Metal or composite airplane? If composite, what kind of ground plane under your antenna?=C2- Where is antenna located on airplane? Check your coax connectors at both ends . . . =C2- Bob . . . - S - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
At 12:27 2015-02-11, you wrote: >Bob, This is a tube and fabric plane (Kitfox). My connection to the >radio was straight forward, however, the antenna (which is in the >vertical stab.) is a simple SS pole with just a thread and nut end. >I crimped a washer like connector on the primary wire and tightened >it with a nut. The outside strand was twisted and crimped on the >same type of connector and I bolted that to the frame. I always felt >as if this were Disneyland-type engineering. Are there any other >options or ideas? >Thanks, >Dan B Does this installation have a service history? Are there exemplar installations flying? The first Kitfox structure image that popped up in a search looks like this . . . Emacs! If this is applicable to your airplane, where is the antenna located with respect to the metallic structure of the vertical fin? I'm puzzled as to how an antenna 'buried' under the fabric can enjoy the necessity for a relatively 'free' view of the universe in all directions around the antenna. An antenna mounted in close proximity to the metallic structure of this fuselage would be first seriously detuned from it's design frequency and second, suffer severe distortion of radiation patterns. It would be interesting to see what kind of SWR measurements you get from such an installation. The drawing above calls out an antenna mounting feature that would offer a best-compromise location for your Comm antenna. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections
Date: Feb 11, 2015
I am digging through manuals trying to understand how to hook up my simple setup. I have a Garmin 430W (with nav and com) and a PS Engineering PM1000 II 4 place intercom. My goal is to be able to transmit and receive VHF communications, listen to the Ident of the Navaids when tuned, and have it connected to the 4 place intercom. The Garmin Manual shows Com Mic Key Intercom Mic Hi Com Mic Audio Hi 500 Com Audio Hi Com Mic Audio Lo 500 Com Mic Audio Lo The PS Engineering Audio Panel has the following connections for the Aircraft Radio A/C Radio phone Audio hi A/C Radio phone Audio Lo A/C Radio PTT A/C Mic Audio Lo A/C Mic Audio Hi Why does Garmin list an Intercom Mic Hi pin? I assume this doesnt get connected if an external intercom is used. Does the "A/C Radio PTT get connected to the Com Mic Key or to the ? The manual says 500 COM AUDIO is the summation of the COM receiver audio, COM sidetone audio, and Intercom MIC audio. Why have the com Com Mic Audio connections if the 500 Com Mic audio includes all the listed inputs? Thoughts? I am going crosseyed trying to figure all this out. Thanks Justin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections
Justin, I have a 420W (cousin to the 430W) and a PS Engineering PMA7000MS - so I think I may be wearing the 'been there, done-that' t-shirt. I didn't use the 420W intercom function - I wired to the audio panel intercom function. I wired pins 7, 19, 6, 4, and 18 (should be the same for the 430W) to the audio panel (not the PM1000 II - but you have the circuit origins from the 420W) - works fins! Remember to isolate your headset connections from ground with the 'stepped' washers if you're installing in a conductive airframe. Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> >Sent: Feb 12, 2015 1:57 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections > > >I am digging through manuals trying to understand how to hook up my simple setup. I have a Garmin 430W (with nav and com) and a PS Engineering PM1000 II 4 place intercom. My goal is to be able to transmit and receive VHF communications, listen to the Ident of the Navaids when tuned, and have it connected to the 4 place intercom. > >The Garmin Manual shows > >Com Mic Key > >Intercom Mic Hi > >Com Mic Audio Hi > >500 Com Audio Hi > >Com Mic Audio Lo > >500 Com Mic Audio Lo > > >The PS Engineering Audio Panel has the following connections for the Aircraft Radio > >A/C Radio phone Audio hi >A/C Radio phone Audio Lo > >A/C Radio PTT > >A/C Mic Audio Lo >A/C Mic Audio Hi > > >Why does Garmin list an Intercom Mic Hi pin? I assume this doesnt get connected if an external intercom is used. > >Does the "A/C Radio PTT get connected to the Com Mic Key or to the ? > >The manual says 500 COM AUDIO is the summation of the COM receiver audio, COM sidetone audio, and Intercom MIC audio. Why have the com Com Mic Audio connections if the 500 Com Mic audio includes all the listed inputs? > >Thoughts? > >I am going crosseyed trying to figure all this out. > >Thanks > >Justin > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections
Date: Feb 12, 2015
The two companies use a little different lingo for audio connections, once you figure that out its simple. I can send you an interconnect between a 430 and a PSE 5000 audio panel, that may help sort out the different nomenclature. One issue, you have no audio mixer with that intercom, or a way to select audio sources. I don't think you can simply tie them together and turn them up and down as needed. Tim > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > > > I am digging through manuals trying to understand how to hook up my simple setup. I have a Garmin 430W (with nav and com) and a PS Engineering PM1000 II 4 place intercom. My goal is to be able to transmit and receive VHF communications, listen to the Ident of the Navaids when tuned, and have it connected to the 4 place intercom. > > The Garmin Manual shows > > Com Mic Key > > Intercom Mic Hi > > Com Mic Audio Hi > > 500 Com Audio Hi > > Com Mic Audio Lo > > 500 Com Mic Audio Lo > > > > The PS Engineering Audio Panel has the following connections for the Aircraft Radio > > A/C Radio phone Audio hi > A/C Radio phone Audio Lo > > A/C Radio PTT > > A/C Mic Audio Lo > A/C Mic Audio Hi > > > Why does Garmin list an Intercom Mic Hi pin? I assume this doesnt get connected if an external intercom is used. > > Does the "A/C Radio PTT get connected to the Com Mic Key or to the ? > > The manual says 500 COM AUDIO is the summation of the COM receiver audio, COM sidetone audio, and Intercom MIC audio. Why have the com Com Mic Audio connections if the 500 Com Mic audio includes all the listed inputs? > > Thoughts? > > I am going crosseyed trying to figure all this out. > > Thanks > > Justin > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections
Date: Feb 12, 2015
I'd be interested to hear if there is a way to get VHF Nav audio without additional hardware. I don't have an audio panel, so I routed it to one of the channels on the audio iso amp, which also consolidates EFIS audio and entertainment. > On Feb 12, 2015, at 11:00, Tim Andres wrote: > > > > The two companies use a little different lingo for audio connections, once you figure that out its simple. I can send you an interconnect between a 430 and a PSE 5000 audio panel, that may help sort out the different nomenclature. > One issue, you have no audio mixer with that intercom, or a way to select audio sources. I don't think you can simply tie them together and turn them up and down as needed. > Tim > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Justin Jones wrote: >> >> >> I am digging through manuals trying to understand how to hook up my simple setup. I have a Garmin 430W (with nav and com) and a PS Engineering PM1000 II 4 place intercom. My goal is to be able to transmit and receive VHF communications, listen to the Ident of the Navaids when tuned, and have it connected to the 4 place intercom. >> >> The Garmin Manual shows >> >> Com Mic Key >> >> Intercom Mic Hi >> >> Com Mic Audio Hi >> >> 500 Com Audio Hi >> >> Com Mic Audio Lo >> >> 500 Com Mic Audio Lo >> >> >> >> The PS Engineering Audio Panel has the following connections for the Aircraft Radio >> >> A/C Radio phone Audio hi >> A/C Radio phone Audio Lo >> >> A/C Radio PTT >> >> A/C Mic Audio Lo >> A/C Mic Audio Hi >> >> >> Why does Garmin list an Intercom Mic Hi pin? I assume this doesnt get connected if an external intercom is used. >> >> Does the "A/C Radio PTT get connected to the Com Mic Key or to the ? >> >> The manual says 500 COM AUDIO is the summation of the COM receiver audio, COM sidetone audio, and Intercom MIC audio. Why have the com Com Mic Audio connections if the 500 Com Mic audio includes all the listed inputs? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> I am going crosseyed trying to figure all this out. >> >> Thanks >> >> Justin > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 Intercom Connections
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Possibly you can use the music in, but it's not intended for that and may not be the correct impedance or functionality. A simple select audio switch might work, but now you can't monitor comm while your listening to Nav. Otherwise I think you will have to use an audio mixer. Someone sells an inexpensive mixer for EAB, don't recall who. But now you've got two separate boxes to mount and wire, it might be simpler to pony up and put in an audio panel. A good used one won't be much more than the two boxes you need now. Good luck Tim > On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Jared Yates wrote: > > > I'd be interested to hear if there is a way to get VHF Nav audio without additional hardware. I don't have an audio panel, so I routed it to one of the channels on the audio iso amp, which also consolidates EFIS audio and entertainment. > > > >> On Feb 12, 2015, at 11:00, Tim Andres wrote: >> >> >> >> The two companies use a little different lingo for audio connections, once you figure that out its simple. I can send you an interconnect between a 430 and a PSE 5000 audio panel, that may help sort out the different nomenclature. >> One issue, you have no audio mixer with that intercom, or a way to select audio sources. I don't think you can simply tie them together and turn them up and down as needed. >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Justin Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am digging through manuals trying to understand how to hook up my simple setup. I have a Garmin 430W (with nav and com) and a PS Engineering PM1000 II 4 place intercom. My goal is to be able to transmit and receive VHF communications, listen to the Ident of the Navaids when tuned, and have it connected to the 4 place intercom. >>> >>> The Garmin Manual shows >>> >>> Com Mic Key >>> >>> Intercom Mic Hi >>> >>> Com Mic Audio Hi >>> >>> 500 Com Audio Hi >>> >>> Com Mic Audio Lo >>> >>> 500 Com Mic Audio Lo >>> >>> >>> >>> The PS Engineering Audio Panel has the following connections for the Aircraft Radio >>> >>> A/C Radio phone Audio hi >>> A/C Radio phone Audio Lo >>> >>> A/C Radio PTT >>> >>> A/C Mic Audio Lo >>> A/C Mic Audio Hi >>> >>> >>> Why does Garmin list an Intercom Mic Hi pin? I assume this doesnt get connected if an external intercom is used. >>> >>> Does the "A/C Radio PTT get connected to the Com Mic Key or to the ? >>> >>> The manual says 500 COM AUDIO is the summation of the COM receiver audio, COM sidetone audio, and Intercom MIC audio. Why have the com Com Mic Audio connections if the 500 Com Mic audio includes all the listed inputs? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I am going crosseyed trying to figure all this out. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Justin >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
From: Dale Medendorp <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Since the problem is sensitive to frequency (ground vs tower) I suspect the antenna or the way it's mounted, in which case the ferrite might be the best solution. Dale ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
The frequency sensitivity relates to the fact that RF feedback is occurring. I had this problem in a previous aircraft, which I eventually traced back to a cold solder joint on the RG-58 BNC coax connector at the radio. It worked fine on frequencies below 123.0, and as the frequency went higher it would give off a feedback squeal when the mike was keyed. New coax with properly crimped BNC connectors eliminated the problem. Ferrite beads just mask the problem. On 2/12/2015 11:30 AM, Dale Medendorp wrote: > > Since the problem is sensitive to frequency (ground vs tower) I > suspect the antenna or the way it's mounted, in which case the ferrite > might be the best solution. > > Dale > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
At 13:49 2015-02-12, you wrote: > >The frequency sensitivity relates to the fact that RF feedback is >occurring. I had this problem in a previous aircraft, which I >eventually traced back to a cold solder joint on the RG-58 BNC coax >connector at the radio. It worked fine on frequencies below 123.0, >and as the frequency went higher it would give off a feedback squeal >when the mike was keyed. New coax with properly crimped BNC >connectors eliminated the problem. Ferrite beads just mask the problem. Yes. By definition, a transmission line with strong standing waves (high SWR) may become a poor transmission line and a better antenna. Since the 'distance' from peak to peak on a standing wave is defined by the operating frequency, the degree with which a degraded transmission line radiates (or receives) is a function of the frequency of interest. In one case, the operator reported relief from the effects by simply shortening a coax. He put a new connector on one end and decided to cut away some extra slack. The connector replaced was a 'good' one but the frequency of interest moved off to another value. He didn't discover the 'other' bad connector until later under different circumstances. Ferrites over a radiating line WILL reduce the effects . . . but it does nothing to correct the underlying issue . . . which may still have deleterious effect on system performance. Bad transmission lines can affect reception too but these are often more difficult to observe. In the final analysis, it's difficult to beat antenna installations with track records unless you're going to visit a capable RF lab and have any 'new idea' in antennas evaluated by-the-numbers. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Hi everyone. I have an electrical system with dual alternators (primary and backup) and have a question with regards to monitoring their output current. My EFIS has the capability of monitoring each output separately, but considering that the alternators are wired such that only one can be on at a time, I'm not a big fan of this, since I don't want to get used to the view of an alternator output always reading zero during normal operation - it desensitizes a person in noticing if there ever is a real problem. (I used to fly a Mooney that had a red gear warning light always on when the gear were up, by terrible design. You get really used to seeing a red light always on, and then completely ignore it). Instead, I'd rather have the EFIS just provide a display showing a single output of either alternator - whichever is producing current. What seems to me to be a simple way of achieving this would be to just tie the output of each alternator to the same side of the shunt (the terminal opposite that going to the contactor). Then, it would seem to me as though the shunt would just measure the combined output of both alternators, which in effect would be just the output of the alternator that's currently active. But when I asked the EFIS manufacturer about this, they implied that this wouldn't be the "right way" to do it - instead, I should use a hall sensor and pass both wires through it. But I can't understand why using the shunt in this manner wouldn't work (other than the shunt becoming a single point of failure if it should blow like a fuse). Can anyone provide any advice on this? Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
Bob, Over the years that I have followed this list I recall you saying "check your coax connections". I might be having a senior moment, but I can not remember you ever telling us how to check them. Is continuity all we are looking for on the conductor and the shield but not shorted together? On Feb 12, 2015 1:40 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 13:49 2015-02-12, you wrote: > >> kellym(at)aviating.com> >> >> The frequency sensitivity relates to the fact that RF feedback is >> occurring. I had this problem in a previous aircraft, which I eventually >> traced back to a cold solder joint on the RG-58 BNC coax connector at the >> radio. It worked fine on frequencies below 123.0, and as the frequency went >> higher it would give off a feedback squeal when the mike was keyed. New >> coax with properly crimped BNC connectors eliminated the problem. Ferrite >> beads just mask the problem. >> > > Yes. By definition, a transmission line with strong > standing waves (high SWR) may become a poor transmission > line and a better antenna. Since the 'distance' from > peak to peak on a standing wave is defined by the operating > frequency, the degree with which a degraded transmission > line radiates (or receives) is a function of the frequency > of interest. > > In one case, the operator reported relief from the > effects by simply shortening a coax. He put a new > connector on one end and decided to cut away some > extra slack. The connector replaced was a 'good' one > but the frequency of interest moved off to another > value. He didn't discover the 'other' bad connector > until later under different circumstances. > > Ferrites over a radiating line WILL reduce the > effects . . . but it does nothing to correct the > underlying issue . . . which may still have deleterious > effect on system performance. > > Bad transmission lines can affect reception too > but these are often more difficult to observe. > In the final analysis, it's difficult to beat > antenna installations with track records unless > you're going to visit a capable RF lab and have > any 'new idea' in antennas evaluated by-the-numbers. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Does the EFIS offer an adjustable millivolts-per-ampere setting for the alternator current display? If so, you should be able to use any shunt that suits your load with no problem -- just match the EFIS setting to the shunt's specification. If this setting is fixed in the EFIS software, you'd have to use a shunt that matched it exactly (or build a circuit to scale the shunt output to match what the EFIS expects). Based on the EFIS manufacturer's comment, it almost sounds like the EFIS is designed to use a Hall effect sensor. Is a particular part specified in the installation manual, or did the guy you talked to suggest one? If you can use a Hall sensor, it would eliminate breaks in the heavy wires, save you four crimp operations, and eliminate a failure mode in those wires. Eric On Feb 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > ...I'd rather have the EFIS just provide a display showing a single output of either alternator - whichever is producing current. What seems to me to be a simple way of achieving this would be to just tie the output of each alternator to the same side of the shunt (the terminal opposite that going to the contactor). Then, it would seem to me as though the shunt would just measure the combined output of both alternators, which in effect would be just the output of the alternator that's currently active. But when I asked the EFIS manufacturer about this, they implied that this wouldn't be the "right way" to do it - instead, I should use a hall sensor and pass both wires through it. > > But I can't understand why using the shunt in this manner wouldn't work (other than the shunt becoming a single point of failure if it should blow like a fuse). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: Roger Evenson <revenson(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 12v vs 14v System?
Is there any practical difference between a 12v and a 14v system? At the airport, the question came up whether my Standard VR166 voltage regulator (12volt?) was appropriately rated for my system and it was suggested this regulator might not be right for a '14 volt system'. "Did I have a 12v. or a 14v. battery?" Looked at the Odyssey docs and of course, it's a 12 volt battery (and there are no 14 volt batteries in the Aircraft Spruce catalog!). My battery is an Odyssey PC-680, listed as a 12 volt battery. All batteries listed in the catalog are listed as either 12 (if not 24v). Starter is a Skytec, listed as 12 volt. All starters are listed as 12v. Alternator is an L40 from B and C. It's listed as 14 volt. Some manufacturers list theirs as 12v; some as 14v. Regulator is a Standard VR166. 12 volt? Some voltage regulators are listed as 12v; some manufacturers list as 14v; even saw one listed as 14.2v. My assumption has always been that some manufacturers list their equipment as 14v. and some at 12v., but that's just an artifact, and there's no practical difference. Am I correct? Thanks, Roger. "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
> Does the EFIS offer an adjustable millivolts-per-ampere setting for the alternator current display? If so, you should be able to use any shunt that suits your load with no problem -- just match the EFIS setting to the shunt's specification. If this setting is fixed in the EFIS software, you'd have to use a shunt that matched it exactly (or build a circuit to scale the shunt output to match what the EFIS expects). Good question - I'm not sure if it's adjustable (Advanced Flight Systems) - their manual talks about setting the zero point, but not if the mV/A is adjustable. I was just planning on using the shunt that came with the EFIS, since I have it already... and it should already be appropriately sized. > > Based on the EFIS manufacturer's comment, it almost sounds like the EFIS is designed to use a Hall effect sensor. Is a particular part specified in the installation manual, or did the guy you talked to suggest one? If you can use a Hall sensor, it would eliminate breaks in the heavy wires, save you four crimp operations, and eliminate a failure mode in those wires. It can use either (or both) a Hall effect or a shunt. The shunt came with it, but the Hall effect sensor is an additional cost, which is why I was figuring on just using the shunt it came with. Though minimizing breaks in the heavy wires, as well as a potential failure mode, is certainly worth considering. Of course, the next question I'd have for them is whether their hall effect sensor is big enough to accommodate both alternator B-leads.. Thanks for your response! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: "danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com" <danb_89(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
Bob, Thanks for the good information. To answer a previous question you had ...The antenna IS mounted inside of the vertical stab. I did not put a grou nd plane on it but rather (as mentioned earlier) took the ground to the tub e frame. The only reason I configured it this way was because a buddy with the same Kitfox model mounted it this way and it has performed for him very well. With my Ham background, I knew the ideal install would be with that ground plane, however, fitting a ground plane of any size perpendicular to the antenna is not possible where the antenna is currently at. The antenna itself is not accessible...only the connections to it. I have been using a headset that has ANR capability, but I was using it without the ANR. Every time I turned the ANR feature on, I got the same RF noise. I was hoping tha t the new Bose headset would work but it is the same issue. The ferrite bea d trick has made it operational, but like you said it is only masking the i ssue. I suppose I will end up mounting an antenna behind the turtledeck wit h a proper ground plane for the fix. Thanks to all who assisted with this p roblem.Dan B.=C2- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Frequency problem update s.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> At 13:49 2015-02-12, you wrote: om> > >The frequency sensitivity relates to the fact that RF feedback is >occurring. I had this problem in a previous aircraft, which I >eventually traced back to a cold solder joint on the RG-58 BNC coax >connector at the radio. It worked fine on frequencies below 123.0, >and as the frequency went higher it would give off a feedback squeal >when the mike was keyed. New coax with properly crimped BNC >connectors eliminated the problem. Ferrite beads just mask the problem. =C2- =C2- Yes. By definition, a transmission line with strong =C2- =C2- standing waves (high SWR) may become a poor transmission =C2- =C2- line and a better antenna. Since the 'distance' from =C2- =C2- peak to peak on a standing wave is defined by the operating =C2- =C2- frequency, the degree with which a degraded transmission =C2- =C2- line radiates (or receives) is a function of the frequency =C2- =C2- of interest. =C2- =C2- In one case, the operator reported relief from the =C2- =C2- effects by simply shortening a coax. He put a new =C2- =C2- connector on one end and decided to cut away some =C2- =C2- extra slack. The connector replaced was a 'good' one =C2- =C2- but the frequency of interest moved off to another =C2- =C2- value. He didn't discover the 'other' bad connector =C2- =C2- until later under different circumstances. =C2- =C2- Ferrites over a radiating line WILL reduce the =C2- =C2- effects . . . but it does nothing to correct the =C2- =C2- underlying issue . . . which may still have deleterious =C2- =C2- effect on system performance. =C2- =C2- Bad transmission lines can affect reception too =C2- =C2- but these are often more difficult to observe. =C2- =C2- In the final analysis, it's difficult to beat =C2- =C2- antenna installations with track records unless =C2- =C2- you're going to visit a capable RF lab and have =C2- =C2- any 'new idea' in antennas evaluated by-the-numbers. =C2- Bob . . . - S - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
To clarify (especially for those who may be looking to this thread in the future), they ship the EFIS with a shunt, and for a single alternator setup, it's a perfectly good and reliable method of monitoring the current generated by it. Their system supports either/and/or. Where they suggested the hall effect sensor is only for cases like mine with a backup alternator where they suggest it's a better way of a single point measurement from two different sources. I've had a very good experience with their customer support - I'm just trying to see if I'm missing anything critical as to why a shunt wouldn't be equally effective. Dan > On 2015-Feb-12, at 5:16 PM, Eric Page wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: >> Good question - I'm not sure if it's adjustable (Advanced Flight Systems) - their manual talks about setting the zero point, but not if the mV/A is adjustable. I was just planning on using the shunt that came with the EFIS, since I have it already... and it should already be appropriately sized. > > Hilarious. They ship the EFIS a with a shunt, then tell their customers that using the shunt isn't the right way to set it up. Customer support by Laurel & Hardy. > --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
It is NOT the location or lack of ground plane causing the feedback. It is most likely one of the coax connections. On 2/12/2015 6:25 PM, danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com wrote: > Bob, Thanks for the good information. To answer a previous question > you had...The antenna IS mounted inside of the vertical stab. I did > not put a ground plane on it but rather (as mentioned earlier) took > the ground to the tube frame. The only reason I configured it this way > was because a buddy with the same Kitfox model mounted it this way and > it has performed for him very well. With my Ham background, I knew the > ideal install would be with that ground plane, however, fitting a > ground plane of any size perpendicular to the antenna is not possible > where the antenna is currently at. The antenna itself is not > accessible...only the connections to it. I have been using a headset > that has ANR capability, but I was using it without the ANR. Every > time I turned the ANR feature on, I got the same RF noise. I was > hoping that the new Bose headset would work but it is the same issue. > The ferrite bead trick has made it operational, but like you said it > is only masking the issue. I suppose I will end up mounting an antenna > behind the turtledeck with a proper ground plane for the fix. Thanks > to all who assisted with this problem. > Dan B. > **** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
Once you solve the feedback problem, you will then likely start finding occasions when your signal cannot be heard by another aircraft on certain bearings, or that aircraft will only hear a weak signal. That will be caused by your antenna's mounting position, being partially shielded by the fin frame etc. When you think of it, an antenna mounted within the tubing frame of the aircraft, even in the fin, is essentially an antenna mounted in a Faraday Cage. Bill On 13/02/2015 1:48 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > It is NOT the location or lack of ground plane causing the feedback. > It is most likely one of the coax connections. > > On 2/12/2015 6:25 PM, danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com wrote: >> Bob, Thanks for the good information. To answer a previous question >> you had...The antenna IS mounted inside of the vertical stab. I did >> not put a ground plane on it but rather (as mentioned earlier) took >> the ground to the tube frame. The only reason I configured it this >> way was because a buddy with the same Kitfox model mounted it this >> way and it has performed for him very well. With my Ham background, I >> knew the ideal install would be with that ground plane, however, >> fitting a ground plane of any size perpendicular to the antenna is >> not possible where the antenna is currently at. The antenna itself is >> not accessible...only the connections to it. I have been using a >> headset that has ANR capability, but I was using it without the ANR. >> Every time I turned the ANR feature on, I got the same RF noise. I >> was hoping that the new Bose headset would work but it is the same >> issue. The ferrite bead trick has made it operational, but like you >> said it is only masking the issue. I suppose I will end up mounting >> an antenna behind the turtledeck with a proper ground plane for the >> fix. Thanks to all who assisted with this problem. >> Dan B. >> **** > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration At 16:05 2015-02-12, you wrote: Hi everyone. I have an electrical system with dual alternators (primary and backup) and have a question with regards to monitoring their output current. My EFIS has the capability of monitoring each output separately, but considering that the alternators are wired such that only one can be on at a time, I'm not a big fan of this, since I don't want to get used to the view of an alternator output always reading zero during normal operation - it desensitizes a person in noticing if there ever is a real problem. (I used to fly a Mooney that had a red gear warning light always on when the gear were up, by terrible design. You get really used to seeing a red light always on, and then completely ignore it). But 'zero' in a standby alternator is significant. What is the likelihood of loosing a standby alternator AND the main alternator between two pre-flight tests? Instead, I'd rather have the EFIS just provide a display showing a single output of either alternator - whichever is producing current. What seems to me to be a simple way of achieving this would be to just tie the output of each alternator to the same side of the shunt (the terminal opposite that going to the contactor). Then, it would seem to me as though the shunt would just measure the combined output of both alternators, which in effect would be just the output of the alternator that's currently active. But when I asked the EFIS manufacturer about this, they implied that this wouldn't be the "right way" to do it - instead, I should use a hall sensor and pass both wires through it. But I can't understand why using the shunt in this manner wouldn't work (other than the shunt becoming a single point of failure if it should blow like a fuse). It would . . . but perhaps hooking neither alternator to the EFIS is a better plan. Your alternator's output is a KNOWN quantity that is, by design, loaded no heavier than original design goals. As long as your low voltage light is not flashing, all is right with the universe . . . irrespective of any reading you might observe for the alternator. Similarly, should main alternator fail then the standby alternator should be loaded no greater than its capability to keep the bus at 12.5 to 13.0 volts. Again, the voltmeter for one bus is your primary statement of electrical system health for flight ops. Attaching both alternators to a single shunt forces both output paths to share circuitry. If you'd like to have these paths be totally independent of each other, be circuit protected with a device appropriate to alternator size, -OR- (as in Z-12/8) have the two alternators drive different parts of the system, then the two wires through a hall sensor is the preferred architecture. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Frequency problem update
At 16:27 2015-02-12, you wrote: >Bob, >Over the years that I have followed this list I >recall you saying "check your coax >connections". I might be having a senior moment, >but I can not remember you ever telling us how >to check them. Is continuity all we are looking >for on the conductor and the shield but not shorted together? Certainly do the continuity check. Then, my favorite is the twist and tug test. The most common failure at the coax connector is loss of integrity at the shield. In the legacy solder-and-clamp connectors (UG-88) it was really easy fabricate a bad joint. With the crimp on connectors, a badly adjusted stripper can damage wires such that they are mechanically weakened. With either connector, a substantial torque moment on the cable as it enters the back of the connector should produce ZERO perceived motion. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configuration Hilarious. They ship the EFIS a with a shunt, then tell their customers that using the shunt isn't the right way to set it up. Customer support by Laurel & Hardy. One shunt per alternator is how it was done for the last century or so . . . still works good. Tying two alternators to the same shunt raises questions about the loss of independence/redundancy of the two systems. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
> Is there any practical difference between a 12v and a 14v system? No, they are nominally the same. A fully charged 12 volt lead acid battery measures about 13 volts. A voltage regulator for a 12 volt battery is set at about 14.2 volts. A voltage regulator set at 13 volts would keep a battery from discharging but would not charge a battery that needs to be charged. > there's no practical difference. Am I correct? Yes -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438296#438296 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configura
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
Becoming used to seeing zero amps on the standby alternator is of no concern because an EFIS can be setup to alarm at user selected parameters. In other words, you would setup the EFIS to alarm when the standby alternator current is NOT zero. Also, many EFIS allow the user to choose what to display on the main page. So, display the standby alternator current on another page, not the main page. The purpose of having two alternators is for redundancy in case one fails. If the two alternators share one shunt, redundancy is defeated. Would both alternators be disconnected if the main alternator current limiter blows? An ammeter on the standby alternator is not a necessity. In the event of main alternator failure, the voltmeter can be just as useful to help the pilot shed non essential loads. Just shut off loads one at a time until system voltage rises up to 13 volts (like Bob suggested). Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438300#438300 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Date: Feb 13, 2015
Bob I purchased 1 of your OVM 2 years ago and have been flying with it for a year I have a Glastar with a Subaru 2.5L and IR 70 Amp alternator using Z19RB as a platform I modified the alt field circuit to use the OVM and installed a relay in the B lead using the Z24 interim The circuit breaker for the alt field started to randomly trip and during troubleshooting I found the OVM was tripping even on battery only operations. Can I send the part back for analysis? Thanks -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configura
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
[/quote] Of course, the next question I'd have for them is whether their hall effect sensor is big enough to accommodate both alternator B-leads.. Thanks for your response! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213[/quote] Dan, I set up my 2 alt system for the AFS 4500 using their HE sensor. I was able to fit #8 & #10 tefzel covered wires through it. The short # 10 wire (Alt 2) can easily handle the 25 amps for keeping my ED (EFI, EI) ship afloat. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438309#438309 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
I've got an oddball question that I've been pondering for a while. I have an older Plane Power 70A internal regulated alternator. The output voltage is always 13.9V at least as detected by my engine monitor Since it's internally regulated, and has it's own overvoltage module, and ties to the bus through I think a 5A breaker, I'm not sure what I would be able to do to raise the output voltage. They told me that the regulator is fixed and non-adjustable, so on the alternator end I'm sure there's not much I could do. Now I've flown with it for almost 1,100 hours now and it's never been an issue, but I do use an Odyssey battery as my primary and some AGM batteries in my aux bus. So I think ideally I'd raise the voltage up to something just slightly higher if I wanted to optimize my battery charge state. Is there any simple way of tricking the alternator into thinking the bus voltage is slightly lower than it is so that it raises the output slightly? I envision some way to drop voltage on the sense line so that it jacks it up another .5V or so. Just wondering what kinds of ideas anyone has, or if maybe anyone else has done it and knows what would work. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Using the quote button
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
Other than quoting from an original post, my attempts at using the quote button have had mixed results in getting the selected text to appear with the characteristic blue background. Tried looking in the Matronics Email Lists FAQ, but no joy. Can someone point me to an explanation of how to quote from a post that is already filled with quotes, so that my selection appears with blue background in my reply ? Thanks, John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438313#438313 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Failing over voltage module
At 10:18 2015-02-13, you wrote: Bob I purchased 1 of your OVM 2 years ago and have been flying with it for a year I have a Glastar with a Subaru 2.5L and IR 70 Amp alternator using Z19RB as a platform I modified the alt field circuit to use the OVM and installed a relay in the B lead using the Z24 interim The circuit breaker for the alt field started to randomly trip and during troubleshooting I found the OVM was tripping even on battery only operations. Can I send the part back for analysis? Thanks -Rob Absolutely! Please do. It will be repaired/replaced under our lifetime warranty. It's a rare circumstance that I can get the carcass back on a fielded failure to perform. Box 130, Medicine Lodge, KS 67104-0130 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Date: Feb 13, 2015
Thanks I will try to get it out today -Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:13 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Failing over voltage module --> At 10:18 2015-02-13, you wrote: Bob I purchased 1 of your OVM 2 years ago and have been flying with it for a year I have a Glastar with a Subaru 2.5L and IR 70 Amp alternator using Z19RB as a platform I modified the alt field circuit to use the OVM and installed a relay in the B lead using the Z24 interim The circuit breaker for the alt field started to randomly trip and during troubleshooting I found the OVM was tripping even on battery only operations. Can I send the part back for analysis? Thanks -Rob Absolutely! Please do. It will be repaired/replaced under our lifetime warranty. It's a rare circumstance that I can get the carcass back on a fielded failure to perform. Box 130, Medicine Lodge, KS 67104-0130 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
Date: Feb 13, 2015
Tim, depending on if you have an e-bus. I see the same thing on my GRT EIS. It is on my e-bus. If I look at the power bus, then it is 14.2. Just recently I added a GRT Sport (long story) as my backup and it is NOT on my ebus and it showed 14.2 all the way to Vegas and back this week (first real flight with it). I never tried to measure my power bus before and my other EFIS is on the e-bus. I had the same concern as you until this week. One way to check, is to turn on your e-bus and see what happens. When I did, my EIS and EFIS (SPORT) voltage reading was the same. Only 500 hours...not a 1000 like you....and I finally figured it out. I did not think the diode was supposed to drop the voltage that much.....but it sure appears to. My normal full power voltage reading on the EIS is 13.9 or sometimes 14.0. Rene' 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:08 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage I've got an oddball question that I've been pondering for a while. I have an older Plane Power 70A internal regulated alternator. The output voltage is always 13.9V at least as detected by my engine monitor Since it's internally regulated, and has it's own overvoltage module, and ties to the bus through I think a 5A breaker, I'm not sure what I would be able to do to raise the output voltage. They told me that the regulator is fixed and non-adjustable, so on the alternator end I'm sure there's not much I could do. Now I've flown with it for almost 1,100 hours now and it's never been an issue, but I do use an Odyssey battery as my primary and some AGM batteries in my aux bus. So I think ideally I'd raise the voltage up to something just slightly higher if I wanted to optimize my battery charge state. Is there any simple way of tricking the alternator into thinking the bus voltage is slightly lower than it is so that it raises the output slightly? I envision some way to drop voltage on the sense line so that it jacks it up another .5V or so. Just wondering what kinds of ideas anyone has, or if maybe anyone else has done it and knows what would work. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
Is there any simple way of tricking the alternator into thinking the bus voltage is slightly lower than it is so that it raises the output slightly? I envision some way to drop voltage on the sense line so that it jacks it up another .5V or so. Just wondering what kinds of ideas anyone has, or if maybe anyone else has done it and knows what would work. It depends on where the internal regulator senses bus voltage. If it gets data from the b-lead terminal, there's nothing you can do but swap out the regulator and hope the new one is more SVLA-friendly. Try putting a 1N540x diode in series with the control wire off the 5A breaker. If it senses voltage through this lead, then the approx 0.5 volt drop in the diode will spoof the regulator into boosting output voltage at the b-lead. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
At 13:55 2015-02-13, you wrote: Tim, depending on if you have an e-bus. I see the same thing on my GRT EIS. It is on my e-bus. If I look at the power bus, then it is 14.2. Just recently I added a GRT Sport (long story) as my backup and it is NOT on my ebus and it showed 14.2 all the way to Vegas and back this week (first real flight with it). I never tried to measure my power bus before and my other EFIS is on the e-bus. I had the same concern as you until this week. Ah . . . . but of course. It didn't occur to me that his voltage sample was coming off a diode-isolated e-bus. One way to check, is to turn on your e-bus and see what happens. When I did, my EIS and EFIS (SPORT) voltage reading was the same. Only 500 hours...not a 1000 like you....and I finally figured it out. I did not think the diode was supposed to drop the voltage that much.....but it sure appears to. My normal full power voltage reading on the EIS is 13.9 or sometimes 14.0. The typical drop across a silicon rectifier is 0.6 to 0.7 volts. A Schottky rectifier will be a little less. Rene's suggestion to close the e-bus alternate feed will, of course, bypass the normal feed path diode and raise the e-bus voltage. If this describes your situation, then all is right with the universe and the 13.9 volt reading is predictable and acceptable. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
If this is not simply an e-buss issue, how much capacity and life is actually being lost? There is likely some temperature compensation in the regulator if it is running hot. Is the EIS accurate? I know mine (different model) is off by a couple of tenths. I would be happy with 13.9 volts on an AGM battery in hot conditions as there is no need for a fast charge in my aircraft. Different story today with subzero temperatures here. Admittedly I don't worry much about my batteries with Z14 architecture. Ken On 13/02/2015 3:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > Is there any simple way of tricking the alternator > into thinking the bus voltage is slightly lower than it > is so that it raises the output slightly? > I envision some way to drop voltage on the sense line > so that it jacks it up another .5V or so. > > Just wondering what kinds of ideas anyone has, or if > maybe anyone else has done it and knows what would work. > > It depends on where the internal regulator senses > bus voltage. If it gets data from the b-lead terminal, > there's nothing you can do but swap out the regulator > and hope the new one is more SVLA-friendly. > > Try putting a 1N540x diode in series with the > control wire off the 5A breaker. If it senses > voltage through this lead, then the approx 0.5 > volt drop in the diode will spoof the regulator > into boosting output voltage at the b-lead. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Using the quote button
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
> Can someone point me to an explanation of how to quote from a post that is already filled with quotes, so that my selection appears with blue background in my reply ?" First of all I go to the matronics website: http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on a topic. Then I select the text to be quoted. Then copy it. Then click on the PostReply button. Then click on the QUOTE button. Then paste. Then click on the QUOTE button again. Then click on PREVIEW to see what it looks like before posting it. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438336#438336 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configura
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
> I have an electrical system with dual alternators (primary and backup) and have a question with regards to monitoring their output current. Thanks, everyone, for your clarification and insight on this. I can definitely see how running both alternators through a single shunt for current monitoring, though it would work electrically, does introduce a single point of failure that really doesn't need to be there. A hall sensor does seem the more sensible choice if I were to want to monitor the output of both alternators with a single sensor, or like Bob and others suggested, perhaps current monitoring of the backup alternator isn't even necessary considering that voltage monitoring of the bus is the primary indicator of electrical health anyway. Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LiFePo Battery
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2015
A RV-6A builder replaced a PC-680 with a 2.7lb Shorai LFX18L1-BS12 LiFePo battery a year ago and yesterday posted that there have been no problems during the past year. Read the thread here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=108103 Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438347#438347 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
Hi Rene', That is a good idea, and one I've come across before. I haven't really explored watching the difference between switch on and switch off for a long time, so I'll have to do that on my next flight and see how much change it is. I seem to remember it being .1V or so is all. The switch positions are definitely important. The alternator field is connected to the MAIN bus. But, in normal flight operation, the MAIN bus and E-Bus are directly connected with no diode voltage drops in the path. Now there is a little more complexity in the switching than that, because I do have a schottky diode path to the e-bus (and aux batt) when the switch is on to the e-BUS. So my aux batt will always be charged via schottky. But the actual BUS the avionics are on would only read that lowered voltage when the e-bus switch is turned on. It's harder to follow without a diagram because there is a bit more to the system for brownout prevention and such, but the important part is that in the position the switches are all in for standard ops, the main bus and "critical systems bus" as I call it, are actually at the same voltage potential. I actually feed that bus via 2 diodes from both the MAIN bus and "Avionics" bus, which allows for switching the e-bus feed without losing any power to that bus. So the e-bus switch is always on during engine start but then is turned off for normal operation, which keeps the bus tied directly to the MAIN bus. It is not an exact copy of any z-diagram, but incorporates many features plus some brownout protection. I did think of the idea that Bob provided about putting a 1N540x diode in line with the alternator feed. The worry I had about doing that was that perhaps this extension of the internal circuitry would have some unintended consequence. I couldn't think of any, but just wondered if I may be missing something. It's probably worth a shot some day when it bugs me enough to dig into it. I think before I do that though, I should get a good independent volt meter in the plane during a flight and actually test what that reads for main bus voltage. It could be that the EIS has error, or by testing directly the various BUS voltages I find what the real differences are. For today, I was just putting the question out as a sounding board to see if anyone else ever noticed the same thing and what ideas everyone had. I'm not too worried about actually fixing it, because I don't really consider it "broken". But I am building my 2nd plane which is going to be largely identical to the first, and thought it a good time to start thinking of this topic. I'll probably go schottky diode again on that plane too, just to keep the drop low where there is a drop. Tim On 2/13/2015 1:55 PM, Rene wrote: > > Tim, depending on if you have an e-bus. > > I see the same thing on my GRT EIS. It is on my e-bus. If I look at > the power bus, then it is 14.2. Just recently I added a GRT Sport > (long story) as my backup and it is NOT on my ebus and it showed 14.2 > all the way to Vegas and back this week (first real flight with it). > I never tried to measure my power bus before and my other EFIS is on > the e-bus. I had the same concern as you until this week. > > One way to check, is to turn on your e-bus and see what happens. > When I did, my EIS and EFIS (SPORT) voltage reading was the same. > Only 500 hours...not a 1000 like you....and I finally figured it > out. > > I did not think the diode was supposed to drop the voltage that > much.....but it sure appears to. My normal full power voltage > reading on the EIS is 13.9 or sometimes 14.0. > > Rene' 801-721-6080 > > -----Original Message----- From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Tim Olson Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:08 AM To: > aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Raise > internal reg. Alternator voltage > > > I've got an oddball question that I've been pondering for a while. > > I have an older Plane Power 70A internal regulated alternator. The > output voltage is always 13.9V at least as detected by my engine > monitor > > Since it's internally regulated, and has it's own overvoltage module, > and ties to the bus through I think a 5A breaker, I'm not sure what I > would be able to do to raise the output voltage. They told me that > the regulator is fixed and non-adjustable, so on the alternator end > I'm sure there's not much I could do. > > Now I've flown with it for almost 1,100 hours now and it's never been > an issue, but I do use an Odyssey battery as my primary and some AGM > batteries in my aux bus. So I think ideally I'd raise the voltage up > to something just slightly higher if I wanted to optimize my battery > charge state. > > Is there any simple way of tricking the alternator into thinking the > bus voltage is slightly lower than it is so that it raises the output > slightly? I envision some way to drop voltage on the sense line so > that it jacks it up another .5V or so. > > Just wondering what kinds of ideas anyone has, or if maybe anyone > else has done it and knows what would work. > > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question about monitoring output in two alternator
configura
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2015
I have a great idea (sometimes they turn out to be not so great). :-) If only a single shunt is installed, put it in the standby alternator output circuit where it will be most useful. When the main alternator fails, that is when monitoring the current can help the pilot choose which loads to turn on or off. Of course if the electrical system includes an E-Bus, then the loads that are most important have been predetermined. During normal operations, if it is desired to know what the current is, the main alternator can be shut off and current from the standby alternator can be observed. Doing that could be part of a pre-flight check to be sure that the standby alternator is working. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438355#438355 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Feb 14, 2015
It's probably too much to ask for standard terms to be applied to electrical systems after all these decades. [Wink] 12V. 14V. Tom"ay"ta. Tom"ah"ta. The batteries are nominally "12 volt". The charging systems for said battery will operate nominally at "14 volt". As mentioned above, your charging device needs to output a higher voltage to the bus than the battery is putting out, in order to actually charge the battery. Your equipment will take 12-14V no matter which of those figures is on the label. -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438359#438359 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
The problem with standardizing battery voltages is how the batteries are made. This is not the same as "harmonizing" AC voltages (which elsewhere in the ISO world are now all called 230 VAC, 50 Hz., with large tolerances. The US is 120VAC 60 Hz. by ANSI standards.) Their are innumerable DC cells between 0.03V and 4.10 that are can be combined to make batteries. These electrochemical combinations can be aimed at "something close to 12V-14V", but there is not much you can do if they actually wind up to be 11.76, 13.44, or whatever. One cannot set a general standard. And yes, there are primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary cells (rechargeable), various environmental problems and conditions, weight and operation conditions...and Thomas Edison's 1.4 volts iron cells still work fine for many applications today. So yes, I am all in favor of standardization, but in batteries--don't expect standardization just yet. This leads writers to use nominal terms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential_%28data_page%29 -------- 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=438367#438367 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
> >It's probably too much to ask for standard terms to be applied to >electrical systems after all these decades. [Wink] Ain't gonna happen . . . batteries are chemical beasts with no single cell offering anything closed to 12v. So combinations of cells have to be joined until the target 'system' requirements are met. In the case of lead-acid batteries, multiple cells in series were '6-volt', '12-volt' and '24-volt' long before anyone stuck them in a vehicle paired with a generator. Boats and railroad cars featured '36-volt batteries' charged at 42 volts. To this day, you can still buy a 32 volt lamp for 'marine' application. Emacs! C Kettering's 1916 Delco-Light plant for rural applications were offered to charge 16 lead-acid cells in series . . . Emacs! This would have nominally been a 32-volt battery charged by a generator and (later a wind-mill) for a system voltage of 38 volts. Delco Batteries Just put a new battery in Dr. Dee's little red Saturn. Just for grins, I sucked out most of the electrons in its off-the-shelf condition and got this plot . . . Emacs! With a 5A load, you can see that it started out a closer to 13 volts and tossed in the towel before it about 11 volts . . . i.e. an average output of 12 volts. Now, to stuff all those electrons back in at room temperature, I would need to charge it at 13.8 volts for a few days . . . to get it stoked back up in hours or less, a charge voltage of 14.2 to 14.8 is called for. Since day-one, vehicles of all stripe have been said to operate at the battery's maintenance voltage (i.e. 14v) while in fact, batteries delivered energy at their label value of 12v (which is a more of an average over the discharge curve of the battery). Don't know if you could call it a 'standard' of any kind . . . but the legacy vernacular for describing the alternator-battery combination speaks of a "12 volt battery" in a "14 volt system." Now comes the lithium family of cells. If you charge a stack of 4 cells to the maximum rated charge voltage of 4.2 volts per cell, then you'd have to do it in a 16.8 volt system. Emacs! Referring to the family of curves above, the 16.8 volt operation gives you a "15 volt battery". But put the same array of cells into your "14v system" tuned to lead-acid chemistry and you get a "13.5 volt battery" while giving up about 1/2 its max rated chemical capacity. Hence, it's entirely proper and logical to speak of batteries in terms of the manner in which they deliver energy and to speak of systems in terms a nominal operating voltage within which all accessories (including the battery) are obliged to perform to design goals. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Raise internal reg. Alternator voltage
>I did think of the idea that Bob provided about putting a >1N540x diode in line with the alternator feed. The worry I >had about doing that was that perhaps this extension of >the internal circuitry would have some unintended >consequence. No . . . been there . . . done that. BUT it ONLY works if the diode is in the regulator's voltage sense lead. It is unlikely that any commercial-off-the-shelf alternator with an internal regulator will sense through the control lead . . . all schematics I've had the privilege of viewing sensed the alternator's B-terminal. >For today, I was just putting the question out as a sounding >board to see if anyone else ever noticed the same thing and >what ideas everyone had. I'm not 100% sure that my mental image of your descriptions match the physical reality. How about sketching, scanning and then sharing an architecture drawing? The SCHEMATIC is the universal language readable by any and all. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System? (sorry 'bout that)
At 20:55 2015-02-15, you wrote: >>It's probably too much to ask for standard terms to be applied to >>electrical systems after all these decades. [Wink] > > Ain't gonna happen . . . batteries are chemical beasts with no > single cell offering anything closed to 12v. So combinations of Don't know what happened to my supporting figures. I'll re-craft the posting tomorrow and straighten it out. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 12v vs 14v System? It's probably too much to ask for standard terms to be applied to electrical systems after all these decades. [Wink] Ain't gonna happen . . . batteries are chemical beasts with no single cell offering anything closed to 12v. So combinations of cells have to be joined until the target 'system' requirements are met. In the case of lead-acid batteries, multiple cells in series were '6-volt', '12-volt' and '24-volt' long before anyone stuck them in a vehicle paired with a generator. Early electrification of boats and railroad cars featured '32-volt batteries' charged at 38 volts. To this day, you can still buy a 32 volt lamp for 'marine' applications. Emacs! Chas Kettering's 1916 Delco-Light plant for rural applications were offered to charge 16 lead-acid cells in series . . . Emacs! This would have nominally been a 32-volt battery charged by a generator and (later a wind-mill) for a system voltage of 38 volts. Just put a new battery in Dr. Dee's little red Saturn. Just for grins, I sucked out most of the electrons in its off-the-shelf condition and got this plot . . . Emacs! With a 5A load, you can see that it started out a closer to 13 volts and tossed in the towel before it about 11 volts . . . with an AVERAGE output of 12 volts. Now, to stuff all those electrons back in at room temperature, I need to charge it at 13.8 volts for a few days . . . but to stoke it back up in hours or less, a charge voltage of 14.2 to 14.8 is called for. Since day-one, vehicles of all stripe have been said to operate at the battery's maintenance voltage (i.e. 14v) while in fact, batteries delivered energy at their label value of 12v (which is a more of an average over the discharge curve of the battery). Now comes the lithium family of cells. If you charge a stack of 4 cells to the maximum rated charge voltage of 4.2 volts per cell, then you'd have to do it at about 16.8 volts. We might call this a '17 volt system.' Emacs! Referring to the family of curves above, the 16.8 volt operation gives you a "15 volt battery". But put the same array of cells into your "14v system" tuned to lead-acid chemistry and you get a "13.5 volt battery" while giving up about 1/2 its max rated chemical capacity. Hence, it's entirely proper and logical to speak of batteries in terms of the manner in which they deliver energy and to speak of systems in terms a nominal operating voltage within which all accessories (including the battery) are obliged to perform to design goals. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: weird radio trouble
Date: Feb 16, 2015
A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be maintained. Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internally regulated. At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying. The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. Any ideas? Bevan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2015
Subject: Re: weird radio trouble
From: Earl Schroeder <n233ee(at)gmail.com>
Putting my money on 'ground' issues on aluminum skins. Even from one skin to the next. Good luck! On Feb 16, 2015 1:25 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: > > > A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't > fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's > flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. > > Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe > 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) > communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be > maintained. > > Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) > Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc > > The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power > internally regulated. > > At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or > alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while > flying. > > The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all > the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection > issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may > be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. > It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. > > Any ideas? > > Bevan > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2015
Subject: Re: weird radio trouble
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
What type of radio? On 16 Feb 2015 19:33, "B Tomm" wrote: > > > A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't > fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's > flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. > > Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe > 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) > communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be > maintained. > > Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) > Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc > > The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power > internally regulated. > > At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or > alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while > flying. > > The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all > the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection > issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may > be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. > It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. > > Any ideas? > > Bevan > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: weird radio trouble
Date: Feb 17, 2015
You don=99t say whether it=99s a transmit or receive issue? You also say contact with the tower, so do you mean local comms with a control tower or do you mean Air Traffic Control which is usually remote. If on receive the Radio is a little scratchy and only readability 4 for a local control tower there may be something wrong with the Antenna or the feed line or the radio. If you have more trouble receiving the further you get away from a local station, ie a local Tower with weak reception and the Tower has trouble hearing you, look at the Antenna and the Feedline, check them for connections and check the SWR. If Radio receives ok and the Antenna/feedline is ok but the Tower has trouble hearing you at a distance then it=99s most likely the Power output from the Radio. Most SWR Meters will also tell you what the output power is so you can check that as well. Older model Radios usually somewhere around 10 watts and the newer stuff 25 watts. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2015 6:54 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: weird radio trouble What type of radio? On 16 Feb 2015 19:33, "B Tomm" wrote: A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be maintained. Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internally regulated. At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying. The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. Any ideas? Bevan ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 16, 2015
Subject: Re: weird radio trouble
Was the radio working acceptably before the engine work? Old Bob In a message dated 2/16/2015 1:35:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, n233ee(at)gmail.com writes: Putting my money on 'ground' issues on aluminum skins. Even from one skin to the next. Good luck! On Feb 16, 2015 1:25 PM, "B Tomm" <_fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net_ (mailto:fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net) > wrote: A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be maintained. Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internally regulated. At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying. The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. Any ideas? Bevan ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: weird radio trouble
Date: Feb 16, 2015
First, suggest checking the coax cable from the antenna to the radio and also the BNC connectors of both ends which might have a broken shield connection or cold solder joint. The coax cable should be checked to see if it got pinched, nibbled on by mice, cut, water in the dielectric, etc D ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- Original Message ----- From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 1:21 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: weird radio trouble Was the radio working acceptably before the engine work? Old Bob In a message dated 2/16/2015 1:35:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, n233ee(at)gmail.com writes: Putting my money on 'ground' issues on aluminum skins. Even from one skin to the next. Good luck! On Feb 16, 2015 1:25 PM, "B Tomm" wrote: A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't fly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's flying again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) communications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be maintained. Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internally regulated. At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alternator problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying. The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all the exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection issues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be just following the trend that initial communications is always better. It seems to deteriorate a little after being airborne. Any ideas? Bevan ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www. matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio n ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . .
A few days ago I received some wire segments off of an airplane that experienced burned p-lead shields, melted insulation around center conductors AND even failure of toggle switch. The problem manifested in the airplane when the toggle switch(es) failed open after 100+ hours of service. Only after second failures of switches did more detailed examination reveal melted insulation over outer jacket of p-lead shields as well as melted insulation around center conductor. This had the 'smell' of a sneak-path ground consisting of (1) a poor architecture of the p-lead wiring and (2) high resistance in the starter current ground path. The jumper between forest of tabs ground on fire wall hand been fabricated with a less than ideal crimp tool. Emacs! I did some voltage drop tests across the crimp joints and found pretty high . . . about 2.5 millivolts at only 10 amps! Emacs! Cross-sectioned crimp joints examined under the microscope showed numerous areas of 'failure to achieve gas tight' across the face of the cut. Emacs! My findings suggest some value in replacement of all terminals applied with this tooling. I am also concerned with the corrosion ring around the hole in the terminal . . . this should at worst be slightly darkened tin plating. The degree of corrosion and pitting of the mating surface suggests that this terminal was not made-up with sufficient force to achieve gas-tightness in the joint. If you don't have access to a hydraulic tool and proven die to install a terminal, then consider soldering your terminals on per the article at: http://tinyurl.com/qh4k7ko Interestingly enough, it was failure of magneto p-lead switches that brought the deficiency to light. Emacs! As you can see above, the phosphor bronze rocker strut that held the moving contact was burned in two. The fixed contact is in great shape but structure that supported the moving contact fused. The moving contact was free to rattle around inside the switch. If you use welding cable for your fat-wires, the weld shop where you bought the wire can probably sell you terminals and install them with proven tools. Finally, make sure all mating surfaces for bolted up joints are clean, smooth and torqued down right smartly on assembly. This is an excellent example of a case where marginal joint(s) took perhaps years before degrading to the point where smoke and/or failure to perform manifested. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Feb 17, 2015
I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is, standard "terminology" to describe a type of system. You have some manufacturers calling it a "12v system" and others a "14v system". What's so hard about keeping the terminology consistent when they're talking about the exact same thing? -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438440#438440 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
Mike agree with your confusion about standards. We might put it a bit like following: -with engine stopped you will have a 12V system -with engine running you will have a 14V system this not taking into account the digits behind the decimal as well as assuming a standard PB battery Cheers Werner On 17.02.2015 13:19, mmayfield wrote: > > I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is, standard "terminology" to describe a type of system. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
Date: Feb 17, 2015
Throwing charging voltages into the mix is where the confusion arises. Going back 100 or so years=2C cars were 6 volt=2C then in the early 50's al ong came the improvement to 12 volt. No one mentioned that those 6 volt bat teries were charged at some higher voltage (which they were) and no one men tioned that the "new" 12 volt cars charged at a higher voltage still. Almos t everyone referes to car electrical systems as "12 volt" and doesn't worry about the subtle detail of actual measured voltages unless trouble shootin g for some perceived problem. When was the last time you heard anyone refer to their 14 volt car???? Aircraft are fundamentally the same. With aircraf t (smaller ones at least) the "standard" systems have traditionally been 12 or 24 volt systems. While bringing the fact of higher charging voltages in to the mix is technically correct=2C there is no need to play semantics of whether the system is 12V or 14V. (or 14.2V or 13.9V) It's the same system. The details of actual measured voltages at any point in time do not change the fact the system is either 12 volt or 24 volt even if you can measure 2 8.4 volts with your voltmeter. Keep it simple as you're unlikely to be tech nically accurate at any point in time. Bob McC > Date: Tue=2C 17 Feb 2015 13:48:09 +0100 > From: glastar(at)gmx.net > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 12v vs 14v System? > t> > > Mike agree with your confusion about standards. We might put it a bit > like following: > > -with engine stopped you will have a 12V system > -with engine running you will have a 14V system > > this not taking into account the digits behind the decimal as well as > assuming a standard PB battery > > Cheers Werner > > On 17.02.2015 13:19=2C mmayfield wrote: .com.au> > > > > I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is =2C standard "terminology" to describe a type of system. > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . .
.
From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
I was going down that very path, but the fellow at the rather large welding supply house told me it would take $10 per terminal to do the crimps, or for $10 I could by my own tool. This particular widget can be bolted to a bench or held in a substantial vise and then operated with an appropriately calibrated Inertial Motivator, in this case a 2 1/2 pound sledge. Works like a charm. I did solder the ring end of the crimps, both to definitively seal and electrically bond the joint. The cable end of the crimp is treated with liquid electrical tape and heat shrink tubing. One caution: If there is to be a bend in the cable close to the terminal, approximate the bend prior to setting the crimp. The final product will be much easier to use. > > ***SNIP*** > If you use welding cable for your fat-wires, the weld shop > where you bought the wire can probably sell you terminals and > install them with proven tools. > ***SNIP*** > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools
. . . Just for grins, I put new terminals on the end of the test article I received. Voltage drop across the segment (terminal to terminal) went down from 9+ millivolts to 2.6 millivolts . . . the calculated drop for the wire itself. In other words, joint resistance at the terminal interface added no resistance I could measure . . . At 10:05 2015-02-17, you wrote: I was going down that very path, but the fellow at the rather large welding supply house told me it would take $10 per terminal to do the crimps, or for $10 I could by my own tool. Yes. A few months back we discussed this item from Harbor Freight . . . http://tinyurl.com/3tfwav3 I just checked the reviews again and they're good. Comes with a broad range of die sets that cover the probable range of needs in our airplanes. I may pop for one of these and do an article on it. If you have more than a half-dozen fat wire terminals to install . . . and you don't want to solder . . . this is a good value option. =C2 This particular widget can be bolted to a bench or held in a substantial vise and then operated with an appropriately calibrated Inertial Motivator, in this case a 2 1/2 pound sledge.=C2 Works like a charm.=C2 I did solder the ring end of the crimps, both to definitively seal and electrically bond the joint.=C2 The cable end of the crimp is treated with liquid electrical tape and heat shrink tubing. =C2 The operative word here is SOLDER . . . keep in mind that the design goal calls for 'gas tight' interface between wire strands and the terminal's wire-trip barrel. The minimum-fuss technique calls for a rather well calibrated mash of wire grip barrel around the strands. One stroke . . . done right. The other technique described in my article calls for filling all voids of the joint with solder and (as necessary) copper wedges. EITHER technique (or as Glen points out) a COMBINATION of processes all go to achievement of the gas-tight design goal . . . lack of calibration for hammer blows becomes moot. The terminals I just installed were solder only. The terminal was snug on the wire so no wedges were called for. One caution: =C2 If there is to be a bend in the cable close to the terminal, approximate the bend prior to setting the crimp.=C2 The final product will be much easier to use. Yes . . . 'aircraft' wire is exceedingly picky for bend allowances. I MUCH prefer welding cable. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools
. . .
From: Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Date: Feb 17, 2015
Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded aluminum (CCA) cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch with flux added and w ithout flux. The solder just did not want to merge with the materials. Alw ays found it pretty easy with copper cable. -kent > On Feb 17, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele ctric.com> wrote: > > The operative word here is SOLDER . . . keep in mind > that the design goal calls for 'gas tight' interface > between wire strands and the terminal's wire-trip > barrel. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools
. . . First hand experience with this product. I've used it for all battery/ground cables for my 7a and 10. Crimps the copper terminals to the welding cable with ease. --Ron On 2/17/2015 12:24 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > * Yes. A few months back we discussed this item from > Harbor Freight . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/3tfwav3 > > I just checked the reviews again and they're good. > Comes with a broad range of die sets that cover > the probable range of needs in our airplanes. > I may pop for one of these and do an article > on it. If you have more than a half-dozen > fat wire terminals to install . . . and you don't > want to solder . . . this is a good value option.* ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools
. . . At 13:10 2015-02-17, you wrote: Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded aluminum (CCA) cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch with flux added and without flux. The solder just did not want to merge with the materials. Always found it pretty easy with copper cable. -kent Yes. At least the cable that Eric was selling a few years ago. He sent me a sample and I successfully crimped and soldered terminals to the wire. Not sure about how much copper cladding 'washes' off into the solder/copper amalgam of a finished joint. To be sure, if the copper is too thin to solder, aluminum exposed by solder at the base of the melt would pose new questions as to the joint's quality. But of course, copper terminals onto copper wire is a low-risk effort. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: weird radio trouble
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2015
Condensation forming on all exterior surfaces can also equal condensation on internal surfaces. Make sure all radio connections (especially antenna connections) are clean, d ry, and free from corrosion. I have seen these symptoms with moisture inside of a connector. Good on the g round but when you take off and fly, the temperature drops and the moisture f reezes causing increased resistance. Be sure to recheck all grounds as well. Pay close attention to the grounds t hat were touched in the replacement of the engine. Good luck Justin > On Feb 16, 2015, at 10:19, B Tomm wrote: > > > > A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't f ly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's fly ing again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out. > > Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/ 5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) commu nications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be mainta ined. > > Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins) > Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc > > The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internal ly regulated. > > At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alterna tor problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying. > > The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all t he exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection iss ues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be j ust following the trend that initial communications is always better. It see ms to deteriorate a little after being airborne. > > Any ideas? > > Bevan > > > > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools
. . . Could it be the flux? I've never worked with CCA but it might be worth trying one of the newer electronic solders while being careful not to overheat. In comparison my old standby rosin core solder performs poorly on less than perfectly clean tinned joints. I was given a partial roll that is only identified as a Kester product but it works much better. Ken On 17/02/2015 3:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 13:10 2015-02-17, you wrote: > Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded aluminum > (CCA) cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch with flux > added and without flux. The solder just did not want to merge with > the materials. Always found it pretty easy with copper cable. > -kent > > Yes. At least the cable that Eric was selling > a few years ago. He sent me a sample and I successfully > crimped and soldered terminals to the wire. > > Not sure about how much copper cladding 'washes' > off into the solder/copper amalgam of a finished > joint. To be sure, if the copper is too thin to > solder, aluminum exposed by solder at the base > of the melt would pose new questions as to the > joint's quality. > > But of course, copper terminals onto copper wire > is a low-risk effort. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp
tools . . . At 15:43 2015-02-17, you wrote: Could it be the flux? I've never worked with CCA but it might be worth trying one of the newer electronic solders while being careful not to overheat. Absolutely . . . and it doesn't have to be a 'newer' solder. The now 'ancient' Kester Resin 44 is still great electronic solder. Certainly an ambitious, no-clean electronic flux goes a long way toward elevating the quality of your joint. Eutectic alloy (63/37) will enhance wetting of the surfaces to be joined. My experiments with CCA were conducted with tin-plated terminals and a 63/37 Kester electronic solder. The joint filled and wetted nicely with just a small butane torch. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net>
Subject: Best way to connect to marker beacons Rg400 coax
Date: Feb 18, 2015
Hi All, What is the 'best' way to connect to a marker beacon antenna's Rg400 coax c able, Meaning I need to tie it to regular wire coming out of the audio pnl with the receiver. Should I just solder and heat shrink to the rg400 ? or wire the regular wire to a bnc connector ? or some other type of connector set up to do this ? Thanks Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Best way to connect to marker beacons Rg400 coax
Date: Feb 18, 2015
Solder a wire to the center conductor, then put heatshrink over it. For the outer shield, use a simple Solder Sleeve with a lead on it. Put heatshrink over the entire thing, no you have a nice termination from Coax to two small AWG22 wires that will work in the audio connector, but put the pigtail a few inches back (where it's easy to work with). Cheers, Stein From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey W. Skiba Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Best way to connect to marker beacons Rg400 coax Hi All, What is the 'best' way to connect to a marker beacon antenna's Rg400 coax cable, Meaning I need to tie it to regular wire coming out of the audio pnl with the receiver. Should I just solder and heat shrink to the rg400 ? or wire the regular wire to a bnc connector ? or some other type of connector set up to do this ? Thanks Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Feb 18, 2015
Subject: Re: Best way to connect to marker beacons Rg400 coax
For the marker beacon, you could use a wet noodle and it would still work. Henry On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Stein Bruch wrote: > Solder a wire to the center conductor, then put heatshrink over it. For the > outer shield, use a simple Solder Sleeve with a lead on it. Put heatshrink > over the entire thing, no you have a nice termination from Coax to two small > AWG22 wires that will work in the audio connector, but put the pigtail a few > inches back (where its easy to work with). > > > Cheers, > > > Stein > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey > W. Skiba > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:33 PM > To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Best way to connect to marker beacons Rg400 coax > > > Hi All, > > > What is the best way to connect to a marker beacon antennas Rg400 coax > cable, Meaning I need to tie it to regular wire coming out of the audio pnl > with the receiver. > > > Should I just solder and heat shrink to the rg400 ? > > or wire the regular wire to a bnc connector ? > > or some other type of connector set up to do this ? > > > Thanks > > Jeff > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > http://forums.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Rob, I put your OVM on the bench today. It's trip-point had drifted UPWARD about 0.5 volts. I re-calibrated it and did a response test. Its performance is pretty much in the center of design goals. Have you run the system (carefully) without the OVM? Are voltages normal? I"m really mystified about battery-only tripping. There was nothing in the performance or physical inspection that would explain this. I'd like to update your OVM more toward the response curves of the next generation OV modules under development. The original AEC/B&C devices were pretty fast which made them twitchy in some systems. If you can wait another 10 days or so, I'll send it back to you with a slower profile. Bob . . . Thanks I will try to get it out today -Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:13 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Failing over voltage module --> At 10:18 2015-02-13, you wrote: Bob I purchased 1 of your OVM 2 years ago and have been flying with it for a year I have a Glastar with a Subaru 2.5L and IR 70 Amp alternator using Z19RB as a platform I modified the alt field circuit to use the OVM and installed a relay in the B lead using the Z24 interim The circuit breaker for the alt field started to randomly trip and during troubleshooting I found the OVM was tripping even on battery only operations. Can I send the part back for analysis? Thanks -Rob Absolutely! Please do. It will be repaired/replaced under our lifetime warranty. It's a rare circumstance that I can get the carcass back on a fielded failure to perform. Box 130, Medicine Lodge, KS 67104-0130 Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Rob, If you can wait another 10 days or so, I'll send it back to you with a slower profile. Bob . . . P.S. I would simply replace the one you sent me but yours is an older configuration with the miniature pot . . . and I don't have any newer ones built. If the wait doesn't put you in a bind, the upgraded old unit is the better way to go. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2015
Subject: Failing over voltage module
From: Rob Henderson <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Qm9iClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGFraW5nIGEgbG9vayBhdCBpdC4KVGhlIGJyZWFrZXIgaGFzIG5vdCB0 cmlwcGVkIHNpbmNlIEkgcmVtb3ZlZCB0aGUgT1YgLCBpdCdzIGJlZW4gYWJvdXQgYW4gaG91ciBv ZiBmbGlnaHQgdGltZSBzaW5jZSByZW1vdmFsLiBQcmV2aW91c2x5IHRoZSBicmVha2VyIHdvdWxk IHRyaXAgYWZ0ZXIgYSBmZXcgbWludXRlcy4KWWVzIEkgY2FuIHdhaXQgZm9yIHRoZSBuZXcgbW9k ZWwuCi1Sb2IKCgpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgVmVyaXpvbiBXaXJlbGVzcyA0RyBMVEUgc21hcnRwaG9u ZQoKPGRpdj4tLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5Gcm9t OiAiUm9iZXJ0IEwuIE51Y2tvbGxzLCBJSUkiIDxudWNrb2xscy5ib2JAYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLmNv bT4gPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5EYXRlOjAyLzIyLzIwMTUgIDEyOjM5ICAoR01ULTA4OjAwKSA8L2Rpdj48 ZGl2PlRvOiBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+U3ViamVj dDogUkU6IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0OiBGYWlsaW5nIG92ZXIgdm9sdGFnZSBtb2R1bGUgPC9k aXY+PGRpdj4KPC9kaXY+LS0+IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAi Um9iZXJ0IEwuIE51Y2tvbGxzLCBJSUkiIDxudWNrb2xscy5ib2JAYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLmNvbT4K ClJvYiwKCgpJZiB5b3UgY2FuIHdhaXQgYW5vdGhlciAxMCBkYXlzIG9yIHNvLCBJJ2xsIHNlbmQg aXQKYmFjayB0byB5b3Ugd2l0aCBhIHNsb3dlciBwcm9maWxlLgoKQm9iIC4gLiAuCgogICAgUC5T LiBJIHdvdWxkIHNpbXBseSByZXBsYWNlIHRoZSBvbmUgeW91IHNlbnQKICAgIG1lIGJ1dCB5b3Vy cyBpcyBhbiBvbGRlciBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIHdpdGgKICAgIHRoZSBtaW5pYXR1cmUgcG90IC4g LiAuIGFuZCBJIGRvbid0IGhhdmUgYW55CiAgICBuZXdlciBvbmVzIGJ1aWx0LiBJZiB0aGUgd2Fp dCBkb2Vzbid0IHB1dAogICAgeW91IGluIGEgYmluZCwgdGhlIHVwZ3JhZGVkIG9sZCB1bml0IGlz IHRoZQogICAgYmV0dGVyIHdheSB0byBnby4KCiAgIEJvYiAuIC4gLiAgCgoKXy09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAg ICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0KXy09IFVzZSB0aGUg TWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQpfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkg TGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwKXy09IEFyY2hpdmUg U2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLApfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFy ZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOgpfLT0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNz LmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/QWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QKXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28g YXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEKXy09Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1z Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20KXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0 aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0KXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCEK Xy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWlu LgpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbgpfLT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQoK Cgo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
At 00:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: >Bob >Thanks for taking a look at it. >The breaker has not tripped since I removed the OV , it's been about >an hour of flight time since removal. Previously the breaker would >trip after a few minutes. >Yes I can wait for the new model. If wired per Z-24, and assuming the alternator is OFF at power-up, then the ov module is not even in the circuit . . . I'm pondering the original fault report. You said that it trips battery-only . . . I presume that this occurs instantly at power-on. Do I correctly assume that the alternator switch is already on before the battery switch? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Non-switchable devices
I have a number of devices without a built-in 'off' switch that I would like to segregate and control with a single switch or relay. They are currently activated when the master is turned on...fuel gauges, altitude encoder, trim indicators, and other similar items. They are already separated to their own mini fuse block. Here's my question: Power the mini fuse block with a switch or with a switch controlling a relay...or don't bother? Works pretty well as is - just thinking that I should have full-power-available to crank the engine till it starts. Anyone out there fixed this and how? Or is it a non-problem - looking for complexity? Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Non-switchable devices
Date: Feb 23, 2015
The minuscule amount of power drawn by the items you mentioned are a comple te non-issue. Don't add a single point of failure. Bob McC > Date: Mon=2C 23 Feb 2015 12:24:21 -0500 > From: recapen(at)earthlink.net > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Non-switchable devices > ink.net> > > > I have a number of devices without a built-in 'off' switch that I would l ike to segregate and control with a single switch or relay. > > They are currently activated when the master is turned on...fuel gauges =2C altitude encoder=2C trim indicators=2C and other similar items. > They are already separated to their own mini fuse block. > > Here's my question: > > Power the mini fuse block with a switch or with a switch controlling a re lay...or don't bother? > > Works pretty well as is - just thinking that I should have full-power-ava ilable to crank the engine till it starts. > > Anyone out there fixed this and how? Or is it a non-problem - looking fo r complexity? > > Ralph Capen > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: CAD Software Pirep
Hey all, I have no tie to this group or product...but it's something I ran across while looking to do my panel layout and I'll use it for migrating my RV-10 electrical layout to my RV-14 plan also. I figured it's worth telling you all about since CAD is a topic that comes up here often. I found and used an app call QCad. http://www.qcad.org/en/ It's an open source CAD app that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux. I myself use it on both Linux and Windows and have found it basically flawless. I'm a big fan of open source. It's nice to be able to try products and pay where and when you get a benefit. QCad is free to download and use, but some of the "pro" features time out after 15 minutes I think. But you can still use them for the first few minutes every time you start the app. I used it that way for a couple days until I knew it was a good product. Then I purchased the "pro" version. The website sells it in euros, but at the top of the screen you can change to other currency and the current price is $38.74 in USD. For CAD software, that's a bargain, so I gladly paid it. Being open source they also have a community forum and when I had a question, I tried the forum and was shocked that I got an answer almost right away. So it's nice to have free support as well. At any rate, I just thought it would be something that may help some of you, so I wanted to pass it along. To show my ignorance, there is something I haven't yet figured out. This is a "2D" CAD program. Everything I've done has been 1 layer so far. But, I have opened CAD drawings in the app that were drawn in "3D". So I'm not sure how you define software as 2D or 3D... Years ago I used CAD software in school and could project lines in a Z axis. I at least *think* you can do that in this app. (I haven't tried) But it at least appears you can work in 3D. I don't know if you can change perspectives though. So perhaps 3D just means you can rotate and move objects around? It's definitely not solid modeling CAD software though. But, it does seem perfect for panel layouts and electrical plans. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Non-switchable devices
Date: Feb 23, 2015
Ralph, I'm sure you will get some feedback asking why you want to turn those devices off so I will skip that part. Beechcraft uses a relay (for avionics master) that when powered, holds the contacts open. It's a little backwards thinking but when the avionics master switch is in the "off" position, the relay is powered and opens the circuit. When the avionics master switch is in the "on" position, the relay is not powered and closes the contacts allowing electrons to flow. It is a spst or spdt nc relay like this one pc795-1c-c-12c-rn-x ( http://www.waytekwire.com/manf/141/PICKER-COMPONENTS/ ) It's a fail safe design. Hope this helps Justin. > On Feb 23, 2015, at 08:24, Ralph E. Capen wrote: > > > > I have a number of devices without a built-in 'off' switch that I would like to segregate and control with a single switch or relay. > > They are currently activated when the master is turned on...fuel gauges, altitude encoder, trim indicators, and other similar items. > They are already separated to their own mini fuse block. > > Here's my question: > > Power the mini fuse block with a switch or with a switch controlling a relay...or don't bother? > > Works pretty well as is - just thinking that I should have full-power-available to crank the engine till it starts. > > Anyone out there fixed this and how? Or is it a non-problem - looking for complexity? > > Ralph Capen > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Non-switchable devices
Date: Feb 23, 2015
I should clarify the statement. The relay that Beechcraft uses is not physically like the one listed. The Beechcraft relay is much larger and heavier. Electrically it is similar in function. Justin > On Feb 23, 2015, at 09:10, Justin Jones wrote: > > > Ralph, > > I'm sure you will get some feedback asking why you want to turn those devices off so I will skip that part. > > Beechcraft uses a relay (for avionics master) that when powered, holds the contacts open. It's a little backwards thinking but when the avionics master switch is in the "off" position, the relay is powered and opens the circuit. When the avionics master switch is in the "on" position, the relay is not powered and closes the contacts allowing electrons to flow. It is a spst or spdt nc relay like this one pc795-1c-c-12c-rn-x ( http://www.waytekwire.com/manf/141/PICKER-COMPONENTS/ ) > It's a fail safe design. > > Hope this helps > > Justin. > > >> On Feb 23, 2015, at 08:24, Ralph E. Capen wrote: >> >> >> >> I have a number of devices without a built-in 'off' switch that I would like to segregate and control with a single switch or relay. >> >> They are currently activated when the master is turned on...fuel gauges, altitude encoder, trim indicators, and other similar items. >> They are already separated to their own mini fuse block. >> >> Here's my question: >> >> Power the mini fuse block with a switch or with a switch controlling a relay...or don't bother? >> >> Works pretty well as is - just thinking that I should have full-power-available to crank the engine till it starts. >> >> Anyone out there fixed this and how? Or is it a non-problem - looking for complexity? >> >> Ralph Capen > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: CAD Software Pirep
Good Pirep for that program need to look into it once, open source rocks definitively :) Having worked close to 10 years in 2D/3D modellers its not about 2 or 3 axis. A 3D program does work with solid bodies and can calculate intersection and curves out of these 3D volume bodies so that is much more complex and needs a lot of calculating power :) You can export from a 3D modeller the bodies but then the description is no longer in terms of bodies instead lines and points. Thanks Tim Cheers Werner On 23.02.2015 19:03, Tim Olson wrote: > > Hey all, > .............. > > I found and used an app call QCad. http://www.qcad.org/en/ > It's an open source CAD app that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux. > I myself use it on both Linux and Windows and have found it > basically flawless. > ........... > To show my ignorance, there is something I haven't yet figured out. > This is a "2D" CAD program. Everything I've done has been 1 layer > so far. But, I have opened CAD drawings in the app that were drawn > in "3D". So I'm not sure how you define software as 2D or 3D... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Date: Feb 23, 2015
Bob The alternator is wired per the attached drawing The OVM trips maybe 5 to 10 minutes after engine start. Just turning on the DC Master switch without the engine running caused the OVM to trip the breaker after a few minutes, a few times. -----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, February 23, 2015 8:11 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Failing over voltage module --> At 00:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: >Bob >Thanks for taking a look at it. >The breaker has not tripped since I removed the OV , it's been about an >hour of flight time since removal. Previously the breaker would trip >after a few minutes. >Yes I can wait for the new model. If wired per Z-24, and assuming the alternator is OFF at power-up, then the ov module is not even in the circuit . . . I'm pondering the original fault report. You said that it trips battery-only . . . I presume that this occurs instantly at power-on. Do I correctly assume that the alternator switch is already on before the battery switch? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: CAD Software Pirep
At 12:03 2015-02-23, you wrote: Hey all, I have no tie to this group or product...but it's something I ran across while looking to do my panel layout and I'll use it for migrating my RV-10 electrical layout to my RV-14 plan also. I figured it's worth telling you all about since CAD is a topic that comes up here often. I found and used an app call QCad. http://www.qcad.org/en/ It's an open source CAD app that works on Windows, Mac, and Linux. I myself use it on both Linux and Windows and have found it basically flawless. I'm a big fan of open source. It's nice to be able to try products and pay where and when you get a benefit. QCad is free to download and use, but some of the "pro" features time out after 15 minutes I think. But you can still use them for the first few minutes every time you start the app. I used it that way for a couple days until I knew it was a good product. Then I purchased the "pro" version. The website sells it in euros, but at the top of the screen you can change to other currency and the current price is $38.74 in USD. For CAD software, that's a bargain, so I gladly paid it. I looked over the features at http://tinyurl.com/pljydv8 . . . note that features in italic are Pro version only. If you want to suck in any of the .dwg files from my website, you'll want the Pro version. To show my ignorance, there is something I haven't yet figured out. This is a "2D" CAD program. Everything I've done has been 1 layer so far. But, I have opened CAD drawings in the app that were drawn in "3D". So I'm not sure how you define software as 2D or 3D... The term 'layers' in the context of CAD programs refers to the assignment of elements to "layers" which may be visualized as pages stacked on top of each other . . . totally transparent except for what drawing elements are on them. You can turn layers on/off at will . . . elements on off layers disappear and cannot be edited until you turn the layer back on. Years ago I used CAD software in school and could project lines in a Z axis. I at least *think* you can do that in this app. (I haven't tried) But it at least appears you can work in 3D. I don't know if you can change perspectives though. So perhaps 3D just means you can rotate and move objects around? The closest this program comes to 3D is the isometric drawing mode which is a quasi 3D . . . used extensively in catalog drawings and exploded view assembly drawings. A process that is easy to learn and quite useful. The 'solid' drawings in the 'Connection are isometrics I did in AutoCAD . . . Emacs! It's definitely not solid modeling CAD software though. Correct. While it supports layers, it's a 2D program. But, it does seem perfect for panel layouts and electrical plans. Agreed There's another free program called NanoCAD http://tinyurl.com/pqw35rw Very powerful clone of AutoCAD. If you're already familiar with driving autocad, the transition into nanocad is smooth and painless. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CAD Software Pirep
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 23, 2015
(partial repost) "It's the stingy guy who pays the most" --Click and Clack Trying to get the cheapest (or free) software is unlikely to save anything. Ebay has full boxes of recent versions of TurboCAD or DesignCAD with manuals and disks and support and users forums AND FREE SHIPPING for $10. Grab one. I used to work at a company with a horribly expensive CAD program (Cadra)...$3K/SEAT++++. And if you wanted, let's say, a font, oh that's $$$$ more per SEAT. And they held tutorials for $$$$. Cheeze.... Telling them they were crazy never made me popular. I was always converting files and doing special jobs using DesignCAD. Furthermore tiny little DesignCAD had a tiny button marked 3D...and that big CAD program could only dream about having a 3D capability. Now of course Cadra has vanished. TurboCAD is similar and better in some areas. Some users do some things in DesignCAD and other things in TurboCAD on the same drawing. Amazing. DesignCad is a true 2d/3d program see attached solid model of my switch guard. But you can buy copies of Solidworks on Ebay for cheap. It in in some ways more up-to-date. -------- 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=438632#438632 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/pdm_012_solid_model_dwg_105.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2015
From: John <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft comm antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the panel-mounted radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I could run the cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors inline to break the connection to the panel and connect to the handheld unit. That's what I did on my first homebuilt. However, I envision a panel-mounted male BNC connector that could possibly be used to connect the handheld without physically disconnecting the failed radio, providing that radio is switched off. If this is possible, I'm wondering if some kind of antenna switch or splitter would be necessary. I'm talking about the antenna only serving one radio at a time. This is very possibly a dumb question. Thanks in advance for any replies! / / ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 02/23/15
From: David Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
> > From: John <jrevens(at)comcast.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft comm > antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the panel-mounted > radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I could run the > cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors inline to break the > connection to the panel and connect to the handheld unit. That's what I > did on my first homebuilt. However, I envision a panel-mounted male BNC > connector that could possibly be used to connect the handheld without > physically disconnecting the failed radio, providing that radio is > switched off. If this is possible, I'm wondering if some kind of antenna > switch or splitter would be necessary. Your first answer was better. A splitter is not practical, given the need to maintain low loss for each radio. You would need a switch, and there are good quality coaxial toggle switches. They are expensive and fairly large. There are a few surplus ones on ebay now with N connectors, search 'coaxial toggle switch.' There are cheap ones made for ham/CB/TV but I would not try to use one of those. I think I would use a separate antenna instead. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Having several issues with my installation
From: "curts63" <curts63(at)verizon.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
First, I'm not an avionics person nor do I play one on TV. I bought a used Arion Lightning, composite airplane. I didn't like the original EFIS, so I elected to install a new Dual Screen Garmin G3X Touch system. Complete with dual ADHRS, Magnotometer, Autopilot, AP Controller, GDL-39R, remote transponder, remote radio, GNS-430W, GAD29, audio panel, and a coffee pot. This is a 12v system using a Jabiru 3300 engine. The fuel probes are capacitance made by Centroid Products, sold through MGL. I had an avionics guy do most of the wiring and guide me through the process. We did not have the luxury of a true avionics shop, like most, trying to save a buck or two. We removed most of the previous wiring and installed all new home made harnesses. Using shielded wire for all but the power and ground connections. We have the battery mounted on the firewall with a piece of shield braid connecting to the firewall. A heavy wire going to the starter ground to battery. We ran two grounding wires to separate central grounding points under the spar box/pilot seat. We kept all avionics on one ground buss and all other powered items on the other ground buss. The power wires go to either an ExpBus2 switch panel or a buss bar with breakers for each component. We kept two separate power controls, in the event of a main battery loss, the backup battery would power the essential items on the buss strip. This is done via a two way relay. All comm antennas are mounted on the belly with small ground planes, bonded to the avionics ground buss. The GPS antennas are mounted on the top of the fuselage. RG-400 is used on all coax cables and the comm coax is run down one side and the gps is routed down the other. Here are the issues; While the plane is shut off or running, if you turn on the AeroLED strobes, the TACH misreads or flags. If you add the NAV lights, it gets worse. IF you turn on the LED landing light, the COMM 1 breaks squelch. IF you key the mic for either radio, the fuel indicators begin to drop. When you release the mic, they regain. Called AeroLED and Dean wanted to basically sell me new Nav/Strobe lights, but didn't offer a solution to my existing lights. Garmin has some G3Xperts that can offer assistance, but it's tough to get them on the phone. I'm at my wits end!!!! Everything I know about avionics, I've learned in the last 3 months, and I don't like it. I'm looking for any good advice that someone can offer. Please understand my ignorance and speak to me like a third grader. Thanks, Curt Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438644#438644 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charles Brame <ChasB(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I installed a second external antenna that matches the one I use for my main radio. The antenna cable terminates at a BNC connection on my panel. I can quickly connect my handheld to the BNC with a patch cord. With the exception of the cost of a second antenna, the installation was quick and simple. Works well. Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB San Antonio -------------------------------------- > From: John <jrevens(at)comcast.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft comm > antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the panel-mounted > radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I could run the > cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors inline to break the > connection to the panel and connect to the handheld unit. That's what I > did on my first homebuilt. However, I envision a panel-mounted male BNC > connector that could possibly be used to connect the handheld without > physically disconnecting the failed radio, providing that radio is > switched off. If this is possible, I'm wondering if some kind of antenna > switch or splitter would be necessary. I'm talking about the antenna > only serving one radio at a time. This is very possibly a dumb question. > > Thanks in advance for any replies! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
At 22:19 2015-02-23, you wrote: >Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft >comm antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the >panel-mounted radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I >could run the cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors >inline to break the connection to the panel and connect to the >handheld unit. That's what I did on my first homebuilt. However, I >envision a panel-mounted male BNC connector that could possibly be >used to connect the handheld without physically disconnecting the >failed radio, providing that radio is switched off. If this is >possible, I'm wondering if some kind of antenna switch or splitter >would be necessary. I'm talking about the antenna only serving one >radio at a time. This is very possibly a dumb question. Since the h-h is backup for a failed radio, only ONE antenna can be made to service both appliances. One of my favorite 'back up' antenna arrangements suggests arranging a coiled-up excess of comm antenna feed-line to be situated in a handy but out of sight location. A BNC cable male/female joint on the panel-radio end of the coil. Of course, this excess cable should not be retained in a manner requiring more than your fingers to access, break the joint and uncoil it. Should it become necessary to put the h-h into service, you can string out the coax and hook it to the radio. Emacs! Unfortunately, this particular arrangement is a bit un-graceful. Consider this . . . Emacs! A pair of right angle adapters can be used to bring the antenna coax down the back of the radio such that the whole becomes more like a microphone. If your BNC cable male on the feed-line is already a right-angle connector, then you only need one adapter to get the 180 degree, tight bend. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Having several issues with my installation
>Here are the issues; >While the plane is shut off or running, if you turn on the AeroLED >strobes, the TACH misreads or flags. If you add the NAV lights, it gets worse. > >IF you turn on the LED landing light, the COMM 1 breaks squelch. > >IF you key the mic for either radio, the fuel indicators begin to >drop. When you release the mic, they regain. > >Called AeroLED and Dean wanted to basically sell me new Nav/Strobe >lights, but didn't offer a solution to my existing lights. Which suggests to me that they KNOW some things about the lights you have . . . that may have been 'fixed' in their current products. >Garmin has some G3Xperts that can offer assistance, but it's tough >to get them on the phone. They would be in no better position to offer assistance than any of us here on the List. It's like an art master trying to do remote diagnosis on another individual's problems with color, textures, paints, etc. etc. without having been involved in the effort from square-one and without actually being able to see/smell/touch or have detailed knowledge of the original design goals . . . or lack thereof. >I'm at my wits end!!!! Everything I know about avionics, I've >learned in the last 3 months, and I don't like it. Understand. You've been sand-bagged with a realization of how much you don't know about what is not yet known. >I'm looking for any good advice that someone can offer. Please >understand my ignorance and speak to me like a third grader. Without having a detailed schematic and knowledge of the mechanical layouts, it's more than a little difficult. Being a composite airplane makes it more problematic yet. The strongest odds are in favor of a poorly architectured ground system. You spoke to a constellation of wires in the ground system that give an initial impression of 'ground loop city'. Figure Z-15 from the 'Connection illustrates some of the common pitfalls http://tinyurl.com/6w87rvb and suggestions for crafting a 'clean' ground system. Emacs! The symptoms you described MAY NOT have root cause in your ground system architecture . . . but unless the ground system was initially crafted with the simple pitfalls in mind, then one cannot rule out grounding as a contributor to your woes . . . but let us look elsewhere first. Q: Are your fuel level sensors supplied with ANY claim of having been tested for compatibility with aircraft environments? Can you give us a link to download the manufacturer's data, marketing hype and installation manuals? Your problems that manifest with your LED lighting products are most likely associated with radiation from their switch-mode power supplies. Some years ago, we offered a filter kit that tamed a popular switch mode supply in a DIY lighting kit. Sales volumes went way down on that product and it was discontinued. I have a filter that was crafted for a customer some years ago . . . to mitigate conducted noises that were not accounted for in the initial design goals. Emacs! I can send you one of these to try on your landing light. If it proves adequate/useful, I'll throw some more together and we can sprinkle them around on the other LED antagonists. This is a cut-n-try approach . . . given the limitations of diagnostics-by-wire . . . it's about the best we can do . . . If you'd like to try this, shoot me a mailing address . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Having several issues with my installation
> The strongest odds are in favor of a poorly > architectured ground system. CORRECTION: I miss-typed . . . the ground system is not high on the list of probabilities pending elimination of other possibilities . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
From: "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring a short "branch" from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? John Evens Thorp T-18 N71JE (built and flying) Kitfox SS7 N27JE (building) -------- John Evens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438670#438670 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Having several issues with my installation
Curt, What part of the country are you in? On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:05 AM, curts63 wrote: First, I'm not an avionics person nor do I play one on TV. I bought a used Arion Lightning, composite airplane. I didn't like the original EFIS, so I elected to install a new Dual Screen Garmin G3X Touch system. Complete with dual ADHRS, Magnotometer, Autopilot, AP Controller, GDL-39R, remote transponder, remote radio, GNS-430W, GAD29, audio panel, and a coffee pot. This is a 12v system using a Jabiru 3300 engine. The fuel probes are capacitance made by Centroid Products, sold through MGL. I had an avionics guy do most of the wiring and guide me through the process. We did not have the luxury of a true avionics shop, like most, trying to save a buck or two. We removed most of the previous wiring and installed all new home made harnesses. Using shielded wire for all but the power and ground connections. We have the battery mounted on the firewall with a piece of shield braid connecting to the firewall. A heavy wire going to the starter ground to battery. We ran two grounding wires to separate central grounding points under the spar box/pilot seat. We kept all avionics on one ground buss and all other powered items on the other ground buss. The power wires go to either an ExpBus2 switch panel or a buss bar with breakers for each component. We kept two separate power controls, in the event of a main battery loss, the backup battery would power the essential items on the buss strip. This is done via a two way relay. All comm antennas are mounted on the belly with small ground planes, bonded to the avionics ground buss. The GPS antennas are mounted on the top of the fuselage. RG-400 is used on all coax cables and the comm! coax is run down one side and the gps is routed down the other. Here are the issues; While the plane is shut off or running, if you turn on the AeroLED strobes, the TACH misreads or flags. If you add the NAV lights, it gets worse. IF you turn on the LED landing light, the COMM 1 breaks squelch. IF you key the mic for either radio, the fuel indicators begin to drop. When you release the mic, they regain. Called AeroLED and Dean wanted to basically sell me new Nav/Strobe lights, but didn't offer a solution to my existing lights. Garmin has some G3Xperts that can offer assistance, but it's tough to get them on the phone. I'm at my wits end!!!! Everything I know about avionics, I've learned in the last 3 months, and I don't like it. I'm looking for any good advice that someone can offer. Please understand my ignorance and speak to me like a third grader. Thanks, Curt Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438644#438644 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Don't do it. One radio's transmitter would directly drive the other's receiver; not a good plan for a number of reasons (which might include smoke). > > >To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the line >between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring a >short "branch" from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly >close that off with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I >would have a short section of antenna cable with connectors already >attached to and stored with the handheld. Would this kind of >arrangement have shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other >losses? > >John Evens >Thorp T-18 N71JE (built and flying) >Kitfox SS7 N27JE (building) > >-------- >John Evens > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438670#438670 > > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Date: Feb 25, 2015
You could install a Coaxial Switch. The output to the Antenna and one port to the Ships Radio and one port to a Socket mounted somewhere convenient that you can plug a Handheld into. Just remember not transmit into an open port. I.e. don=99t leave the ships Radio on if you plan to use the Handheld. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2015 3:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft comm antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the panel-mounted radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I could run the cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors inline to break the connection to the panel and connect to the handheld unit. That's what I did on my first homebuilt. However, I envision a panel-mounted male BNC connector that could possibly be used to connect the handheld without physically disconnecting the failed radio, providing that radio is switched off. If this is possible, I'm wondering if some kind of antenna switch or splitter would be necessary. I'm talking about the antenna only serving one radio at a time. This is very possibly a dumb question. Thanks in advance for any replies! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
That is the only way I would contemplate sharing a single antenna with two radios. Apart from avoiding the likelihood of transmitting into an open port or delivering your transmitter's full output power into the other radios receiver, potentially with dire consequences, we should not forget that these radios have a design antenna impedance of 50 ohms, as does the antenna, giving the sought after perfect match. Hook up two radios simultaneously and the apparent radio end impedance becomes 50/2, or 25 ohms. Immediate mismatch. Bill 19-4446 Jodel D18, also in Oz. On 25/02/2015 5:41 PM, John MacCallum wrote: > > You could install a Coaxial Switch. The output to the Antenna and one > port to the Ships Radio and one port to a Socket mounted somewhere > convenient that you can plug a Handheld into. > > Just remember not transmit into an open port. I.e. dont leave the > ships Radio on if you plan to use the Handheld. > > Cheers > > John MacCallum > > VH-DUU > > RV 10 # 41016 > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John > *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 February 2015 3:19 PM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > Is there an efficient, elegant way to connect an external aircraft > comm antenna to a handheld radio in the event of failure of the > panel-mounted radio that the antenna is connected to? I know that I > could run the cable within reach of the pilot, with connectors inline > to break the connection to the panel and connect to the handheld unit. > That's what I did on my first homebuilt. However, I envision a > panel-mounted male BNC connector that could possibly be used to > connect the handheld without physically disconnecting the failed > radio, providing that radio is switched off. If this is possible, I'm > wondering if some kind of antenna switch or splitter would be > necessary. I'm talking about the antenna only serving one radio at a > time. This is very possibly a dumb question. > > Thanks in advance for any replies! > > * http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* > http://forums.matronics.com - List Contribution Web generous -Matthttp://www.matronics.com/c= > * * <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
From: David Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net wrote: > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the line between > the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring a short "branch" > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off with the > proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short section of antenna > cable with connectors already attached to and stored with the handheld. Would > this kind of arrangement have shortcomings in the way of signal strength > or other losses? Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would badly compromise receive and transmit range. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Yes RF is not like water. It's far more fickle and you can't use a terminating cap because of the power involved during transmit. You would fry a terminating resistor that was plugged into the free port plus the impedance would be halved. Hence an SWR of 2:1 before it even gets to the antenna. A tee in the feedline is not a good idea. It will work but there are a lot of things that can go wrong with that setup. Up to and including accidently transmitting into your HH with the ships radio or visa versa. It is best to use a Coaxial switch or have a patch panel. To make a Patch panel you will need one BNC socket (female) and one Connector (male) mounted on a small bracket and a Jumper Lead with one Connector and one socket. The Jumper plugs into the Ships Radio via a socket and a socket on the other end goes to the Antenna via the from the connector. You disconnect the Ships Radio end of the jumper and plug into the hand held. The reason for making the jumper male and female is so you don't accidently plug into the Ships radio with the Hand Held. Don't laugh it is easy done! I still vote for a coaxial switch it's a lot easier. They can be bought for not much money from a Ham Radio supplier. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Josephson Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna --> On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net wrote: > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the > line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring a short "branch" > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off > with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short > section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and > stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have > shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would badly compromise receive and transmit range. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Having several issues with my installation
From: "curts63" <curts63(at)verizon.net>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
I'm located in eastern PA. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438703#438703 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Good Morning All, Just to jump in on a message already well answered, I would like to add my thoughts. We have a Piper Pacer equipped with just one radio. A Garmin 430W. The aircraft is flown IFR regularly. In order to add a bit of reliable back up, we do carry a handheld and have installed a separate external antenna just for that radio. It is a bit of extra drag and a bit more weight, but when a back up is actually needed, it is nice to know that the unit has an antenna all of it's own. Just my idea of a full backup totally separated from the primary radio system. Decisions, decisions. All the time decisions! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator PA-20 Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Having several issues with my installation
From: "curts63" <curts63(at)verizon.net>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
I'm ashamed and embarassed by my doodling, but here is a sketch of what I have. Remember, I don't know the correct symbols, terms, or designs that engineers should use. This can be the drawing you hang around the office for others to mock. The one drawing shows the basic wiring idea. The battery is grounded to the firewall, starter, and both ground blocks. The power goes from the battery to the starter solenoid, also from the battery to the shunt- then splits to the power panel with built in switches and some type of self resetting fuses to the relay which provides power to the other bus. You'll have to excuse my not remembering the exact way the relays are wired, but it does work for battery backup. The alternator has two wires to the regulator, the regulator is grounded to the firewall and feeds back to the battery (there is a sense wire that turns on/off the regulator). The "main bus" has actual circuit breakers mounted to a copper strip. These power the avionics , such as radios, transponder, GDL, GPS, ADHRS, and one EFIS. I believe all shielded wires used are grounded on the backshell and floating on the other ends. Regular power and ground for individual units are not shielded. The interconnect for the Garmin items use a canbus or RS232, with twisted and shielded pairs. http://centroidproducts.com/3wire.htm this is where the fuel probes come from. The power, ground and sense connect to the GEA-24 and use 5v reference. If you have any other questions, please ask and I'll attempt to answer the best I can. If someone feels they can help, feel free to ask for my cell number and we can talk to better understand. Thanks, Curt Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438710#438710 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/schematic_2_988.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/schematic_1_130.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Attached is a pdf data sheet for a coaxial switch. Question: would this switch be a good choice? On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:46 AM, John MacCallum wrote: > john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> > > Yes RF is not like water. It's far more fickle and you can't use a > terminating cap because of the power involved during transmit. You would > fry > a terminating resistor that was plugged into the free port plus the > impedance would be halved. Hence an SWR of 2:1 before it even gets to the > antenna. > A tee in the feedline is not a good idea. It will work but there are a lot > of things that can go wrong with that setup. Up to and including > accidently transmitting into your HH with the ships radio or visa versa. > > It is best to use a Coaxial switch or have a patch panel. > > To make a Patch panel you will need one BNC socket (female) and one > Connector (male) mounted on a small bracket and a Jumper Lead with one > Connector and one socket. The Jumper plugs into the Ships Radio via a > socket > and a socket on the other end goes to the Antenna via the from the > connector. You disconnect the Ships Radio end of the jumper and plug into > the hand held. The reason for making the jumper male and female is so you > don't accidently plug into the Ships radio with the > Hand Held. Don't laugh it is easy done! I still vote for a coaxial switch > it's a lot easier. They can be bought for not much money from a Ham Radio > supplier. > > > Cheers > > John MacCallum > VH-DUU > RV 10 # 41016 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David > Josephson > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:38 PM > To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > --> > > > On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net wrote: > > > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the > > line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring > a > short "branch" > > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off > > with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short > > section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and > > stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have > > shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? > > Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging > whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would badly > compromise receive and transmit range. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Date: Feb 26, 2015
Probably a little bit of overkill for what you want it for. That particular one has a relay so that you can remote switch it. You can get good quality manual ones for a lot less than what that will cost although of course not quite as neat and tidy as a remote mounted switch such as that. A quick search around I can find some N type connector switches for around $50. You would need to terminate the Antenna Feedline with and N connector for the one in the link below but that=99s actually a better specification than BNC. If you look around a bit you could probably find a BNC terminated type. http://www.hamradio.com/detail.cfm?pid=H0-003421 Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Ryan Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 3:58 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna Attached is a pdf data sheet for a coaxial switch. Question: would this switch be a good choice? On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:46 AM, John MacCallum wrote: Yes RF is not like water. It's far more fickle and you can't use a terminating cap because of the power involved during transmit. You would fry a terminating resistor that was plugged into the free port plus the impedance would be halved. Hence an SWR of 2:1 before it even gets to the antenna. A tee in the feedline is not a good idea. It will work but there are a lot of things that can go wrong with that setup. Up to and including accidently transmitting into your HH with the ships radio or visa versa. It is best to use a Coaxial switch or have a patch panel. To make a Patch panel you will need one BNC socket (female) and one Connector (male) mounted on a small bracket and a Jumper Lead with one Connector and one socket. The Jumper plugs into the Ships Radio via a socket and a socket on the other end goes to the Antenna via the from the connector. You disconnect the Ships Radio end of the jumper and plug into the hand held. The reason for making the jumper male and female is so you don't accidently plug into the Ships radio with the Hand Held. Don't laugh it is easy done! I still vote for a coaxial switch it's a lot easier. They can be bought for not much money from a Ham Radio supplier. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Josephson Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna --> On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net wrote: > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the > line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would bring a short "branch" > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off > with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short > section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and > stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have > shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would badly compromise receive and transmit range. - Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List FORUMS - _blank">http://forums.matronics.com b Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andy Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: antenna switch for handheld
Date: Feb 25, 2015
It turns out that ICOM produces a convenient little, optionally panel-mounted device for exactly what you need, under the name Antenna Switchbox, P/N IC-ANT-SB, which can be had for $64 from Aircraft Spruce including the BNC-terminate interconnect cable for your handheld. I made one of these myself maybe 10-12 years ago for an old airplane, but nowadays would just spend the money! Basically, it is a soldered-closed brass box with two BNC connectors on the back and a 3.5mm audio plug jack with a NC switch on the front. Lots of variety on Mouser. (My homemade version used a 1/4" plug.) Closed brass box protects the signal from interference. The thing is wired so that input BNC from the panel-mount is connected to the output BNC to the antenna through the NC switch when the jack is empty. When you connect the handheld, the plug opens the switch in the jack and disconnects the panel mount, while connecting the handheld to the antenna. Pretty idiot proof. FWIW, Andy Elliott ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Date: Feb 26, 2015
Yes Bob that was something else I thought about to suggest. If the extra drag is not an issue a dedicated antenna is a good solution. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 1:00 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna Good Morning All, Just to jump in on a message already well answered, I would like to add my thoughts. We have a Piper Pacer equipped with just one radio. A Garmin 430W. The aircraft is flown IFR regularly. In order to add a bit of reliable back up, we do carry a handheld and have installed a separate external antenna just for that radio. It is a bit of extra drag and a bit more weight, but when a back up is actually needed, it is nice to know that the unit has an antenna all of it's own. Just my idea of a full backup totally separated from the primary radio system. Decisions, decisions. All the time decisions! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator PA-20 Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
Not considering price, are the specs what they should be? And to those suggesting the switch is the best solution, wouldn't there exist the danger of the switch being in the wrong position, and then trying to transmit with the equivalent of "no antenna" attached? I've heard that's not a smart thing to do. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:59 PM, John MacCallum wrote: > Probably a little bit of overkill for what you want it for. That > particular one has a relay so that you can remote switch it. You can get > good > > quality manual ones for a lot less than what that will cost although of > course not quite as neat and tidy as a remote mounted switch such as that . > > > A quick search around I can find some N type connector switches for aroun d > $50. You would need to terminate the Antenna Feedline with and N connecto r > > for the one in the link below but that=99s actually a better specif ication > than BNC. If you look around a bit you could probably find a BNC terminat ed > type. > > > http://www.hamradio.com/detail.cfm?pid=H0-003421 > > > Cheers > > > John MacCallum > > VH-DUU > > RV 10 # 41016 > > > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 February 2015 3:58 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate > antenna > > > Attached is a pdf data sheet for a coaxial switch. Question: would this > switch be a good choice? > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:46 AM, John MacCallum < > john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> wrote: > > john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> > > Yes RF is not like water. It's far more fickle and you can't use a > terminating cap because of the power involved during transmit. You would > fry > a terminating resistor that was plugged into the free port plus the > impedance would be halved. Hence an SWR of 2:1 before it even gets to the > antenna. > A tee in the feedline is not a good idea. It will work but there are a lo t > of things that can go wrong with that setup. Up to and including > accidently transmitting into your HH with the ships radio or visa versa. > > It is best to use a Coaxial switch or have a patch panel. > > To make a Patch panel you will need one BNC socket (female) and one > Connector (male) mounted on a small bracket and a Jumper Lead with one > Connector and one socket. The Jumper plugs into the Ships Radio via a > socket > and a socket on the other end goes to the Antenna via the from the > connector. You disconnect the Ships Radio end of the jumper and plug into > the hand held. The reason for making the jumper male and female is so you > don't accidently plug into the Ships radio with the > Hand Held. Don't laugh it is easy done! I still vote for a coaxial switc h > it's a lot easier. They can be bought for not much money from a Ham Radio > supplier. > > > Cheers > > John MacCallum > VH-DUU > RV 10 # 41016 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David > Josephson > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:38 PM > To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > --> > > > On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net wrote: > > > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the > > line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I would brin g > a > short "branch" > > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close that off > > with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a short > > section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and > > stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have > > shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? > > Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging > whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would badly > compromise receive and transmit range. > > > ========== > - > Electric-List" target="_blank"> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ========== > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > * > =========== www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aeroelectric <matronics.list(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Shield grounds
Date: Feb 25, 2015
I thought I understood how shield grounds worked and how to implement them but now looking at a Garmin G3X. The garmin manual specifically has some of the shields terminated on both ends and grounded. some of the shields are only terminated and grounder on one end and the other is floating. So what is the proper termination of shields and what is the science behind the proper methods. John Snapp ( excuse the typos. This email was sent from a mobile device!) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2015
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
It could be made to work Ken but it is more complicated than necessary. It also needs a 12 volt supply and utilises SMA connectors. I suggest you look for a much simpler mechanical switch type.They are commonly available from ham radio suppliers and usually are fitted with SO-239 connectors. Connection is selected by simply turning a knob or flicking a switch. Better reliability. Bill On 26/02/2015 3:58 AM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Attached is a pdf data sheet for a coaxial switch. Question: would > this switch be a good choice? > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:46 AM, John MacCallum > > wrote: > > > > > Yes RF is not like water. It's far more fickle and you can't use a > terminating cap because of the power involved during transmit. You > would fry > a terminating resistor that was plugged into the free port plus the > impedance would be halved. Hence an SWR of 2:1 before it even gets > to the > antenna. > A tee in the feedline is not a good idea. It will work but there > are a lot > of things that can go wrong with that setup. Up to and including > accidently transmitting into your HH with the ships radio or visa > versa. > > It is best to use a Coaxial switch or have a patch panel. > > To make a Patch panel you will need one BNC socket (female) and one > Connector (male) mounted on a small bracket and a Jumper Lead with one > Connector and one socket. The Jumper plugs into the Ships Radio > via a socket > and a socket on the other end goes to the Antenna via the from the > connector. You disconnect the Ships Radio end of the jumper and > plug into > the hand held. The reason for making the jumper male and female is > so you > don't accidently plug into the Ships radio with the > Hand Held. Don't laugh it is easy done! I still vote for a > coaxial switch > it's a lot easier. They can be bought for not much money from a > Ham Radio > supplier. > > > Cheers > > John MacCallum > VH-DUU > RV 10 # 41016 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] On Behalf > Of David > Josephson > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 7:38 PM > To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna > > --> > > > > On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 AM, jrevens(at)comcast.net > wrote: > > > To clarify a little, I was thinking of installing a BNC tee in the > > line between the panel mounted radio and the antenna. Then I > would bring a > short "branch" > > from that tee to a panel-mounted male BNC, and possibly close > that off > > with the proper terminating cap until it is used. I would have a > short > > section of antenna cable with connectors already attached to and > > stored with the handheld. Would this kind of arrangement have > > shortcomings in the way of signal strength or other losses? > > Yes, many. It won't work. RF is not like water pipe. Besides damaging > whichever radio was not transmitting, the impedance mismatch would > badly > compromise receive and transmit range. > > > ========== > - > Electric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ========== > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
I have a Narco VP-16 antenna switch that I will sell for $25 including shipping in the continental US. It uses BNC connectors, and switches one antenna between two radios. It is essentially an electrical relay that switches with 12v. Wiring connector included. Pic on my website http://deej.net/forsale/ -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
At 16:34 2015-02-25, you wrote: >It could be made to work Ken but it is more complicated than >necessary. It also needs a 12 volt supply and utilises SMA >connectors. I suggest you look for a much simpler mechanical switch >type. They are commonly available from ham radio suppliers and >usually are fitted with SO-239 connectors. Connection is selected by >simply turning a knob or flicking a switch. Better reliability. Most COTS antenna switches are designed to select from two or more antennas to a single transceiver/receiver . . . there are no concerns for leaving "the alternate transceiver" unterminated. It turns out that ICOM produces a convenient little, optionally panel-mounted device for exactly what you need, under the name Antenna Switchbox, P/N IC-ANT-SB, which can be had for $64 from Aircraft Spruce including the BNC-terminate interconnect cable for your handheld. Yes, I purchased one about a dozen years ago and dissected it. http://tinyurl.com/nn2sysd http://tinyurl.com/pp6tzgv . . . yes, it performs as advertised but not very sanitary with respect to managing a transmission line. Another concern for me was a kind flimsy, normally-closed contact on the jack that was supposed provide center-conductor integrity through the adapter. Finally, the ICOM product was pretty over-sized to the task. I fiddled with a DIY version . . . http://tinyurl.com/kluld58 . . . that didn't put as bit a 'lump' in the transmission line's RF profile. It was a lot less demanding of panel real estate. But it still offered lackluster robustness due to quality of the n.c. audio jack being pressed into service as a coax connector. I toyed with the idea of offering a crew accessible antenna switch that would terminate the OFF transceiver line in a little dummy load. I think I offered to bring one into being as an AEC product if I could get a commitment for purchase of some small quantity of units . . . I think it was ten. That didn't rise off the ground either. SSSsoooooo . . . a completely independent antenna or a DIY 'patch cable' of some arrangement are the elegant choices. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shield grounds
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 26, 2015
Here is the ultimate authority on the subject: http://eeeic.eu/proc/papers/55.pdf Also see my attachment on the subject. -------- 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=438765#438765 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dabbling_with_electricity_137.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Shield grounds
At 16:26 2015-02-25, you wrote: > > >I thought I understood how shield grounds worked and how to >implement them but now looking at a Garmin G3X. The garmin manual >specifically has some of the shields terminated on both ends and >grounded. some of the shields are only terminated and grounder on >one end and the other is floating. So what is the proper >termination of shields and what is the science behind the proper methods. The 'shielding' feature of a conductor wrapped about a central wire or collection of wires is to break potential electro-static coupling between said wires and any other wires. Wires inside a shield can be EITHER a potential antagonist (like p-leads) or victim (audio wires). Shielding allows potential victims and antagonists to share the same wire bundles. Since the shield is also a conductor, the system designer may . . . and often does . . . use the shield for both electro-static barrier AND as some functional flow of energy from one item to another. Obviously, in this case BOTH ends of a shield may be terminated. Sometimes, shielded wire is used as two conductor cable and both ends of the shield are terminated even if wires within the shielding are neither potential victim or antagonist. I have used shielded wire to build flying leads off an LED annunciators to exploit the nice round characteristic of the shielded wire versus say, an open twisted pair. I have used shielded trios to wire a 4-conductor power/control path even tho the shielding is not REQUIRED . . . only handy. When the shield is applied ONLY for a barrier to electro-static coupling, the general practice is to terminate ONE END only. Terminating the other end may not be a bad idea but it is unnecessary and offers a low risk for creating a 'ground loop' that was not foreseen by the installer . . . or perhaps event the system designer. Bottom line: Don't second guess the system designer. Wire per installation instructions. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Handheld transceiver alternate antenna
From: "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 26, 2015
My thanks to all... there was a lot more input than I thought there would be. Lots of good information and ideas. I believe I like some sort of the patch cable idea best... don't want any more antennas, devices and wiring than necessary. I'll just do it like I did my T-18, 25 years ago, only (hopefully) a little cleaner and more accessible. John Evens Thorp T-18 N71JE (built & flying) Kitfox SS7 N27JE (building) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438792#438792 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AEC 12 page-formatting issue
From: "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
A while back, I purchased, downloaded and printed AEC v.12. Today I discovered that I'd misplaced one page and I don't have the original .pdf file, so I re-downloaded the document -- only to find that the new .pdf file I downloaded has a formatting problem. The pages are all formatted at 7.5"x11" instead of 8.5"x11", which means the sides of the pages are truncated by an inch. Many of the Z diagrams are cut off. Has anyone else had this problem? Is there a way to get a properly-formatted version in the next couple of days? Thanks in advance. -Buck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438868#438868 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC 12 page-formatting issue
At 23:10 2015-03-01, you wrote: > >A while back, I purchased, downloaded and printed AEC v.12. Today I >discovered that I'd misplaced one page and I don't have the original >.pdf file, so I re-downloaded the document -- only to find that the >new .pdf file I downloaded has a formatting problem. The pages are >all formatted at 7.5"x11" instead of 8.5"x11", which means the sides >of the pages are truncated by an inch. Many of the Z diagrams are cut off. > >Has anyone else had this problem? Is there a way to get a >properly-formatted version in the next couple of days? Yeah, sorry 'bout that. The error slipped through before they printed a bunch of books. We're reprinting right now and the new books will be fixed. The ORIGINAL pdf artwork for individual drawings is available directly from my website at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AEC 12 page-formatting issue
From: "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 02, 2015
Perfect! Thank you, Bob! :-) -------- Buck Wyndham RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems) Northern Illinois Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438884#438884 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay
Anyone else using an Infinity grip switch to actuate a S702 starter relay? According to the specs of the Infinity grip switches, the contacts are rated at 6Amp. >From the B and C site, the S702 has a 2.5Ohm coil - so the math at 14volts works out to 5.6Amps...and that would be a max since the battery would provide less at cranking time. The numbers say it should be OK - I'm looking to find out if anyone is doing it for real - and how is it working for you? Thanks, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter
relay Interesting - I'll look in to this.... How many are out there interfacing the Infinity grip switch to the Starter relay? Still want to hear if anyone is using my stated configuration though.... Thanks -----Original Message----- >From: Tcwtech <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 8:30 AM >To: "rv-list(at)matronics.com" >Subject: Re: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: Tcwtech > >Ralph. I would recommend you look at our Smartstart module for doing this function if you want to use the stick grip switch to drive the start contactor. The switches used in the stick grip may be rated at 6 amps, but that would be for a resistive load. The start contactor is an inductive load and has a significantly different effect in switches than a pure resistor. >Additionally, our module has a built in one minute timer and an interlock feature, making the stick grip starting concept safer and more useful. > >All the info is at www.tcwtech.com > > >Bob Newman >TCW Technologies, LLC >610-928-3420 > >> On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote: >> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" >> >> >> Anyone else using an Infinity grip switch to actuate a S702 starter relay? >> >> According to the specs of the Infinity grip switches, the contacts are rated at 6Amp. >>> From the B and C site, the S702 has a 2.5Ohm coil - so the math at 14volts works out >> to 5.6Amps...and that would be a max since the battery would provide less at cranking >> time. >> >> The numbers say it should be OK - I'm looking to find out if anyone is doing it for >> real - and how is it working for you? >> >> Thanks, >> Ralph Capen >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: GRT autopilot servo wiring
At 21:41 2015-03-02, you wrote: After hours searching the net, stumbled on your ad for 22awg triple twisted pair shielded tefzel wire. Is the price $3.50 per 10ft increment, or $3.50/ft in 10ft increments, or is it in 10ft pieces? I need about 50 ft. Perfect! Except GRT sez 20awg for power and ground in their servo schematic. Wire runs are about 20 & 25 ft. Can I run extra 18awg outside the shield to augment power and ground? That was 3.50/10=foot increment or 0.35/ft. I still have some of that wire and we can talk about it if it proves useful and necessary to your task. GRT and others say not to run next to antenna coax because of magnetic coupling to serial I/O wires.. There is no foundation in physics for this assertion. It's a "ol' mechanics tale" that may indeed have roots in a EXPERIENCE wherein interference problems manifested due to (1) poorly installed antenna system and/or (2) failure of the victimized appliance to possess certain levels of immunity to such interference. That's what DO-160 is all about. If all systems are designed and installed with a rudimentary understanding of antagonist/victim relationships, proximity of system wires adjacent to coax feeders is not the stuff from which bad dreams are made. GRT schematic says max 2 ft max for 20 awg ground, use 12 or 14 for 20 ft max run. Just the ground??? Your skepticism is not without foundation . . . Can you give me a link to download the installation manuals for the GRT products? Seawind sez signals through the hollow left longeron and noisy power items through the right longeron. I spent 45 years herding electrons in everything from C-150 to BE-800 and I can tell you that I've never encountered a situation where, in spite of observing a few basic rules, a 'noisy' wire was tormenting 'signal wires' due to a failure-to-separate by the folks who had the duty of getting wires from one place to the other on the airframe. The challenges just to find volume and pathways were not trivial. DO-160 and dozens of similar design standards relieved us of the burden for identifying and accommodating noisy/signal wires that shared the same airframe. I have been avoiding electrical wire in the tunnel beneath the floor which carries 5 1/2" fuel lines, 6 control cables, 6 push/pull cables, 3" heater duct, and one Halon fire suppression tube so far... Is the space getting full? Are there mechanical issues for achieving good support of wire bundles that share the space? Fuel boost and bilge pump are in there too,but can be routed out sideways. I guess I can grit my aging teeth and run the servo wires through the tunnel, crossing things like the strobe and alternator wires at right angles. Due to replacing composite stabilizer with larger graphite unit, VOR dipoles are at the wingtips. Their coax shares the bundle with AOA tubes, pitot tube, camera coax, landing light, nav light, Aileron Trim, Flap position, Facet pump, and STROBE wire. Will the shielded strobe wire screw up the VOR or Aileron trim? No reason for them to . . . The data from the EIS unit mounted in the fuselage the engine transmits all the engine data forward through one serial wire (no serial in)--If shielded autopilot servo twisted pairs are so twitchy next to com antennae coax, shouldn't this lone wire also be shielded? EXCELLENT observation and question!!! Modern ground based vehicles run twisted pair, high speed data all over the vehicle with virtually zero notice paid to shielding or separation. I cannot speak to the talents of the EIS designers but I can assert that any misgivings they or anyone else might voice are the products of poor understanding of the nature of 'noise' and how easy it is to design for worst case. Let me see the installation data for the servos and let's resolve your shielded wire procurement question first. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter
relay Linn, Good points made! I currently have it on a relay that the hand-grip activates with a safety interlock switch - my line of thinking is to simplify by removing the relay and driving it direct. My initial line of thinking for putting it on the hand-grip was for an in-flight restart - which would require one hand on the stick while the other works throttle and mixture. What I currently have works very well - but it is complex and I am trying to simplify... Looking for evidence of the problem you alluded to. Thanks, Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:20 AM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: Linn Walters > >Ralph, you may find some folks that are using the infinity switch direct >for the starter contactor but our fleet is relatively young. Problems >won't surface 'till down the road a ways. My start switch is is on the >key so I didn't have your same situation. However, it's far better to >wire in a relay now than later, IMHO. > >My question is why put the starter on the grip anyway? You only use it >once each flight and typically don't need to have your hand on the grip >at that time. Plus, what keeps you from accidentally hitting that >switch while you're in the air??? >Linn > >On 3/3/2015 8:48 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote: >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" >> >> >> Interesting - I'll look in to this.... >> How many are out there interfacing the Infinity grip switch to the Starter relay? >> >> Still want to hear if anyone is using my stated configuration though.... >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tcwtech <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> >>> Sent: Mar 3, 2015 8:30 AM >>> To: "rv-list(at)matronics.com" >>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay >>> >>> --> RV-List message posted by: Tcwtech >>> >>> Ralph. I would recommend you look at our Smartstart module for doing this function if you want to use the stick grip switch to drive the start contactor. The switches used in the stick grip may be rated at 6 amps, but that would be for a resistive load. The start contactor is an inductive load and has a significantly different effect in switches than a pure resistor. >>> Additionally, our module has a built in one minute timer and an interlock feature, making the stick grip starting concept safer and more useful. >>> >>> All the info is at www.tcwtech.com >>> >>> >>> Bob Newman >>> TCW Technologies, LLC >>> 610-928-3420 >>> >>>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote: >>>> >>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyone else using an Infinity grip switch to actuate a S702 starter relay? >>>> >>>> According to the specs of the Infinity grip switches, the contacts are rated at 6Amp. >>>>> From the B and C site, the S702 has a 2.5Ohm coil - so the math at 14volts works out >>>> to 5.6Amps...and that would be a max since the battery would provide less at cranking >>>> time. >>>> >>>> The numbers say it should be OK - I'm looking to find out if anyone is doing it for >>>> real - and how is it working for you? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ralph Capen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter
relay
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Ralph, On the RV-8A the first version had the bottom push button on the stick being the start button, providing power to the starter solenoid. This button does not have the capacity to operate the starter solenoid directly. I installed a small 12VDC relay (100ma coil, ~$1.50 from Allied Electronics) in the circuit such that the stick button operated the relay, the relay then provided power to the starter solenoid. But - this setup was quickly changed as twice during the first flights I inadvertently bumped the stick start button while the engine was running. I kept the relay set up and just added a small momentary pushbutton out of the way at the top of the right side switch/breaker panel to use instead of the stick button. On the RV-10 I just used the standard 10amp panel pushbutton for engine start to directly provide power to the starter solenoid. Bottom line - recommend not using the stick buttons to operate the starter solenoid. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 AM Subject: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" Anyone else using an Infinity grip switch to actuate a S702 starter relay? According to the specs of the Infinity grip switches, the contacts are rated at 6Amp. >From the B and C site, the S702 has a 2.5Ohm coil - so the math at >14volts works out to 5.6Amps...and that would be a max since the battery would provide less at cranking time. The numbers say it should be OK - I'm looking to find out if anyone is doing it for real - and how is it working for you? Thanks, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter
relay Carl, Thanks for your input. I have a secondary safety switch to prevent the accidental activation along with the relay like you described currently installed. My intent was to simplify by removing the relay. Sounds like my best bet is to leave it as is! It works great for me..... Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:54 AM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Carl Froehlich" > >Ralph, > >On the RV-8A the first version had the bottom push button on the stick being >the start button, providing power to the starter solenoid. This button does >not have the capacity to operate the starter solenoid directly. I installed >a small 12VDC relay (100ma coil, ~$1.50 from Allied Electronics) in the >circuit such that the stick button operated the relay, the relay then >provided power to the starter solenoid. > >But - this setup was quickly changed as twice during the first flights I >inadvertently bumped the stick start button while the engine was running. I >kept the relay set up and just added a small momentary pushbutton out of the >way at the top of the right side switch/breaker panel to use instead of the >stick button. > >On the RV-10 I just used the standard 10amp panel pushbutton for engine >start to directly provide power to the starter solenoid. > >Bottom line - recommend not using the stick buttons to operate the starter >solenoid. > >Carl > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen >Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; rv-list >Subject: RV-List: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" > > >Anyone else using an Infinity grip switch to actuate a S702 starter relay? > >According to the specs of the Infinity grip switches, the contacts are rated >at 6Amp. >>From the B and C site, the S702 has a 2.5Ohm coil - so the math at >>14volts works out >to 5.6Amps...and that would be a max since the battery would provide less at >cranking time. > >The numbers say it should be OK - I'm looking to find out if anyone is doing >it for real - and how is it working for you? > >Thanks, >Ralph Capen > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702
starter relay David, Thanks for the info. I'll probably leave mine as is since the relay and safety switch work well! Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:53 AM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: "dmaib(at)me.com" > >I agree with Linn and others concerning the need for a relay. I wish I had used one of my Infinity Grip buttons for starting. I do want to hold the stick when starting, and I find that for activating my start button, manipulating mixture and throttle, and holding the stick, I am short one hand. (especially starting when the engine is hot) In my case, the VP-200 would take care of the issue of activating the starter when you don't want it activated. Otherwise, I would use Bob's TcwTech start protection switch. > >-------- >David Maib >RV-10 #40559 >New Smyrna Beach, FL > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438936#438936 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
At 10:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: > > >At 00:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: >>Bob >>Thanks for taking a look at it. >>The breaker has not tripped since I removed the OV , it's been >>about an hour of flight time since removal. Previously the breaker >>would trip after a few minutes. >>Yes I can wait for the new model. Parts were in yesterday. Will do the final assembly tests and get it into the mail today. I'm still mystified as to why you were getting trips in a battery only condition . . . with the alternator switch OFF, the ov module should be disconnected. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Failing over voltage module
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Bob Did you see the drawing I sent ? It shows the main battery switch and alt field on 1 double pole single throw switch The battery and alt field will be on at the same time I will use the pullable breaker to remove the alternator from the system if needed. Thanks -Rob -----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: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:01 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Failing over voltage module --> At 10:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: > > >At 00:10 2015-02-23, you wrote: >>Bob >>Thanks for taking a look at it. >>The breaker has not tripped since I removed the OV , it's been about >>an hour of flight time since removal. Previously the breaker would >>trip after a few minutes. >>Yes I can wait for the new model. Parts were in yesterday. Will do the final assembly tests and get it into the mail today. I'm still mystified as to why you were getting trips in a battery only condition . . . with the alternator switch OFF, the ov module should be disconnected. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702
starter relay
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Is in-flight restart really necessary? What I mean is, won't the prop continue to windmill negating the need for the starter? Have you pulled the mixture and tried to stop the prop (at altitude of course)? Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:17 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay --> David, Thanks for the info. I'll probably leave mine as is since the relay and safety switch work well! Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:53 AM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > >--> RV-List message posted by: "dmaib(at)me.com" > >I agree with Linn and others concerning the need for a relay. I wish I had used one of my Infinity Grip buttons for starting. I do want to hold the stick when starting, and I find that for activating my start button, manipulating mixture and throttle, and holding the stick, I am short one hand. (especially starting when the engine is hot) In my case, the VP-200 would take care of the issue of activating the starter when you don't want it activated. Otherwise, I would use Bob's TcwTech start protection switch. > >-------- >David Maib >RV-10 #40559 >New Smyrna Beach, FL > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438936#438936 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay I know in my case I've done complete mixture cut-off tests in the plane where I've stopped the engine completely, and also flown it dry on tanks for testing, and the prop keeps spinning so fast that you may even perceive that the engine is still making power. You just feel the loss of thrust. So unless you happen to pull the nose up and near-stall the plane, I doubt the starter will ever need to be cranked to re-start. For me, as soon as the fuel supply was there again, it roared back to life. Also, the start operation isn't *that* complicated. I understand the want to have a hand on the stick and one on the throttle/mixture, but my knees do a fine job of holding the stick for a normal start. Additionally, if the plane is in trim, I don't see the worry about holding the stick with a hand while doing that once-in-a-hundred-years in-flight restart that you may do. The knees would do ok there too, but in actuality, you're not going to be manipulating the mixture and throttle much if you're doing an in-flight start. It's not like you'll be doing a hot-start procedure at 7,000'. Tim On 3/3/2015 12:53 PM, B Tomm wrote: > > Is in-flight restart really necessary? What I mean is, won't the prop > continue to windmill negating the need for the starter? Have you pulled the > mixture and tried to stop the prop (at altitude of course)? > > Bevan > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay I have done the "empty tank at altitude" test...yes, the prop kept turning...and it relit as soon as fuel got to it after I switched to the other tank. Barring a forced physical engine stoppage, my recent understanding is that you need to get real slow for the prop to stop (haven't tried it myself). I have a three blade MT which might make more of a difference..... I built it that way since I had heard of inflight restarts - don't remember the reasons...a gozillion years ago for that part of the design and build. Meanwhile, what I have works so I'll not fix it (as others have reminded me)! -----Original Message----- >From: B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> >Sent: Mar 3, 2015 1:53 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay > > >Is in-flight restart really necessary? What I mean is, won't the prop >continue to windmill negating the need for the starter? Have you pulled the >mixture and tried to stop the prop (at altitude of course)? > >Bevan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. >Capen >Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:17 AM >To: rv-list; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving >S702 starter relay > >--> > > >David, > >Thanks for the info. I'll probably leave mine as is since the relay and >safety switch work well! > >Ralph > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> >>Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:53 AM >>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay >> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "dmaib(at)me.com" >> >>I agree with Linn and others concerning the need for a relay. I wish I had >used one of my Infinity Grip buttons for starting. I do want to hold the >stick when starting, and I find that for activating my start button, >manipulating mixture and throttle, and holding the stick, I am short one >hand. (especially starting when the engine is hot) In my case, the VP-200 >would take care of the issue of activating the starter when you don't want >it activated. Otherwise, I would use Bob's TcwTech start protection switch. >> >>-------- >>David Maib >>RV-10 #40559 >>New Smyrna Beach, FL >> >> >> >> >>Read this topic online here: >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438936#438936 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay I guess I am missing the need for any of this. In flight use of starter?? Maybe if you had a full feathering prop, otherwise the prop is your starter, just push the nose over. Need to hold stick while starting? Unless you are facing into winds that approach rotation speed, what does holding the stick accomplish? While some like switches for mags.EI and a button for starting, the old twist to start ignition switch does simply things a lot. Unless you have 3 hands, you are always going to need one to activate starter and one on the throttle/mixture knobs. I guess having button on stick lets you use one hand to holde stick and activate starter with the other on throttle, but I still don't see the need to hold the stick. It is the brakes that will hold the plane from going anywhere. If wind is strong enough to need stick input, you probably need wing walkers to keep the wing tips and wheels near the ground. On 3/3/2015 8:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote: > > > David, > > Thanks for the info. I'll probably leave mine as is since the relay and safety switch work well! > > Ralph > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> >> Sent: Mar 3, 2015 9:53 AM >> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving S702 starter relay >> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "dmaib(at)me.com" >> >> I agree with Linn and others concerning the need for a relay. I wish I had used one of my Infinity Grip buttons for starting. I do want to hold the stick when starting, and I find that for activating my start button, manipulating mixture and throttle, and holding the stick, I am short one hand. (especially starting when the engine is hot) In my case, the VP-200 would take care of the issue of activating the starter when you don't want it activated. Otherwise, I would use Bob's TcwTech start protection switch. >> >> -------- >> David Maib >> RV-10 #40559 >> New Smyrna Beach, FL >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438936#438936 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay At 13:13 2015-03-03, you wrote: > >I know in my case I've done complete mixture cut-off tests >in the plane where I've stopped the engine completely, >and also flown it dry on tanks for testing, and the prop >keeps spinning so fast that you may even perceive that >the engine is still making power. Been there, done that too . . . many times. I've been given to understand that many power plants with geared props may not windmill that way. Never had a chance to fly one and find out. I wonder if the geared engines on the C-175 would have demonstrated this characteristic. But as you mentioned, going through the necessary re-start processes at altitude is generally not a series of events accomplished with great urgency. My youngest son was secretly worried about the engine stopping during the earliest years of our flying experiences together. When I found out about it, I demonstrated the physics of the matter at altitude over southern Kansas. It got a bit quieter, but it wasn't really clear to the neophyte that the engine wasn't producing power. So in addition to throttle closed, mixture at cutoff, I turned off the mags and handed him the keys. We then did some maneuvers and took note of our rate of descent. Told him I could finish my Coke before things would get really tense. IGN . . . ON. Throttle . . . FULL. Mixture . . . Advance. Sho' 'nuf, all things were right with the universe. Perception is everything. But perception based on bad physics is at best useless; at worst dangerous. I worry about the human factors of adding starter buttons to the stick for the purpose of expediting a start while airborne. If you're at so low an altitude that time is truly of the essence . . . then perhaps one is better advised to concentrate on pilotage as opposed to systems analysis and recovery. The #1 cause of engine stoppage is fuel exhaustion. The probability of having an engine failure in departure configuration is very low . . . the likelihood of 'fixing' the problem is poor while distracting the pilot from more pressing concerns . . . like walking away from the landing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Subject: Stopped Prop?
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, As an old glider instructor and tow pilot, I have spent quite a bit of time trying to get a prop stopped in flight. There are a few that will stop with no heroics once the go juice is taken away, but most are very hard to make stop turning. A Piper Cub with a wood prop can be stopped relatively easily by slipping a bit just before it stalls. With a metal prop, it may or may not be able to get it stopped. On early Bonanzas, I was almost always able to get it stopped by placing the electric prop for maximum pitch, minimum RPM. That did not ALWAYS work, but it did often enough that I was able to demonstrate soaring flight in a Bonanza on days where the lift was excellent. Soaring a Bonanza will convince most would be glider pilots that there is a lot of rising air out there if you know how to find it. I have been unable to get my current IO-550-B engine to stop spinning regardless of how hard I have tried. Obviously, such shenanigans should only be undertaken where conditions are extremely favorable! One of our granddaughters has a Legend Cub powered by the Jabiru engine. That bugger will quit on final unless the power is set so high that it stretches the glide on final!!? As Always, It All Depends! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 3/3/2015 2:28:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 13:13 2015-03-03, you wrote: > >I know in my case I've done complete mixture cut-off tests >in the plane where I've stopped the engine completely, >and also flown it dry on tanks for testing, and the prop >keeps spinning so fast that you may even perceive that >the engine is still making power. Been there, done that too . . . many times. I've been given to understand that many power plants with geared props may not windmill that way. Never had a chance to fly one and find out. I wonder if the geared engines on the C-175 would have demonstrated this characteristic. But as you mentioned, going through the necessary re-start processes at altitude is generally not a series of events accomplished with great urgency. My youngest son was secretly worried about the engine stopping during the earliest years of our flying experiences together. When I found out about it, I demonstrated the physics of the matter at altitude over southern Kansas. It got a bit quieter, but it wasn't really clear to the neophyte that the engine wasn't producing power. So in addition to throttle closed, mixture at cutoff, I turned off the mags and handed him the keys. We then did some maneuvers and took note of our rate of descent. Told him I could finish my Coke before things would get really tense. IGN . . . ON. Throttle . . . FULL. Mixture . . . Advance. Sho' 'nuf, all things were right with the universe. Perception is everything. But perception based on bad physics is at best useless; at worst dangerous. I worry about the human factors of adding starter buttons to the stick for the purpose of expediting a start while airborne. If you're at so low an altitude that time is truly of the essence . . . then perhaps one is better advised to concentrate on pilotage as opposed to systems analysis and recovery. The #1 cause of engine stoppage is fuel exhaustion. The probability of having an engine failure in departure configuration is very low . . . the likelihood of 'fixing' the problem is poor while distracting the pilot from more pressing concerns . . . like walking away from the landing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay
From: Stuart Ashley <ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net>
Hi Tim; In general, a direct drive will keep turning down to quite a slow air speed. On the other hand, many reduced drives (gear, belt) will stop dead in their tracks. If may restart by diving to pick up speed, altitude permitting, of course. Cheers! Stu. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I know in my case I've done complete mixture cut-off tests > in the plane where I've stopped the engine completely, > and also flown it dry on tanks for testing, and the prop > keeps spinning so fast that you may even perceive that > the engine is still making power. You just feel the loss > of thrust. So unless you happen to pull the nose up and > near-stall the plane, I doubt the starter will ever need to > be cranked to re-start. For me, as soon as the fuel > supply was there again, it roared back to life. > Also, the start operation isn't *that* complicated. > I understand the want to have a hand on the stick > and one on the throttle/mixture, but my knees do a fine > job of holding the stick for a normal start. > Additionally, if the plane is in trim, I don't see > the worry about holding the stick with a hand > while doing that once-in-a-hundred-years in-flight > restart that you may do. The knees would do ok > there too, but in actuality, you're not going to be > manipulating the mixture and throttle much if you're > doing an in-flight start. It's not like you'll be > doing a hot-start procedure at 7,000'. > > Tim > > > On 3/3/2015 12:53 PM, B Tomm wrote: > >> >> Is in-flight restart really necessary? What I mean is, won't the prop >> continue to windmill negating the need for the starter? Have you pulled >> the >> mixture and tried to stop the prop (at altitude of course)? >> >> Bevan >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Yes, I've heard that today. On the upside, there aren't many gear drive RV' s that I know of so I think for most of the people on the thread it's a moot point but there definitely are different cases. Tim > On Mar 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Stuart Ashley wrote : > > Hi Tim; > In general, a direct drive will keep turning down to quite a slow air spee d. On the other hand, many reduced drives (gear, belt) will stop dead in th eir tracks. If may restart by diving to pick up speed, altitude permitting, of course. > Cheers! Stu. > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> I know in my case I've done complete mixture cut-off tests >> in the plane where I've stopped the engine completely, >> and also flown it dry on tanks for testing, and the prop >> keeps spinning so fast that you may even perceive that >> the engine is still making power. You just feel the loss >> of thrust. So unless you happen to pull the nose up and >> near-stall the plane, I doubt the starter will ever need to >> be cranked to re-start. For me, as soon as the fuel >> supply was there again, it roared back to life. >> Also, the start operation isn't *that* complicated. >> I understand the want to have a hand on the stick >> and one on the throttle/mixture, but my knees do a fine >> job of holding the stick for a normal start. >> Additionally, if the plane is in trim, I don't see >> the worry about holding the stick with a hand >> while doing that once-in-a-hundred-years in-flight >> restart that you may do. The knees would do ok >> there too, but in actuality, you're not going to be >> manipulating the mixture and throttle much if you're >> doing an in-flight start. It's not like you'll be >> doing a hot-start procedure at 7,000'. >> >> Tim >> >> >>> On 3/3/2015 12:53 PM, B Tomm wrote: >>> >>> Is in-flight restart really necessary? What I mean is, won't the prop >>> continue to windmill negating the need for the starter? Have you pulled the >>> mixture and tried to stop the prop (at altitude of course)? >>> >>> Bevan >> >> ========================= >> - >> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroE lectric-List >> ========================= >> FORUMS - >> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========================= >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Infinity grip switch driving
S702 starter relay
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Mar 03, 2015
Tim, The RV-12 is powered by a Rotax engine which has a gear reduction drive. So it may be of interest to that group. I have run the main tank dry in my Rotax 914 powered Europa and the engine continued to turn over while I switched tanks. Immediately upon switching to the reserve tank the engine restarted. I didnt even have time to turn on the boost pump. I havent tested this but I have been told that if the prop stops on a Rotax 9xx engine, you can not restart it by diving to pick up speed. Once it stops the only way to restart is with the starter. Like I said, I havent tested this nor am I likely to intentionally test it. YMMV. Blue skies & tailwinds, Bob Borger Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs). 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 Mar 3, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Tim Olson wrote: Yes, I've heard that today. On the upside, there aren't many gear drive RV's that I know of so I think for most of the people on the thread it's a moot point but there definitely are different cases. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Shorted battery caused crash
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 04, 2015
There is an article on page 50 of the April 2015 issue of Kitplanes Magazine about aircraft design risks. The article mentions a 2012 crash of a P-51 replica that made a forced landing after one of the two batteries shorted, resulting in the stoppage of the electrically dependent engine. NTSB Report: http://tinyurl.com/nbso2eg Quote from Kitplanes, ". . .the design must allow the pilot to disconnect the batteries from each other to prevent dual-battery depletion. This FEW Mustang's battery connections didn't include a disconnect feature." Does anyone know what type of batteries these were, flooded or AGM? If an electrically dependent aircraft with dual batteries experienced an electrical failure due to a short circuit, either internal to a battery or external, and the engine and electronics quit, would there be any other symptoms like battery contactors chattering? Would the pilot know what action to take? Shutting off one or both battery contactors might seem counter-intuitive if the pilot had not previously thought about this scenario. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439046#439046 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Shorted battery caused crash
At 12:55 2015-03-04, you wrote: > >There is an article on page 50 of the April 2015 issue of Kitplanes >Magazine about aircraft design risks. The article mentions a 2012 >crash of a P-51 replica that made a forced landing after one of the >two batteries shorted, resulting in the stoppage of the electrically >dependent engine. >NTSB Report: http://tinyurl.com/nbso2eg Yeah, read that. Not enough information. The NTSB assertions MIGHT be correct but even if so, there is little to be gained from this event-narrative other than "Be careful out there, what you don't know might prevent you from ever knowing further . . ." I've read perhaps 100 of what I call, "dark-n-stormy night stories" over the years. I don't recall reading a single narrative that offered an analysis of root cause and potential remedy for a design deficiency. The author's assertions could not go beyond, "Be attentive and ask around . . . particularly from informed sources." From the NTSB probable cause statement: The pilot reported that there was an electrical system failure during the cruise portion of the test flight, which resulted in insufficient voltage to maintain engine operation using either the primary or secondary battery circuits. Following the total loss of engine power, the pilot elected to perform a wheels-up landing on a gravel road. The non-certificated automobile engine that was installed in the airplane was equipped with a computer-controlled electronic ignition system and high-pressure fuel pumps. According to the pilot/builder, the airplane incorporated two 12-volt batteries wired in parallel to supply voltage to the main power bus to power the engine systems. Post accident examination revealed that the primary battery had an internal short and would not take a charge. The secondary battery was found below normal service voltage, but could be recharged. Postaccident testing revealed that the two batteries were not isolated from each other; as a result, an internal short of one of the two batteries could drain the other battery's charge. No anomalies were found with the remaining electrical system components or wiring paths. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: * An internal failure of one of the electrical system's two batteries combined with the inadequate electrical system design, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. Clearly, this system did not benefit from an artfully conducted FMEA. This had nothing to do with selection of batteries but upon how the batteries were implemented. Just between you and me, I'm skeptical of the shorted battery thingy . . . if one cell shorts, it becomes a 10v battery. The alternator goes into full-bore output in an attempt to bring it's terminal voltage back to 14+ volts but in any case, system voltage does not drop below 11 volts. What was the alternator doing all this time? Was there any provisions for annunciation of low voltage? If his system was not designed to function at 11+ volts (well short of battery depletion) then there were probably additional design features/limits that stacked on top of each other to ruin his day. Without seeing the architecture, reading a narrative of design goals capped off with tests conducted to verify that the goals were achieved . . . the article is of little value beyond that "Be careful" thingy. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2015
From: Sam <n585ss(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Hand-made Glide Slope Antenna
Bob - I am considering using/making a hand-made glideslope antenna like the one you show in chapter 13, figure 13-13 (it's a good thing I'm not superstitious!). My only issue is the ferrite beads. They are available in a bewildering variety. What should I use for a dedicated GS antenna? Sam Staton Jackonsville, FL ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Hand-made Glide Slope Antenna
At 07:28 2015-03-07, you wrote: > >Bob - > I am considering using/making a hand-made glideslope antenna > like the one you show in chapter 13, figure 13-13 (it's a good > thing I'm not superstitious!). My only issue is the ferrite beads. > They are available in a bewildering variety. What should I use for > a dedicated GS antenna? Leave them off. Those are coming out in the next revision to the 'Connection. Cessna built thousands of similar antennas in the '60s with no beads. Laboratory tests have show them to offer no observable or even measurable benefit. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Mar 07, 2015
Subject: Re: Hand-made Glide Slope Antenna
Bob, Are you still a believer in ferrite beads for transmit antennas, if not for receivers? I was under the impression they helped form a sort of crude balun, preventing RF current from flowing back through the coax sleeve rather than into the arm of the dipole. Cheers, Henry On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 07:28 2015-03-07, you wrote: >> >> >> Bob - >> I am considering using/making a hand-made glideslope antenna like the >> one you show in chapter 13, figure 13-13 (it's a good thing I'm not >> superstitious!). My only issue is the ferrite beads. They are available in a >> bewildering variety. What should I use for a dedicated GS antenna? > > > Leave them off. Those are coming out in the > next revision to the 'Connection. Cessna > built thousands of similar antennas in the '60s > with no beads. Laboratory tests have show them > to offer no observable or even measurable > benefit. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Hand-made Glide Slope Antenna
At 01:57 2015-03-08, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Are you still a believer in ferrite beads for transmit antennas, if >not for receivers? I was under the impression they helped form a sort >of crude balun, preventing RF current from flowing back through the >coax sleeve rather than into the arm of the dipole. > >Cheers, Henry Sorta . . . but there's a lot more to the story than being a 'believer' in the virtues of any particular 'technology'. Many common beliefs ARE based on a modicum of physics but blown all out of proportion for demonstrating a return on investment for the practice. It's like an admonition handed down from somewhere that keeping your tires properly inflated is going to save a boat load of oil. Yes, if you fitted a vehicle with instrumentation of sufficient sensitivity and accuracy, you can detect and quantify variability in rolling coefficient of friction of a tire . . . but in the grand scheme of things, getting the planet's population to march in lock step with the Tire Pressure Gods is probably not going to put a measurable dent in the demand for liquid energy. The BALUN does indeed serve good and useful purposes for improving the efficiency of conducting energy captured in the wild by your antenna into a feed line and ultimately to the receiver. The benefits are perfectly reversible. What 'good' for receiving is equally 'good' for transmitting. The question then is how big is the goodness, does it cost and what is the observable benefit? In the case of a g.s. antenna, signals in the wild are measured in microwatts captured by an antenna looking right down the radio frequency gun barrel of an antenna from a distance of not more than 10 miles. A wet noodle with 'terrible SWR' would probably work just fine. Many G.S. installaitons use a coupler in the vor antenna feed line to split out a g.s. component of rf from the vor antenna . . . even tho it's not very efficient. So, fussing around with anything expected to lower SWR on the g.s. antenna is not going to produce any benefit you can observe in the cockpit . . . and requires some pretty good equipment to detect in the lab. Then let's consider the physics of slipping those beads over the coax. Some months ago I cited a product offered by Miracle Antenna Company out of Canada called the "Air Whip". Aircraft Spruce offered this product for a time and it's still listed in their European catalog http://tinyurl.com/mgm26yh . . . but I understand the gentleman who built and ran the company died in 2012. I'm not sure the company is still in business. But the Air Whip was an EXCELLENT example for effectiveness and value of a 'balun'. That red heat shrink covered lump in the coax feeder was identified for us by a writer who disassembled an earlier version of the Air Whip Emacs! Yup, there it is. A ferrite torroid. Not a string of torroids but a single device with 7 passes of coax through the center. The inductance offered by such a technique varies with the SQUARE of the turns on the core. By passing the coax through the core 7 times, the net effect is 49 times as effective as a single pass thorough one core. Further, this antenna's design DEMANDS the inclusion of this de-coupling technique . . . which is not a BALUN in the purest sense although it has the appearance of one. Coax feed lines, antennas, radiation efficiencies, radiation patterns, SWR and interaction between radios and other systems on board the airplane form a complex stew that yields to an analysis of the physics. Analysis of single beads on the g.s. antenna, reveals usefulness on the same order as carrying a couple more pounds of pressure in your tires. Then, as you've discovered, not all torroids are equal. They are fabricated from another book of recipes to meed design goals for the transfer of energy from one place to anoth4er in the system (BALUN or decoupling) or the conversion of energy from RF to heat (noise suppression). And to make the stew more interesting, high efficiency energy transfer ferrites are often used in noise suppression roles. So running down to the local electro-whizzy store to buy beads assumes that the sell of such beads can answer questions their suitability to any given task. I bought a network analyzer last fall and I've expanded my box of RF measurement tools, There are a couple of antenna projects I'd like to explore and then describe to the community along with numbers to support those descriptions. One goal will be to quantify the value of adding any sort of BALUN to the installation of DIY VOR and GS antennas. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PTFE/Teflon wiring
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2015
Hi Guys Is a PTFE/Teflon wiring (22awg) specification, a suitable replacement for TEFZEL aircraft wiring Regards John (RV9a - work in progress) Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: PTFE/Teflon wiring
Date: Mar 10, 2015
As a whole the answer is no (there are variations of it that will do, but basic Teflon is a no-no)...Teflon has cold flow properties that allow it to flow around things like clamps, zip ties, crimps, etc.. that make it generally unsuitable for aircraft. It depends just a little bit on the exact spec, but the stuff you typically see for sale cheaply on the surplus market isn't good a good "buy". Just my 2 cents as usual. Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Tipton Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 8:09 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: PTFE/Teflon wiring --> Hi Guys Is a PTFE/Teflon wiring (22awg) specification, a suitable replacement for TEFZEL aircraft wiring Regards John (RV9a - work in progress) Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: PTFE/Teflon wiring
At 09:38 2015-03-10, you wrote: > >As a whole the answer is no (there are variations of it that will do, but >basic Teflon is a no-no)...Teflon has cold flow properties that allow it to >flow around things like clamps, zip ties, crimps, etc.. that make it >generally unsuitable for aircraft. It depends just a little bit on the >exact spec, but the stuff you typically see for sale cheaply on the surplus >market isn't good a good "buy". > >Just my 2 cents as usual. In this case, it's worth a whole dollar. Some of the veterans on the List will recall that Greg Richter came out in favor of Teflon in his treatise on foolproof aircraft wiring. See page 38 of: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf In my whole experience, I've only seen Teflon used for the flying leads of motors that operatee really hot . . . once the wires are outside the motor, they tied into Tefzel or similar. It's nice stuff to use as hookup wire inside an electronic assembly. The stranding is silver-plated and solders really nice! I've got a couple spools around here but haven't used any in years. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PTFE/Teflon wiring
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2015
Thank you all, I'll stick with the Tefzel John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:38 pm, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > At 09:38 2015-03-10, you wrote: >> >> As a whole the answer is no (there are variations of it that will do, but >> basic Teflon is a no-no)...Teflon has cold flow properties that allow it to >> flow around things like clamps, zip ties, crimps, etc.. that make it >> generally unsuitable for aircraft. It depends just a little bit on the >> exact spec, but the stuff you typically see for sale cheaply on the surplus >> market isn't good a good "buy". >> >> Just my 2 cents as usual. > > In this case, it's worth a whole dollar. Some of the > veterans on the List will recall that Greg Richter > came out in favor of Teflon in his treatise on > foolproof aircraft wiring. See page 38 of: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf > > In my whole experience, I've only seen Teflon used > for the flying leads of motors that operatee really > hot . . . once the wires are outside the motor, > they tied into Tefzel or similar. > > It's nice stuff to use as hookup wire inside an > electronic assembly. The stranding is silver-plated > and solders really nice! I've got a couple spools > around here but haven't used any in years. > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Intercom question
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2015
Here is a link to the B-25 Project for KidVenture: http://tinyurl.com/B-25-Project -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439310#439310 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Z-13 Ammeter Relocation Question
Date: Mar 13, 2015
How would I elegantly wire a single shunt to the Z-13 diagram to show me the electrons flowing into and out of the battery? Z-13 shows ammeters on each alternator B-lead. This will indicate the amount of electrons leaving the alternator and going into either the aircraft load, the battery, or both. I am more interested in the amount of electrons coming into and going out of the battery. I have and electrically dependent engine, and the standby alternator is a 20 amp B&C gear driven alternator (BC-410H). As suggested by Bob in an earlier post, I have done a load analysis and know the position of the cockpit switches in the event of a primary alternator/regulator failure, and also the switch positions if the secondary alternator/regulator fails. There is a low voltage warning system installed that will show me when an alternator fails by flashing a light. Correct me if I am wrong, but with an ammeter in a position to monitor the electrons coming and going to the battery, it can be used as a tool to monitor the health of the battery. The way I understand it the alternator is intended to carry the entire running load of the electrical system. If the current draw is greater than the alternator output (for any reason), it would show a discharge on the battery. I have a Dynon electric engine monitor and have the ability to fine tune where the red or yellow arcs are at. It would be easy to show a warning if the amps began indicating less than zero (indicating a discharging battery). It would seem beneficial to be able to watch the battery take the charge after start, and to taper off with time, indicating the health of the battery. I would like to hear some other opinions on why locating a shunt on each alternator is a better idea. I would also like to see the best option for hooking up a single shunt to the battery if I decide to go that way. Thanks for the help! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13 Ammeter Relocation Question
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
The Dynon Skyview installation guide shows 3 possible locations for an ammeter shunt. See page 7-52. http://tinyurl.com/Dynon-Install-Guide I never thought that a battery ammeter was very useful until reading about this accident. http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16757524 A battery ammeter might have helped the pilot realize why the aircraft system voltage was dropping so fast. He then could have opened the battery contactor before the engine quit. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439356#439356 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shorted battery caused crash
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
The pilot of the the accident airplane emailed to me the following: > The magazine article is not correct, I did have a disconnect system in place. However the failure occurred so fast (I could literally see my volt meter dropping), that I could not trouble shoot the problem quickly enough. The primary battery rapidly depleted the secondary battery and even overwhelmed the alternator output. If I recall correctly, the fuel injectors quit operating at around 10.5 volts and that happened in a couple of minutes. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439357#439357 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Subject: Aviation Microphone Feeding Consumer Electronics
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
I've been tinkering with cutting apart one of these to integrate into my audio system in a modular way: http://www.amazon.com/Streambot-Wireless-Bluetooth-Streaming-Receiver/dp/B00MJMV0GU My plan is to put the circuit board into a little enclosure with a d-sub connector on the side, making the bluetooth module easy to replace if it dies or as improved models become available, as they seem to very often. Then the airplane wiring will have a mating dsub with leads for power (switched on/off at the panel), ground, outgoing audio to the airplane's audio system, and two leads for a panel-mounted push button switch that will replace the single push-button switch on the bluetooth device. That's all easy enough, but then I started thinking... The main feature I'm after is the bluetooth audio, but this device also has phone call capability. It has a microphone that picks up ambient sound through the tiny hole in the case. While I'm in there doing surgery, could I remove the ambient microphone from the circuit board and connect wires where it used to be, and somehow link the headset microphone to the device? I know there are headsets that have this feature built in, and and it may not be worth the trouble in the end- but one of the areas that I have least understood in the whole airplane is the audio system, so one of my goals in this investigation is to try and get a better understanding of how the system works. I have several different candidates for audio input available. First, there is the headset mic jack. Is there some way that I could attach wires to my headset mic jack at the panel, in parallel with the intercom inputs, and either directly or through some sort of circuitry, send those wires to the circuit board that is expecting to see a microphone? In this case, the outgoing call audio would only include what the corresponding headset mic picks up. If so, what kind of circuitry would I need to consider? Next, there is the audio output that comes to the headset audio jack. The Flightcom intercom instructions say that I can make a 3.5mm "audio out" jack by putting a 47k ohm resistor in series with the headphone output. This is presumably the level of audio that a consumer electronic recording device is expecting to see. How does this kind of output compare to what the circuit board is expecting to see where the microphone used to be? In this case, the intercom audio would be going outbound on the call, so anyone who speaks in a headset is going to be heard by the call recipient. Then, there is the output between the intercom and the aviation radio. This seems like the least likely candidate from an impedance standpoint, as I understand it. Finally, one related question. Has anyone found a good way to isolate a 3.5mm audio jack from a conductive panel? Perhaps small insulating shoulder washers? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shorted battery caused crash
On 3/14/2015 8:45 AM, user9253 wrote: > > The pilot of the the accident airplane emailed to me the following: >> The magazine article is not correct, I did have a disconnect system in place. However the failure occurred so fast (I could literally see my volt meter dropping), that I could not trouble shoot the problem quickly enough. The primary battery rapidly depleted the secondary battery and even overwhelmed the alternator output. If I recall correctly, the fuel injectors quit operating at around 10.5 volts and that happened in a couple of minutes. > > -------- > Joe Gores > Still doesn't make any sense if only one cell was shorted. If he had a catastrophic dead short across multiple cells, then maybe so. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Subject: 3.5 mm 4 pole socket
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
I'm looking for a 3.5mm 4 pole socket so I can make an adapter for earphone and microphone headset to my handheld. I've tried every way of describing this to Google and the electronic parts suppliers and can't come up with one. This is the socket that's on my smart phone but either the search engine or I are too dumb to get there. In my travels I've seen the plug described as a 3.5mm TRRS plug, but no sockets for them. Anyone found these or can show me how to find them? Thanks guys. Rick Girard Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Subject: Re: 3.5 mm 4 pole socket
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Something like this? http://www.ebay.com/itm/DIY-3-5mm-TRRS-Stereo-1-8-Input-Female-Jack-Plug-with-Solder-On-Terminal-End-/351327473502 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Richard Girard wrote: > I'm looking for a 3.5mm 4 pole socket so I can make an adapter for > earphone and microphone headset to my handheld. I've tried every way of > describing this to Google and the electronic parts suppliers and can't come > up with one. This is the socket that's on my smart phone but either the > search engine or I are too dumb to get there. In my travels I've seen the > plug described as a 3.5mm TRRS plug, but no sockets for them. Anyone found > these or can show me how to find them? > Thanks guys. > > Rick Girard > > > Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it. > -Andre Gide > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 3.5 mm 4 pole socket
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Parametric search on Digikey shows three options, the first containing a swi tch. There may be more; I didn't have time to check at length... http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/SJ-435107/CP-435107-ND/3064634 http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/SJ-43514/CP-43514-ND/368146 http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/SJ5-43502PM/CP5-43502PM-ND/1956558 FWIW, they're generally called "TRRS" jacks. Eric > On Mar 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Richard Girard wrote: > > I'm looking for a 3.5mm 4 pole socket so I can make an adapter for earphon e and microphone headset to my handheld. I've tried every way of describing t his to Google and the electronic parts suppliers and can't come up with one. This is the socket that's on my smart phone but either the search engine or I are too dumb to get there. In my travels I've seen the plug described as a 3.5mm TRRS plug, but no sockets for them. Anyone found these or can show me how to find them? > Thanks guys. > > Rick Girard > > > Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it. > -Andre Gide > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3.5 mm 4 pole socket
Date: Mar 14, 2015
They're out there, but I'm only seeing surface mount versions.


January 27, 2015 - March 14, 2015

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mr