Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Ammeter connection (Gianni Zuliani)
2. 02:16 AM - Re: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect (Piers Herbert)
3. 02:49 AM - Re: Ammeter connection (Piers Herbert)
4. 04:24 AM - Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories (Ian Scott)
5. 06:20 AM - IFR Certification of ABEA (BAKEROCB@aol.com)
6. 06:20 AM - Small Battery Solutions (BAKEROCB@aol.com)
7. 07:06 AM - Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap (richard@riley.net)
8. 08:11 AM - Power sources - please clarify (Fergus Kyle)
9. 08:24 AM - Re: RGbattery (DAVID REEL)
10. 09:20 AM - Re: Power sources - please clarify (Ed Holyoke)
11. 09:41 AM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 09:52 AM - plug/socket convention (Dan Checkoway)
13. 10:15 AM - Re: plug/socket convention (Charlie & Tupper England)
14. 10:17 AM - Re: RGbattery (John)
15. 10:18 AM - Re: Ammeter connection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 11:02 AM - Re: Herding Spikes . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 11:23 AM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 11:25 AM - Re: plug/socket convention (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 11:27 AM - Re: Power sources - please clarify (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 11:37 AM - Redundant Ignitions (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
21. 11:49 AM - Re: List of current consumption figures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 03:06 PM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Don Honabach)
23. 03:11 PM - Master Switch (William Bernard)
24. 03:54 PM - Re: Master Switch (Gilles.Thesee)
25. 06:48 PM - Re: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories (Charlie & Tupper England)
26. 07:43 PM - Re: Need so help (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 07:46 PM - Re: Master Switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 07:58 PM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 07:59 PM - dual power and ground wires (John Slade)
30. 08:05 PM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 08:08 PM - Re: Redundant Ignitions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 08:40 PM - Re: 110V Ball switch (TSaccio@aol.com)
33. 09:17 PM - Re: dual power and ground wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ammeter connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gianni.zuliani@bluewin.ch>
This may be an already beaten subject, but I'm now to decide how to connect my
ammeter on my single bat, single alt system. I'm wondering which is its best use:
a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
b. to read system's total load?
c. to read alternator's output?
I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production models,
but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in configuration c.
And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you have to track a single
user's malfunction.
Any comment? Thanks.
Gianni Zuliani
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: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert@ntlworld.com>
Hi,
Bob wrote:
> > > This is what I'd have to do to sell this or a
> > > similar system to the FAA . . . it has to do
> > > with crash safety. Always hot wires from the
> > > battery are either pilot controllable or
> > > limited to 5A or less.
I presume this comes from FAR 23.1361. It seems that loads essential to
continued operation of the engine may be in addition to this 5 amp limit but
I suppose this would only be relevant if the battery were firewall forward?
However it does appear that an e bus essential feed, if not controlled by a
relay, would be limited by this rule to a 5 amp fuse near the battery. If
the rule were written with a 28V system in mind, then perhaps (in spark
energy terms) you could argue that a 7 amp fuse would be at least as safe in
a 12V system?
Nevertheless, the 20 AWG fuse link as shown in Z1 would (presumably) not
meet the requirement? I think I can limit my e bus needs to less than 5 amps
and thus protect the alternate feed wire with a 5 amp in line fuse. Circuits
coming off the e bus would be protected by their own fuses in the e bus fuse
block, but it is hard to come by blade fuses less than 3 amps.
My question is, if I get a ground fault in one of the e bus circuits when
the alternate feed is in use, could I be sure the 3 amp fuse in the fuse
block would blow before the 5 amp fuse in the feed line, thus leaving other
e bus services operational?
Piers
RV-8
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: Ammeter connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert@ntlworld.com>
I'm wondering which is its best use:
> a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
> b. to read system's total load?
> c. to read alternator's output?
> I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production
models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in
configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you
have to track a single user's malfunction.
I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses
you get.
I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most
ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with
0 in the center.
For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale.
With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that
feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter
current (which you don't want).
Piers
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: | Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" <jabiru22@yahoo.com.au>
HI all,
I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane,
Sat phone
CDMA phone
Hand held radio
Minidisk player
Handheld GPS
Ipaq
And a few others,
I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist
in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to
most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them
into the normal wall transformer at home).
Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline
connectors)
Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus
(original lead with panel mount connector)
Thanks Ian
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 |
|
| Subject: | IFR Certification of ABEA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Geoff Evans
<hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
<<.....skip......I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by the way) for day/night
VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR certification sometime down the
road a ways.....skip......Geoff>>
4/13/2003
Hello Geoff, It always puzzles and concerns me when people building an ABEA
(Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) that presumably already has an
altimeter, a transponder, and an encoder talk about equipping it for "IFR
certification". Who is going to certify what? What is the process of
certification? What does the certificate say?
The Operating Limitations for your specific aircraft should have some words
in it that read something like "After completion of Phase I flight testing,
unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instument flight in accordance
with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
That means that once your aircraft is "appropriately equipped" and you have
the transponder, encoder, and altimeter inspections required for IFR
operations (and repeated every two years) you are good to go -- no "IFR
certification" regarding the avionics equipment installed is involved**. The
EAA has some writings on this subject (Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR
Operations) that will further elaborate. You can probably obtain a copy from
Charlie Becker <<cbecker@eaa.org>>.
I would appreciate a response to the above from you to the entire list just
in case there are any unresolved questions / issues. Many thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
**PS: I should note that having these inspections done and entered into the
aircraft maintenance records is frequently referred to as an "IFR cert" , but
these inspections deal with the performance of these three items. See FAR
91.411 and 91.413.
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: | Small Battery Solutions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: TimRhod@aol.com on FADEC
BRownout
<<Charlie I like your idea of a small RG battery past a diode to keep FADEC
voltage up. it could even be mounted on the firewall of the velocity to keep
it close to the FADEC ign.>>
4/13/2003
Hello Tim, You have some precedence for this concept in the certificated
airplane community. Back when Diamond Aircraft and Teledyne Continental
Motors were still struggling for years with difficult engine starting
problems with the TCM IO-240 B3B engine in the DA20-C2 Katana airplane they
switched magnetos.
They went from two impulse coupled magnetos to one direct drive magneto and
one retard breaker magneto. The retard breaker magneto of course required a
starting vibrator ("shower of sparks"). That really didn't solve the starting
problem so they came to the conclusion that the starting vibrator was not
getting high enough voltage during cranking so they kluged up the
installation of a small, and I do mean small, computer battery to separately
feed the starting vibrator.
The airplane starts great now, but my personal conclusion is that the
starting problems were really caused by lack of priming fuel caused by
improperly designed cylinder induction port drain connectors. Once that
design flaw was corrected the starting problem was solved.
I guess the moral of the story is "Be sure what the cause of the problem is
before you start changing things to solve it".
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
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: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
The full warrantee applies, I'm an OEM with them. I'm really looking to
sell the whole stack.
At 02:38 AM 4/13/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Richard I would be interested interested in the SL30. I already have a quote
>of $3000 brand new and yours already has six months of the warrantee gone. I
>read thier warrentee on thier web sight and there may not even be a warrentee
>for a secondary sale. I could offer $2650. If you would be interested you
>can email me back. Timrhod@aol.com
>
>
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: | Power sources - please clarify |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Bob,
Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and
your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand
Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you
were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are
more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine
failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than
an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery
nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the
failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate.
Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting
as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally
means the loss of one over an interval.
The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
engine.............
Your thoughts?
Ferg
Europa A064
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples
analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance. This
would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive
penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some
time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde?
I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A so
I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will
just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range
so weight is not a big issue with me.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: | Power sources - please clarify |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Ferg,
Seems to me that, if you lose your only engine, endurance of the
electrical system is moot. You'll be landing long before you can drain
your battery or batteries. If you can't install a second alternator, and
you've got dual electronic ignitions, a second battery sounds like a
good idea to me.
I think that Geoff's choice, (and mine as well) is whether or not two
batteries are needed solely to support dual electronic ignitions. I'm
leaning toward dual alternators and one battery. I'd probably separate
the ignition feeds - one at the battery terminal and one at the battery
bus just for kicks. It wouldn't be too difficult to add a small battery
for ignition support, if I start feeling uneasy about it.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
RV-6 qb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 8:09 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Bob,
> Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery
choices
> and
> your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
> It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On
one
> hand
> Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and
you
> were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries
are
> more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an
engine
> failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly
> than
> an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a
> battery
> nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
> immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see
the
> failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly
immediate.
> Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine
quitting
> as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure
generally
> means the loss of one over an interval.
> The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
> engine.............
> Your thoughts?
> Ferg
> Europa A064
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:38 AM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book
>examples analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal
>resistance. This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps
>which seems an excessive penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've
>been wondering for some time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm
>figure in the book. The Concorde? I'm putting my battery behind the aft
>baggage compartment of my RV8A so I'm concerned with electrical
>efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will just shift my center of
>gravity back to the center of the acceptable range so weight is not a big
>issue with me.
I think that 12 mohm is an end-of-service-life max. New batteries I've
tested run 5-7 mohms with a 600A load. I have several RV-8 builders
flying the 17 a.h. Panasonic or clones behind the seat.
4 mhoms is typical of a larger battery (24 to 32 a.h.) when new.
However, if you NEED ballast, then make is USEFUL ballast. I went out to
look at a Long-Ez at OSH a few years ago. The builder had an itty-
bitty flooded motor cycle battery up front with about 20# of lead
shot packed around it.
We sold him a new Sonnenschein battery at the show.
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: | plug/socket convention |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
figure I'll follow it.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (finish)
http://www.rvproject.com
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: plug/socket convention |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
>convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
>i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
>on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
>figure I'll follow it.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D (finish)
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
Sensible question.
Convention (except for low current DC applications like things using
'wall wart' transformers) is to make the power source the protected
terminal. This is typically the 'female' connector. Think about devices
using house current. the plug with exposed terminals has no energy on
its terminals until it is inserted into the protected terminals of the
wall outlet.
If you decide to use concentric barrel type connectors (wall wart
connectors), use the outer, exposed barrel as the negative or ground.
Charlie
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty
heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it
worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group
75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys.
-John R.
DAVID REEL wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples
analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance.
This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive
penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some
time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde?
I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A
so I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds
will just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range
so weight is not a big issue with me.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
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: Ammeter connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:45 AM 4/13/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert"
><piers.herbert@ntlworld.com>
>
>I'm wondering which is its best use:
> > a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)?
> > b. to read system's total load?
> > c. to read alternator's output?
How do any of these features differ from each other
that makes one preferable over the other?
> > I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production
>models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in
>configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you
>have to track a single user's malfunction.
>
>I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses
>you get.
>
>I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most
>ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with
>0 in the center.
>
>For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale.
>
>With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that
>feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter
>current (which you don't want).
Ammeters and voltmeters of all varieties are TROUBLESHOOTING
aids. 99.9% of the times you look at any of them, they
tell you exactly what they said last time you looked . . .
the system is operating normally. I.e., information gained
is not useful for getting from point A to point B.
An ammeter or voltmeter of ANY style can help you figure
out what's going on when things are NOT working, but since
you're only supposed to do this on the ground with your
toolbox out, then there are lots of options for the application
of additional test equipment to help figure out and fix root cause.
It's not that the battery ammeter is any more or less
useful. Forsaking the traditional battery ammeter allows your
alternator to drive the system from the starter contactor
out on the firewall instead of coming inside to the bus.
I don't show it on drawings (and will eliminate it from
the next revision to instrumentation chapter) because
the battery ammeter drives system architecture in
undesirable ways.
If you're intent on having good OPERATIONAL instrumentation,
the low voltage warning light is about all you need. If the
light is out, things are okay and you don't have to keep
looking at it to confirm something that's true most of the
time. When the light comes on, it's time to go to plan-b
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY REASON why the light may be on. Therefore,
I suggest that voltmeters and ammeters are good things to
plug holes in the instrument panel but are of little
interest to you as a pilot.
Bob . . .
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: Herding Spikes . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:00 AM 4/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<snip>
>Oh, and for adding Transorbs at the breaker position. I submit that it
>would be much more effective to put them right at the end user. Reason is
>that the Transorb, or any other shunting protection device, needs an
>"upstream" resistance to work against or it will have to protect the whole
>system, which it probably can't. Putting it at the radio end of the wire
>allows it to use the resistance of the wire as it's lever. Of course, the
>device in question almost certainly has the same supply voltage transient
>protection internally, so the externally mounted Transorb is probably
>redundant.
You are correct that energy traps work best when the
source impedance of the transient is raised to the highest
possible value. Limitations to propagation of transients
has a profound effect on how hard it is to deal with them.
For the VERY short pulses (shorter than 200 ns), even if
they contained much energy (very high voltage) the ability
of this this half-sine equivalent of 50 Megahertz pulse
to travel down a piece of wire with any efficiency is
poor to zip.
The folks who would sell us any form of transient protection
device seldom mention this in their sales literature. They'll
be happy to tell you about all the gremlins and gobblins
that are no match for their ultimate solution. You often
have to dig out their application notes and dig trough the
system analysis to truly quantify risk and solution.
Spike mitigation is just another form of RFI/EMI engineering.
As I outlined in the chapter on noise, the first task is to
it's best to fix/filter the antagonist or break/modify
the propagation mode. It the case of very short spikes,
propagation is severely limited by the fact that several
feet of wire exist between antagonist and victim. Many
times, a simple high quality capacitor across the supply
line runs the transient to ground. Most appliances will
include some form of input bypass capacitor with just
such instances in mind.
From the perspective of an OEM supplying an accessory to
the aviation industry, you have no control over the system
design or architecture or maintenance so you do your duty
as a responsible supplier and put whatever protection on
your product's input/output leads to meet your stated
performance specifications. This may or may not dictate
the use of transorbs but they ARE indeed handy gizmos
and work as advertised.
From a SYSTEMS designer perspective, I'm equally obligated
to observe the lessons learned as outlined in DO-160. If
there is any potential for a particular piece of my system
to be an antagonist, then I should have figured out
which one it is and take the simple steps required to
(1) encourage the supplier of such device to clean up
his product or (2) add protection based on the repeatable
experiment to make MY system tolerant of HIS product.
Over the years, I've had quite a few builders worrying
over the unknown . . . which is perfectly understandable.
That which we are ignorant of is the most unsettling . . .
especially when described in the non-quantified and
unsubstantiated claims of popular folklore. On at least
two occasions, I have supplied killer transorbs to
builders (and recommended them to others) to be
installed as shown in:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/SpikeTrap.gif
This wires a transorb right to the main bus where
it can be the guardian of ALL devices that take
power from the bus. If you get an ov condition
or surge from the alternator, you may open the
fuse and the event is annunciated by illumination
of your SPIKE CATCHER warning lamp. This is
unlikely for 18V devices start conduction at
20-22 volts . . . your ov system should take
the alternator off line long before you push the
bus that high. For all other cases of transients,
the transorb takes care of anything else.
So if anyone is staying awake at night worrying
about this, I have a bunch of 5KP18A (only 5KW
devices but certainly adequate) that folks
are welcome to add to their system . . . they're
$5 each postage paid to anywhere in the world.
See:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/5kp.pdf
The truck I wanted to 'scope isn't running. I'm
still on safari hunting the elusive starter
spike.
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: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:34 PM 4/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Hey Guys,
>
>In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I
>got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring
>they provided with the engine will/may not work properly.
>
>In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection
>points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed
>back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground is
>implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The first
>is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style 'idiot'
>light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for reasons
>unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if the light
>isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final connector is
>labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus suggests hooking
>this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V positive when the
>engine starter is engaged.
>
>My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this
>last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source
>to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron
>parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator and
>how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that
>having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't
>running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is
>only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS
>design principles.
>
>I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any
>comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic
>questions, my apologies in advance :)
I think you got a poor explanation for a fix on this.
I'm surprised that your alternator depends on any
connection through the idiot light circuit . . . this
was common 15-20 years ago but I thought it had gone
away. If it were my airplane, I'd connect the "L"
terminal to the (+) terminal via a 150 ohm, 2W resistor
to mimic a lamp bulb. Then treat the (+) lead as
a control input and wire it as suggested in Figure
Z-24 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
In this case, "F" on my drawing is (+) on your alternator
combined with the resistor-fed "L" terminal.
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: plug/socket convention |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:49 AM 4/13/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of
>convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where?
>i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes
>on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I
>figure I'll follow it.
There's a LOOSE convention that suggests you put power
sources on female pins to minimize possibility of faulting
a source on an unmated connector. Likelihood of this is
low in every case, and impossible with many connector
designs. I wouldn't worry about it.
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: Power sources - please clarify |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:09 AM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
>Bob,
> Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and
>your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net!
> It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand
>Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you
>were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are
>more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine
>failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than
>an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery
>nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources
>immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the
>failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate.
> Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting
>as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally
>means the loss of one over an interval.
If you loose the engine, then battery life beyond 5-10 minutes
isn't much of an issue.
> The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my
>engine.............
That's a good reason for two batteries . . .
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: | Redundant Ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Geoff & Bob...
I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best
redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on
the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It
"seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries
and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow?
If so, please have at me... :)
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 4/12/03 10:56:17 PM,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
<< I'm trying not to throw other variables into this equation, but you asked
about my planned use of the airplane... I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by
the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR
certification sometime down the road a ways. I'm planning no vacuum system, a
Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite, a VM-1000 engine monitor, a GPS/Comm, and a couple
of backup pitot-static instruments. I'm having the engine built up by
AeroSport Power, so equiping it with dual electronic ignitions seems to make
more sense than having them bolt a magneto on it.
Thanks again for your help and advice. We all REALLY appreciate the time and
effort you put in here.
-Geoff
P.S. My high-dollar B&C order will definitely be forthcoming when I reach
that stage of my project.
>>
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: List of current consumption figures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:51 PM 4/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford"
><nkilford@etravel.org>
>
>I seem to remember someone asking about the amount of current consumed by
>various bits of equipment.
>
>I've just stumbled upon this page:
>
>http://aircraftexpense.com/eloadindex.htm
>
>which contains a *very* comprehensive list of aeroplane equipment and its
>current consumption.
Too bad folks who took considerable time to compile this
list didn't include running current values along with the
peak current values. Running current is what's needed for
load analysis, peak current often just sizes wire and fuses.
Bottom line is, get out your volt-ammeter (you all DO
have one of these . . . no?) and confirm ANY data you
might get from printed literature after your system
is up and running.
Bob . . .
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: | Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Bob,
Thanks for input - makes perfect sense as does the diagram.
You should seriously consider charging $5 dollars for every question you
answer as I think you'd be one of the few people that could say if I had
a nickle for every ...
Thanks!
Don
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:34 PM 4/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach"
>--> <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Hey Guys,
>
>In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I
>got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring
>they provided with the engine will/may not work properly.
>
>In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection
>points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed
>back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground
>is implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The
>first is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style
>'idiot' light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for
>reasons unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if
>the light isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final
>connector is labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus
>suggests hooking this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V
>positive when the engine starter is engaged.
>
>My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this
>last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source
>to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron
>parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator
>and how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that
>having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't
>running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is
>only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS
>design principles.
>
>I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any
>comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic
>questions, my apologies in advance :)
I think you got a poor explanation for a fix on this.
I'm surprised that your alternator depends on any
connection through the idiot light circuit . . . this
was common 15-20 years ago but I thought it had gone
away. If it were my airplane, I'd connect the "L"
terminal to the (+) terminal via a 150 ohm, 2W resistor
to mimic a lamp bulb. Then treat the (+) lead as
a control input and wire it as suggested in Figure
Z-24 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
In this case, "F" on my drawing is (+) on your alternator
combined with the resistor-fed "L" terminal.
Bob . . .
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
I'm working on the wiring and things have proceeded with no smoke so far. I do
have one question however.
I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor and a
2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in Z-13: pin 1
connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the contactor; pin 4 connects
to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C voltage regulator (or will).
Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme is that shown in Bob's book
on page11-16.
The question is how is this supposed to work? When I move the toggle up to the
center position, there is no connection: no voltage on the buss and the contactor
does not pull in. When the switch is moved all the way up, then the contactor
pulls in and there is 12+ volts on the main buss and to the regulator. Moving
the switch down to the center position kills the voltage on the buss.
My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only and
the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required between
some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should work?
For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark, it says
"Carling cMexico 0305"
Thanks for the help.
Bill
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: Master Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor
and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in
Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the
contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C
voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme
is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16.
>
.....................
> My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only
and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required
between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should
work?
>
> For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark,
it says "Carling cMexico 0305"
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
Hi Bill,
Just received my 2-10 switch.
It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows :
3 6
2 5
1 4
when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up.
Hope this helps,
Gilles
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: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Ian Scott wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" <jabiru22@yahoo.com.au>
>
>HI all,
>
>I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane,
>
>Sat phone
>CDMA phone
>Hand held radio
>Minidisk player
>Handheld GPS
>Ipaq
>
>And a few others,
>
>I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist
>in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to
>most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them
>into the normal wall transformer at home).
>
>
>Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline
>connectors)
>
>Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus
>(original lead with panel mount connector)
>
>
>Thanks Ian
>
Try:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/index.html
& look at the Karmic Standards articles.
Charlie
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: Need so help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:01 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob, I purchased your Aero Electric Connection manual from an aviation house
>I believe in Colorado. Am I entitled to your updates? How do I obtain them?
They can be down loaded from my website at http://www.aeroelectric.com
> My aircraft engine has a 40 amp alternator with a built in voltage
>regulator. Which crowbar o/v relay should I order for it?
OVM-14 and S702-1
> The Apollo Radio
>and Transponder I purchased recommended using RG142B antenna cable which I
>have purchased. Your chart figure 13-17 does not show this cable. How dose
>it compare with those on your chart?
Its comparable to RG400 but has a solid center conductor
as opposed to stranded. Either is fine.
> Do you have a source for connectors for
>this antenna cable?
See connectors at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html
which can be ordered at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> I will need a connector for a hand held (with two right
>angles?) a com antenna a transponder antenna.
That's what I do . . . a pair of RA adapters brings the
cockpit coax right down the back of the radio.
> I would prefer not to have to
>buy tools to assemble these connectors. Are the screw together type
>electronically as efficient as the crimp type? I purchase a good radio and
>do not want to degrade it with poor connectors.
Screw-on connectors are really sorry. You could go the solder and
clamp route but unless you've done enough of these to be reasonably
good at it, crimp is the way to go. Can you sell a crimp tool to
another builder after you're done with it. The tool is only $40
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/rct-2.jpg
Here's instructions on how to use it
http://216.55.140.222/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
you can also order the tool at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> My last question (*at least
>for the moment) is should I tin the 22 gage wire before I crimp it in the
>connector terminal? Thanks
Nope. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Master Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:51 AM 4/14/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> > I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor
>and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in
>Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the
>contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C
>voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme
>is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16.
> >
>.....................
> > My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only
>and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required
>between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should
>work?
> >
> > For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark,
>it says "Carling cMexico 0305"
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> Hi Bill,
>Just received my 2-10 switch.
>It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows :
>3 6
>2 5
>1 4
>when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up.
>Hope this helps,
I published a note on this some time back and crafted
a benchmark document published at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
that explains how the various drawings published over the
years have two different pin call-outs for the progressive
transfer switches.
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: | Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:04 PM 4/13/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for input - makes perfect sense as does the diagram.
>
>You should seriously consider charging $5 dollars for every question you
>answer as I think you'd be one of the few people that could say if I had
>a nickle for every ...
>
>Thanks!
>Don
I appreciate your kind words. If it wasn't fun, I couldn't
do it . . .
There will come a time in the not terribly distant future
where I'll need to consider my "retirement" posture. Turned
60 a couple of weeks ago. One facet of the business model
being considered is to convert my activities on the AeroElectric
List to a subscriber based list on my server for some nominal fee.
Not sure how it's all going to come together and it's not going
to happen next week or even next year. Dee needs to finish
her dissertation before I can even begin to consider operating
out from under the RAC umbrella.
Bob . . .
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: | dual power and ground wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for
the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that?
John Slade
Cozy IV
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:58 PM 4/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
>I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty
>heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it
>worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group
>75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys.
Yup, those are direct descendants of the original 25 a.h.
jelly-roll RG batteries pioneered by Gates over 30 years ago.
They have evolved into a real flame thrower. You don't
want to get your Spidel wrist watch band or wedding ring
shorted across that hummer . . . makes you say loud
embarrassing words and some of your body parts stink
really bad too . . .
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: Redundant Ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:34 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>Geoff & Bob...
>
>I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best
>redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on
>the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It
>"seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries
>and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow?
>If so, please have at me... :)
Not at all. Consider that when you buy an engine it
it generally supplied with mags and priced accordingly.
If one could get $1500 deducted off the price of the engine
by removing the mags, neato keeno deal . . . but it's
not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Sooooo . . . if you want to get 95% of everything all electronic
ignition will do for you. Take off one mag and put on electronic
ignition. Run the first mag 'til it croaks and then put the
second mag back on. When it croaks, the cost of a new mag
is about the same as an electronic ignition, so you might as
well go all the way. Then you might consider adding a second
battery if you're not already all-electric with two
alternators.
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: 110V Ball switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
I realize that this is off the beaten path but maybe some could help me. I'm
looking for a 110 V ball switch that I could mount on a Bifold door. It's
function would be to turn a light on and off in a closet by opening and
closing the door.
If you know where a switch like this could be found please let me know.
Already tried Mouser, Digi-key, MPJA and McMaster-Carr.
Thanks,
Tom Saccio
tsaccio@aol.com
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: | Re: dual power and ground wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:56 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>
>The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for
>the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that?
>John Slade
>Cozy IV
Yeah, the Microair guys are asking for that too. I wrote to them
and asked for an explanation with no response yet. 20AWG is 10
milliohms per foot. The average feeder from bus to radio is probably
no more than 4' for 40 mohms total. A second lead in parallel is
going to drop it to 20 . . . ????
Beats me . . .
Somebody might have some notions about "reliability" but if you
have one wire come loose, how will you know that you've now
reduced your wiring reliability by a factor of two?
We wired a lot of radios with a single power supply and
ground wire over the years. Maybe there's some heretofore
ignored reason for doing it but nothing I can deduce.
I'll ask around some more.
I'll bet somebody did it, others noticed, everybody worried
about not being hip with the latest good-thing-to-do; so another
handful of floobydust has been stirred into the fertile
ground of folklore.
Bob . . .
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! --
|