Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - Battery orientation... (Malcolm Thomson)
2. 09:22 AM - Re: Battery orientation... (Brian Lloyd)
3. 10:02 AM - Re: Battery orientation... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 01:20 PM - Transponder problem found (Steve & Denise)
5. 02:21 PM - LightWeight Cable (Tinne maha)
6. 04:34 PM - Re: ICOM edge card connector pins (klehman@albedo.net)
7. 06:13 PM - Wire (Jim Ziegler)
8. 10:28 PM - GX-65 (Dean Psiropoulos)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery orientation... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
Bob, is it important which way (orientation) the 17AH batteries are
mounted. I.E. Do terminal have to be on top?
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery orientation... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Malcolm Thomson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
>
> Bob, is it important which way (orientation) the 17AH batteries are
> mounted. I.E. Do terminal have to be on top?
Gells: any orientation is OK;
AGM: not upside-down, i.e. vents not facing down;
flooded-cells: yes, they must be right-side up.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery orientation... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:20 PM 6/11/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>Malcolm Thomson wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
> <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
> >
> > Bob, is it important which way (orientation) the 17AH batteries are
> > mounted. I.E. Do terminal have to be on top?
>
>Gells: any orientation is OK;
>
>AGM: not upside-down, i.e. vents not facing down;
>
>flooded-cells: yes, they must be right-side up.
Brian is mostly correct . . . but only some manufacturers
recommend against upside-down for their AGM or RG batteries.
For example, Concord's batteries begin life as a flooded
battery and one of the last manufacturing steps is to pour
out all loose liquid before the caps are installed. These batteries
are MORE than saturated and MIGHT contain some loose liquid that MIGHT
poof out if the battery cells vent . . . but it's just
a few drops and will be captured inside the battery case by glass
mat sponges that Concord installs over the vent caps.
A starved electrolyte versions (like Enersys, hawker, and
some others) are less than 100% saturated and will never
vent liquid and could be operated upside down with great
confidence if it's useful to do so.
Everybody's RG batteries run just fine on their sides which
makes the 17 a.h. critters easier to mount. That's the way
I would do it. Build a tray to capture the footprint and
strap it down with a couple of Velcro strips.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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 |
|
"RV List" <rv-list@matronics.com>,
"Aeroelectric List" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Transponder problem found |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
I few days ago I asked for suggestions concerning my GTX327 having intermittent
transmissions as ATC calls it.
After replacing the BNC connectors and the antenna I decided to still get it bench
tested.
After finding a decent shop (not easy) the problem was located. The unit would
pump out 30W instead of the minimum
125W. Tech commented that max range would be 60 nm. I found it to be more like
30 nm at 6000 ft. Not good enough.
The cost to get these things fixed is not cheap. Garmin has a flat rate for each
individual unit and the 327 is $250USD.
Plus I got it looked at locally that cost be $160. Plus FedEx shipping a few times.
You can also get a free loner if you talk
to the Garmin dealer where you bought it. The only cost is shipping. I'll post
the total cost when I get it back. Somewhere
around $600USD. Ouch.
So if you're transponder is intermittent, get it tested. It is rarely the antenna
and BNC connectors problem. But hey its
the easiest thing to trouble shoot.
Steve Hurlbut
RV7A
Flying (no class B for a while)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LightWeight Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hello Bob List,
I have been absent the list for quite a while can only be here for a short while
now but have a couple of pressing questions I would like some help with.
I just purchased some copper clad aluminum wire from Eric Jones would like
your guidance on a couple of things. I will use about 34 ft of the cable in my
0-235 powered kitfox - battery in the tail.
#1) I just measured the weight of my super 2 CCA the AWG copper that it is to
replace: Found out the real weight savings for the insulated CCA is only about
19% over the insulated copper, whereas Eric originally advertised a weight
savings of about 45%. As I believe most of difference is in the
insulation, I am considering using 3M FP-301 shrink tubing (Polyolefin, thinner
walled than the Polyvinyl insulation sold by Eric) as insulation instead. What
are your thoughts on this?
#2) There are ~14.5' between my ground bus my battery. My electrical system
will be bonded to the steel tubing fuselage. My + cable will be the super 2 CCA
cable. What is the smallest cable I can use for t
he ground?
Any input will be greatly appreciated. Thank You,
Grant
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ICOM edge card connector pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
FWIW there is a liquid semi-conductor called Stabilant 22A that seems to
be effective for eliminating suspected intermittant high resistance
connections in multicontact connectors such as computer connections. As
I understand it, this stuff is an insulator but it becomes a conductor
when squeezed tightly between terminals and an electric potential is
applied. Never seems to hurt and sometimes seems to help a lot...
Ken
Bordelon, Greg wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bordelon, Greg" <gbordelon@hess.com>
>
> Larry,
>
> I also suggest you gently rub the radio circuit board edge contacts with a green
scotch brite pad. This will remove any oils, oxidation, contamination, etc.
from the board. I did this to my transponder recently and it corrected an intermittent
mode C problem I had been experiencing. The keys words here are "gently
rub".
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [SMTP:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Larry McFarland
>>Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:08 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: ICOM edge card connector pins
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
>>
>>
>>Thanks very much for the recent assist,
>>After an advised search, the pins and Molex connector used in the
>>A200 radio were found and ordered from Mouser.com The plan is to do
>>a complete reinstall of these in the radio case mount.
>>
>>I've spent about several hours getting the fit and expansion of these little
flex-nose
>>connectors just right for good contact, but just a little vibration of the wire
>>at the pin causes erratic loud or low volume. Doubling ground-contact
>>opposites on the edge card is likely as much for contact redundancy as electron
capacity
>>because only half each seems to work most of the time. So it's not good enough
>>for taxi in my airspace.
>>
>>If anyone's a better idea, I'd like to hear about it and continue on to first
flight.
>>Thanks again,
>>
>>Larry McFarland - 601HDS @ www.macsmachine.com
>>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Ziegler <jamescraigziegler@adelphia.net>
Can I use M22759/11 instead of M22759/16?
M22759/11:
Conductor: Stranded Silver-Plated Copper
Insulation: Extruded TFE Teflon
Temperature Rating: 200 Deg. C.
Voltage Rating: 600 Volts
M22759/16:
Conductor: Stranded Tin-Plated Copper
Insulation: Extruded ETFE Tefzel
Temperature Rating: 150 Deg. C.
Volatage Rating: 600 Volts
All the /11 specs seem as good or better than /16,
except for the Tefzel vs Teflon.
--
jim Ziegler <jamescraigziegler@adelphia.net>
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: "Dean Psiropoulos" <deanpsir@easystreet.com>
Before Garmin merged with UPS Aviation technologies (formerly Tommorrow) I
purchased a complete UPS AT Avionics Stack for my RV-6A. In that purchase I
included a GX-65 GPS/COM. This is the non IFR version as, at the time, I
knew WAAS was coming and didn't want to pay the $5000.00 UPS was asking for
the TSO-C129 version (the GX-60 model). So I bought the GX-65 for $2900.00
thinking that I'd upgrade to a WAAS receiver later. Well it's later and the
UPS AT (now Garmin AT) CNX-80 is here and I'm just starting to do my
instrument panel work. Consequently, I'm thinking that if I upgrade now and
sell the GX-65 I won't have to fiddle with my panel later to install WAAS
capability. Anyone interested in a brand new still-in-the-box (panel mount)
GPS/COM for $2200.00?
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A 24907
Waiting for my TMX-360
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! --
|