---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 02/28/03: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:59 AM - Re: Wing wiring (Randy Pflanzer) 2. 05:39 AM - Re: fast on connectors (MikeEasley@aol.com) 3. 06:38 AM - Re: DC Power Master switch (DAVID REEL) 4. 06:48 AM - Re: SPEAKING OF DIODES (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 06:50 AM - Re: self exciting alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 06:54 AM - Re: Diode mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 06:56 AM - Re: Didn't mean to be pushy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:46 AM - Re: DC Power Master switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 07:46 AM - Re: Fw: Columbia (CBFLESHREN@aol.com) 10. 07:47 AM - OOOPS DISREGARD PREVIOUS. (CBFLESHREN@aol.com) 11. 07:55 AM - self exciting alternator (cary rhodes) 12. 08:24 AM - Re: Diode mounting (John Schroeder) 13. 09:02 AM - Re: fast on connectors (DHPHKH@aol.com) 14. 09:24 AM - Limitations of float-based fuel gauges (MikeM) 15. 09:59 AM - Re: fast on connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 10:08 AM - Re: self exciting alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 10:23 AM - Re: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 10:27 AM - Re: Diode mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 10:28 AM - Re: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges (Benford2@aol.com) 20. 10:34 AM - DC Power Master Switch (Charles Brame) 21. 10:37 AM - DC Power Master Switch (Charles Brame) 22. 11:02 AM - Re: Wing wiring () 23. 11:02 AM - Re: self exciting alternator () 24. 11:10 AM - Re: DC Power Master Switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 25. 12:24 PM - How to feed the carburator solenoid (Michel Therrien) 26. 12:37 PM - Re: Wing wiring (Randy Pflanzer) 27. 02:33 PM - Heat Sink Necessary?? (William Bernard) 28. 03:59 PM - Re: fast on connectors (kc) 29. 06:18 PM - Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? (KITFOXZ@aol.com) 30. 06:31 PM - Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? (KITFOXZ@aol.com) 31. 06:49 PM - Re: Ford Motrorcraft alternator (N823ms@aol.com) 32. 06:51 PM - Re: How to feed the carburator solenoid (jmfpublic@attbi.com) 33. 08:05 PM - Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 34. 08:09 PM - BCT-1 Tool and Molex ECB Pins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:59:10 AM PST US From: Randy Pflanzer Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer Darwin, You can run these together. There should not be a problem. You can check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ for pictures of how I ran the exact same wires in the wings of my F1 Rocket. Go to the F1 Rocket Project section and click on the Wings section. The pictures also show using the spar as the ground point for the landing and position lights as well as the use of a quick disconnect fitting at the wing root. Randy F1 Rocket #95 ----- Original Message ----- From: ktlkrn@cox.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Here's the layout. RV7QB. Existing holes with snap in bushings > were drilled out for a 1/2" ID conduit. I have ran the landing > light wire, the nav light wire and the strobe wires (Whelens)in > the conduit. I also want to mount a comm antenna in one wing tip > and a nav in the other. > > I'd like to know if I can run the coax for the nav and comm > antennas in the conduit with the other wiring? Is there a > potential interference problem? And, if so, how far apart should > they be run? > > Thanks in advance. > > Darwin N. Barrie > Chandler AZ > > > _- > ======================================================================_- = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > ======================================================================_- = !! NEWish !! > _- > ======================================================================_- = List Related Information > _- > ====================================================================== > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:24 AM PST US From: MikeEasley@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com I have an electronic surplus store locally that has quite a good selection of the right kind of ring and fast-on connectors. I've bought most of my quantities from B&C and A/S. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:07 AM PST US From: "DAVID REEL" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" Apparently, there are situations I don't know about in which it would be advantageous to run battery only power to the main bus. Would you describe them, Bob? I was planning a 2-3 master switch and a fused alternator field circuit protected by crowbar OV. In fact, why not use a 1-3 master and leave the alternator permanently connected to the main bus? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SPEAKING OF DIODES --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:49 PM 2/27/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Mills > > >Scott - > >Go to: >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html >Scroll down to "How it works", and click on: >"An illustrated discussion about spike catching diodes and how they work." > >It's all there. I had to read it slooowly a few times but Bob makes >it quite clear. > >Bill > > > >I really want to understand where the diode goes on a relay. Which senario > >is correct. It goes from the small terminal which is switched to 12v, or > >to ground? The article cited above speaks to the electrical positioning of the diode for effective operation, the MECHANICAL positioning depends on the particular contactor or relay. For example: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg shows how we attache the diodes to a contactor wherein both terminals of the energizing coil are brought out to small terminals on the side. The diode always goes across the contactor or relay coil. When you use a contactor with a coil lead connnected internally to the "BAT" terminal then the diode has to run between the "BAT" terminal (banded end) and the single small coil terminal. For many starter contactors, the coil is internally connected to the contactor base . . . this means that the diode has to run between the small coil terminal (banded end) and the base. The contactors we offer all come with diodes installed on outside as in picture above or installed internally as with our S702-1 http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s702-1l.jpg Here's an example of how a diode can be installed on the smaller, S704-1 relay http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg The rating of the diode is insignificant. Any silicon rectifier diode will do the job electrically on any contator or relay. For smaller tasks 1N4000 series devices (1A rated) are handy. For larger tasks, I prefer the 1N5400 series for their mechanical robustness. Both diodes are available from Radio Shack. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:07 PM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: cary rhodes > >Bob > >What is the disadvantage to having a self exciting >alternator w/ the regulator within the alternator? Not sure what you mean my "self exciting". I suspect your talking about alternators with built in regulators. Either internally or externally regulated alernators can be used in an airplane. Examples of both are shown in Appendix Z wiring diagrams. Most of the diagrams show externally regulated alternators. Figure Z-24 shows the difference for substituting an internally regulated alternators. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:54:51 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diode mounting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:39 PM 2/27/2003 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips > >Greetings A-list- > >I need to put a diode in the circuit between my starter contactor (for >example) and annunciator panel lamp (incandescent) for proper operation >of the annunciator's push-to-test function. Does anyone know of a >technique for doing this? Perhaps some automotive component? My >annunciator lamps use .187 tabs and I could double the lead on a regular >diode over and crimp into a red faston, then butt splice the other end >of the diode, but there is nothing to support that flimsy little diode. >A couple of layers of heatshrink to stiffen it up? Still not very >mechanically sound. The diode sandwiched between a couple of butt >splices then covered with shrink is also not too appealing. > >One alternative is to add a terminal strip and run all wires through it, >jumpering through the diodes to adjacent terminals- adds a lot of >connections and takes a lot of space, as I have 16 diodes to install. >Any elegant solutions out there? The need for a ptt diode array is common to all annunciator panels. In the big airplanes, this is either built into a custom annunicator panel -or- the diode array is built onto an etched circuit board. We often have to test both pull-up and pull-down annunicators in the same array. This means that the ptt-diode assembly gives us a place to assemble both circuits. Since press-to-test ONLY test LAMP and has nothing to do with testing associated SYSTEMS, how about going with an LED annunciator and dispense with the PTT system entirely . . . this is a feature that needs to fade off into the sunset along with vacuum pumps. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Didn't mean to be pushy --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:55 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman > >Hi Bob, > >Certainly understand. Didn't mean to be pushy. Just wanted to make sure the >technology (fax) had worked. No problem. It never hurts to rattle my cage. Got a lot of things going on at RAC right now and loose time is a little scarce. >Thanks for your kind help, >Don B. My pleasure. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:21 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:41 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" > >Apparently, there are situations I don't know about in which it would be >advantageous to run battery only power to the main bus. Would you >describe them, Bob? I was planning a 2-3 master switch and a fused no . . CIRCUIT BREAKERed > alternator field circuit protected by crowbar OV. >In fact, why not use a 1-3 master and leave the alternator permanently >connected to the main bus? If the alternator mis-behaves, you want a way to shut it down and leave the battery on line. You COULD do this by pulling a breaker -OR- operating a switch. You also may want to do some short term ground maintenance with the battery master on and still relieve the battery of alternator field loads (as much as 3A with the engine not running). When you set the DC PWR MASTER switch to OFF, this means everything is OFF . . . not just a battery. The alternator may well run all by itself and be essentially un-controllable except for being able to pull a breaker. Use the 2-pole switch. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:21 AM PST US From: CBFLESHREN@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Columbia --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com Yeah, that is damN cool ! I passed it on to many. THX Chris ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:47:48 AM PST US From: CBFLESHREN@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: OOOPS DISREGARD PREVIOUS. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com SENT PREVIOUS TO WRONG ADDRESS - DO NOT ARCHIVE - ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:26 AM PST US From: cary rhodes Subject: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: cary rhodes Bob It is my understanding the the alternator has one wire connection. The self exciting feature feeds the field without a separate circuit coming to the alternator. thanks cary rhodes http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:21 AM PST US From: John Schroeder Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diode mounting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder >>I need to put a diode in the circuit between my starter contactor (for >>example) and annunciator panel lamp (incandescent) for proper operation >>of the annunciator's push-to-test function. Does anyone know of a >>technique for doing this? > > Since press-to-test ONLY test LAMP and has nothing to do with > testing associated SYSTEMS, how about going with an LED annunciator > and dispense with the PTT system entirely . . . this is a feature > that needs to fade off into the sunset along with vacuum pumps. > > Bob . . . Bob: Would you have a wirebook sheet on an annunciator panel with LED's. If so, could you past a .dwg file on it. Many thanks, John Schroeder ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:05 AM PST US From: DHPHKH@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com Gang, There is an alternative to double-crimp Amp PIDG and similar. Consider good quality uninsulated terminals with quality adhesive heat shrink for insulation/strain relief. Sure, nothing really wrong with PIDG. I like the above method better. Bare terminals w/ adhesive heat shrink take a few extra moments to install. In the context of "best airplane I can build", that doesn't matter to me. I can physically inspect when I make the single metal-to-metal wire crimp; it's not hidden inside anything. It's also easy to put the crimp in exactly the right place in the middle of the barrel. PIDG wire support is a function of the copper sleeve's crimp on the insulation. A poor crimp (too much or too little) is worthless. Not a problem with the right ratchet tool of course. Even with a perfect strain relief crimp, forces are still localized in a small area of insulation and wire. Adhesive heatshrink spreads the wire relief load across a large area of the insulation. I think it offers superior support in both bending and in axial pull. The adhesive serves to totally seal the wire entry end of the terminal. In the rare case of a corrosive environment, you can solder the ring/spade/etc end of the terminal enough to close it, then install the heat shrink. The finished terminal is physically compact, far more so than a PIDG. Looks good too, for those of you concerned about nosy airshow judges. I've been buying my adhesive heat shrink from Del City Wire, but there are lots of other places. Del City is at http://www.delcity.net/wiremanagement.html BTW, you can easily do a personal check on the tensile strength of adhesive heat shrink (as well as it's grip strength to wire insulation and terminal barrel) using something similar to Ye Old Milk Jug test. Insert a wire into a terminal barrel, but don't crimp it. Just leave it loose in the barrel and apply the heat shrink. Let it cool a minute, then hang the terminal on a nail and apply weight to the wire. A #18 wire in an uncrimped barrel withstands more than 15 lbs of axial load using the standard 1/8" dual wall 3 to 1 adhesive shrink tube listed above. Dan Horton ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:47 AM PST US From: MikeM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeM aeroelectric-list@matronics.com For the homebuilders, here is some info about the limitations of float-based fuel gauges. In my Piper Pa22/20, the gauges would read Empty with seven to eight gallons left in each tank. I removed the senders, and the gauge readings linearly tracked the position of the sender float arm. With the float arm resting on the sender's down stop, the gauge reads Empty, and with the float arm resting against the top stop, it reads Full. I had the entire fuel system drained during an annual. With the tanks empty and aircraft levelled to flight attitude, I used a "snake light" and an inspection mirror to look into the tank. I noticed that with no gas in the tanks, the floats hung down such that they rest about 2" from the bottom of the tank. Since the floats sink about 1/2" into the fuel, 2 1/2" of fuel is about 1/3 of the capacity of the 18 gal tank that does not ever register on the gauges. I removed both senders from the tanks, and bent the float arms downward, so that when each sender is reinstalled, the float rests only about 1/8" to 1/4" from the bottom of the tank. It is important that the float arm not rest on the bottom of the tank, as it might eventually rub a hole in the float or tank due to movement. It took a couple of tries to get the bend in the arm just right. At the suggestion of my A&P/IA, I got new fuel sender gaskets for the final installation. I also put "Fuel Lube" on the threads of the screws holding the sender into the tank. Next, I refilled the tanks a gallon at a time, logging the fuel gauge readings as the fuel was added. I logged the fuel gauge readings in sixteenths, i.e 1/4 = 4/16, etc. Here is the logged data: Gal Left Right Right 0 0 0 Empty 1 0 0 Empty 2 0 0 Empty 3 0 1 4 2 2 5 3 3 6 4 4 1/4 7 5 5 8 6 6 9 7 8 1/2 10 9 9 11 10 10 12 11 11 13 13 13 3/4+ 14 15 14 15 16 16 Full 16 16 16 Full 17 16 16 Full 18 16 16 Full After bending the arms downward, it improved the accuracy of the gauges near the Empty end, at the expense of the Full end. Now each gauge will continue to read Full while the first three gallons are burned, then the indications decrease linearly until there are 2 gallons in the right tank, and 3 gallons in the left tank, respectively. With the senders suspended 1/4" above the bottom of the tank, it takes about 2 to 3 gallons of fuel to "float" the sender to where it begins to move and effect the gauge reading. It is obvious from this data that the only way to get the gauge to to follow the fuel level in the tank over a wider range would be to allow the sender arm/float to travel further, past its mechanical stops. If fact, if you think about it, to get the float to follow the fuel level all the way from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank, you would have to put a "dome" on the top of the tank to provide mechanical clearance for the float; and you would have to put a "well" on the bottom. Obviously, this is not practical on a wing mounted tank, where the top and bottom of the tank is within a 1/8" of the wing skin. There are stops on the sender which restrict the travel of the float arm such that it can only "follow" only about 12 gallons of change (out of 18). By bending the float arm, you can choose which 12 gallons of change the gauge tracks. There is not much that can be done to get the float to follow more of the total range without having the float rub on either the top or bottom of the tank. I now understand why float-based aircraft fuel gauges have such a bad reputation... If the float can not faithfully follow the full range of fuel levels in the tank, then there is nothing that can be done to "linearize" the readings after the fact. Mike Mladejovsky Pacer '00Z Skylane '1MM ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:59:52 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:59 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com > >Gang, > There is an alternative to double-crimp Amp PIDG and similar. Consider >good quality uninsulated terminals with quality adhesive heat shrink for >insulation/strain relief. > > Sure, nothing really wrong with PIDG. I like the above method better. I disagree . . . particularly for the fast-ons. The alloy used to form the fast-on needs to have a degree of springiness and tension to maintain a good joint. Obviously, this is not so important for ring terminals. Please don't save pennies per joint to install components of unknown materials used for fabrication. Folks like AMP, Waldom, etc. have spend $millions$ in IR&D and have decades of market experience in the design, fabrication and sales of their products. The folk who manufacture hardware store terminals may also do wind-up toys for kids next week and cheese graters the next. > Bare terminals w/ adhesive heat shrink take a few extra moments to >install. In the context of "best airplane I can build", that doesn't matter >to me. I can physically inspect when I make the single metal-to-metal wire >crimp; it's not hidden inside anything. It's also easy to put the crimp in >exactly the right place in the middle of the barrel. > > PIDG wire support is a function of the copper sleeve's crimp on the >insulation. A poor crimp (too much or too little) is worthless. Not a >problem with the right ratchet tool of course. The "right" tool is $40 or less . . . why not own one? If I understand you, you're not even using PLASTIGRIP style terminals (insulated but no liner) . . . similar philosophies were offered and discussed in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html > Even with a perfect strain >relief crimp, forces are still localized in a small area of insulation and >wire. Adhesive heatshrink spreads the wire relief load across a large area >of the insulation. I think it offers superior support in both bending and in >axial pull. > > The adhesive serves to totally seal the wire entry end of the > terminal. >In the rare case of a corrosive environment, you can solder the >ring/spade/etc end of the terminal enough to close it, then install the heat >shrink. > > The finished terminal is physically compact, far more so than a PIDG. >Looks good too, for those of you concerned about nosy airshow judges. > > I've been buying my adhesive heat shrink from Del City Wire, but there >are lots of other places. Del City is at >http://www.delcity.net/wiremanagement.html > > BTW, you can easily do a personal check on the tensile strength of >adhesive heat shrink (as well as it's grip strength to wire insulation and >terminal barrel) using something similar to Ye Old Milk Jug test. Insert a >wire into a terminal barrel, but don't crimp it. Just leave it loose in the >barrel and apply the heat shrink. Let it cool a minute, then hang the >terminal on a nail and apply weight to the wire. A #18 wire in an uncrimped >barrel withstands more than 15 lbs of axial load using the standard 1/8" dual >wall 3 to 1 adhesive shrink tube listed above. > >Dan Horton The facts cited are correct . . . but buyer beware when it comes to substituting brands PARTICULARLY for fast-on terminals. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:08:41 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:54 AM 2/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: cary rhodes > >Bob > >It is my understanding the the alternator has one wire >connection. Understand. This alternator is probably not "self exciting" . . . you still need a battery connnected to the b-lead. Figure Z-24 still applies . . . you just eliminate the small wire between alternator and disconnect contactor. >The self exciting feature feeds the field without a >separate circuit coming to the alternator. The term "self exciting" has been classically used to describe an alternator that retains enough residual magnetism to come on line with no battery assist. Virtually all commonly available alternators require external power to come alive. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:23:32 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:22 AM 2/28/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeM > >aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > >For the homebuilders, here is some info about the limitations >of float-based fuel gauges. In my Piper Pa22/20, the gauges >would read Empty with seven to eight gallons left in each tank. >I removed the senders, and the gauge readings linearly tracked the >position of the sender float arm. With the float arm resting >on the sender's down stop, the gauge reads Empty, and with >the float arm resting against the top stop, it reads Full. >I now understand why float-based aircraft fuel gauges have such >a bad reputation... If the float can not faithfully follow the >full range of fuel levels in the tank, then there is nothing that >can be done to "linearize" the readings after the fact. > > >Mike Mladejovsky >Pacer '00Z >Skylane '1MM Mike, thank you so much for this considered contribution of data and techniques on dealing with 1941 Pontiac fuel gages in aircraft. Your experience closely parallels my own. If I owned an aircraft with float based fuel gages, I would adjust for useful activity from empty to whatever fuel causes full-scale display. It's more important to know how things are going on the last half of the fuel load than the first half. Bottom line is that this technology cannot reliably meter fuel better than manual management with the 'ol wrist-biscuit. I fly first hour on one tank and then switch. Fly second hour on #2 tank. Switch back to #1 and run it dry. Note total endurance for #1. I KNOW that the fuel in second tank will last longer than fuel in first tank because it didn't have to put out the energy to climb. Go back to #2 with RELIABLE knowledge that redline-time for fuel remaining in #2 is equal to or greater than #1. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:27:42 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diode mounting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:23 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder > > > >>I need to put a diode in the circuit between my starter contactor (for > >>example) and annunciator panel lamp (incandescent) for proper operation > >>of the annunciator's push-to-test function. Does anyone know of a > >>technique for doing this? > > > > Since press-to-test ONLY test LAMP and has nothing to do with > > testing associated SYSTEMS, how about going with an LED annunciator > > and dispense with the PTT system entirely . . . this is a feature > > that needs to fade off into the sunset along with vacuum pumps. > > > > Bob . . . > >Bob: Would you have a wirebook sheet on an annunciator panel with LED's. >If so, >could you past a .dwg file on it. I've never done a drawing for the annunciator system per se . . . Each light is more closely associated with the system that drives it and I'll show the wiring for each light on drawings for the associated system . . . like the low voltage warning light on the alternator drawings, or low oil pressure light on the hobbs/oil-p drawing. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:21 AM PST US From: Benford2@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com In a message dated 2/28/2003 10:25:38 AM Mountain Standard Time, mladejov@ced.utah.edu writes: > > > After bending the arms downward, it improved the accuracy of the > gauges near the Empty end, at the expense of the Full end. Now > each gauge will continue to read Full while the first three gallons > are burned, then the indications decrease linearly until there are > 2 gallons in the right tank, and 3 gallons in the left tank, > respectively. With the senders suspended 1/4" above the bottom > of the tank, it takes about 2 to 3 gallons of fuel to "float" the > sender to where it begins to move and effect the gauge reading. > > A longer float arm will do the same thing and give you an accurate reading during the first few gallons of consumption. But if this is a CERTIFIED bird then your hands are tied, infact what ya did will let your Insurance Co deny a claim if you ever damage the plane. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:31 AM PST US From: Charles Brame Subject: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator. There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery being connected, but it is physically possible. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:49 AM PST US From: Charles Brame Subject: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame My apologies. The previous message got sent before I finished. My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator. There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery being connected, but it is physically possible. With reference to your statement about making sure the alternator doesn't run while the battery is not connected: what are the consequences of doing this? Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB San Antonio ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:30 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy, Thanks for the information, it is very helpful. Where did you get the twelve pin connector? Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Pflanzer" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer > > Darwin, > > You can run these together. There should not be a problem. You can > check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ for pictures of how I > ran the exact same wires in the wings of my F1 Rocket. Go to the F1 > Rocket Project section and click on the Wings section. The pictures > also show using the spar as the ground point for the landing and > position lights as well as the use of a quick disconnect fitting at the > wing root. > > Randy > F1 Rocket #95 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ktlkrn@cox.net > Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:35 pm > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > > Here's the layout. RV7QB. Existing holes with snap in bushings > > were drilled out for a 1/2" ID conduit. I have ran the landing > > light wire, the nav light wire and the strobe wires (Whelens)in > > the conduit. I also want to mount a comm antenna in one wing tip > > and a nav in the other. > > > > I'd like to know if I can run the coax for the nav and comm > > antennas in the conduit with the other wiring? Is there a > > potential interference problem? And, if so, how far apart should > > they be run? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Darwin N. Barrie > > Chandler AZ > > > > > > _- > > > ======================================================================_- > = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > > _- > > > ======================================================================_- > = !! NEWish !! > > _- > > > ======================================================================_- > = List Related Information > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:30 AM PST US From: <315@cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <315@cox.net> I too have a "self Exciting one wire Alternator." I was told by the supplier, Powermaster, that the alternator senses current and "turns on the regulator." Mine is a Power Master Model 8162. Which is their version of the Denso that has been weight reduced to 5.68lbs and rated at 50amps. I was also told that a battery is required and that if the battery is isolated form the alternator it will cause the alternator to output "extremely" high voltage..... However, there is only one wire conected to the alternator at the Battery lead. There is no field wire connection. http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alterna tors.html Ned ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 07:54 AM 2/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: cary rhodes > > > >Bob > > > >It is my understanding the the alternator has one wire > >connection. > > Understand. This alternator is probably not "self > exciting" . . . you still need a battery connnected > to the b-lead. Figure Z-24 still applies . . . you > just eliminate the small wire between alternator > and disconnect contactor. > > >The self exciting feature feeds the field without a > >separate circuit coming to the alternator. > > The term "self exciting" has been classically used to describe > an alternator that retains enough residual magnetism to come > on line with no battery assist. Virtually all commonly > available alternators require external power to come alive. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:15 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:37 PM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame > > >My apologies. The previous message got sent before I finished. > >My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator. >There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery >being connected, but it is physically possible. If it's "connected" all the time, then it's ready to go to work as soon as the bus comes up with battery voltage. Once you're past this milestone, how do you turn it OFF? >With reference to your statement about making sure the alternator >doesn't run while the battery is not connected: what are the >consequences of doing this? Suppose you have smoke in the cockpit and you want to shut down the whole system? How do you do this if the alternator doesn't get controlled by way of the DC PWR MSTR switch? You can turn the battery of, the alternator continues to run self-excited, and smoke continues to roll. The DC PWR MSTR switch isn't a MASTER switch unless you wire it up such that it truly has ultimate control over all power sources in the airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:08 PM PST US From: Michel Therrien Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to feed the carburator solenoid --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien I am installing a Holley 5200 carburator on a Subaru EA-81 engine. This carburator has a solenoid that allows gas to flow and I need to give it 12V. Normally, this wire is attached to the ignition 12V wire (the coil). But I am using two ignition coils and I would like the 12V from any of the two activated coils to feed the solenoid. Two possibilities that I see. Using two diodes (one from each ignition source), but I don't know how the solenoid will behave when getting low on battery power (in case of an alternator failure). The other possibility I see is using two relays, one from each ignition circuit. In a situation where I would activate both ignition, these two circuits would essentially be connected together through this solenoid circuit. How should I do it? Michel ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:58 PM PST US From: Randy Pflanzer Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer I got it from Digikey. www.digikey.com. Look in their catalog for Mate-n-Loc connectors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Randy, > > Thanks for the information, it is very helpful. Where did you get the twelve > pin connector? > > Darwin N. Barrie > Chandler AZ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy Pflanzer" > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer > > > > > Darwin, > > > > You can run these together. There should not be a problem. You can > > check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ for pictures of how I > > ran the exact same wires in the wings of my F1 Rocket. Go to the F1 > > Rocket Project section and click on the Wings section. The pictures > > also show using the spar as the ground point for the landing and > > position lights as well as the use of a quick disconnect fitting at the > > wing root. > > > > Randy > > F1 Rocket #95 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: ktlkrn@cox.net > > Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:35 pm > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > > > > Here's the layout. RV7QB. Existing holes with snap in bushings > > > were drilled out for a 1/2" ID conduit. I have ran the landing > > > light wire, the nav light wire and the strobe wires (Whelens)in > > > the conduit. I also want to mount a comm antenna in one wing tip > > > and a nav in the other. > > > > > > I'd like to know if I can run the coax for the nav and comm > > > antennas in the conduit with the other wiring? Is there a > > > potential interference problem? And, if so, how far apart should > > > they be run? > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > Darwin N. Barrie > > > Chandler AZ > > > > > > > > > _- > > > > > ======================================================================_- > > = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > > > _- > > > > > ======================================================================_- > > = !! NEWish !! > > > _- > > > > > ======================================================================_- > > = List Related Information > > > _- > > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:33:22 PM PST US From: "William Bernard" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Heat Sink Necessary?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical system. I plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode between the main and e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so, does anyone have a part number and source? The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum between the fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat sink at this stage. Thanks in advance. Bill ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:59:12 PM PST US From: "kc" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "kc" ??Where is "locally"?? ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com > > I have an electronic surplus store locally that has quite a good selection of > the right kind of ring and fast-on connectors. I've bought most of my > quantities from B&C and A/S. > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:52 PM PST US From: KITFOXZ@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heat Sink Necessary?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com In a message dated 2/28/2003 5:34:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, billbernard@worldnet.att.net writes: > I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical > system. I plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode > between the main and e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so, > does anyone have a part number and source? > > The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum > between the fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat > sink at this stage. > > Thanks in advance. > > Bill > Hello Bill, Radio Shack is a quick source for a bridge rectifier that is packaged in a case that you can mount right to your aluminum sheet between your fuse blocks. That will be all of the heat sinking you will need. It has a single hole in it's center to bolt it home with a little dab of heat sink compound. Radio Shack used to carry one rated for 50 amps and one rated for 25 amps. I dug one of the lighter versions out of my stash of electronic goodies tonight. It is part number 276-1185. It is a full wave bridge with fast-on tabs. John P. Marzluf Columbus, Ohio Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage) ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:46 PM PST US From: KITFOXZ@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heat Sink Necessary?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com Bill, I forgot to mention that this bridge rectifier is suggested because of it's ease in mounting, heat sinking, fast-on tabs and high current handling capability. You only need to hook up one of it's diodes in your circuit. John P. Marzluf Columbus, Ohio Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage) ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:15 PM PST US From: N823ms@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ford Motrorcraft alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com In a message dated 02/27/2003 10:39:32 PM Central Standard Time, bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes: > I thought we'd talked about this but maybe it was with someone > else. If I've already bought and paid for a Ford alternator, > I'd go ahead and run it. It will work fine with the B&C regulators. > Who knows, I may have an alternator that's running at the top > of the bell-curve. > > First time it craps, make a decision based on how it died > and how long it took to make the fix/replace decision. That > could be many years off and since you have two alternators, > this approach presents zero risk. > > This re-enforces the idea that a system designed to be > failure tolerant is more reliable than one wherein > designers hope to gain reliability by specification > and other forms of wishful thinking. > > Bob . . . > Yes, I was the same guy that talked to you about this Ford alternator. I don't mean to bug you twice on something, but when your at stages of building the engine, and someone gives you an option, you tend to lean toward the expertise that is out there. At this point you have persuaded me to go with it. For me, I feel better that this alternator does not have an internal controller. I talked to Bill At B&C today, he will be at Sun&Fun. So parts for the Z-14 will begin to come in. Thanks Ed ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:52 PM PST US From: jmfpublic@attbi.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: How to feed the carburator solenoid --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jmfpublic@attbi.com Michel, Use the diode approach: far more reliable than the relays, and the 0.6 volt drop through the diode won't affect anything. Once actuated, the solenoid likely will stay activated down to 5 or 6 volts. Besides, if you do have an alternator failure, you have sized your battery so that you can comfortably complete your flight. You do expect to replace it every year, and you will have a voltmeter, right? If you are not using a magneto type of ignition, but need battery power to make the spark, you should have either two batteries, two alternators, or both (as in the famous Z-14 revision J schematic from the 'Connection.) Jim Foerster ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 08:05:57 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heat Sink Necessary?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:32 PM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > >I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical >system. I plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode >between the main and e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so, >does anyone have a part number and source? Depends on how big your e-bus continuous loads are. For continuous running loads of up to 5A, you can mount the assembly on a non-heat conducting surface. For up to 10A, mount it on an aluminum surface of 25 sq-in or more . . . thin sheet metal is okay. I hope your e-bus isn't BIGGER than 10A! >The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum >between the fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat >sink at this stage. > You'll probably be fine with what you have described with no additional heat sinking. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:57 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: BCT-1 Tool and Molex ECB Pins --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Bob: will the BCT-1 crimper be suitable for use on Molex 4366GL > pins(wire to board used on King, Icom called KK type...etc)...??? >Thanks >Bill I took a look at these terminals on the Molex website. I think the BCT-1 will do a good job on these terminals. I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to share the information with as many folks as possible. You can join at . . . http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ Thanks! Bob . . . |---------------------------------------------------| | A lie can travel half way around the world while | | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . | | -Mark Twain- | |---------------------------------------------------|