Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:43 AM - Re: Systems analysis and unintended consequences (Brian Lloyd)
2. 06:59 AM - Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: Starting Power (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: Multiple power feed wiring problem . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:47 AM - Re: Strobe noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:47 AM - Re: Trim relays (Phil Birkelbach)
7. 09:09 AM - Re: Sales and/or Technical Information (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:22 AM - Re: Starting Power (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:36 AM - Re: Trim relays (Mickey Coggins)
10. 11:35 AM - Re: Trim relays (Phil Birkelbach)
11. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: Sales and/or Technical Information (erie)
12. 12:22 PM - Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish! (John Slade)
13. 01:22 PM - Re: Knock Sensor Frequency-Mazda Rotary (Trampas)
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: | Re: Systems analysis and unintended consequences |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Aug 19, 2004, at 11:39 PM, Richard Sipp wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp"
> <rsipp@earthlink.net>
>
> Brian,
>
> I agree completely with your financial analysis of the Lasar system.
>
> There are however, other factors in addition to those relating to cost
> return. I particularly like the smooth idle, improved starting
A "shower of sparks" mag will provide that at lower cost.
> and
> mechanical backup to ANY type of electrical control failure.
As I recall, Klaus' system runs with a stock mag in second slot if you
wish to operate that way.
> The Lasars run
> like any other magneto system with the master switch off so I don't see
> where there is added chance of failure. True, if the battery is so
> weak it
> will barely crank the engine the mags may not fire the plugs on start
> up,
> but, should you be flying with a battery this low anyway?
>
> The fuel savings at altitude is in the neighborhood of .5 to 1.0 GPH.
> Flying
> with a group of RVs I always use several bucks less fuel than anyone
> else on
> the same leg, (yes, it is an 8.5 to 1.0 compression O-320 in a 4) but
> I look
> at that as gravy on top of the overall improved operating
> characteristics of
> the engine.
If you like what you get from it that is great. We all have put things
in our airplanes that serve no financial purpose but make us happier in
one way or another. Since I don't spend much time letting the engine
idle I don't consider that to be a good reason to have an electronic
ignition but again that is a matter of taste.
I looked at it from a financial and performance point of view. Down
low at high percentage power settings the LASAR system does not provide
any advantage over magnetos since the LASAR system then sets the timing
at 25deg BTDC just like the mag. Your advantage comes from advancing
the timing at higher altitudes and lower MAP. I agree that you will
pay a few dollars less to travel the same distance as an equivalent
aircraft without the LASAR system but you have to buy a LOT of fuel
before you break even.
The cost of the LASAR ignition system is substantial. It costs in
several ways:
1. when you buy it;
2. when you install it;
3. when it fails and you have to wait for parts that are not on the
shelf at your FBO.
I am a great proponent of KISS, i.e. Keep It Simple Sipp. (Sorry, I
couldn't resist.) The LASAR is neither as simple nor as inexpensive as
mags are. For the complexity I would want a significant performance
increase in some area of operation. If the LASAR system saved me money
that would be good. If it increased the aircraft performance
significantly, that would be good too. I can't see where it does
either hence my belief that it is not a cost-effective modification.
On an OBAM aircraft I would opt for some other ignition system.
> While any of the electronic systems would no doubt provide the
> same operational advantages, the Lasar is the only one I am aware of
> that
> does not require electrical power for backup operation.
>
> My constant speed propeller is probably not cost effective either, but
> I
> sure enjoy the added performance of the airplane as a whole with it.
IMHO the CS prop *DOES* offer a significant performance increase and
hence qualifies as an attractive modification. I had a wood prop on my
RV-4 but I was prepared to accept the compromise in performance. If I
were doing it again I would opt for a composite CS prop optimized for
the TAS range in which my RV operated most often. And, no, it would
not be cost effective for cruise operation but it would give me better
acceleration, ROC, and more drag with the throttle closed, all
advantageous for getting into and out of short fields.
But you like the LASAR system so you should have one. You are
justifiably proud of your airplane and the LASAR system provides you
with an acceptable return on investment based on personal preference.
I was looking at it financially and there I think the story is
different.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: | So long, and thanks for all the fish! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
At 08:39 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>
>Aero electric people.
>My plane is now flying. Thanks to Bob's book and ongoing input, all the
>electrical gizmos are working and not interfering with each other, and the
>smoke is staying in the boxes and wires.
>
>I've asked what I though was a simple electronics question three times and
>received no answer. Perhaps I've exhausted either the knowledge or the
>patience of this exalted group.
John, I did a search on your name for messages in my
e-mail files and the only question I can find concerns
listening to the knock sensor. Is this the question you're
referring to?
>Either way, I've been on this list 5 years and it's time to move on.
>
>So long, and thanks for all the fish.
I've been on this list since day-one. I participated on
the AVSig group on Compuserve for years before that. What's
longevity have to do with utility of present participation?
I've noted over the years that if folks are not understanding
my contribution to a conversation (either questions, answers
or critical thought) then we're not speaking the same language.
The utterance of common words doesn't assure understanding.
Since it is impossible for folks to be aware the cause for your
frustration, it's incumbent upon you the frustrated to refine the
language . . . figure out another use of words that accurately
communicates your thoughts. Bailing out may assuage frustration
but it also breaks the path of sharing for simple-ideas.
How may we help you sir?
Bob . . .
---
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
At 12:59 AM 8/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>What on earth was the starting problem with the 28 volt system???
>
>You can see some rather low voltages during cranking on a 14 volt system,
>but why should the 28 volt system have caused that???
>
>Surly the FADEC was not resetting on low voltage with a 28 volt system???
That's what they gave me to understand. I was out
there for a weekend seminar and didn't have time
to put my hands on the hardware. It would have been
interesting to put some test equipment on it for some
confirmation and/or further enlightenment . . .
>You mention protection from the inrush. I assume you mean after the
>starter contactor is released???
No, due to "locked rotor" currents that flow in milliseconds
after initial closure of starter contactor. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/99_Saturn_SL2.jpg
Here's a couple of traces taken from my wife's Saturn which I believe
uses a PM starter. The battery is about two years old. Note that
battery voltage falls below 9.0v for about 50 mS.
Then check out:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/95_GMC_Safari_1.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/95_GMC_Safari_3.gif
This is off my GMC Safari. The starter is wound field,
the battery is bigger and less than 6 months old. Battery
voltage doesn't go below 10.0 volts during cranking.
The folks at Lancair stated that they could achieve reliable
starts under the full range of operating conditions
only when the FADEC was powered from it's own battery
which did not participate in supplying cranking power.
That's when we removed the auto-crossfeed feature in Z-14
and upsized the main battery to do all the cranking.
I'm told that this "solved the problem".
Bob . . .
---
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: | Re: Multiple power feed wiring problem . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
> >
> >
> > Yeah . . . saw that article at OSH when I stopped by
> > the Homebuilder's Information building on the flight
> > line. They had a stack of August Sport Aviations
> > on the counter and I picked one up to leaf through
> > while the three guys behind the counter were busy
> > with customers. I stumbled across the article on
> > wiring. It's got just enough good stuff in it to
> > be credible . . . I'm considering doing a paragraph
> > by paragraph review for publication on my website.
> > It's sad that the flagship publication of EAA can't
> > rise to level of being a good teacher. At least they
> > could get peer review of articles before they put
> > ink to paper.
>
>I would really appreciate that review. And I will put my vote in for
>peer review. I think it is the best thing they could possibly do. All
>serious educational publication, ie scientific journals, have peer review.
I've scanned the article. I'll filter it through the
sifter of simple-ideas as time permits.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
At 10:28 AM 8/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
>
>At 08:43 AM 8/16/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> >
> >On Aug 15, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Mark Sherman wrote:
> >
> > > Never the less, Radio Shack has discontinued the
> > > 270-030 filter choke. They only offer new electronic
> > > versions, don't know if these will work the same or
> > > not. I would like to confirm that the electronic type
> > > will work or have part numbers for the choke and
> > > capacitor from another vendor.
> >
> >Since the value of the choke is not all that critical, if you need a
> >choke you can use one winding of a transformer. Use a transformer with
> >a secondary voltage something like 6.3VAC, 12VAC, or 24VAC. The higher
> >the voltage rating of the secondary, the greater the inductance. Make
> >sure that the current rating of the secondary is sufficient to carry
> >the load. Do not short the primary winding or the inductance of your
> >ersatz choke will decrease.
>
> I considered this alternative. Problem is that filter
> chokes like the one offered in the 270-030 kit have
> air-gaps in the core to prevent core saturation. AC
> transformers don't have or need the air-core . . . they'll
> saturate as some level of DC current flow that could
> degrade the filtering effects if not render it useless.
>
> I'll try to do some bench testing on specific parts
> from Radio Shack to quantify their usefulness.
Got down to Radio Shack a couple days ago and bought some
filters. I dissected them for analysis of their construction
and performance. You can download an updated article on these
filters at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/RS_Noise_Filters.pdf
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
Micky,
I don't know if they are exactly the same or not. The drawback to using
one relay is that you have to take the motor current through the hat
switch (in this case not a big deal) and you will lose the braking
ablilty that comes from being able to ground both motor terminals when
not in use (again probably not a big deal). At least I couldn't figure
out a circuit that didn't have these characteristics, but that doesn't
mean that there's not one. :-)
The short answer is that you can use a small relay from Radio Crack to
get your trim to work, but it may not have all the advantages of
something else. Now the question is whether or not you care about those
advantages. I don't know what is inside the RAC relay deck but I
suspect they have two SPDT relays, and they are probably of much higher
quality than something from RS. Again this is just a guess.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Panel
http://www.myrv7.com
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm planning on wiring my aileron and elevator trim
>servos to a coolie hat on the stick grip.
>
>The Ray Allen Company sells a "Relay Deck" for $35.00
>but it seems like I can get the equivalent item from
>Radio Shack (part number 275-249) for about $5.29.
>
>Here are the links to the two items:
>
>http://www.radioshack.com/ (enter 275-249 in search box)
>
>http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/accessories.html
>
>Are these two items essentially the same? The basic
>goal is to convert a (on)/off/(on) switch to act like a
>DPDT switch.
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
>
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
>
>
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: Sales and/or Technical Information |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:31 AM 8/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>I am sorry but I don't have any of the wax string Bob talks about. I will
>send that to Bob too, and he will get back with you.
>
>Thanks,
>Todd Koerner
>B&C Specialty Products, Inc
>316-283-8000
>www.bandc.biz
Your looking for Mil-T-43435, Type II, Finish B string
(polyester or Dacron)
Here are a few 160 hits from a Google search . . .
http://www.brimelectronics.com/M43435.htm
http://www.dearborn-cdt.com/catalog/UT-LACING2.html
http://www.breydenproducts.com/WireHarnessingTapesTwinesBraidingYarns.htm
http://www.electrospec.com/wire/alpha_part.asp?link=158
http://www.versatileindustrial.com/gudebrod.html
http://www.alphawire.com/pages/158.cfm
http://www.advancedwire.com/military.html
http://www.daburn.com/general.html
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Starting Power |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
At 01:36 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>I recall a long discussion about this with reference to lightspeed
>ignitions. One of the solutions proposed was a large capacitor. Did this
>require a blocking diode or ?? so the capacitor would last for a few seconds?
For most devices that don't tolerate cranking voltage brown-out,
duration of the brownout stress is just a few tens of milliseconds.
>By the way, BlueMountain is very clear about needing a second battery to
>prevent a reset during starting if you want the engine gauges built into
>the EFIS One immediately upon start up. Would this capacitor trick work
>with their 3 amp requirement?
Don't know without trying it or having more data on the details
of that products operation. Are you in a position to do some
experiments to explore it?
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Thanks for the info. I also learned about another couple
of "relay decks":
http://f1-rocketboy.com/tcm.html
http://www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm#Trim_Relay
What do you mean by "lose the braking ability"?
Thanks,
Mickey
>I don't know if they are exactly the same or not. The drawback to using
>one relay is that you have to take the motor current through the hat
>switch (in this case not a big deal) and you will lose the braking
>ablilty that comes from being able to ground both motor terminals when
>not in use (again probably not a big deal). At least I couldn't figure
>out a circuit that didn't have these characteristics, but that doesn't
>mean that there's not one. :-)
>
>The short answer is that you can use a small relay from Radio Crack to
>get your trim to work, but it may not have all the advantages of
>something else. Now the question is whether or not you care about those
>advantages. I don't know what is inside the RAC relay deck but I
>suspect they have two SPDT relays, and they are probably of much higher
>quality than something from RS. Again this is just a guess.
>
>
>>I'm planning on wiring my aileron and elevator trim
>>servos to a coolie hat on the stick grip.
>>
>>The Ray Allen Company sells a "Relay Deck" for $35.00
>>but it seems like I can get the equivalent item from
>>Radio Shack (part number 275-249) for about $5.29.
>>
>>Here are the links to the two items:
>>
>>http://www.radioshack.com/ (enter 275-249 in search box)
>>
>>http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/accessories.html
>>
>>Are these two items essentially the same? The basic
>>goal is to convert a (on)/off/(on) switch to act like a
>>DPDT switch.
>>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
When you open the circuit feeding a largely inductive device like a
motor the magnetic field inside the device begins to collapse and that
keeps the motor running for a period of time (in this case probably
milliseconds). If you ground both motor leads you cause all this energy
to go straight to ground and the motor will stop. This is probably an
oversimplification but it is the way that I understand it.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Panel
http://www.myrv7.com
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Thanks for the info. I also learned about another couple
>of "relay decks":
>
>http://f1-rocketboy.com/tcm.html
>
>http://www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm#Trim_Relay
>
>What do you mean by "lose the braking ability"?
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
>
>
>
>
>>I don't know if they are exactly the same or not. The drawback to using
>>one relay is that you have to take the motor current through the hat
>>switch (in this case not a big deal) and you will lose the braking
>>ablilty that comes from being able to ground both motor terminals when
>>not in use (again probably not a big deal). At least I couldn't figure
>>out a circuit that didn't have these characteristics, but that doesn't
>>mean that there's not one. :-)
>>
>>The short answer is that you can use a small relay from Radio Crack to
>>get your trim to work, but it may not have all the advantages of
>>something else. Now the question is whether or not you care about those
>>advantages. I don't know what is inside the RAC relay deck but I
>>suspect they have two SPDT relays, and they are probably of much higher
>>quality than something from RS. Again this is just a guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm planning on wiring my aileron and elevator trim
>>>servos to a coolie hat on the stick grip.
>>>
>>>The Ray Allen Company sells a "Relay Deck" for $35.00
>>>but it seems like I can get the equivalent item from
>>>Radio Shack (part number 275-249) for about $5.29.
>>>
>>>Here are the links to the two items:
>>>
>>>http://www.radioshack.com/ (enter 275-249 in search box)
>>>
>>>http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/accessories.html
>>>
>>>Are these two items essentially the same? The basic
>>>goal is to convert a (on)/off/(on) switch to act like a
>>>DPDT switch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Sales and/or Technical Information |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
Wicks has it, lifetime supply for about $16...
erie
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 08:31 AM 8/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>I am sorry but I don't have any of the wax string Bob talks about. I will
>>send that to Bob too, and he will get back with you.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Todd Koerner
>>B&C Specialty Products, Inc
>>316-283-8000
>>www.bandc.biz
>>
>>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | So long, and thanks for all the fish! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> the only question I can find concerns
> listening to the knock sensor. Is this the question you're
> referring to?
Yes. I was looking for information about amplification. Bryan answered it
last night. Thanks, Bryan.
> What's longevity have to do with utility of present participation?
Well, being somewhat electronically challenged I've been much more of a
taker than a giver. My ability to add to the sea of knowledge over here is
limited. I currently subscribe to the cozy list, the canard aviation forum
and the fly rotary list and the total message volume is fairly heavy. I need
to spend more time flying and less time reading.
> I've noted over the years that if folks are not understanding
Its not a matter of not understanding. I've read, listened and learned, and
I've successfully built and flown an airplane incorporating many of your
electronic teachings. In effect, I've graduated. :)
I WAS frustrated not to get a response to a simple question to which many on
here probably know the answer, but I have it now so no big deal.
> How may we help you sir?
Keep leading novices like me in the right direction for many years to come.
Regards and thanks,
John Slade
Turbo Rotary Cozy IV
http://canardaviation.com/cozy
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: | Knock Sensor Frequency-Mazda Rotary |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
John,
I am not sure about the output of the knock sensor, but I am guessing you
will need something with a bit more gain than the ck154 for the knock
sensor. The CK008 will have this gain, but you may need to remove bias
resistor to get it working with the knock sensor.
Of course this all just a SWAG as that I do not have the schematics for the
two amplifiers nor do I know what the output of the knock sensor is.
Regards,
Trampas
www.sterntech.com
-----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: Knock Sensor Frequency-Mazda Rotary
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade"
<sladerj@bellsouth.net>
Knock sensor amplifier:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/lm386.gif
Thanks, Marc
That brings me back to my original question.
Could someone who understand the squiggles and lines on this diagram tell me
if it matches the squiggles and lines in ck154 amplifier I already have
shown at http://canakit.com/Contents/Divisions/Div_4.asp
or do I need something like the CK008 shown at
http://canakit.com/Contents/Divisions/Div_25.asp
Thanks,
john
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! --
|