Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:10 AM - Re: RG Batt (Gilles Thesee)
2. 05:36 AM - Re: RG Batt (Brian Lloyd)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: RG Batt (Brian Lloyd)
4. 06:58 AM - Re: Wire colors by function (Ed OConnor)
5. 08:01 AM - Matronics subscribe problems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:05 AM - Charging ()
7. 08:14 AM - Re: Wire colors by function (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:58 AM - Re: Matronics subscribe problems (Mickey Coggins)
9. 09:06 AM - Re: RG Batt (Gert)
10. 09:55 AM - Re: RG Batt (ALWAYSPDG@aol.com)
11. 10:28 AM - Need BNC installation instructions (Roger Evenson)
12. 10:41 AM - Re: Need BNC installation instructions (Richard E. Tasker)
13. 10:43 AM - Re: Need BNC installation instructions (Werner Schneider)
14. 12:36 PM - Re: RG Batt (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:00 PM - Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 01:05 PM - Re: Need BNC installation instructions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 02:42 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Malcolm Thomson)
18. 02:58 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Paul Messinger)
19. 03:18 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Trampas)
20. 04:40 PM - Renamed- RF health concerns (Ken)
21. 05:36 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 06:07 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 06:22 PM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (SportAV8R@aol.com)
24. 06:23 PM - RF health concerns on juliet (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 06:25 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
26. 07:38 PM - My address is go doodoo (Fergus Kyle)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimk36@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG Batt
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <jimk36@comcast.net>
>
> I just found that the RG battery in my Beech was discharged down to 5
volts since putting it the hangar 3 weeks ago. [ Gee! Wonder how that could
have happened? Take pity and don't answer.]
>
> The problem now is that it does not want to take a charge. What is the
proper way to re-charge a seriously depleted RG batt?
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
Jim,
Here is what I would do :
- Search the manufacturer website for the recommended charging mode. In my
case they say the preferred mode is constant voltage charging.
- Use a good bench supply (laboratory supply from a school or else) and have
a try at recharging.
- If unsuccessful, consider buying a new RG battery. After all they are
lead/acid batteries, and as such they don't like staying discharged for any
length of time.
Sorry for not being of more help,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> On Sep 18, 2004, at 5:27 PM, <jimk36@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <jimk36@comcast.net>
>>
>> I just found that the RG battery in my Beech was discharged down to 5
>> volts since putting it the hangar 3 weeks ago. [ Gee! Wonder how that
>> could have happened? Take pity and don't answer.]
>>
>> The problem now is that it does not want to take a charge. What is the
>> proper way to re-charge a seriously depleted RG batt?
>
> Constant current charge at about a 1A rate. That will force the
> battery to accept a charge if it can.
> You have to be careful to monitor the battery's voltage though. It
> will start out very high since the discharged cells are in a
> high-resistance state. As they start to take a charge the voltage
> will drop to 13-14 volt range. Once that happens you can switch to a
> constant-voltage charge at about 14.2 volts. The battery is charged
> when the charging current drops to 5% of the battery's amp-hour
> rating, i.e. a 30AH battery is charged when the charging current drops
> to 3A when charged at the proper charge voltage.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 19, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> You have to be careful to monitor the battery's voltage though. It
>> will start out very high since the discharged cells are in a
>> high-resistance state. As they start to take a charge the voltage
>> will drop to 13-14 volt range. Once that happens you can switch to a
>> constant-voltage charge at about 14.2 volts. The battery is charged
>> when the charging current drops to 5% of the battery's amp-hour
>> rating, i.e. a 30AH battery is charged when the charging current drops
>> to 3A when charged at the proper charge voltage.
Let me try to get the math right this time. 5% of 30 is 1.5, not 3.
So the battery is charged when the charge current drops to 1.5A when
charging at the proper constant voltage.
BTW, the proper charge voltage for an AGM battery is about 14.4V at
70F-80F. Proper charge voltage for a Gel-Cell is about 13.8V at the
same temperature.
You can leave the battery on a constant current charge but you should
be careful to manage the time properly. Surprisingly lead-acid
batteries are quite efficient in terms of storing electrons. They have
a coulombic efficiency on the order of 90%-95%. That means if you pull
X number of coulombs out of the battery (one amp is one coulomb per
second) you only need to put X/95% coulombs back. Therefore if the
battery is completely dead and it has a capacity of 30AH, you need to
put 30/95% or 31.5 AH back. If you charge at a 1A rate it will take
31.5 hours to fully charge the dead battery.
So while it is true that most manufacturers recommend constant voltage
charging for their batteries, constant current charging is a better
remedy for a dead battery. Just be careful not to let the battery
overcharge, especially a sealed battery. That is my reason for
recommending the low charge rate of 1A.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: Wire colors by function |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed OConnor <Edwardoconnor@mac.com>
I read and article on <Bluemountainavionics.com> web site about wiring
up an aircraft. You can download this article. If you are just
starting to wire up an aircraft, I would recommend it highly. He
recommends Teflon wire vice the tfizil we are all using as it is easier
to work with and has better specs. As for color coding, he highly
recommends it as well as making twisted pair wires yourself with a
drill and a common ground site.. There is a convention on the wiring
color. The higher the voltage, the brighter the color I think. Its in
the article. Its a beta version of the final article but informative I
think.
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: | Matronics subscribe problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Saturday, September 18, 2004
>
>John Esch
>
>,
>Email: jfesch@earthlink.net
>Comments/Questions: Bob
>I am having troubles trying to subscribe to the Aeroelectric Digest. I
>believe it might be in my security settings.
>Could I be added to the above named digest?
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>John Esch
>jfesch@earthlink.net
When you filled in your e-mail address, and subscribed to
any of the list server forums, did you get a confirmation
e-mail? Nobody can do the subscribe/un-subscribe for you.
It has to be done from your computer's i.p. address
If your e-mail service has any kind of filter on it,
it may be erroneously filtering mail originating
from matronics.com
There are a number of well-intentioned folks offering
varieties of filters and 'net-accessible "black-lists" to
assist in spam reduction. It's entirely possible that
legitimate mass mailers like matronics could be added
to a black-list relied on by your spam filter.
I only use a spam filter called "Mailwasher". While
it's not as convenient as those supplied by Internet
services providers, at least it runs in my computer
and allows me to set up my own black-list. Further,
it doesn't automatically drop any e-mails in the trash.
I see a line-item listing for every incoming mail item.
Most of what I get is marked for deletion when the
return address matches either my personally maintained
black-list or one of several 'net-based lists. If a
message originating from matronics shows up as black-listed,
I can manually accept it and let Matt Dralle know that
his services have been erroneously added to somebody's
black-list on the 'net.
If normal subscribing techniques are not working for
you, and after you've considered all of the options for
errors by spam filters, contact Matt Dralle directly at Matronics
and see what he recommends.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: <jimk36@comcast.net>
Thanks for all the responses to my charging question.
Jim
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: Wire colors by function |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:57 AM 9/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed OConnor <Edwardoconnor@mac.com>
>
>I read and article on <Bluemountainavionics.com> web site about wiring
>up an aircraft. You can download this article. If you are just
>starting to wire up an aircraft, I would recommend it highly. He
>recommends Teflon wire vice the tfizil we are all using as it is easier
>to work with and has better specs. As for color coding, he highly
>recommends it as well as making twisted pair wires yourself with a
>drill and a common ground site.. There is a convention on the wiring
>color. The higher the voltage, the brighter the color I think. Its in
>the article. Its a beta version of the final article but informative I
>think.
I've been getting a bunch of private e-mails about this article
over and above the little bit of traffic here on the list. I've
read the article in detail . . . and in fact downloaded the
original Word version. I spent about 6 hours Friday doing
a paragraph-by-paragraph review and I'm about half done. I'll
be publishing the review in its entirety late today or perhaps
tomorrow. It's loaded with gross errors and utterly devoid of
simple-idea foundation for recommendations. I simply
couldn't allow this effort bubble up to the surface in the
great sea of information without being challenged. In a nutshell
the article is "all foam and no beer".
You heard it first here on the AeroElectric List. Home for
motivated students, good teachers and fabricators of the finest
aircraft to have ever flown.
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: Matronics subscribe problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi John,
Many Earthlink customers have set up spam filters,
and you need to manually add the E-mail address
owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
to your "good guy" list. Not sure what it is
called at Earthlink.
Mickey
At 17:11 19-09-04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
-----Start of Original Message-----
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>>Saturday, September 18, 2004
>>
>>John Esch
>>
>>,
>>Email: jfesch@earthlink.net
>>Comments/Questions: Bob
>>I am having troubles trying to subscribe to the Aeroelectric Digest. I
>>believe it might be in my security settings.
>>Could I be added to the above named digest?
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>John Esch
>>jfesch@earthlink.net
>
>
> When you filled in your e-mail address, and subscribed to
> any of the list server forums, did you get a confirmation
> e-mail? Nobody can do the subscribe/un-subscribe for you.
> It has to be done from your computer's i.p. address
>
> If your e-mail service has any kind of filter on it,
> it may be erroneously filtering mail originating
> from matronics.com
>
> There are a number of well-intentioned folks offering
> varieties of filters and 'net-accessible "black-lists" to
> assist in spam reduction. It's entirely possible that
> legitimate mass mailers like matronics could be added
> to a black-list relied on by your spam filter.
>
> I only use a spam filter called "Mailwasher". While
> it's not as convenient as those supplied by Internet
> services providers, at least it runs in my computer
> and allows me to set up my own black-list. Further,
> it doesn't automatically drop any e-mails in the trash.
> I see a line-item listing for every incoming mail item.
> Most of what I get is marked for deletion when the
> return address matches either my personally maintained
> black-list or one of several 'net-based lists. If a
> message originating from matronics shows up as black-listed,
> I can manually accept it and let Matt Dralle know that
> his services have been erroneously added to somebody's
> black-list on the 'net.
>
> If normal subscribing techniques are not working for
> you, and after you've considered all of the options for
> errors by spam filters, contact Matt Dralle directly at Matronics
> and see what he recommends.
>
> Bob . . .
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Gert <gert@execpc.com>
What about the batteryminder which claims to be able to desulfate
batteries as well, such as :http://www.batteryweb.com/batteryminder.cfm
I saw ACS now selling these desulfating critters........
Gert
ALWAYSPDG@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ALWAYSPDG@aol.com
>
> I would try the "Battery Tender". It has worked for me in the past. It
> charges at a very low amperage and is fully automatic. Here is the website for
> more info.
>
> _http://www.batterytender.com/_ (http://www.batterytender.com/)
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
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: ALWAYSPDG@aol.com
I don't have any experience with the battery minder but, after reading the
information on it, it sounds like it would work too. I have used the Battery
Tender over many years and it works great. I have used it on Jet Skis,
automotive, motorcycle, and of course airplanes.
Mike
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: | Need BNC installation instructions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson" <revenson@comcast.net>
I've purchased a couple of BNC connectors from B&C for RG400 (crimp style or maybe
crimp and solder style), but can't find installation instructions. I searched
the archives and found these, but they are no longer available.
http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install1.jpg
http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install2.jpg
Bob . . .
Anybody find any instructions on preparing the cable ends and crimping the connectors?
Roger E.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need BNC installation instructions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Just change the "216.55.140.222" to "www.aeroelectric.com" and you will
find them.
Since Bob moved the website a while back, the old number URL is no
longer correct. Substitute "www.aeroelectric.com" for all your old
addresses and they will almost always work.
Dick Tasker
Roger Evenson wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson" <revenson@comcast.net>
>
>I've purchased a couple of BNC connectors from B&C for RG400 (crimp style or maybe
crimp and solder style), but can't find installation instructions. I searched
the archives and found these, but they are no longer available.
>
>http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install1.jpg
>http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install2.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Anybody find any instructions on preparing the cable ends and crimping the connectors?
>
>Roger E.
>
>
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: Need BNC installation instructions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
Hello Roger,
you get caught by a link when Bob's server was done and he had to put up an
interim server, replace 216.55.140.22 with www.aeroelectric.com and you will
see it.
Also to recommend:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf most probably the one you
need.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/coaxconn/coaxconn.html
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Evenson" <revenson@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Need BNC installation instructions
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson"
<revenson@comcast.net>
>
> I've purchased a couple of BNC connectors from B&C for RG400 (crimp style
or maybe crimp and solder style), but can't find installation instructions.
I searched the archives and found these, but they are no longer available.
>
> http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install1.jpg
> http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install2.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Anybody find any instructions on preparing the cable ends and crimping the
connectors?
>
> Roger E.
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:27 PM 9/18/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <jimk36@comcast.net>
>
>I just found that the RG battery in my Beech was discharged down to 5
>volts since putting it the hangar 3 weeks ago. [ Gee! Wonder how that
>could have happened? Take pity and don't answer.]
>
>The problem now is that it does not want to take a charge. What is the
>proper way to re-charge a seriously depleted RG batt?
>
>Thanks for any advice.
Batteries that are completely discharged (below 10/20 volts)
and stored in this condition for any length of time may not
be recoverable. If it does not accept a charge with the ordinary
voltage regulated charger, you MIGHT be able to force-feed it
with a higher voltage from a power supply. My friends at Concord
have related stories of successful recoveries (in fact, there's
a requirement for demonstrating recovery of certain military
program batteries after being stored with a 5 ohm shorting
resistor for 30 days).
The recovery technique is to 'stuff' a charge back into it
using 16-20 volts or as required to get C/10 charge current
to flow (24 a.h. battery needs to see at least 2.5 amps).
Hold this as a constant current charge for 12 hours.
Discharge the battery at C/1 rate (24 amps for a 24 a.h.
battery) until it falls to 10 volts. Recharge at C/10
but voltage limit this time to 14.2 volts. Discharge
at C/1 rate and measure capacity. If less than 80% of
nameplate value, repeat the recharge/discharge cycle
several times. If the capacity does not increase each
cycle (or if you can't get to 80% of nameplace capacity, the
battery is shot.
There are a number of batteries offered to the military
which survived this test when relatively new. The older
the battery is (and the longer it sits in a discharged
state) the less likely it is that you wlll get it back.
If you have power in your hangar, I'll suggest you
put a "Battery Tender" on while the airplane is stored.
Also check to make sure you don't have always-on battery
bus loads that are causing the battery to discharge while
the airplane is stored. A substantial cause of battery
replacement on biz jets is the baggage compartment or
commode drain service lights that are left on.
See
http://batterytender.com/product_info.php?products_id=4
I have a half dozen RG instrumentation batteries in my
shop that are floated on Battery Tenders. They're always
100% and ready to go even if I've not touched them in months.
Bob . . .
---
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: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
I've spent as much time on this "booklet" as I can. I've
already spotted a bunch of spelling and syntax errors to
fix but I think the meat of the review is essentially
complete. I'm not going to link the review to my website's
Front and What's New pages until I've had time to fix all
the problems I can find. In the mean time, AeroElectric List
members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Reviewed.pdf
Bob . . .
---
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need BNC installation instructions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:27 AM 9/19/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson"
><revenson@comcast.net>
>
>I've purchased a couple of BNC connectors from B&C for RG400 (crimp style
>or maybe crimp and solder style), but can't find installation
>instructions. I searched the archives and found these, but they are no
>longer available.
>
>http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install1.jpg
>http://216.55.140.222/articles/BNC_Install/BNC_Install2.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
Several years ago, I was out of room and connectivity for
storing all website's downloadables on one server. I had a library
server located at 216.55.140.222 where overflow was billeted.
All those documents were moved back to the core server for
aeroelectric.com when we got the new server up and running
a couple of years ago out in SanDiego. That server too small
once more so we've bought a new killer byte thrasher with
a bucket full of hard drives and dual processors. We should
have that on line in the next 30 days or so.
Just be aware that any links calling out the 216.55.140.222 address
were temporary and are now accessed by replacing the
string of IP address numbers with aeroelectric.com
Bob . . .
---
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
A question I have from the 24V vs. 12V discussion in the booklet is the
assumption is made that the aircraft systems operate at 24V
continuously. If, in a 24V system, smaller wire is used to reduce wire
size, what happens when the alternator(s) fails and the battery voltage
starts to drop? Most modern avionic systems operate from 10-32V, so
therefore won't the radio which used, say 3A at 28V, need 6A at 12V?
Does this mean it will need the same wire size as if it had been wired
for a 12V system? Perhaps I'm missing something here.
Thanks
----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
I've spent as much time on this "booklet" as I can. I've already spotted
a bunch of spelling and syntax errors to fix but I think the meat of the
review is essentially complete. I'm not going to link the review to my
website's Front and What's New pages until I've had time to fix all the
problems I can find. In the mean time, AeroElectric List members are
welcome to check out this work in progress at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Re
viewed.pdf
Bob . . .
---
==
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Bob there are rules and regs regarding the human proximity to RF sources IE
antennas. Every Ham radio operator is required to evaluate his antenna
installation to see if it meets these rules. In Europe I understand the
rules (permissible levels) are much stricter.
I do not have the specific FAA document # nor a copy handy but I suspect
that a couple hundred (1000mhz) watts, even as pulses, a couple feet from
you is a no no. This without a proper ground plane that would prevent back
side radiation.
Worth looking into in any event for those inclined to worry. I suspect less
exposure if the antenna is directly under you presuming the above ground
plane VS a small ground plane (only) and some distance from you.
Interesting set of comments worth reading by everyone. You found some
"errors" that I had missed.
Good Job.
Paul
K6QMI
Copyright @ 2004 by Greg Richter greg@bluemountainavionics.com
Page 25 of 59
Safety Note About Transponder Antennas
A transponder puts out a couple hundred Watt microwave pulse in a frequency
band that is none too healthy to be around.
On a metal airplane this is no big deal, since the whole thing is one big,
shielded
can. On a composite bird, you can be sitting unpleasantly close to a
powerful
microwave transmitter, which is Not Good. Mount the antenna as far away as
practical, or failing that, use SuperShield to shoot a ground plane between
you
and the antenna. One of my friend's airplanes actually has the antenna right
under the pilot's seat!
This is hangar-legend with no foundation in physics
or physiology. Somebody launched this back in Burt's
heyday with the Ez crowd and it's been jumping up
from time to time ever since.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> I've spent as much time on this "booklet" as I can.
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: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Bob,
I would like to thank you for doing a full review of the document! Your
effort and knowledge is very much appreciated. I would also like to thank
Greg for taking the time to write the initial article; after all if no one
brings up the subject it is hard to learn.
Regards,
Trampas
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
I've spent as much time on this "booklet" as I can. I've
already spotted a bunch of spelling and syntax errors to
fix but I think the meat of the review is essentially
complete. I'm not going to link the review to my website's
Front and What's New pages until I've had time to fix all
the problems I can find. In the mean time, AeroElectric List
members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Review
ed.pdf
Bob . . .
---
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Renamed- RF health concerns |
on juliet
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
What about VHF antennas?
I understand that an occasional 7 watts of VHF is probably relatively
benign compared to repetitive hundred watt microwave pulses but is there
any health concern with putting a VHF comm antenna above my head on an
aluminum fuselage surrounded by 4 skylights? There is enough aluminum to
act as 4 wide radial ground plane elements so I'm guessing that will
that keep most of the RF away from my head but I've never really
understood this black magic RF stuff...
Unless someone knows more than me I guess I'll mount the antenna about 6
or so feet farther aft but hate to run the coax that far if there is no
reason for it and it would still have a line of sight through the
skylights to my noggin anyway. I could also mount if at the wing root of
my high wing aircraft but that is still line of sight to my noggin.
Ken
Paul Messinger wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Bob there are rules and regs regarding the human proximity to RF sources IE
>antennas. Every Ham radio operator is required to evaluate his antenna
>installation to see if it meets these rules. In Europe I understand the
>rules (permissible levels) are much stricter.
>
>I do not have the specific FAA document # nor a copy handy but I suspect
>that a couple hundred (1000mhz) watts, even as pulses, a couple feet from
>you is a no no. This without a proper ground plane that would prevent back
>side radiation.
>
>Worth looking into in any event for those inclined to worry. I suspect less
>exposure if the antenna is directly under you presuming the above ground
>plane VS a small ground plane (only) and some distance from you.
>
>Interesting set of comments worth reading by everyone. You found some
>"errors" that I had missed.
>
>Good Job.
>
>Paul
>K6QMI
>
>
>
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
Reviewed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Reviewed
At 02:58 PM 9/19/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Bob there are rules and regs regarding the human proximity to RF sources IE
>antennas. Every Ham radio operator is required to evaluate his antenna
>installation to see if it meets these rules. In Europe I understand the
>rules (permissible levels) are much stricter.
>
>I do not have the specific FAA document # nor a copy handy but I suspect
>that a couple hundred (1000mhz) watts, even as pulses, a couple feet from
>you is a no no. This without a proper ground plane that would prevent back
>side radiation.
>
>Worth looking into in any event for those inclined to worry. I suspect less
>exposure if the antenna is directly under you presuming the above ground
>plane VS a small ground plane (only) and some distance from you.
>
>Interesting set of comments worth reading by everyone. You found some
>"errors" that I had missed.
>
>Good Job.
>
>Paul
>K6QMI
Thank you. Yeah, there's been "rules" about proximity to RF emitters
for decades. I worked the flight line at Boeing in my first real job
out of high school. The B52's nose mounted mapping radar was a 50KW
peak output device that would blow the receiver mixers out of
airplanes facing them across the ramp. The average power output was
something on the order of 50W total . . . if held your hand
out in the beam you could just detect a warming of your hand.
At his same time, another piece of equipment was pretty common to
doctor's offices called a diathermy machine. Push-pull, 100THs running
anywhere between 100 and 600 watts output at 27 mHz. The doc could
couple this to your bod with a variety of capacitive and inductive
coupling pads and select a power transfer anywhere between very rare
to medium-well. These were in use for deep heat therapy for decades.
I got a series of treatments on the doc's "cooker" while wrestling
with a series of kidney infections as a kid.
Did a batch of mini-sausages in the microwave this morning . . Dee
likes 'em crispy. Takes about 7 minutes with 600 watts continuous
being pumped into the oven cavity.
We know that anything moist will warm up in the presence of RF
energy exposure. There are variable effects depending on mass of
the area exposed (the tiny cat whisker's in receiver mixer crystals
couldn't withstand 1 microsecond pulses at 1000 pulses per second,
but the bare hand could just feel the heat. Of course, frequency has
an influence too.
I'm not trying to minimize risks around RF . . . I've had coaxes
open up and turn my shack into a real attention getting environment.
I have a 50 year old scar on my right index finger from an RF burn off the
metal edge around the linoleum topped desk that supported my
equipment . . . and that was only a 180 watt transmitter!
But let's consider the average transponder. 100-200 watt
peaks in a stream of perhaps 50-100, 1 microsecond pulses every
time the reply light comes on. So, 200W x 100 pulse/reply
x 0.000001 sec/pulse yields 20 milliwatt-seconds per reply. The most
vulnerable organs in the body are the eyes and they're a long
way from the antenna and shadowed by your bod. Anecdotal stories
of RF burns, blowing receivers out from across the ramp and
crisping up my sausages can certainly give rise to ugly images
of risk. But after you study the numbers, I'm quite comfortable
making the assertion that a transponder antenna on a ground
plane right under the pilot's seat of a LongEz represents
no hazard to the family jewels.
Now, if my supervisor had seen me stick my hand out there
in front of the antenna, the rules would probably have required
him to terminate me on the spot. Rules have all appearances
of good intention but in fact, they tend to relieve rule-writers
from having to be teachers and rule-followers from having to
understand real risks. I prefer to understand.
Bob . . .
---
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
Reviewed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Reviewed
At 03:41 PM 9/19/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
><mdthomson@attglobal.net>
>
>A question I have from the 24V vs. 12V discussion in the booklet is the
>assumption is made that the aircraft systems operate at 24V
>continuously. If, in a 24V system, smaller wire is used to reduce wire
>size, what happens when the alternator(s) fails and the battery voltage
>starts to drop? Most modern avionic systems operate from 10-32V, so
>therefore won't the radio which used, say 3A at 28V, need 6A at 12V?
>Does this mean it will need the same wire size as if it had been wired
>for a 12V system? Perhaps I'm missing something here.
Great question. Yes, radios and other accessories with switchmode
power supplies are CONSTANT POWER INPUT loads. So, if the is set
up in a 28 volt system and needs 2 amps to operate, it will draw
2.24 amps when the alternator quits and bus falls to 25v. At end
of battery life (22v) the radio will draw 2.5 amps. The battery
will pass 10 volts on its way toward zero whereupon the radio
will be demanding 5.6 amps.
This raises an excellent question as to operating duration under
battery only ops from a 24 volt battery. It seems that the 10-32v
equipment is going to be useful for an extended period of time
compared to the "old style" accessory guaranteed down to only 22v
low normal and 18v emergency.
Consider an e-bus load and battery capacity sized for say, 3 hours
battery only operation assuming constant current or constant
resistance operation down to 22 volts. The 25 to 22 volts discharge
segment represents 3 x 60 or 180 minutes of operation and uses
more than 95% of the battery's total capacity. The MOST time
we can expect a 10v operating device with constant current or
constant resistance operation is 0.05 x 240 or another 12 minutes.
Now, if the e-bus powers 10-32v, constant power devices battery
depletion is hastened. 12 minutes of operation after the "old"
stuff dies is wishful thinking. Besides, if we haven't put the
airplane comfortably on the ground in the first 180 minutes,
I'll suggest that the last 12 minutes isn't going to make the
difference between a good day and a bad day in the cockpit.
Now, should this drive decisions to increase wire size? I don't
think so. If we've designed, maintained, and operated the system
comfortably within the bounds of what's considered normal operating
voltages, there's not enough variability in operating current do
drive any decisions to up-size wire or fuses. Assume 22v operating
currents in your original design decisions and you're covered.
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: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
I don't think the Archer antenna will fit a narrow chord structure like the leg
fairing, but I may be wrong. I have some recent experiance I was going to post
on the subject of these antennas, and your question gives a good segue...
I spent the weekend with an RV wingtip, a roll of copper foil tape, and my MFJ
antenna analyzer attempting to duplicate a flat, 2-D mversion of the 3-D tubing-framed
antenna that is presently in my wingtip, built using dimensions in the
'Connection for the Archer-style gamma-fed monopole. The current wingtip antenna
works fairly well but exhibits some shielding from the wing and has at one
time shed a piece from vibration-induced failure of a soldder joint. I wanted
to alter the design so that there was no risk of stuff falling off,and so
the radiating element would be as close to the belly of the wingtip enclosure
as possible, to reduce shading by the wing.
Duplicating the antenna looked to be a straightforward excercise, given my prior
experience and the availability of the MFJ amalyzer, without which one would
need the patience of Job to get things dialed in. Initially, however, I experienced
a huge amount of frustration trying to get resonance where I wanted it,
and even after trimming and adjusting all sorts of dimensions and variable matching
capacitance, I had an antenna with the right approximate shape, dimensions
off somewhat from the shop notes, and a 3:1 VSWR bandwidth of much less than
the aircraft comm band. Finally it dawned on me that the base of the antenna,
specified in 'Connection figure 13-12 as "convenient length," was dfesigned
to be attatched to the metal wing rib as a sort of ground-plane. I had started
with about 24 inches of copper foil along the inner edge of the wingtip as
a base, and when I lengthened this by another 6 inches, things began to "cook"
on the test bench in a gratifying way. I ended up with an antenna that shows
a VSWR of 1.8:1 at 118 MHz and 1.7:1 at 136 MHz. Resonance is near 125 MHz,
and unity SWR is easily achieved by tweaking the variable capacitor which I
substituted for the sandwich of aluminum and bakelite called out in the drawing.
These results are obtained OFF the airplane, and will await further confirmation
when test flights allow (I need a few coax fittings from B&C to finish lashing
it up to the feedline and do further testing...) I will be glad to post final
dimensional and electrical measurements for anyone interested in the application
once I get it wrung out. Meanwhile I'm still flying with the brass tubing
version in the wingtip, and I've even started eyeing the nosegear leg on the
RV, wondering if that sucker can be shunt-fed with a J-pole type of parallel
matching stub to achieve some nearly-vertical polarization. Concealed antennas
are fun, but, in a metal airplane, definitely involve a lot of work and offer
somewhat compromised performance. The quest continues...
-Bill B
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RF health concerns on juliet |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:43 PM 9/19/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>What about VHF antennas?
>I understand that an occasional 7 watts of VHF is probably relatively
>benign compared to repetitive hundred watt microwave pulses but is there
>any health concern with putting a VHF comm antenna above my head on an
>aluminum fuselage surrounded by 4 skylights? There is enough aluminum to
>act as 4 wide radial ground plane elements so I'm guessing that will
>that keep most of the RF away from my head but I've never really
>understood this black magic RF stuff...
>
>Unless someone knows more than me I guess I'll mount the antenna about 6
>or so feet farther aft but hate to run the coax that far if there is no
>reason for it and it would still have a line of sight through the
>skylights to my noggin anyway. I could also mount if at the wing root of
>my high wing aircraft but that is still line of sight to my noggin.
Given that you transmit for seconds out of every flight hour
and the transmitter is ONLY 7 watts at 120 Mhz, I wouldn't
worry about it.
Folks in public safety (police, fire departments, etc) run 2-5 watt
walkie-talkies right against their face for a ton more exposure
than you're going to get from the comm transmitter in your
airplane. I don't know any firemen who have gone blind 'cause
they talked too much on their radios.
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
This is very interesting, but if the device is fed via a 5 amp fuse, assuming
proper design, would not that fuse be toast before the wire insulation,
making voltage at a given time a bit moot? Circuit protection is CONDUCTOR
protection, no?
Mark From The PossumWorks
In a message dated 09/19/2004 7:08:36 PM Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
Great question. Yes, radios and other accessories with switchmode
power supplies are CONSTANT POWER INPUT loads. So, if the is set
up in a 28 volt system and needs 2 amps to operate, it will draw
2.24 amps when the alternator quits and bus falls to 25v. At end
of battery life (22v) the radio will draw 2.5 amps. The battery
will pass 10 volts on its way toward zero whereupon the radio
will be demanding 5.6 amps.
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | My address is go doodoo |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
The manager of my server has had a spam-finder program go wrong and as a
result has shut down temporarily to repair same. Please forgive any false
warning of my immediate demise. I expect to be back, receiving messages as
always.
Thank you, and apologies,
Ferg
Europa A064
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! --
|