Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:01 AM - Free electricity (N823ms@aol.com)
2. 03:20 AM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
3. 04:31 AM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (N2165v@aol.com)
4. 04:59 AM - Ground Planes, Family Jewels (MikeEasley@aol.com)
5. 05:20 AM - MFJ259B (Fergus Kyle)
6. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (Miller Robert)
7. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (DHPHKH@aol.com)
8. 06:09 AM - Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:12 AM - Re: Fast-on current ratings? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (Miller Robert)
11. 06:25 AM - Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:31 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (MikeEasley@aol.com)
13. 06:38 AM - Re: Microair com to intercom wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (MikeEasley@aol.com)
15. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (MikeEasley@aol.com)
16. 07:09 AM - Re: Ground Planes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:10 AM - Re: Copper tape for radials (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 07:18 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (Ron Raby)
19. 07:35 AM - Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:56 AM - Re: Ground Planes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 08:28 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes (MikeEasley@aol.com)
22. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: Copper tape for radials (Mark Steitle)
23. 09:56 AM - understanding mag switches (Julia)
24. 11:07 AM - Re: Re: Copper tape for radials (John Mireley)
25. 11:16 AM - Re: Re: Copper tape for radials (MikeEasley@aol.com)
26. 11:25 AM - Re: understanding mag switches (Randy Pflanzer)
27. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes (SportAV8R@aol.com)
28. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels (SportAV8R@aol.com)
29. 12:43 PM - Re: understanding mag switches (Matt Prather)
30. 01:08 PM - Re: Copper tape for radials (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 01:12 PM - Re: Re: Ground Planes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 01:31 PM - Re: Alt. Field Circuit Breaker (VECSEYA@aol.com)
33. 03:08 PM - RG battery location (Howard Ogle)
34. 09:57 PM - Re: Dual E.I. and Batteries, single Alt. (Rick Fogerson)
35. 10:26 PM - Re: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . (John Loram)
36. 11:53 PM - 12 vs 28 volts (Tom Schiff)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Free electricity |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
Yes it is true about tapping electricity out of the air. About 25-30 years ago
there was a story on 60 minutes about some people who had high voltage lines through
there property. They took and old whisky barrel and wound it with wire
with two leads running off it. They stuck it on a telephone pole and placed between
the lines. The electric company sued but lost.
page 2
ED
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
Now that we all know that our "Jewels" are indeed "safe," and that farmers
are all thieves running their combines a little faster down the back forty
(near the utility easement), will someone please post which high voltage
transmission lines need to be taken down or rerouted in order to correct
compass deviation?
BTW If we shut 'em all down, will the earth's rotation speed slow down?
Do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N2165v@aol.com
Back in high school I built a "Tesla Coil" using a 115-400+ volt transformer, a
couple of #50 (maybe #51) tubes, oatmeal box primary and mailing tube (36") secondary.
Emitted sparks about 2"-3" long. Could light flouresent tubes by holding
them near the sparks. Could run my hand right over the sparks. Made a
small electirc jet engine that would rotate on top. Won a ribbon in the Science
Fair. I now have 2 wonderful children after all that exposure. Wish I had
the tubes to fire that old Tesla coil up again...
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
My fuselage is about 18" to 20" diameter in the ELT mounting area. Assuming
a 36" diameter ground plane, is that too much curling of the ends? My guess
is that the ground plane would curl up to about the middle of the antenna.
Where do I get the Copper tape?
Artex sells an antenna designed for mounting inside composite aircraft that's
about 31" long. Maybe that's the way to go if it's not too expensive.
I read in the Connection about the false fear about the transponder zapping
the family jewels. I had heard the same concern from a Lancair builder at my
airport.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Bill,
"MFJ-259B on its way from eBay, so I can roll & tweak my own aeronautical
mobile antenna farm."
Good man. My experience is not to lend it out, as the slightest
bit of RF will blow its brains out. I offer to test anyone's antennas but
won't leave it out of sight. Also, make certain you don't power it up with
the Power switch on. It eats batteries, but wallwart power must be added
with the power switch OFF. Some guys won't use a wallwart.
Cheers, Ferg
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
Current will flow in a wound coil placed in an electro-magnetic field.
This principle is used in all sorts of applications.
Robert
Duncan McBride wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Duncan McBride <duncanmcbride@comcast.net>
>
> I do remember flying my old Ringmaster control-line stunt plane too close to
> the power lines one afternoon and getting an electric shock through the
> EZ-Just handle, which routed a braided cable around the grip, attached to
> the steel lines at either end. The back of your hand laid alongside the
> cable. I remember walking the plane away from the power lines until the
> shock went away. Probably why I'm childless to this day.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . .
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke
> <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> >
> >
> > Alex Peterson wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > >
> > > 30 years ago when a new power transmission line was being built across
> > > some farmland in my state, the news "reporters" were reporting, without
> > > questioning it, of course, that farmers were putting electric motors in
> > > the fields under the new power lines and that they were running without
> > > any cords.
> > >
> > > We do indeed have some education to do in this country...
> >
> > Don't laugh too hard.
> >
> > When I was 12 I did a science fair project, where I did something
> > similar... I set up a resonant circuit at some harmonic of 60 Hz, and
> > did manage to pull energy "out of the air", rectify it, and show a
> > voltage on a meter - I did get enough voltage, but not enough current to
> > run anything, but I figured if I got a big enough cap I just might.
> >
> > I didn't, though, as I was informed that I could be charged with theft
> > of the power line energy. That sounded pretty ridiculous to me, but now
> > people are going to jail for "stealing" EM energy from satellites... I
> > guess I was just ahead of my time??
> >
> >
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
<<will someone please post which high voltage transmission lines need to be
taken down or rerouted in order to correct compass deviation? >>
Gang, this is seriously off-topic, but I can show you a power line that
our airport is fighting to remove right now. And you can help.
Alabama Power is building a powerline across the approach to the
planned Runway 34 at Wetumpka (08A). FAR Part 77 protects planned
facilities, so the FAA said "whoa", refused automatic approval, and has
invited public comment. The power company ignored the FAA notice, refused to
negotiate with the airport, and plowed ahead with construction. They are
betting on their political machine.
We wish to generate a LOT of public comment.
There are seven power poles that will violate the runway approach. The
FAA treats each as a separate "aeronautical study". We've written seven
response letters to the FAA, and placed them all in a Microsoft Word
document. The document is self-explanatory. It's just print, sign, and
mail. Anyone may file a comment. With enough public response in hand, the
FAA can require relocation of the line.
I've never met a pilot who liked the idea of a power line sticking up
50 ft into an instrument approach path. If you're willing to spend less than
$3 on postage to let the FAA know how you feel about protecting airport
development, drop me a note off list.
Dan Horton
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:57 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
>
>I hesitate to perpetuate this story (and reveal my gullibility); My dad was
>a civil engineer who worked for the Pacific Gas & Electric company laying
>out long transmission lines and supervising their installation. I spent one
>summer about 50 years ago with him, driving the back roads of California on
>his job and he told me that one of the reasons that the transmission lines
>are rotated every few thousand feet (they don't just stay in the same
>relative position for the full run) was to prevent farmers from laying a
>loop of lines parallel to the transmission lines and inductively coupling
>some free watt hours.
Actually, that's done to improve the transmission line characteristics
of the parallel run of wires (same thing as twisting wires under
the shields for reduced coupling to environment). It reduces the
need for power factor correction and has a small but beneficial
improvement on transmission efficiency.
A friend of mine (PhD EE) was asked to testify in a personal
damages case against a power line company wherein the plaintiff
alleges he was injured by the proximity to a high voltage transmission
line running near his property.
Coupling energy from a power line via either magnetic parallel
conductors or electrostatic means at 60Hz was calculated as
very difficult to do. Close proximity effects of high-voltage,
high-current conductors falls off as the square of the distance.
Further, instead of using magnetically friendly laminated iron
as the core of a transformer, you are limited to using very
unfriendly air as the magnetic conduction medium. Tesla
did a lot of work to prove his theories for wireless
transmission of energy . . . he succeeded in doing a lot
of spectacular lightning like displays but never succeeded
in piping significant energy through the ether for more
than a few yards . . . and it wasn't in a form friendly
to running your toaster.
Bottom line is that all such stories were cooked up at
the expense of the listeners. People who worked in and
around such equipment all their careers showed no
particular increase in incidence of any health problems.
If any farmer was able to conduct any energy away from the
vicinity of a power line, it would have been measured in
milliwatts.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fast-on current ratings? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:28 AM 3/11/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
>What is the max current rating for Fastons (particularly the .250 and .11
>sizes)? I don't recall seeing a published number anywhere but I'm sure
>the data must exist...
>
>Thanks,
They're as good as the wire that you crimp into the terminals.
How much do you NEED to load them? Pitot heat and 100 to 150
watt landing lights are the biggest loads in most airplanes
and for the sake of longevity, we've de-rated the fuseblocks
to 15A max for any one fuse tap . . . about 30% more than
anything you should need.
Really ugly loads like hydraulic pumps should enjoy their
own ANL current limiters tied to fat wires for power
source.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> . People who worked in and
> around such equipment all their careers showed no
> particular increase in incidence of any health problems.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob... I'd refer you to the Swedish study on this.
Good study, five years, prospective, peer reviewed.... all the stuff we require
for a study
to meet scientific rigor.
They did find health effects from many low level fields... including household
appliances.
Robert
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:58 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
>
>My fuselage is about 18" to 20" diameter in the ELT mounting area. Assuming
>a 36" diameter ground plane, is that too much curling of the ends? My guess
>is that the ground plane would curl up to about the middle of the antenna.
How do I quantify "too much"? Antennas on airplanes
(except for LORAN) invariably talk/listen to facilities
in line-of-sight. A wet string hung out the window
will suffice for most conditions. It is impossible
to install the IDEAL antenna on any light aircraft
but without going to the laboratory to make detailed
measurements, one cannot quantify losses or gains
of efficiency due to any particular characteristic
of the installation. So for me to tell you that
your installation will suffer "too much" for
the conditions you propose is to suppose that
my crystal ball works better than anyone else's.
Besides, were I to offer the practical truth of
the matter and assert that your antenna will
be 30-50% of ideal in performance, you might
get all wound around the axles of concerns that
don't matter. Most EVERYBODY's antennas fall in this
range of operation.
Bottom line is bolt it on and don't worry about
it.
>Where do I get the Copper tape?
http://www.taperoll.com/Pricelst.htm
See #18, 1" x 36 yds copper tape.
>Artex sells an antenna designed for mounting inside composite aircraft that's
>about 31" long. Maybe that's the way to go if it's not too expensive.
That's going to be a half-wave dipole, suited
ONLY for installation in glass airplanes. Graphite
is too conductive to allow any useful operation of
internally mounted antennas.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
My ES is fiberglass, not graphite. I have several "glued to the inside skin"
antennas already.
Mike
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Microair com to intercom wiring |
schematic?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:32 AM 3/11/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
>Bob,
>
>Didn't you have a wiring diagram for the Microair com radio to an
>voice-activated intercom? Seems like I recall seeing you post a link to
>it on your website some time ago (for the harness you sell) but I can't
>find it now.
You can download my installation manual at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
My drawings show the hot-mic intercom installation
wiring.
>I'm connecting the Microair to the popular FlightComm 403 intercom that
>Vans sells....pretty sure I know how to hook it up correctly but thought
>I'd save myself the trouble of drawing it out if it's already been
>done...
The instructions that came with the 403 should be
sufficiently lluminating for your task.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
The more I think about it, all metal aircraft don't have a large flat surface
to attach the ELT antenna to. They are curved away from the antenna at about
the same radius as I would have. So now I'll continue to beat a dead
horse....
Is it better/worse/same for the ground plane to curve towards the antenna tip
or away from it?
Mike
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
Aircraft Spruce sells "Copper Antenna Tape" that's adhesive backed and about
3/8" wide. It's not in the catalog, but I found it on an Internet search.
Part # 11-12900 and they sell it by the foot, 30 cents/foot.
The tape on taperoll.com is 1" wide. Would the 3/8" work? Would I need more
radials?
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:37 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
>
>The more I think about it, all metal aircraft don't have a large flat surface
>to attach the ELT antenna to. They are curved away from the antenna at about
>the same radius as I would have. So now I'll continue to beat a dead
>horse....
>
>Is it better/worse/same for the ground plane to curve towards the antenna tip
>or away from it?
Without going to the lab to measure it, one would
be on thin ice to predict.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper tape for radials |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:48 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
>
>Aircraft Spruce sells "Copper Antenna Tape" that's adhesive backed and about
>3/8" wide. It's not in the catalog, but I found it on an Internet search.
>
>Part # 11-12900 and they sell it by the foot, 30 cents/foot.
>
>The tape on taperoll.com is 1" wide. Would the 3/8" work? Would I need more
>radials?
3/8 will work. You don't need more radials.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
I have the artex elt- 200 with the whip antenna. I installed it in the back
of my Lancair ES. The antenna is mounted along the side of the fuselage
conforming to the side of the plane. When I called artex for installation
info there was no mention of a ground plane for this antenna. The tech that
I talked to new that it was going into a glass plane and suggested that I
mount it this way. My question is: does this antenna need a ground plane?
What happens if the plane is upside down with the ground plane on top of the
antenna? Will this block the signal?
Thanks
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:58 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
> >
> >My fuselage is about 18" to 20" diameter in the ELT mounting area.
Assuming
> >a 36" diameter ground plane, is that too much curling of the ends? My
guess
> >is that the ground plane would curl up to about the middle of the
antenna.
>
> How do I quantify "too much"? Antennas on airplanes
> (except for LORAN) invariably talk/listen to facilities
> in line-of-sight. A wet string hung out the window
> will suffice for most conditions. It is impossible
> to install the IDEAL antenna on any light aircraft
> but without going to the laboratory to make detailed
> measurements, one cannot quantify losses or gains
> of efficiency due to any particular characteristic
> of the installation. So for me to tell you that
> your installation will suffer "too much" for
> the conditions you propose is to suppose that
> my crystal ball works better than anyone else's.
> Besides, were I to offer the practical truth of
> the matter and assert that your antenna will
> be 30-50% of ideal in performance, you might
> get all wound around the axles of concerns that
> don't matter. Most EVERYBODY's antennas fall in this
> range of operation.
>
> Bottom line is bolt it on and don't worry about
> it.
>
> >Where do I get the Copper tape?
>
> http://www.taperoll.com/Pricelst.htm
>
> See #18, 1" x 36 yds copper tape.
>
> >Artex sells an antenna designed for mounting inside composite aircraft
that's
> >about 31" long. Maybe that's the way to go if it's not too expensive.
>
> That's going to be a half-wave dipole, suited
> ONLY for installation in glass airplanes. Graphite
> is too conductive to allow any useful operation of
> internally mounted antennas.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:24 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert
><rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> > . People who worked in and
> > around such equipment all their careers showed no
> > particular increase in incidence of any health problems.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob... I'd refer you to the Swedish study on this.
>Good study, five years, prospective, peer reviewed.... all the stuff we
>require for a study
>to meet scientific rigor.
>They did find health effects from many low level fields... including
>household appliances.
>
>Robert
I've seen some publications on this. Some studies purported
to show several times increase in certain illnesses due
to electromagnetic effects while others claimed "small
but statistically significant effects". Here's a small
sampling of a large body of work.
http://www.niwl.se/wl2000/workshops/workshop36/report_en.asp
http://www.niwl.se/wl2000/workshops/workshop36/report_en.asp
http://www.radprotection.com/radiation_update4.html
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/static-fields-cancer-FAQ/toc.html#Q14
Dr. Johnson's study of the published works at the time
of his investigation (about 10 years ago) showed was that
there was no consistent data (nobody had repeatable
experiments in separate labs that produced commensurate results)
and that "statistically significant" was on orders
of magnitude smaller than risks from other stresses like
pollutants and UV radiation from the sun.
I think my chances of demise are far greater for getting
into an automobile every day than from contracting
out-of-the-ordinary illness from the power lines
running through my neighborhood or sleeping under an
electric blanket. The general public is horrible at
even rudimentary risk assessment . . . the talking
heads on TV aren't any better at it.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:21 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>I have the artex elt- 200 with the whip antenna. I installed it in the back
>of my Lancair ES. The antenna is mounted along the side of the fuselage
>conforming to the side of the plane. When I called artex for installation
>info there was no mention of a ground plane for this antenna. The tech that
>I talked to new that it was going into a glass plane and suggested that I
>mount it this way. My question is: does this antenna need a ground plane?
yes
>What happens if the plane is upside down with the ground plane on top of the
>antenna? Will this block the signal?
it won't do it any good . . . but I wouldn't worry about
it. ELT's are a demonstrated abject failure in years past.
AOPA published a study some years ago that showed fewer
than 5% of folks who where saved by rescuers had their
ELT's to thank. The newer transmitters and satellites
may have improved on this but I'll bet it didn't double
it.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
After tremendous overthinking and wonderfull help from the group, I'm going
to mount the antenna low in the rear fuselage, run 6 radials of 3/8" copper
tape, cover them with a 1 bid layup and NEVER CRASH MY PLANE!
Thanks,
Mike
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper tape for radials |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Steitle <msteitle@mail.utexas.edu>
><snip>
> >The tape on taperoll.com is 1" wide. Would the 3/8" work? Would I need
> more
> >radials?
>
> 3/8 will work. You don't need more radials.
>
> Bob . . .
<snip>
>I tried to order a roll of 1" copper foil tape from taperoll.com this
>morning and was told that their minimum order is 10 rolls. I have some
>3/8" copper tape that I will use instead.
>
>Mark S.
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | understanding mag switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Bob:
In Z-11 - could you explain the mag switchs - I thought they were to ground a mag
- when off and just open a connection when hot - are these mags not regular
Slick mags - but instead some kind of electronic mags - that nead power?
one switch is listed as off-start/on and the other is off/on/start - what's this
all about - I also just got the switches and notice they are spring loaded in
one direction - so they return to center.
could you just explain how there switches are positions when you start and what
you do after the start - etc.
what's the advantage of these switches over just a regular on/off switch to ground
the mags.
thanks
---------------------------------
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper tape for radials |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Mireley <mireley@pilot.msu.edu>
Copper tape is used to make some stained glass objects. An art shop or a
glass shop
should have it.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper tape for radials |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
I called the local stained glass shop and they have it in many different
sizes and IT'S CHEAP!
Mike
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: understanding mag switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: understanding mag switches
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Bob:
>
> In Z-11 - could you explain the mag switchs - I thought they were
> to ground a mag - when off and just open a connection when hot -
> are these mags not regular Slick mags - but instead some kind of
> electronic mags - that nead power?
Julia, the power is needed to trigger the starter contactor. It
doesn't go to the mags. The spring-loaded up position of the left mag
switch is used as the starter switch.
>
> one switch is listed as off-start/on and the other is off/on/start
> - what's this all about - I also just got the switches and notice
> they are spring loaded in one direction - so they return to
> center.
Normal procedure would be to place the right mag swich in the down
(off/start) position while placing the left mag switch in the middle
(On) position. Then move the left mag switch to the start (Up)
position to engage the starter. When the engine starts, the left mag
switch returns to the middle (on) position. Then move the right mag
switch to the middle (on) position to fire both mags.
The up position of the right switch is really not used, but is paired
with the left mag switch so they are both in the same relative position
when on and off.
Two of the benefits is that these switches remove the need for a push-
to-start switch and they eliminate the inferior key switch.
Randy
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 03/11/2003 10:09:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> Is it better/worse/same for the ground plane to curve towards the antenna
> tip
> >or away from it?
>
> Without going to the lab to measure it, one would
> be on thin ice to predict.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I'll risk a vote: sloping the radials away from a 1/4 wave vertical is a
technique used successfully to match to 50 ohms... 90 degree radials give
about 36 ohms feedpoint Z, and a dipole (essentially a single ground radial
at 180 degree slope from its quarter wave radiator counterpart) should come
in at 72 ohms, if I recall correctly. I seem to recall that the optimum
slope is about 120 degrees between radiator and ground plane (or radials) but
I could be hallucinating. Seems to me that sloping the radials toward the
tip of the antenna (or curving the ground plane in a similar fashion) would
invite a feedpoint Z of even less than 36 ohms (VSWR getting worse) as well
as mechanically shielding the radiator, thus interfering with its
performance. OTOH, maybe as you "pull the sides in," it behaves more like an
open length of tapered transmission line, and the characteristic Z could
begin to rise toward 50 ohms and even beyond... do I know what I'm talking
about? I doubt it.
Bob is right, however, to state that theory and real-world practice differ in
antenna work. It's mostly magic. Now that I have my MFJ-259 (thanks for
your note, Ferg), I could mock up such an antenna and try it out, but that
must wait till I get off work.
Will post results later ;-)
Bill B
RV-6A
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes, Family Jewels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 03/11/2003 9:52:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
MikeEasley@aol.com writes:
> 3/8" wide. It's not in the catalog, but I found it on an Internet search.
>
> Part # 11-12900 and they sell it by the foot, 30 cents/foot.
>
>
I have a roll of this stuff from RST engineering.. 1/2 inch wide if I recall
correctly. Contact me off list for availability. For small quantities, the
price might be the same as I paid for my film canister of fuel lube a long
time ago... thanks and bless you, whoever that was!
Bill B
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: understanding mag switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Please see comments below.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer
> <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:54 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: understanding mag switches
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>> In Z-11 - could you explain the mag switchs - I thought they were to
>> ground a mag - when off and just open a connection when hot - are
>> these mags not regular Slick mags - but instead some kind of
>> electronic mags - that nead power?
>
> Julia, the power is needed to trigger the starter contactor. It
> doesn't go to the mags. The spring-loaded up position of the left mag
> switch is used as the starter switch.
If you look at the switch diagram, you can see where the 12V input lead
is routed when its in the up position - the starter, not the mag.
>>
>> one switch is listed as off-start/on and the other is off/on/start -
>> what's this all about - I also just got the switches and notice they
>> are spring loaded in one direction - so they return to
>> center.
>
> Normal procedure would be to place the right mag swich in the down
> (off/start) position while placing the left mag switch in the middle
> (On) position. Then move the left mag switch to the start (Up)
> position to engage the starter. When the engine starts, the left mag
> switch returns to the middle (on) position. Then move the right mag
> switch to the middle (on) position to fire both mags.
>
I would add that the reason to only use the left mag for starting is that
many airplane save a little money and weight by only equipping one of the
mags with an impulse coupling (as shown in Z-11). The mag without the
coupling cannot be used while starting because its timing is fixed in the
25-30deg BTDC range. If the mag sparked (which it might not at slow
cranking speeds) it would cause kickback.
> The up position of the right switch is really not used, but is paired
> with the left mag switch so they are both in the same relative position
> when on and off.
>
> Two of the benefits is that these switches remove the need for a push-
> to-start switch and they eliminate the inferior key switch.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket #95
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper tape for radials |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >I tried to order a roll of 1" copper foil tape from taperoll.com this
> >morning and was told that their minimum order is 10 rolls. I have some
> >3/8" copper tape that I will use instead.
> >
> >Mark S.
> >
Hmmm . . . I bought two rolls from them about two years
ago . . . but that was probably combined with another
large order. I'll look around for another supplier. There
have been posts for other sources. Another source I used
to use years ago was foil from hobby shops used for embossed
artwork. This stuff came in rolls 6 to 12" wide and no adhesive.
Not a big deal since you want to put down a layer of glass
and epoxy over the radials anyhow. You can cut 1" wide
strips and put them end-to-end as needed to make up the
total desired length (as measured from the bottom of the
antenna). Splices can be soldered at the same time you
solder the radials to your grounding plate at the base.
Bob . . .
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Bob is right, however, to state that theory and real-world practice differ in
>antenna work. It's mostly magic. Now that I have my MFJ-259 (thanks for
>your note, Ferg), I could mock up such an antenna and try it out, but that
>must wait till I get off work.
Actually, it's pretty predicable . . . IF . . . you have
the right tools. We have a department within the RAC
hierarchy that owns a kind of finite-element analysis
for conductors excited with radio frequency energy.
We've used them to get us in the ball park for predicting
antenna performance on several biz jets.
But for us little guys, it's a cut-n-try activity.
>Will post results later ;-)
Take some pics and show us the results. I'll publish
it on the website.
Bob . . .
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alt. Field Circuit Breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: VECSEYA@aol.com
We have an SNJ-4 with 24 volt electrical system, they tell me
the battery will last for about 20 starts and then goes dead. I inquired
about their trouble shooting and was advised they had replaced the reverse
current relay and flashed the generator field, no help. I suggested, rather
than a no charge situation, they have a low amp drain? Any suggestions on
trouble shooting.
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RG battery location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Howard Ogle <pub@macrotechcorp.com>
Bob,
What are your thoughts with placing the battery(s) inside the cockpit behind the
instrument panel?
I'm building an all electric Glasair III with dual alternators, dual batteries,
electronic ignition, etc. One of the results of having EFIS flat screens as
primary displays, combined with the compactness of RG batteries, there is space
for the battery behind the instrument panel. Conventionally, the battery in
Glasairs has either been located on the firewall or behind the pilot or copilot
seats. The majority of Glasair IIIs that I have seen have their battery(s)
located on the firewall, partially due to CG and partially due to convenience.
Now with the advent of RG batteries and EFIS with smaller electronics, what are
the pros and cons to having the battery(s) in the panel? (I say battery(s),
because I haven't made a final decision on whether I want to carry the extra
weight of two batteries, verses, the extra redundancy.)
I see some advantage inside the cabin. The battery would not see the same
temperature extremes as it would on the firewall. Contactors would also enjoy a
more friendly environment. Taking the battery off the firewall allows more room
for engine maintenance or more room for that inverted oil system. In my case,
I'm mounting two oil coolers at the rear of the engine with the air exiting down
and out the cowl flaps. Having no firewall battery offers some extra room for
controlling airflow aft of the engine. Plus, it keeps warm air away from the
batteries and contactors.
Another advantage is fewer wires to run through the firewall. Even though there
certainly are plenty of other wires (EGT, CHT, temp, pressure, etc.). The more
critical wires that control battery contactors, crossfeed, and starter relay
would remain inside. Presumably, a slightly more reliable relay system would
result. Also, the main and aux bus feeds would originate and stay inside with
very short runs. A central ground point can still be maintained. However, the
fat starter, alternator and engine ground runs would lengthen about a foot.
As far as gaining access to the battery, I've devised a panel design that would
allow access to the battery probably as easy or easier than removing the Glasair
cowl. A counter point to this would be that now there would be another location
(the panel mounted battery) that would require routine maintenance (regular
battery replacement).
RG batteries are ideally maintenance free. Under normal conditions; they don't
expel gases or puke acid. Yet, they have a small vent hole. Extreme over
charging an RG battery can cause it to overheat and vent some gases. I have not
found any information that quantifies this. Nonetheless, I would think that a
proper system with OV protection, maintained and monitored at a reasonable
charging level (assuming 13.8V) should not cause any gases to be expelled.
Obviously there are concerns of dripping acid or battery fumes this close to
pilot and passenger. Additionally, there are nearby expensive electronics, as
well. Traditional thinking would lead one to think a battery in this location
would be no good. But, everyday I walk past a room full of expensive internet
computers that are battery backed up with the same battery technology. There is
not even a second thought given to the same twenty 17Ah batteries in the
equipment racks within inches of other electronics. Yes, they are inside
aluminum UPS cases. But, the cases are vented alongside the computers. So, if
designers of computer UPS systems see no problem with RG batteries being in
close proximity to expensive electronics, why should we worry about this issue?
Although, unlike the computer room, our airplane environment sees extreme
altitude and pressure changes. Does this have an effect on the environmental
cleanliness of RG batteries?
One thought would be to put the battery in a sealed box only vented to the
outside world. But, this might be completely unnecessary and certainly
complicates a panel mounted installation. Not to mention, it makes routine
battery replacement a little more difficult. At some point, the battery might as
well be back out on the firewall.
Of course, there is the concern of safety. First, let's assume the battery mount
can withstand at least 10Gs. Beyond that in a crash hard enough to potentially
rupture an RG battery, I don't think it makes much difference which side of
firewall the battery is located. A crash this hard is probably fatal anyway. As
far as sparks, having the master switch OFF is the best defense against post
crash fire caused by electrical faults. I don't see where battery location makes
much difference. Sparks generally come from wires, not the battery. Regardless
of battery location, precautions need to be made with wires running near header
fuel lines, either way.
After many years of having the battery located on firewall or in a compartment
away from occupants and equipment, there is something emotionally wrong with
locating it in the panel. But, unless my logic is flawed, what are the negatives
to a panel location? With ever shrinking electronics, flat panel displays and RG
batteries, why not put the battery behind the panel, even in close proximity to
occupants and electronics? I welcome comments and feedback.
Howard Ogle
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual E.I. and Batteries, single Alt. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 05:48 PM 3/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson"
<rickf@cableone.net>
Do not archive
> >Hi Bob,
> >I'm about ready to order my electrical stuff and wanted to confirm some
> >things about my wiring diagram.
> >
> >Background:
> >I'm building a fairly simple panel for a day-VFR RV3. I took fig. Z-11
> >and added Z-23 (test adapter), Z-28 (dual E.I.), and Z-30 (aux battery &
> >bus). I am placing the dual batteries with their contactors and buses in
> >back and installing B&C's starter, alternator, and voltage regulator.
> >
> >Questions:
> >1) I am co-locating the buses in back even though you have to run more
> >wires from each bus foreward. I assume this is still true with my
system?
>
> yes . . .
>
>
> >2) I used 10AWG for the aux bat bus and 16AWG for the main. Can't
> >remember why though?
>
> hmmm . . . 16 is probably adequate for a battery bus
>
>
> >3) Is it a good idea to combine the aux bat master sw with the essential
> >bus alt feed sw into an S700-2-10 switch so that when you open the aux
bat
> >master sw you also close the essential bus alt feed sw (power from main
> >bus to lead 5 and lead 6 to essential bus)?
>
> having trouble visualizing the wiring and your intent. I'm
> not sure how/why you want to tie closure of alternate feed
> path with the act of turning the aux battery master off.
> Can you elaborate on the value of doing this?
>
> Bob . . .
Perhaps I didn't give this as much thought as I should have. I only saw an
opportunity to eliminate a switch.
My thought was that with a low voltage light, I would open both the main
battery and the aux battery contactor to remove power from the main power
bus. I would at the same time need to close the essential bus alternate
feed switch to keep power to the essential bus. I see now that when I shut
down, I would be leaving power to the essential bus. Not a good idea. Is
there any good way to reduce from three switches to
-======================================================================
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
Well, I must confess that this all peaked my interest, so I did a bit of
Internet searching and it appears that my dad was not pulling my leg. Here
are some references:
http://www.pipe-line.com/archive/archive_99-06/99-06_induced-smart.html
This describes some of the problems that occur when a well insulated pipe
line follows a power line corridor. I spoke with the primary author of this
paper and he said that a 1/2 mile of wire will work just fine for
substantial currents. He said power companies "really don't like it"!
http://www.sestech.com/software_packages/row.asp
This is a software package from a Canadian company that computes "the
voltages and currents transferred from electric power lines and cables to
pipelines and railways, whether buried or above ground."
http://www.mitton.co.nz/emf.html
A New Zealand consulting company that helps power companies solve these
problems.
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/2001symposium/2001techpro
g.htm#Title:%20Interference%20of%20AC%20Power%20Transmission%20Lines%20with%
20Railroad%20Signal%20Systems
An IEEE paper describing the problems that railroads have.
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist/fist5~1/5~1_14.htm
This US Bureau of Reclamation document has a table of voltages and currents
found on deenergized power lines that parallel energized lines. I know that
the Tracy-Contra Costa line (600 volts, 49 amps) is tens of miles long.
So, the bottom bottom line is that there are significant safety issues for
pipe lines, telecommunication lines, and railway workers due to induced and
through-earth coupling and apparently you can deliberately pick up useful
and sometimes dangerous amounts of electrical energy.
All this said, there's no good science that indicates a problem with an
individual standing near an electrical transmission line.
-john-
p.s. No, I never did find any stories about farmers... ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: defending the "familiy jewels" . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:57 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
>
>I hesitate to perpetuate this story (and reveal my gullibility); My dad was
>a civil engineer who worked for the Pacific Gas & Electric company laying
>out long transmission lines and supervising their installation. I spent one
>summer about 50 years ago with him, driving the back roads of California on
>his job and he told me that one of the reasons that the transmission lines
>are rotated every few thousand feet (they don't just stay in the same
>relative position for the full run) was to prevent farmers from laying a
>loop of lines parallel to the transmission lines and inductively coupling
>some free watt hours.
Actually, that's done to improve the transmission line characteristics
of the parallel run of wires (same thing as twisting wires under
the shields for reduced coupling to environment). It reduces the
need for power factor correction and has a small but beneficial
improvement on transmission efficiency.
A friend of mine (PhD EE) was asked to testify in a personal
damages case against a power line company wherein the plaintiff
alleges he was injured by the proximity to a high voltage transmission
line running near his property.
Coupling energy from a power line via either magnetic parallel
conductors or electrostatic means at 60Hz was calculated as
very difficult to do. Close proximity effects of high-voltage,
high-current conductors falls off as the square of the distance.
Further, instead of using magnetically friendly laminated iron
as the core of a transformer, you are limited to using very
unfriendly air as the magnetic conduction medium. Tesla
did a lot of work to prove his theories for wireless
transmission of energy . . . he succeeded in doing a lot
of spectacular lightning like displays but never succeeded
in piping significant energy through the ether for more
than a few yards . . . and it wasn't in a form friendly
to running your toaster.
Bottom line is that all such stories were cooked up at
the expense of the listeners. People who worked in and
around such equipment all their careers showed no
particular increase in incidence of any health problems.
If any farmer was able to conduct any energy away from the
vicinity of a power line, it would have been measured in
milliwatts.
Bob . . .
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff@attbi.com>
I am beginning to scrounge "Stuff" for my GlaStar that should be
finished in the fall of 2004. Just wondered if most homebuilts are 12
volt. I keep hearing about automotive alternators and I assume that they
are 12 volt or can they be regulated out to 28 volt.
Can most avionics (not the newest King KX155's which are 28 volt only)
be had in 12 volt versions?
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|