Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:09 AM - Filtering (Shannon Knoepflein)
2. 05:24 AM - Re: Avionics bus (Shannon Knoepflein)
3. 05:30 AM - Re: Avionics bus (Shannon Knoepflein)
4. 06:05 AM - 100 % Solution (diode-fed support batt-was Avionics bus) (Mark Phillips)
5. 06:36 AM - Re: Avionics bus (Shannon Knoepflein)
6. 06:45 AM - Re: WX900 Stormscope (Shannon Knoepflein)
7. 07:39 AM - Re: 100 % Solution (diode-fed support (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:41 AM - Re: Filtering (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:45 AM - Re: Source for Pins & Extraction tools (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:20 AM - Re: Filtering (Shannon Knoepflein)
11. 08:42 AM - volts vs amps (Jim Pack)
12. 09:34 AM - Re: volts vs amps (Shannon Knoepflein)
13. 10:10 AM - Re: volts vs amps (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 10:34 AM - cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor diodes, copper alloys (Dan Checkoway)
15. 11:30 AM - Re: cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor (Scott Bilinski)
16. 11:31 AM - Re: volts vs amps (Shannon Knoepflein)
17. 11:51 AM - Re: volts vs amps (Don Honabach)
18. 12:09 PM - Re: volts vs amps (Don Honabach)
19. 12:26 PM - AutoPilot Disconnect (Jim Pack)
20. 12:37 PM - Re: 100 % Solution (diode-fed supportbatt-was (Mark Phillips)
21. 12:38 PM - Re: cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 12:46 PM - Re: Z-13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions (Joel Harding)
23. 01:04 PM - Re: volts vs amps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 01:08 PM - Re: Filtering (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 02:10 PM - Re: volts vs amps (BobsV35B@aol.com)
26. 02:15 PM - volts vs amps (Jim Pack)
27. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Circuit protection question follow on (Gilles.Thesee)
28. 03:38 PM - Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer (David Swartzendruber)
29. 03:46 PM - Re: Z13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions (Shaun Simpkins)
30. 05:41 PM - Re: OV circuit breaker tripping (John Karnes)
31. 06:14 PM - Re: Re: Z13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 06:32 PM - Re: 100 % Solution (diode-fed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 06:34 PM - Re: volts vs amps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 07:31 PM - Re: Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer (Jim Ziegler)
35. 07:50 PM - Yaesu handheld nav/com (Rob W M Shipley)
36. 08:00 PM - Re: Yaesu handheld nav/com (William Shaffer)
37. 08:02 PM - Re: Flap system failure modes (Was circuit protection issues) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
38. 08:13 PM - Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer (David Swartzendruber)
39. 08:33 PM - Tach P-lead feed (Charles Brame)
40. 08:40 PM - Re: AutoPilot Disconnect (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 09:42 PM - Re: Tach P-lead feed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
42. 09:58 PM - my other life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
43. 10:11 PM - Re: AutoPilot Disconnect (John Loram)
44. 11:14 PM - Re: my other life (Jaye and Scott Jackson)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Bob,
Per your email on your filter test on the strobe power supply, which do
you see as the better solution? The LC filter minimizes the ripple as
well as just the larger C filter, but the LC filter leaves a little
spike on the transient. Do you suggest using the LC, or just the large
C filter?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
Yup, did such a study on a builder's proposed
strobe light a few years ago. We were looking at both
noise and the periodic, erratic nature of input current
draw for his power supply. See the plot of this
data at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Strobe_Plot.pdf
Here one may observe the effects of various filter
techniques tried for noise mitigation. The top
plot is current curve using one of the radio shack
filters as described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.html
The second plot places a single 10,000 uf cap across
the power supply input.
The third plot shows unfiltered current noise.
In the second plot, we see a data value deduced from
area under the current curve that says this strobe
uses 1.3 ampere seconds of current per cycle. The
ENERGY consumed by this particular strobe is
1.3 a-s/flash x 14v = 18.2 Joules/flash input power.
I think this was a 10 Joule/flash system so this
puts overall efficiency at about 55%. Probably
average for products of this type.
The peak current was measured at 2.7 amps. Average
current is 0.9 x 1.3 or 1.17 amps. I seem to recall
the instructions for this system called for a 5A
breaker . . . a 2A breaker would probably have worked
nicely too.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Sounds like it's not a problem with the EFIS/ONE (I never said it was,
just said it was a possibility), whereas it could be with the Chelton.
Again, I'm not sure it is, I'm just going by what they tell me. I
should have an opportunity to test it soon and see I can actually get it
to do it. Honestly, I don't think its possible, but it's the only thing
I've ever heard from a manufacturer that would warrant any type of
master or switch added to turn it off.
I certainly agree that if they (chelton) felt this could be a problem,
they should have added a power switch to the unit itself. My ONLY
complaint with the system so far.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Slade
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics bus
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade"
<sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> It is actually possible that Greg's system needs protected, just like
my
> Chelton, due to it opening and closing files during bootup.
I don't understand this. I thought all the EFIS/ONE data was either rom
based or on a CD/DVD. Either way I don't see how you can corrupt a file
unless you're running off writable media. Am I wrong?
John Slade
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
True.
I just chose to combine this little buss that needed to be created for
the Chelton and the ESS bus, and back it up with an ALT FEED. This may
not have been the best choice for everyone, but it was for me, as it is
how I wanted it configured and is something I understand and allows me
to immediately shed loads to the ESS bus. Again, maybe not for
everyone, but I weighed the pros and cons of all systems, and after
doing much research for answers, this is what was best for me IMHO, and
that's what important. The system is simple to understand, easy to use,
and backed up....
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Pack
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics bus
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
In reality, it doesn't need a general AV master, it simply needs a
dedicated
switch to that piece of avionics - only because one was not built into
the
unit itself.
- Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics bus
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
<kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> It is actually possible that Greg's system needs protected, just like
my
> Chelton, due to it opening and closing files during bootup. I think
> Greg's is more PC based so it might be better at handling this, but
the
> Chelton isn't as forgiving.
>
> These computers are really the ONLY thing that even has a chance of
> needing the AV Master, as Bob has shown many times.
>
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: | 100 % Solution (diode-fed support batt-was Avionics |
bus)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
Would a small battery such as the 1.3 Ah Panasonic DigiKey sells (1.3 lbs, under
$20) tied
directly to the e-bus maintain full voltage on the bus during engine start or any
other
low-voltage condition, thus mitigating these concerns? This assumes equipment
of concern
were fed from this bus. The e-bus supply diode would prevent discharge back to
the main bus,
and the e-bus alternate feed would normally be off, but a diode in this feed would
do
likewise. This seems an obvious way to put the whole issue to bed unless there
are other
concerns such as charging issues for the backup battery. This also adds the benefit
of
"some" additional endurance to the bus, and would even power the bus briefly when
the main
battery post breaks off (tounge-in-cheek on that one, but.......!) Sized appropriately,
this
battery could actually support the e-bus for duration-of-flight, saving the main
for
arrival/landing ops exclusively, as another option. Is this what you mean by "diode
fed
support battery" and why is this not a common solution?
Mark Phillips
>
> There's no excuse for not being able to handle this
> kind of event but if the manufacturer is insistent,
> then a small diode fed support battery is the 100%
> solution.
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Bob,
Yes, its an avionics master switch that activates a solid state relay
(Eric Jones) that feeds power from the AUX buss through a superdiode
(Eric) to an
ESS/AVIONICS buss. This ESS/AVIONICS buss is backed up through a ALT
FEED switch.
Sounds like Greg's system won't do this brownout, whereas the Chelton at
least has the possibility. Once it get up and running fully, I will
test the Chelton and see if I can get it to do it. From what Chelton
tells me, it is opening and closing config files during bootup, and
connecting to the engine/air data unit and the AHRS, and if it shuts
down at the right time, it can corrupt things. Sounds like a bit of
hocus pocus to me, but I have no choice but to believe them until I can
verify it. This is my ONLY complaint about this system...it should
really just have a power switch on it.
Per your concern about brownout during flight...once the Chelton is
booted up and running, killing power is not a concern. It's just
turning it off when it is first booting up. So, if the pitot failed and
killed the buss, the system would shut down with no affect. Fist off,
the pitot is on not on the AUX/ESS buss, so it failing wouldn't affect
the primary flight dislay anyway. However, if it was, I would flip the
ALT/BATT switch off and the AUX/ESS ALT FEED switch and fly straight and
level while the system comes back to life, boots up, and calibrates
itself. (I would do this using the backup attitude gyro which is also on
the ESS buss). After I have things booted back up and normal, at this
point, I would put the GAMI Supplenator into self excite mode (doesn't
need a battery to produce current) and it would make 35A without being
connected to the battery.
I have lots of confidence in the system. Its being built for the Alaska
Capstone project, and is the first EFIS to get blanket FAA approval for
over 650 airplanes. The system has been rigorously tested (go to their
website, www.cheltonflightsystems.com and go to the Sierra line and
watch the video of the lightning test). And, I think when it comes down
to it, I will find out that the system doesn't have any problems even
with this little brownout issue.
If I find it to be an issue, I will consider the diode and battery.
Yet, with my current configuration, I don't see how this would enhance
the system.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics bus
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:08 PM 5/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>It is actually possible that Greg's system needs protected, just like
my
>Chelton, due to it opening and closing files during bootup. I think
>Greg's is more PC based so it might be better at handling this, but the
>Chelton isn't as forgiving.
>
>These computers are really the ONLY thing that even has a chance of
>needing the AV Master, as Bob has shown many times.
Is this an "Avonics Master" or a simple switch that accommodates
some unique requirement of the system? Last time I talked
to Greg, he said that there was no hazard to his system
due to brownout . . . it would just have to reboot thus
taking longer to get ready to go to work. So big deal . . .
If the Chelton system has any chance of going brain-dead
due to brownout, how would one propose to deal with a situation
like hard fault on a pitot heat line that opens the
fuse (or worse yet) breaker by putting a momentary load
of 300A or more on the system? There are OTHER causes of
reduced system voltage than engine cranking and they
might happen in flight (That's why we use fuses and
breakers).
I'm not sure I'd have much confidence in a system that
couldn't get stood back up after an unexpected brownout of
any duration, rise and fall times and amplitude. This
might be more of a reason for the ever popular Band-Aid
battery diode fed from the bus. Momentary brownouts of
any character are washed out by the battery.
There's no excuse for not being able to handle this
kind of event but if the manufacturer is insistent,
then a small diode fed support battery is the 100%
solution.
Bob . . .
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: | WX900 Stormscope |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Here's the best I can do for you. This is how mines wired (ignore stuff
to right):
WX-1 WX500 Power +12V 22-3S 18 WHT
WX-2 WX500 Ground 22-3S - W/BLU
WX-3 WX500 RS-232 TX 22-3S 18 WHT
WX-4 WX500 RS-232 RX 22-3S - W/BLU
WX-5 WX500 RS-232 Ground 22-3S - W/ORG
WX-6 WX500 Shield 22-3S - SHIELD
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
DHPHKH@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: WX900 Stormscope
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Gang,
Anybody have a pinout and/or installation manual for a WX-900
Stormscope?
Dan Horton
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: 100 % Solution (diode-fed support |
batt-was Avionics bus)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:03 AM 5/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
>Would a small battery such as the 1.3 Ah Panasonic DigiKey sells (1.3 lbs,
>under $20) tied
>directly to the e-bus maintain full voltage on the bus during engine start
>or any other
>low-voltage condition, thus mitigating these concerns?
Sure. You'd have to fit it with some kind of mini-contactor
that operates in conjunction with either the DC Power Master
switch or the E-bus alternate feed switch. You would also
want to make sure the E-bus alternate feed switch is OFF
during engine cranking.
Or . . one could simple add a third dc power control
switch for this battery . . . and write its proper usage
into the checklists . . . I think I lean more toward an
automatic control/selection.
> This assumes equipment of concern
>were fed from this bus. The e-bus supply diode would prevent discharge
>back to the main bus,
>and the e-bus alternate feed would normally be off, but a diode in this
>feed would do
>likewise. This seems an obvious way to put the whole issue to bed unless
>there are other
>concerns such as charging issues for the backup battery. This also adds
>the benefit of
>"some" additional endurance to the bus, and would even power the bus
>briefly when the main
>battery post breaks off (tounge-in-cheek on that one, but.......!) Sized
>appropriately, this
>battery could actually support the e-bus for duration-of-flight, saving
>the main for
>arrival/landing ops exclusively, as another option. Is this what you mean
>by "diode fed
>support battery" and why is this not a common solution?
If you make this battery large enough for service
as the endurance bus battery, then one might as well
do a two-battery installation. Drive the main bus
with the main battery, drive e-bus from the aux battery
bus, just don't close the aux battery contactor until
after engine start (aux battery management module?)
and then write the engine start procedure for e-bus
alternate feed switch to be closed for engine start.
Using two contactors for equal sized batteries makes
BOTH batteries available for any task if needs be
and puts you back into the battery-a-year-swap
mode for preventative maintenance. I'll think about
this some more today
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:06 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Per your email on your filter test on the strobe power supply, which do
>you see as the better solution? The LC filter minimizes the ripple as
>well as just the larger C filter, but the LC filter leaves a little
>spike on the transient. Do you suggest using the LC, or just the large
>C filter?
Those traces were only a demonstration of what the supply
does under various conditions and were not intended to
be a recommendation for installation in any particular
system.
Put your strobe system in barefoot and see if you have
a noise problem. Don't recommend putting in solutions
for problems that don't exist.
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: | Source for Pins & Extraction tools |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:21 PM 5/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> >> When the pin is inserted into the connector shell, this small gap is
>down inside the rear molding of the connector and not visible.
>
>Thanks - I really appreciate you taking the time to give full answers.
>Seems like a lot of folks that give advice either don't know the whys or
>won't take the time to explain.
>
>Any way, I'll have to look for different connector shells. My current
>one for my UPS GPS/COMM rids the pin right to the back end so any
>exposed wire is visible which started my concern (just doesn't have that
>clean look and I'd rather think that the insulation was helping to
>support the wire). I'll try some different brands of shells and if the
>installation sits inside the connector shell I'll be a happy camper.
Oh yeah, I've seen those short moldings at RAC . . . and yes,
you can see our "wires hanging out" when those connectors
are used. All of the connectors I buy/use have the longer
moldings. In either case, it's purely cosmetic. There's
no risk to the functionality of the system because of the
exposed wire.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
I understand don't solve a problem that isn't there. Thats not exactly
what I was asking. What I was trying to understand is which one do you
consider to be a better filter?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Filtering
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:06 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Per your email on your filter test on the strobe power supply, which do
>you see as the better solution? The LC filter minimizes the ripple as
>well as just the larger C filter, but the LC filter leaves a little
>spike on the transient. Do you suggest using the LC, or just the large
>C filter?
Those traces were only a demonstration of what the supply
does under various conditions and were not intended to
be a recommendation for installation in any particular
system.
Put your strobe system in barefoot and see if you have
a noise problem. Don't recommend putting in solutions
for problems that don't exist.
Bob . . .
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: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
If your panel only provided room to display readings for either volts or
amps (but not both), what would you all recommend displaying and why?
- Jim
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Why not display both on the JPI volt/amp gauge? It's a little
rectangle, like 1x3 I think, and will display both. I have one on my
panel that monitors both busses for amperage and voltage, and can also
get voltage from the battery side or the alternator side. See my panel
at http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair it's a *.pdf, for a
picture of the display and the associated switches.
If this is not an option, I think I would want to just see voltage, and
have a switch where I can see it at the alternator or at the battery.
That will tell you what you need to know I think.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Pack
Subject: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
If your panel only provided room to display readings for either volts or
amps (but not both), what would you all recommend displaying and why?
- Jim
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: volts vs amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/12/03 11:35:32 AM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann@kyol.net writes:
> If this is not an option, I think I would want to just see voltage, and
> have a switch where I can see it at the alternator or at the battery.
> That will tell you what you need to know I think.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
I use an Electronics International Loadmeter in a similar way, but I am
curious as to how you isolate the battery and/or the alternator from the
system so that you can read specific voltages. Mine always shows the overall
system voltage regardless of where it is measured. Unless there is an unusual
resistance in the system, isn't that the way it should work? I guess any
difference would indicate a serious problem.
The load function is selectable to either alternator or the battery via
separate shunts. Works great and all in one two and one-eighth inch
instrument.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Happy Skies,
Old 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: | cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor diodes, copper |
alloys
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
1) What's the easiest and cleanest way to cut 2 awg wire?
2) What type of diode(s) should be used on battery/starter contactors? I
couldn't find any spec on it in the AEC book. I have a 3-terminal battery
contactor (ES 24115 from Van's) and a 4-terminal starter contactor (ES
24021). I've checked the archives and found varying info...1N5xxx or 1N4xxx
or other?
3) Is there a significant difference between copper alloys 101 &
110...specific case being an .062" or .064" x 1/2" connector between
contactors.
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor |
diodes, copper alloys
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Alloy 101 is Oxygen free, Ultra pure copper, contains virtually no oxygen
and is easy to weld and braze. For high temp applications, terminal lugs,
wire connectors, and seals. Also VERY EXPENSIVE!! .064, 12" x12", 40 bucks!!!
Alloy 110. Corrosion resistant highly ductile and very conductive. For
electrical and general purpose uses.
Right out of the McMaster-Carr catalog.
At 10:33 AM 5/12/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>1) What's the easiest and cleanest way to cut 2 awg wire?
>
>2) What type of diode(s) should be used on battery/starter contactors? I
>couldn't find any spec on it in the AEC book. I have a 3-terminal battery
>contactor (ES 24115 from Van's) and a 4-terminal starter contactor (ES
>24021). I've checked the archives and found varying info...1N5xxx or 1N4xxx
>or other?
>
>3) Is there a significant difference between copper alloys 101 &
>110...specific case being an .062" or .064" x 1/2" connector between
>contactors.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Hey Old Bob, Put a volt sense wire on the ANL from the alternator, and
then put one on the other side of the battery contactor. Flip the
battery contactor off, and you can see what's going on on the battery
and alternator independently by flipping the switch. If the contactor
is on, yes, they should read the same. This could indicate a voltage
drop problem too. Not really necessary, but I think it might prove
useful in diagnosis. What do you think?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/12/03 11:35:32 AM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann@kyol.net writes:
> If this is not an option, I think I would want to just see voltage,
and
> have a switch where I can see it at the alternator or at the battery.
> That will tell you what you need to know I think.
>
Good Morning Shannon,
I use an Electronics International Loadmeter in a similar way, but I am
curious as to how you isolate the battery and/or the alternator from the
system so that you can read specific voltages. Mine always shows the
overall
system voltage regardless of where it is measured. Unless there is an
unusual
resistance in the system, isn't that the way it should work? I guess any
difference would indicate a serious problem.
The load function is selectable to either alternator or the battery via
separate shunts. Works great and all in one two and one-eighth inch
instrument.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Happy Skies,
Old 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>> Why not display both on the JPI volt/amp gauge?
I don't know if the issue ever got resolved, but JPI actually tried or
sued Matronics awhile back. Ever since then, I've sworn never to use any
of their instruments and won't consider them for any part of my panel
space. Here's a link that has some background:
http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/jpi.html
Regards,
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Knoepflein [mailto:kycshann@kyol.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
--> <kycshann@kyol.net>
Why not display both on the JPI volt/amp gauge? It's a little
rectangle, like 1x3 I think, and will display both. I have one on my
panel that monitors both busses for amperage and voltage, and can also
get voltage from the battery side or the alternator side. See my panel
at http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair it's a *.pdf, for a
picture of the display and the associated switches.
If this is not an option, I think I would want to just see voltage, and
have a switch where I can see it at the alternator or at the battery.
That will tell you what you need to know I think.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Pack
Subject: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
If your panel only provided room to display readings for either volts or
amps (but not both), what would you all recommend displaying and why?
- Jim
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Hey Guys,
Just a follow up on my prior comments about JPI. I've copied in the text
from Matt after the issue was resolved (see below) so you have all the
facts. For me though, the character of JPI was shown by their initial
actions and re-actions, and I can't in good faith support such a
company.
---
Dear Listers,
After seven months of negotiations, JP Instruments, Inc. and Matronics
have reached a mutually agreeable settlement. As most of you are aware,
in February of this year, JP Instruments, Inc. alleged that Matronics'
use of the trademark "FuelScan" with its aircraft fuel management system
infringed upon JP Instruments, Inc's trademark "Scanner" for engine
temperature indicators. JP Instruments, Inc. requested that Matronics
discontinue the use of the "FuelScan" mark. After considerable
negotiations, we have come to an agreement whereby JP Instruments, Inc.
will purchase the FuelScan trademark and, if necessary, assist in paying
the cost of Matronics' adoption of a new trademark. Matronics will
continue to sell and market its aircraft fuel management system under
the FuelScan trademark until a phase-out period of up to one year is
completed. This will allow Matronics time to sell out its current stock
of units marked with the FuelScan trademark and to develop a new
trademark.
While negotiations have been a bit trying at times, I would like to say
that I am satisfied with the outcome, and feel that JP Instruments, Inc.
has treated Matronics and me fairly in this matter. Furthermore, I
would encourage you to consider JP Instruments for your aircraft
avionics in the future as they manufacture an excellent product line.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone from around the world for their
support and consideration in this matter. I was quite moved by the
support - both financial and in the form of letters and comments - that
builders and pilots provided me and my company during this time. I
never felt alone during this period, and so very much appreciated the
encouragement from thousands of my friends! Thank you so very much!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
President, Matronics
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Knoepflein [mailto:kycshann@kyol.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
--> <kycshann@kyol.net>
Why not display both on the JPI volt/amp gauge? It's a little
rectangle, like 1x3 I think, and will display both. I have one on my
panel that monitors both busses for amperage and voltage, and can also
get voltage from the battery side or the alternator side. See my panel
at http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair it's a *.pdf, for a
picture of the display and the associated switches.
If this is not an option, I think I would want to just see voltage, and
have a switch where I can see it at the alternator or at the battery.
That will tell you what you need to know I think.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Pack
Subject: AeroElectric-List: volts vs amps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
If your panel only provided room to display readings for either volts or
amps (but not both), what would you all recommend displaying and why?
- Jim
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | AutoPilot Disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
In october last year a link was provided to an autopilot disconnect
schematic. The link was:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/AP_Disconnect.pdf
The link is dead, does anyone have a copy of the schematic?
Thanks,
Jim
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: 100 % Solution (diode-fed supportbatt-was |
Avionics bus)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
OK, forgot about switching the thing on & off. This extra battery would basically
function
as a large, slow discharge capacitor. Why wouldn't an actual capacitor tied to
the e-bus not
do the same thing for the short duration of cranking voltage drop? It would charge
as soon
as the master were turned on, and maintain some voltage higher than main bus voltage
when
cranking (I theorize), not discharging back to the main because of the feed diode.
This
seems such an obvious solution that I'm obviously missing the obvious! For that
matter, why
wouldn't such a device be a standard installation in all those persnickety 'lectronic
devices
some manufacturers insist on pampering with an "avionics" bus?
Much of our equipment I work with uses something called a "supercapacitor" to maintain
data
during medium duration power outages. Don't know if this sort of thing would be
useful, or
how they differ from other capacitors..........
(my last remaining brain cell seems to be misbehavin'- just slap me & I'll shut
up)
Mark - do not archive -
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:03 AM 5/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
> >
> >Would a small battery such as the 1.3 Ah Panasonic DigiKey sells (1.3 lbs,
> >under $20) tied
> >directly to the e-bus maintain full voltage on the bus during engine start
> >or any other
> >low-voltage condition, thus mitigating these concerns?
>
> Sure. You'd have to fit it with some kind of mini-contactor
> that operates in conjunction with either the DC Power Master
> switch or the E-bus alternate feed switch. You would also
> want to make sure the E-bus alternate feed switch is OFF
> during engine cranking.
>
> Or . . one could simple add a third dc power control
> switch for this battery . . . and write its proper usage
> into the checklists . . . I think I lean more toward an
> automatic control/selection.
>
> > This assumes equipment of concern
> >were fed from this bus. The e-bus supply diode would prevent discharge
> >back to the main bus,
> >and the e-bus alternate feed would normally be off, but a diode in this
> >feed would do
> >likewise. This seems an obvious way to put the whole issue to bed unless
> >there are other
> >concerns such as charging issues for the backup battery. This also adds
> >the benefit of
> >"some" additional endurance to the bus, and would even power the bus
> >briefly when the main
> >battery post breaks off (tounge-in-cheek on that one, but.......!) Sized
> >appropriately, this
> >battery could actually support the e-bus for duration-of-flight, saving
> >the main for
> >arrival/landing ops exclusively, as another option. Is this what you mean
> >by "diode fed
> >support battery" and why is this not a common solution?
>
> If you make this battery large enough for service
> as the endurance bus battery, then one might as well
> do a two-battery installation. Drive the main bus
> with the main battery, drive e-bus from the aux battery
> bus, just don't close the aux battery contactor until
> after engine start (aux battery management module?)
> and then write the engine start procedure for e-bus
> alternate feed switch to be closed for engine start.
>
> Using two contactors for equal sized batteries makes
> BOTH batteries available for any task if needs be
> and puts you back into the battery-a-year-swap
> mode for preventative maintenance. I'll think about
> this some more today
>
> 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: cutting heavy gauge wire, contactor |
diodes, copper alloys
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:33 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>1) What's the easiest and cleanest way to cut 2 awg wire?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/hdc-1a.jpg
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/hdc-1b.jpg
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
>2) What type of diode(s) should be used on battery/starter contactors? I
>couldn't find any spec on it in the AEC book. I have a 3-terminal battery
>contactor (ES 24115 from Van's) and a 4-terminal starter contactor (ES
>24021). I've checked the archives and found varying info...1N5xxx or 1N4xxx
>or other?
The diode needs to be rated for 15v or more and be capable
of carrying the same current that it takes to energize the
contactor (1 to 5A) for a few milliseconds. About any
diode rectifier is electrically suited to the task. 1N400x
series are fine but they are rather small, sometimes glass
devices that are fragile compared to the 1N540x series
devices that are always 1/4" diam plastic and 20AWG leads.
If you look at the diodes we supply on the S700 series
contactors at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-2.jpg
. . . you can see how the mechanically more robust
3A diodes lend themselves to the task.
ANY diode you can find will work electrically . . .
chose for convenience of application.
>3) Is there a significant difference between copper alloys 101 &
>110...specific case being an .062" or .064" x 1/2" connector between
>contactors.
I presume you're talking about material for bus
bar stock to substitute for short pieces of wire
with terminals . . . 1/2" x .064 of any copper alloy
including sheet brasses is fine. I prefer brass because
it's easier to work with. Copper is soft and tends to
snag a drill.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Z-13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joel Harding <cajole76@ispwest.com>
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> May I suggest the following actions which may work
> toward mitigating your concerns? Give me a list of
> folks who have supplied you with equipment that they
> claim is "sensitive" . . and let's at least ask them
> to provide a justification for their assertions
> based on physics.
Bob,
I already provided information about E.I. which I think you pursued as
far as you could take it. Here's another from S-tec if you want to
give it a shot. I can probably get more if you would like. My concern
is that, even if this is an unnecessary precaution, with this type of
recommendation there could very easily be some warranty difficulties if
it's not followed.
> I thought I did explain about the avionics buss. You definitely need
an
> avionics buss for the autopilot. The system 20 has two separate power
> inputs. One for the turn coordinator which is powered directly off
the
> battery buss, and another for the autopilot that needs to be on a
separate
> avionics buss. You can damage the autopilot and other equipment
during
> engine start if it is on the same buss.
> Regards,
> Butch Nimmo
> Repair Station Supervisor
As always, thanks for your continued involvement in furthering our
education.
Joel Harding
> I presume you followed the conversation
> with Electronics International over the last two weeks.
> It turns out that they haven't a clue as to why their
> products should or should not be "protected".
> While they claimed credit for full compliance under
> TSO requirements that include DO-160 testing, they
> didn't truly understand the significance of the tests
> they paid money to accomplish. Nor did they understand
> the significance of that testing with respect to their
> customer's reasonable expectations.
>
> In EVERY case I've looked at over the past 15 years,
> not one company asking for an "avionics master switch"
> was able to enlighten me with an explanation. In more than
> half the cases, they admitted that there was no
> justification and that the topic of avionics master
> switch was part of the boiler-plate used to craft installation
> manuals since the 60's and nobody has ever bothered to
> review that requirement and take it out of the book.
>
> I don't know if the outcome of such an exercise would influence
> the way you configure your airplane and it doesn't matter.
> Bottom line is that what ever goes into YOUR airplane
> should minimize your worries as an owner and maintainer
> of the airplane so that you can maximize your performance
> as the pilot of that airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
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: | Re: volts vs amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:42 AM 5/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
>If your panel only provided room to display readings for either volts or
>amps (but not both), what would you all recommend displaying and why?
>
>- Jim
Ammeters and voltmeters are useful only when things are NOT going
well. Things WORK most of the time so a simple low volts warning
light accurately set to operate below 13.0 volts is the primary
flight instrument for failure warning. If you are in flight
when the light comes on, the existence or absence of a voltmeter
or ammeter of any kind is not an issue because you're going to
switch immediately to "plan-b" . . . now, if you want something
to watch and worry about during plan-b operations, you need a
voltmeter on the e-bus. However, if it's your standard practice
to conduct good preventative maintenance on the airplane's battery,
then you KNOW that the battery is going to get you on the ground
comfortably. Therefore, I'll suggest that any airplane can be
quite safely operated with neither voltmeter or ammeter on the
panel.
When you get on the ground, a voltmeter or ammeter on the panel
will only serve to confirm what you already know . . . the alternator
is down for some reason. The most useful troubleshooting voltmeter
is one that measures FIELD voltage on an externally excited
alternator. If you install this capability, wire it like the
VLM-14 system we used to sell, you can diagnose your system
per paragraph 7.0 of
http://216.55.140.222/temp/9021704F.pdf
and KNOW what you need to replace before you pull the cowl
off the airplane.
Now, if you have a handy hole in the panel just dying to be
filled with something, perhaps a voltmeter (analog preferred)
with a push-button switch-over to read field voltage would have
the greatest overall utility in ownership and repair of
your airplane. But maybe that 2-1/4" hole would have more
usefulness if you stuffed a 760VHF transceiver in it.
Some will argue long and hard about the virtues of voltmeters,
loadmeters and -0+ battery ammeters . . . all of these things
are fine instruments that have some degree (but never enough)
utility in troubleshooting your airplane . . . none of these
helps you fly the airplane in the most logical manner. Even
a voltmeter on the e-bus to serve as "battery gas gage"
will only serve to tell you something you probably already
know . . . whether or not you've paid attention to battery
maintenance homework.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:18 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>I understand don't solve a problem that isn't there. Thats not exactly
>what I was asking. What I was trying to understand is which one do you
>consider to be a better filter?
Oh, sorry . . .
the multi-component filter has the highest noise attenuation
but adds more parts. I'd approach the problem empirically.
First, make SURE the noise isn't getting in through a ground
loop. Then decide if it's better to filter it out of the
victim's 14v supply or to filter at the strobe. Try a fat-cap
at the strobe and see if that's enough. If not, go for the
whole enchilada.
Bob . . .
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: volts vs amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/12/03 1:32:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
kycshann@kyol.net writes:
> Not really necessary, but I think it might prove
> useful in diagnosis. What do you think?
>
Sounds fair to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
Does it matter where on the buss you read the voltage? If I just hook it up
to one of the fuses on the fuse bus panel, with that work?
> . . . now, if you want something
> to watch and worry about during plan-b operations, you need a
> voltmeter on the e-bus.
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: Circuit protection question follow on |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
>
> Understand . . . and this is precisely the reason that the
> folks who are supplying this system to you should take the time
> to
Yeah, they should...That's the reason why I'm NOT wiring the plane their
way.
> 4 motors in a flap system? Why? How are they synchronized
> with each other?
Two motors on a single shaft on each side. The two pairs are synchronised by
a "cog belt" (I don't know the exact term) not unlike a small timing belt,
that runs across the fuselage.
>
> Is there a website that describes this system?
Not sure but I can send you photos.
>
then you should write POH
> procedures that call for NOT extending flaps beyond
> comfortable go-around settings until on VERY short final.
Yes, but we also consider having to go around at the last moment.
>
>
> Your friend is worrying about the wrong thing. If
> the flap system can EVER fail in ANY way, then you
> need to operate the airplane in a manner that mitigates
> risk.
Yes, but the go around issue...
Remember, all other things held constant, system
> reliability is inversely proportional to system
> parts count; with 4 motors, your are 4x more likely to have
> a system failure than with one motor. Wire and
> fuse size are WAY down on the list of concerns.
Would I ask here if I really trusted them about electric systems ?
>
> Will failure of a single motor produce asymmetrical
> flap extension? > >
Failure of one motor, no, but the failure of the sync belt definitely WILL
.............
.............
Thermal devices like fuses
> are much slower, breakers slower still, limiters like
> the ANL devices recommended for alternators are virtual
> snails with respect to response time.
>
There we are : ATO fuses are faster than the breaker, and I was concerned
they might blow when the breaker won't. So what about a fuselink ?
>
> I would encourage you to forward a copy of this
> note to the supplier of your flap system. If they
> perceive it to be the helpful suggestion it is
> intended to be, they'll take time to learn more
> about operational details of their product.
>
Not sure they'll find it usefull. My opinion is many people around are
electrically challenged, and they're be puzzled at my questions.
Is this the ONLY option you have for flap
> system operation?
Hmm, yes unless we totally redesign the flap actuation. I asked here last
year when we were making decisions. This is a two man project, and we
settled on keeping the actuators and command box but wiring and protecting
the Connection way.
If it were me I'd use a Cessna type lever with industrial actuators.
Regards,
Gilles
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: | Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
At the end of last year, there was some discussion about the possibility of
designing a black box that would take the signal from a fuel level sensor,
and provide a corrected signal to the fuel level indicator to make it more
accurate.
At the time, I volunteered to take on this project. In the following
months, I have found that my workload at work and outside of work has
increased rather than decrease as I had hoped. As a result, I am going to
have to back out of fuel gauge linearizer project. Eric Jones had mentioned
the possibility of designing a product for this application. Perhaps he or
someone else could be persuaded to take this on if there is still an
interest in it.
Dave in Wichita
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: Z13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns@hevanet.com>
Aeroelectric-List: Re: Z-13 and Dual Electronic IgnitionsI noted that in Bob's
Z-14 schematic, the battery and alternator field are on the same switch,
sequentially activated. On others, they're separate, according to tradition.
From which I
infer that there's no good reason to have the alternator on WITHOUT the battery.
Then I look
at the Cirrus schematic again ( sorry, all, but I'm fixated on this since Cirrus
is offering itself
up as ultra-safety conscious ) and it has separate battery and alternator field
switches.
The POH notes that the alternators are "self-exciting" and can be run without the
battery,
but not "self-starting" so the battery needs to be connected to restart the engine
in flight.
Now, everything I've read on this list, including the recent thread involving PM
alternators (see
snippet below),
warns me that operating an alternator without a battery as filter is bad. Yet
here is Cirrus
with a system mode that would seem to cause only trouble and confusion ( They also
have
kept the traditional mag/starter key switch ).
Is the Cirrus "self-exciting" alternator a PM design, and why would Cirrus consider
alternator-only
operation a useful configuration?
Shaun
Some regulators (including the B&C regulator
for the SD-8/200G series alternators) won't allow the alternator
to come on line without a battery. I'm not certain of the rational
for this design but I would guess that it's a recognition of the
single phase, pm alternator's really ratty output. There are some
more modern, 3-phase designs available now. I have no personal
experience with them. But don't go on faith that because the
alternator has no need of field excitation that it will automatically
be available and useable sans battery.
If you have only one alternator drive, then I'd stay with the modern
fielded alternator . . . especially an ND. - Bob
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: OV circuit breaker tripping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Karnes" <jpkarnes@charter.net>
> >Bob,
> > After a new ov module (yellow lead) and new (rebuilt) alternator,
the
> >OV circuit breaker continues to trip right after the engine starts. My
> >plane is wired per Z-2, only I have an auto type ignition instead of
> >magnetos. Please help...I'm desperate. I am about to tear everything
out
> >and start from scratch...
>
> Are you sure you don't have an ov condition? Do you have a voltmeter
> in the airplane? Try disconnecting the ov module, turn off all radios,
> start engine with alternator switch OFF and engine at ramp idle.
> With then turn on all heavy loads like landing lights, taxi lights,
> pitot heat, and THEN turn on alternator while watching the voltmeter.
> If it goes above 15 volts, under these conditions, you have a problem
> with the alternator . . shut down immediately. If it doesn't go above
> 15 volts, then increase RPM to about 2000 while watching voltmeter.
> Again, if it goes above 15 volts, you've got an alternator problem -
> shut down immediately. If the voltage is still okay, start switching
> off the loads one at a time while watching voltmeter. If you get down
to
> no loads and the bus voltage is still normal (13.8 to 14.6 volts) then
> we've confirmed that the alternator is okay.
>
> Do you have the alternator ON while cranking or do you turn it on
> after the engine is running?
Bob-
After disconnecting the ov module and doing the above, the circuit breaker
stays in for about 8 seconds and then trips. Interestingly, when the
circuit breaker is in, the voltmeter only reads 12.0 volts. Do you have any
idea what could be wrong? As I said originally, the alternator is a brand
new, out of the box, internally regulated 12V variety.
John Karnes
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: Z13 and Dual Electronic Ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:47 PM 5/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns@hevanet.com>
>
>Aeroelectric-List: Re: Z-13 and Dual Electronic IgnitionsI noted that in
>Bob's Z-14 schematic, the battery and alternator field are on the same switch,
>sequentially activated. On others, they're separate, according to
>tradition. From which I
>infer that there's no good reason to have the alternator on WITHOUT the
>battery. Then I look
>at the Cirrus schematic again ( sorry, all, but I'm fixated on this since
>Cirrus is offering itself
>up as ultra-safety conscious ) and it has separate battery and alternator
>field switches.
I think Bill sent them a copy of Z-14 but they certainly never
bothered to talk with me about it and when Bill complained
about the separate switches, they said they'd tested their
configuration and it was ready to certify. I suspect there
was a Bonanza pilot or two in the design group and whatever
was good for a few thousand Bonanzas couldn't be bad for a
new Cirrus. . .
>The POH notes that the alternators are "self-exciting" and can be run
>without the battery,
>but not "self-starting" so the battery needs to be connected to restart
>the engine in flight.
Restart the "engine" or restart the alternator?
It's been some time since I looked at the power distribution
diagram for Cirrus . . . and I seem to recall that they were
not taking full advantage of everything the modern, light weight
hardware can offer . . .
>Now, everything I've read on this list, including the recent thread
>involving PM alternators (see
>snippet below),
>warns me that operating an alternator without a battery as filter is
>bad. Yet here is Cirrus
>with a system mode that would seem to cause only trouble and confusion (
>They also have
>kept the traditional mag/starter key switch ).
Bonanzas have been offered for over 20 years with alternators
that will both self-excite and therefore, supply useful power
without a battery being on line too. But "useful" power doesn't
mean it's clean power. From a system reliability perspective,
I suppose it was a great step forward in 1980 . . . but we COULD
have been installing e-bus structures and advising owners how
to insure en route power for duration of fuel aboard since that
time as well. We did have a 6A standby generator which was
also self exciting and reasonably clean . . . but had an mean
time between wearout measured in a few hundreds of hours. It
was also a pretty crummy design mechanically . . . but the
best we could offer in 1980. Once certified, it was carved into
stone until B&C came along with 4x the snort and 10x the life
for 2x the dollars.
>Is the Cirrus "self-exciting" alternator a PM design, and why would Cirrus
>consider alternator-only
>operation a useful configuration?
No, I think they're using an SD-20, externally regulated,
wound field alternator. Every alternator will run with some
degree of proficiency sans battery once they're started.
Problem is, a 7x inrush from a landing light or 4x inrush
from a pitot heater might stall a wound field alternator
that doesn't have a battery floated across the line.
It doesn't matter too much if the alternator can start
itself . . . momentary overload would put a big bump in
the bus voltage but you could get the alternator back.
I guess my biggest disappointment with Cirrus is the
lack of understanding about the reliability of modern
battery technologies . . . hmmm . . . maybe that's IT!
They may be selling airplanes with flooded batteries
that cost a lot and they assume the owner is going to
leave it in place for a long time . . . the alternators
may indeed be the most reliable power sources on the
airplane.
At least one of them is a B&C alternator.
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: 100 % Solution (diode-fed |
supportbatt-was Avionics bus)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:34 PM 5/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
>OK, forgot about switching the thing on & off. This extra battery would
>basically function
>as a large, slow discharge capacitor. Why wouldn't an actual capacitor
>tied to the e-bus not
>do the same thing for the short duration of cranking voltage drop? It
>would charge as soon
>as the master were turned on, and maintain some voltage higher than main
>bus voltage when
>cranking (I theorize), not discharging back to the main because of the
>feed diode. This
>seems such an obvious solution that I'm obviously missing the
>obvious! For that matter, why
>wouldn't such a device be a standard installation in all those persnickety
>'lectronic devices
>some manufacturers insist on pampering with an "avionics" bus?
>
>Much of our equipment I work with uses something called a "supercapacitor"
>to maintain data
>during medium duration power outages. Don't know if this sort of thing
>would be useful, or
>how they differ from other capacitors..........
>(my last remaining brain cell seems to be misbehavin'- just slap me & I'll
>shut up)
Not at all. Funny you should mention capacitors. About two years ago
Mallory
was suggesting that some multi-killofarad capacitors they could produce
would
be useful battery replacements in over the road trucks. Kinda cool . . .
but . . . you can get 95% of energy stored in a lead-acid battery over
a discharge voltage range of 10 to 12.5 volts. Since energy stored in
a capacitor is CE(Squared) divided by 2, then a fully charged capacitor
discharged to say, 9 volts, still has over half its energy left when the
terminal voltage drops too low to be useful. One might offset this by
making the capacitor bigger.
Let's assume we need to support a 5A load at or above 9 volts for 10
seconds. 1A load on a 1F capacitor discharges it at 1v/second.
we can tolerate delta volts of 3 x 10 seconds gives us 30 Farads
for 1A load and 150 Farads for 5A load. There are some 1 and 2 Farad
capacitors out there popular with the kilowatt-mobile-gray-matter-
scramblers. They're pretty hefty and run about $100. One might
be able to support just the critical loads on an EFIS system with
less than 5A worth of storage. Maybe a 1 or 2F cap would do it.
It might be worth exploring.
A battery will still store more watt-seconds of energy in less
weight, volume and cost than any other technology we've got
around right now.
Bob . . .
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: volts vs amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:15 PM 5/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
>Does it matter where on the buss you read the voltage? If I just hook it up
>to one of the fuses on the fuse bus panel, with that work?
yup . . .
Bob . . .
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: Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Ziegler <jcz@espllc.com>
I might be interested, do you have a summary of the requirements?
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:37:56PM -0500, David Swartzendruber wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
>
> At the end of last year, there was some discussion about the possibility of
> designing a black box that would take the signal from a fuel level sensor,
> and provide a corrected signal to the fuel level indicator to make it more
> accurate.
>
> At the time, I volunteered to take on this project. In the following
> months, I have found that my workload at work and outside of work has
> increased rather than decrease as I had hoped. As a result, I am going to
> have to back out of fuel gauge linearizer project. Eric Jones had mentioned
> the possibility of designing a product for this application. Perhaps he or
> someone else could be persuaded to take this on if there is still an
> interest in it.
>
> Dave in Wichita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
jcz@espllc.com (Jim Ziegler)
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: | Yaesu handheld nav/com |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
My many thanks to all who offered suggestions when I asked for help a few weeks
ago when trying to identify the TX problem with my handheld.
I'm ashamed to admit that I don't remember who suggested that the battery pack,
(original 3 yr old NiCad), might be the problem.
This was right on the money! I used fresh alkalines in the back up power pack
and checked the TX function against a couple of handhelds and a panel mount whilst
down at SEE this weekend and got a nice nice clear signal.
I've been roaming the web, (Google), looking for a new power pack and found good
prices from the NiCad Lady and Sabah Oceanics. Any input on these sources or
suggestions for other vendors will be appreciated.
Thanks to all who responded. Fly safe.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu handheld nav/com |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Shaffer <shafferaviation@yahoo.com>
Try batterys4everything.com for nicad betterys good prices
Rob W M Shipley <Rob@RobsGlass.com> wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Rob W M Shipley"
My many thanks to all who offered suggestions when I asked for help a few weeks
ago when trying to identify the TX problem with my handheld.
I'm ashamed to admit that I don't remember who suggested that the battery pack,
(original 3 yr old NiCad), might be the problem.
This was right on the money! I used fresh alkalines in the back up power pack and
checked the TX function against a couple of handhelds and a panel mount whilst
down at SEE this weekend and got a nice nice clear signal.
I've been roaming the web, (Google), looking for a new power pack and found good
prices from the NiCad Lady and Sabah Oceanics. Any input on these sources or
suggestions for other vendors will be appreciated.
Thanks to all who responded. Fly safe.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!!
---------------------------------
Message 37
| 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: Flap system failure modes (Was circuit protection |
issues)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:51 PM 5/12/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob,
>
> >
> > Understand . . . and this is precisely the reason that the
> > folks who are supplying this system to you should take the time
> > to
>
>Yeah, they should...That's the reason why I'm NOT wiring the plane their
>way.
>
> > 4 motors in a flap system? Why? How are they synchronized
> > with each other?
>
>Two motors on a single shaft on each side. The two pairs are synchronised by
>a "cog belt" (I don't know the exact term) not unlike a small timing belt,
>that runs across the fuselage.
> >
> > Is there a website that describes this system?
>
>Not sure but I can send you photos.
Giles sent me the following photo:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/flap_drive.jpg
> > then you should write POH
> > procedures that call for NOT extending flaps beyond
> > comfortable go-around settings until on VERY short final.
>
>Yes, but we also consider having to go around at the last moment.
> >
> >
> > Your friend is worrying about the wrong thing. If
> > the flap system can EVER fail in ANY way, then you
> > need to operate the airplane in a manner that mitigates
> > risk.
>
>Yes, but the go around issue...
Just like the 40-degree flaps on early C-150's . . . there
IS a point beyond which there IS NO GO AROUND physically
possible. I.e., when very effective flaps are fully extended,
there will be a time when height above the runway, available
power, and loss of altitude during flap retraction all add up
to certain contact with the ground.
It sounds to me like your airplane has flaps capable of
defining a high-risk envelope that you want to avoid by
NOT extending flaps beyond a value that you can arrest
decent until your comfortable landing is assured. This
has nothing to do with flap extension/retraction reliability.
Suggest you fully explore this with someone very familiar
with your airplane or experienced enough as a test pilot
to help you put bounds on operating conditions.
The J-3 and C-120 didn't have flaps and after I learned
to fly the airplane, I didn't miss them. They are handy
but in most of the flying I did with those airplanes,
missing flaps wasn't even an inconvenience. More airplanes
have been bent due to mis-use of powerful flaps than have
been bent because of a landing attempt where flaps would
have made a difference between success and crunched metal.
> > Remember, all other things held constant, system
> > reliability is inversely proportional to system
> > parts count; with 4 motors, your are 4x more likely to have
> > a system failure than with one motor. Wire and
> > fuse size are WAY down on the list of concerns.
>
>Would I ask here if I really trusted them about electric systems ?
That question is ALWAYS a good one. Eclipse and Premier
have lots of motors in their flap systems. Failure of any
one actuator stops the flaps in that position and holds it.
For the flight system to be fail safe, the airplane must
be capable of climbing at gross with full flaps . . . and
both airplanes can. Therefore, passive failure of the flap
system does not put the airplane into a sweat-producing
condition.
> >
> > Will failure of a single motor produce asymmetrical
> > flap extension? > >
>
>Failure of one motor, no, but the failure of the sync belt definitely WILL
I think I disagree. Looking at the picture you sent I
perceive that the motors drive a common shaft though worm
gear drives. Worm gears are horribly inefficient . . . usually
50% or less. They can produce tremendous mechanical
advantage in one gear-pass . . . that's why they are popular.
Their ability to resist back driving due to horrible efficiency
is sometimes RELIED upon . . .
For example, suppose you had a trim actuator that you didn't
want to drift when aerodynamic forces are trying to back-drive
the mechanism . . . an acme thread actuator cannot be back-driven,
the coefficient of friction of the threads is higher than the
sine of the lead angle of the thread. You can loose the whole
gearbox upstream of the acme and the actuator will stay put.
Worm gears are a bit better, they might allow a working motor to
backdrive a non-working motor but the energy consumed from the
working motor just to overcome total friction loses of the
non-driving motor put system operation in doubt.
I presume that four motors were put into this system because
someone perceived that this much horsepower was needed -OR-
they thought that even if only two motors were needed to
run the flaps, dual motors would give some degree of reliability
enhancement.
I am skeptical that this 4-motor system would still be okay
with one motor inoperative but mechanically free. If one motor
throws a comm bar or winding and locks up, then the system
is definitely in trouble.
I'm concerned about the long cog-belt. Stretch in these
belts is low but it's based on a percentage of total
length. A belt long enough to traverse the width of the
fuselage is in danger of slipping cogs when tied to a
too-slow actuator on one side and driven by two good
motors on the other side with the mechanical advantage
of their worm gear drives. This is a case where the
advantage of worm gear on one side (mechanical
advantage) stacks against the disadvantage of wormgear
on the other (backdriving forces) to put a lot of
force into the belt.
Flap systems on King Airs use flexible drive cable to take
high speed, low torque energy from ONE motor to MULTIPLE
flap actuators. Using a flex cable (or cog belt) to take
low speed, high torque energy across the airplane
(ESPECIALLY when there is a common motor failure mode
that can over-stress the belt) is a design that needs
careful analysis of the failure modes and effects. It
becomes still more important when you have powerful
flaps that force irrevocable tightening of the flight
envelope in dangerous directions.
>Thermal devices like fuses
> > are much slower, breakers slower still, limiters like
> > the ANL devices recommended for alternators are virtual
> > snails with respect to response time.
> >
>There we are : ATO fuses are faster than the breaker, and I was concerned
>they might blow when the breaker won't. So what about a fuselink ?
Let's fully explore whether or not you really
want to put this system into your airplane. Then
let's see if there are some simpler yet practical
approaches to keeping working motors powered and
smoke inside the wires.
I'm convinced that we're just spinning our
wheels on the electrical side until we have
some confidence on how the mechanical side is
going to work and how it behaves when it's
not working.
> >
> > I would encourage you to forward a copy of this
> > note to the supplier of your flap system. If they
> > perceive it to be the helpful suggestion it is
> > intended to be, they'll take time to learn more
> > about operational details of their product.
> >
>Not sure they'll find it usefull. My opinion is many people around are
>electrically challenged, and they're be puzzled at my questions.
Has this system flown? Has it been tested for all
failure modes including passive failure of one motor
and hard failure (locked armature) of one motor?
> > Is this the ONLY option you have for flap
> > system operation?
>
>Hmm, yes unless we totally redesign the flap actuation. I asked here last
>year when we were making decisions. This is a two man project, and we
>settled on keeping the actuators and command box but wiring and protecting
>the Connection way.
>If it were me I'd use a Cessna type lever with industrial actuators.
That bar on the floor for manual flap operation is pretty
hard to beat too. My recommendations for wiring and
protection may indeed keep your wires from catching fire
. . . but given the questions I've cited above, your
biggest concerns may have nothing to do with keeping the
smoke in your wires.
I forget now, which airplane are you building?
Bob . . .
Message 38
| 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: | Microprocessor based Fuel Gauge Linearizer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
The requirements are that you can take the signal from anyone's fuel level
sensor, resistive float or capacitive device, and generate a signal out that
the indicator can use to display the correct fuel qty. The microprocessor
based device could use a lookup table stored in it's memory to know what
fuel qty the input signal represented. The device could be programmed by
the owner of the aircraft by some sort of procedure of adding one gallon at
a time and pushing a button or something. This procedure would create the
lookup table in the memory of the device.
I do not have detailed information on what the different signal levels are
that would have to be accommodated, or what the signal to the indicator
would have to be to accommodate existing indicators. I'm sure the builders
on this list who would like such a device would be willing to help gather
this information.
As this list has also discussed, the black box could only correct certain
types of problems in fuel qty indicator systems. Other problems would
remain. For example, if you have a float system and the travel of the float
does not go all the way to empty or full, there's nothing the black box can
do about it.
Dave in Wichita
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Ziegler <jcz@espllc.com>
>
> I might be interested, do you have a summary of the requirements?
>
Message 39
| 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: | Tach P-lead feed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame <charleyb@earthlink.net>
As I understand it, a tach feed from a mag P-lead will work regardless
of whether the mag is "On" or "Off." A mag is turned "Off" by grounding
it, so the P-lead connection at the mag should continue to provide tach
info. The only problem (according to the VM-1000 folks) is that there
may be minor erratic tach indications if the mag has an impulse starter.
I'm not flying yet, so I cannot confirm. Maybe Bob can confirm.
Another option is a transducer that fits on the mechanical tach port on
a Lycoming. Van sells the transducer for $60 (part #IE VTACHGEN2) or $67
if you have a vacuum pump (part #IE VTACGEN12.)
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
> Time: 08:42:05 AM PST US
> From: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tach P-lead feed
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
> Van's sells in nice electronic analogue tach that I think I'll use, but the
> description says it works off the mag "P" lead.
>
> How would I wire it to take it's feed from both mag P-leads so that I can
> do a mag-drop test at run up time and still get a signal when I switch from
> one mag to the other?
>
> Thanks
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> Time: 04:43:01 AM PST US
> From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tach P-lead feed
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Neil, I ran my tach from the P-lead by wiring the tach through a SPST On-On switch.
> This way, only one mag was used at a time and the choice was up to the pilot.
> I've also seen this done using a switch with monentary contact for one pole,
> but this makes a mag check a 3 handed operation.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 40
| 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: AutoPilot Disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:26 PM 5/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
>In october last year a link was provided to an autopilot disconnect
>schematic. The link was:
>
>http://216.55.140.222/temp/AP_Disconnect.pdf
>
>The link is dead, does anyone have a copy of the schematic?
>
>Thanks,
>Jim
The old one was replaced with a simpler version
and posted at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/AP_Disconnect_B.pdf
Here's a brain teaser for you electro-wienies out there.
Why is a diode across the coil of the relay not only
not needed but would be ineffectual were it included?
Why, if we can hook an autopilot motor of up to 5A
on this disconnect system, an itty-bitty stick-grip
engage/disengage switch good for perhaps 2A is sufficient?
Why can we get by with a 1w resistor when dissipation
in this resistor at 14v is nearly 20 watts?
Bob . . .
Message 41
| 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: Tach P-lead feed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:32 PM 5/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame
><charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
>As I understand it, a tach feed from a mag P-lead will work regardless
>of whether the mag is "On" or "Off." A mag is turned "Off" by grounding
>it, so the P-lead connection at the mag should continue to provide tach
>info. The only problem (according to the VM-1000 folks) is that there
>may be minor erratic tach indications if the mag has an impulse starter.
Don't think so. A mag driven tach looks for the "low"
voltage mirror image of the spark that appears across OPEN
points of the mag switch. Closed switch, no spark, no signal
to tach.
>I'm not flying yet, so I cannot confirm. Maybe Bob can confirm.
>
>Another option is a transducer that fits on the mechanical tach port on
>a Lycoming. Van sells the transducer for $60 (part #IE VTACHGEN2) or $67
>if you have a vacuum pump (part #IE VTACGEN12.)
This is the very best way to go. Bypass the ignition systems
entirely. I designed tach transducers for the Bonanzas and Barons
when they went to 2" instruments back in the 80's . . . built
a hall effect transducer that screwed right onto the tach drive
fitting of the engine.
Bob . . .
Message 42
| 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>
Thought some of you might be interested in seeing
what I'm doing in the shop for RAC right now. Just
pushed this critter out into the yard for painting
this afternoon.
It's a centrifuge capable of putting 30G of linear
acceleration on some of the equipment we're going
to fly in a new super-sonic target (GQM-163) that
flys mach 2+ at 15 feet off the water.
http://216.55.140.222/temp/MVC-650X.JPG
http://216.55.140.222/temp/MVC-651X.JPG
The big bucket holds test articles. The smaller
bucket holds batteries to power article under
test. The battery bucket can be moved along the
beam to coarse balance against the test article.
A table mounts at the center of the beam to
hold control computer and telemetry to take
test signals off the centrifuge and control
signals on.
I used boat trailer 1" wheel bearings I found
at Walmart. Turned a solid aluminum shaft to
mount beam, pass through bearings and accept
rotation torque from 1/2" drill motor underneath.
Drill motor is about 10x oversized for task but
had nice handles that made it easy to incorporate
into the test fixture. It looks like something on
the order of 15 volts DC will spin this rig up to
about 3 revolutions per second to give me 30G in
the big bucket.
The boss priced one of these and was quoted about
$18,000. I think I beat that price by a good margin!
I've got just over $200 in materials and about
40 hours in it.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 43
| 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: | AutoPilot Disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
This is fun;
The first thing to know is that the relay's coil (S704-1) has a resistance
of greater than 140 ohms (base on Aeroelectric specs of, "coil current is
under 100 millamps [sic]").
In the 'quiescent' state (no servo motor power) there is no current flowing
through either the coil or the resistor.
In the 'active' state (servo motor is powered) there is 14 volts to the top
of the 10 ohm resistor which flows through the resistor and the relay coil
to ground. This current is sufficient to hold the relay in the active
position, and is 14volts / (10 ohms + 140 ohms) = .092 amps (92 milliamps).
This produces .092ma
2 * 140ohms = 1.18 watts dissipation in the relay (it
will run warm) and .092ma
2 * 10 = 0.08 watts dissipation in the resistor.
During the transition state when the small switch is held in the 'engage'
position, 14 volts is applied directly across the relay coil, pulling the
relay into the 'active' state.
During the transition state when the small switch is held in the 'disengage'
position, the junction between the 10 ohm resistor and the relay coil will
be held at ground. The current (92 milliamps) flowing through the relay coil
will flow through the small switch to ground, and the energy stored in the
relay coil's magnetic field will be dissipated in the coil's resistance.
There will be a brief spike of current (a bit over an amp) from the 10 ohm
resistor through the small switch. This current will stop as soon as the
relay's magnetic field falls to the point where the relay contacts open
(drops out).
(is there a prize????) ;-) -john-
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AutoPilot Disconnect
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:26 PM 5/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
>In october last year a link was provided to an autopilot disconnect
>schematic. The link was:
>
>http://216.55.140.222/temp/AP_Disconnect.pdf
>
>The link is dead, does anyone have a copy of the schematic?
>
>Thanks,
>Jim
The old one was replaced with a simpler version
and posted at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/AP_Disconnect_B.pdf
Here's a brain teaser for you electro-wienies out there.
Why is a diode across the coil of the relay not only
not needed but would be ineffectual were it included?
Why, if we can hook an autopilot motor of up to 5A
on this disconnect system, an itty-bitty stick-grip
engage/disengage switch good for perhaps 2A is sufficient?
Why can we get by with a 1w resistor when dissipation
in this resistor at 14v is nearly 20 watts?
Bob . . .
Message 44
| 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: my other life |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
What I want to know is where on Earth did you find the time?
Scott
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: my other life
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> Thought some of you might be interested in seeing
> what I'm doing in the shop for RAC right now. Just
> pushed this critter out into the yard for painting
> this afternoon.
>
> It's a centrifuge capable of putting 30G of linear
> acceleration on some of the equipment we're going
> to fly in a new super-sonic target (GQM-163) that
> flys mach 2+ at 15 feet off the water.
>
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/MVC-650X.JPG
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/MVC-651X.JPG
>
> The big bucket holds test articles. The smaller
> bucket holds batteries to power article under
> test. The battery bucket can be moved along the
> beam to coarse balance against the test article.
>
> A table mounts at the center of the beam to
> hold control computer and telemetry to take
> test signals off the centrifuge and control
> signals on.
>
> I used boat trailer 1" wheel bearings I found
> at Walmart. Turned a solid aluminum shaft to
> mount beam, pass through bearings and accept
> rotation torque from 1/2" drill motor underneath.
>
> Drill motor is about 10x oversized for task but
> had nice handles that made it easy to incorporate
> into the test fixture. It looks like something on
> the order of 15 volts DC will spin this rig up to
> about 3 revolutions per second to give me 30G in
> the big bucket.
>
> The boss priced one of these and was quoted about
> $18,000. I think I beat that price by a good margin!
> I've got just over $200 in materials and about
> 40 hours in it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
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! --
|